Back in February, President Obama signed his stimulus bill into law. At the time, he declared that the $787 billion boondoggle was absolutely necessary to prevent the U.S. economy from going over the edge and into the abyss and becoming a catastrophe. With the so-called "stimulus," the president promised the unemployment rate would top out at 8 percent. Without the stimulus, he warned that the unemployment rate would hit 9 percent. The stimulus plan was implemented and six months out, the unemployment rate is now 9.5 percent and climbing. Even President Obama has had to admit that the worst is not yet over. He now is warning the American people that the unemployment rate will reach and probably exceed 10 percent. So much for his promise that the stimulus would keep us from going over the edge.

It's clear this bill is not creating the jobs this country needs to get us out of the economic hole we have found ourselves in, even though the president has tried his hardest to perpetuate the charade that it is working. He said on July 1st that since the bill was designed to make sure state governments did not lay off teachers, firefighters, and police that it did its job. That is clearly untrue based upon the reports that police and teachers are being laid off right now in cities all over the country. President Obama was trying to put a happy face on a clearly worsening situation, hoping that Americans fail to notice that the stimulus bill is not the solution he advertised it to be.

So far, much of the money is being used incorrectly. According to a new report form the Government Accounting Office, the vast majority of money sent to the states is being used to pay for Medicaid and to pay down their deficits. Even the money that has gone to infrastructure work such as highways has been spent on repaving projects that don't require a lot of workers.

Now that it has become clear to those who are willing to see the truth that the stimulus bill is failing to do what Obama said it would and, according to Mitch McConnell, is costing us $100 million a day in interest alone, what solutions are the brilliant minds who proposed the stimulus bill in the first place now recommending? Can you believe they are actually saying we need a second stimulus bill? Laura D'Andrea Tyson, advisor to President Obama, said the first one was "a bit too small." Apparently, failure the first time around simply is not good enough for them.

Read the rest and leave a comment if you're so inclined, whether here at Wizbang or at the column itself. While you're at AIP, be sure to read all the other great columns and blog entries. Ed Morrissey also writes about the stimulus as well and says that it only stimulated existing government jobs. Lorie Byrd's column from yesterday about American Entrepreneurship is a really good one. TJ Brown writes about the lessons learned from the G-8, and it's not that the president likes to ogle other women's derrieres.

Comments (11)

Another Barack Obama-style stimulus and unemployment will go to 15%.

Please just build nuclear plants with it.
I don't want to become "third-world"

Well I'm sure the San Francisco marsh mouse is quite happy with it's 16.1 MILLION cut of the 'stimulus' bill. Now if Nancy would just take a little of her valuable time to explain how this will 'stimulate' the economy, I'm all ears.

I guess Obama can " Out Carter, Carter."

A second stimulus?

Brings up the question, what comes after trillion?

"Brings up the question, what comes after trillion?"

Good question. Given the current administration's spending, the word BILLION is so passe. Maybe Gazillion? Bazilliion? Better yet, in honor of the person doing it, how about Obamarillion?

Tomg51 -

Nuclear power is not allowed under the rule of the Pelosi-Reid-Feinstein Technologically PC-Ecologically Sustainable Junta.

Far better the country fail for want of power than use non-green sources. Oh, and you can't use wind, it kills birds. Oh, and you can't use solar, it causes too much shade in the desert. Oh, and tidal is right out, it hurts fish. Don't even think about geothermal, it causes earthquakes. Put the axe away, also - burning wood yields CO2.

Put all your money on ACORN and big government - that will save us.

"Brings up the question, what comes after trillion?"

Answer: Bankruptcy

"Bankruptcy"

Won't happen. According to their logic, 'we still have money left'. Timmy will just print more. We'll adopt the old soviet attitude. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work". That's a win-win in the Democratic playbook.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Sadly your very likely right GarandFan. I can't wait to pay $100,000.00 for a #2 lunch at McDonalds. Want that supersized? That'll be another $75,0000.

Wanna retire? LOL. All that money you've been saving will last you about a week in Mugabe's, opps, I meant Obama's Amerika (I keep getting those two guys confused...)

And BTW, great article Kim.

Add a comment

Winners will be announced Sunday.

Comments (151)

DAAAYMMM!

Sarkozy plays his Ace in the hole.

On topic:

No wonder Michelle always gives white chicks the evil eye...

OR

In the words of Clevon Little: Where the white wimmin at?

Finally:

I understand what my father saw in them... and baby got back... bonus!

Now THAT's what gives me a funny feeling up the leg.

I'm sure glad I'm not a Republican. Little boys don't wiggle like that.

Michell's ass was bigger than that when she was 16

BO: I'd hit dat!
Sarcozy: I'd hit zat deaux!

Sarkozy: That dude is sooooo busted when he gets home, I would hate to have his wife pissed off at me. hehehehe

You know, just for a change, I hope I can get my head out of my own ass, and maybe use hers.

You know, I always wanted a girl with Michelle's ass that didn't come with arms that could crush me in a headlock.

Whoa!! Now I know why daddy liked white women!!

"Another success story for the Troubled Asset Recovery Program!"

The anointed One: Now THAT'S a stimulus package I could get behind!

Le Frog: I can just get lost in his eyes, they are so f-ing dreamy.. sacre bleu!

"Bill was right... it's good to be the king."

Obama thought bubble: "Right on, little sister!"

After kissing a lot of ass in Russia, Cairo, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, Obama finally finds something to his liking in France.

Obama considers Stimulus 2.0

"Well what do you think a stimulus is!"

President Obama, seen here trying to teach the "Hokey Pokey" to French President Sarkozy, becomes distracted by broader matters.

"SCHWING"

"I think it's time for a bow."

Obama: Looks like you step in my stimulus.

"Ive never been so proud of My country"

Thought balloon on the amused French guy: Sacre bleu! And they called George Bush an uncultured slob.

Thought balloon on the amused French guy: Mon Dieu! This Obama rube makes Bill Clinton look like a monk.

"Wow. What a stimulus package." ww

Now I know how Chris Matthews feels, I've got that 'tingle up my leg' thing too.

Oh to be 16 again, and know what I know now!

No caption, but his right hand sure looks like it's about to swat her a$$!

I've got a stimulus package for your economy.

"It must be jelly, 'cuz jam don't shake like that."

"You're right, Sarkozy. Those shoes are all wrong for that dress."

"I'd like to pour bar-b-que sauce all over her, and work her like a rib!!"

Obama tries to imitate the first black president.

"Hey, baby! Once you go 1/16th black, you never go back!"

Obama "But Michelle, I was looking at her handbag and thought you might like one."

Thought balloon on the amused French guy: Sacre bleu! Who does this disgusting horndog think he is, Bill Clinton?

Man next to Obama thought bubble - I wonder how many right wing sites will have this picture as a caption contest this week.

Breaking out his best Elvis pose, Barack sings, "Love me tender, love me true..."

Obama - Oh yeah, Stimulus bill, that is what I needed to think about some more.

16'll get ya 20

Sarkozy: "Umm, Barry, I think the teleprompter is a little higher up."

Man next to Obama - "I know Bill Clinton and you sir are no Bill Clinton".

Sarkozy chuckles to himself realizing that for the moment Obama is indeed a rigid socialist idealogue.

The woman in red brings down yet another person who robbed the banks of America.

I don't care what I promised Putin; this missile ain't getting disarmed.

Obama leans to the right for the first time since he was elected President.

Now that's what I call a Stimulus Package!!

President Obama learing at 16yr old ass, price TBD.
President Sarkozy snickering at President Obama, no charge.
Michele Obama doing what the Klan wishes it could, price TBD.
A photographer with a once in a lifetime picture? Priceless, because Michele is going to make sure it never happens again.

Damn, that's going to cost me another trip out to eat somewhere exotic.

Chelsea? Is that you??

Bill Clinton ain't got nothing on me, he chased cows but I'm going to have a cow chasing me after this.

Obama: I wish Michele's ass looked like that.
Sarkozy: What a dumbass, he's gonna pay for that look.

"Did someone just drop a Euro?"

"Welcome to my parlor", said Sarkozy to Obama.

And that Barack, is why I named my new £50million jet after my wife!

"Umm....uhhh...I....I...It depends on what the meaning of ogle is..."

"Sheez, it went by so fast I almost missed it."

Obama, on the honeymoon period of his presidency.....and the bumper sticker
he's checking out.

In my culture, Sarky, thats a five-head of
cattle rear-end.....and throw in a rhino horn!

........and I did not bow to the Saudi King either!!!!!

"Now, that's the kind of summit I can get used to!"

"So I see heels are out this summer, but booties are always in style with me, Sarky."

"Now that's a badonkadonk, Nick!"

"Kids LOVE Jello".

Dr. Bill Cosby

"I think that Stimulus is starting to work."

"I wonder if I can talk Michelle into wearing a wig and sleeping on her stomach"

"I can haz jailbait?"

"Whazzat Sarky?.....'like two eggs in a hand-
kerchief?????'......I copy THAT, dog. I copy
that."

"Hey Koz....I went from 'at ease' to 'full
salute' in a nanosec..........uh, pass me
a magazine QUICK!"

"Now that's Global Warming!"

OH MAMA, I THINK I COULD USE A SMOKE!

Obama getting acquinted with the Brazilian representative to discuss his, uh, stimulus package.

"Stupid American I fart in your general direction"

"I hope Michelle doesn't notice the audacity of my behavior."

Now he has something to really apologize for.

Wow, all that and no carbon foot-print!

Sarkozy: "I knew he was French!"

Just as an aside, whoever snapped that photo deserves a Pulitzer prize.

I wonder how that fabric would feel against my face...

Just be sure to stay away from the Evil Eye!

"Where da white women at?"

... I know Michelle will see this but I'd just do what I always do.. blame bush!

Drill here, drill now?!

While visiting Italy, Obama engages in the Clinton version of site-seeing.

Obama thought bubble - "She has her own stimulus package"

Baby Got Barack!

Damn, I would love to sext that with my Blackberry!

Finally something Obama and I can agree on!

In the words of Sir Mix-a-Lot ...dang, baby got back.

I would explore that @$$ like Coronado and then hit it like a nuetron bomb!

"That's the best ass I've seen since shaving this morning"

I GOTTA get me some o' dat.

Hmmm Ahhhh sure, I can stay a few more days.

{When the President does it, it means it isn't illegal.}

(courtesy of Richard Nixon to Robert Frost)

"Careful Barrack!" "Have you not seen the Crying Game?"

Damn - now why didn't I think of wearing sandals like hers.

Concentrate: Leader of the free world, leader of the free world, lead her to me, no no no! Damn that's a nice ass.

Sarkozy is thinking "I'd love to be there when Michelle sees this photo...."

Prosperity, you little Minx. Where you going?

That sure ain't no J. Crew dress now is it, Sarky?

Sarkozy: I know what you're thinking about my friend.

Taxes.

Sarkoky thought balloon:
I wonder if Bill Clinton told Barack what the meaning of "is" is?

And the target for my next stimulus package is . . .

Hey, don't look at me Barack. I've got a cute wife.

She would make an excellent Butt Czar

Now Nicolas, that is the kind of Tour de France I'm talking about!

Don't worry Barack, you've screwed her already.

Just like every other American.

Yes I can!

"As I work on our carbon-control legacy for posterior appreciation... I mean, for the appreciation of posterity..."

Barack: I'd slap a burkha on that.

Sarkozy: Go ahead Barry, show her YOUR stimulus pakage!

I like big butts and I cannot lie!

I'd *pay* to be a fly on the wall when Michele unloads.

Tail to the Chief

So *that's* why they say, "Ooh-Lala." Totally get it now.

Pizza Czarina Review Board

Whow! look I think I see a quarter - quick get one of my lackeys to pick it up for me.

"I'm gonna TAX that a--."

Now THAT ain't Wookie ass!!

"Hubba-Hubba Baby" how about a job as my personal aide?

"Man, I'd love to do to that what I am doing to the entire USA.........."

"Uh...Miss, can I offer you your own private stimulus package?"

"That's the nicest piece of stimul-ass, oops, stimulus package I've seen in some time."

"Man, I am just not used to that small a booty"

Well now, there's HOPE that could CHANGE me.

"But Michelle-I was-um-trying to help out OJ and look for the real killers."

President Barack Obama is struck by a shot from the assy knoll

Obama: I could tax that.

Hey if Mark Stanford can have some on the side, so can I

The harder Barry pants, the higher the Co2 emissions get

Sarkozy: "Honest Mr. President. Every time Bill Clinton's approval ratings were tanking, it worked."

Thought balloon: "I wonder how you say 'Hoodoo dat Voodoo in Urdu?'"

Just like I told you, The end justifies the means.

A red stained dress is in His future.

White House spokesmen - No Obama didn't bow, I mean look at that woman's ass, he spotted a euro on the ground and was going to pick it up.

Now I need a cigarette.

Nice, but I need to see her armpits.

That would look so much nicer in a burkha.

That could cause some serious global warming.

That puts a twinge in my surrender monkey.

That wasn't a bow! I was just stooping because her ass is so much shorter than me.

The only stimulus package anywhere near Barack Obama that actually works.

I thought Mecca was in the other direction!

Suddenly, as the Woman in Red passed by, Neo (er, ... the One) realized he had been caught in the Matrix again.

Excuse me Miss, do you know why they call me the dictator?

Barry suddenly rediscovers the space program when the rocket in his pocket goes into launch mode.

Sarkozy: "No no Mr. President, I said your approval ratings are plummeting. Get your head out of YOUR ass."

President Obama suddenly reverses his position on offshore drilling.

Several Thoughts On The Same Thing:

Bill Clinton:"Whoa mama, that's some fine bootie! Shake yer money maker"

Larry Craig:"Doesn't do that much for me".

Nicholas Sarkozy:"Oh mon dieu. Oui, oui, oui".

Barack Obama:"Yes indeed(pause), in my opinion(pause), it's probably safe to say(pause), that that posterior region(pause), is indeed(pause), rather nice in some ways(pause).

Thinking with the little head instead of the big head.

"Alas, to be a black man but not built like a blcak man down where it counts"

davidt,

actually, for BO it's two little heads.

Add a comment

As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, according to officials involved in the discussion. Most spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the panel, said the panel is looking at a surtax around 3.5 percent.

In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.

Given today's news that unemployment continues unabated (159,000 Americans filed new claims for unemployment last week) it's not unreasonable to ask if the Democrats pushing for these tax increases actually know where jobs come from. As has been mentioned on this blog many times, small business is the largest employer (and the largest source of new jobs) in the U S economy. The "wealthy" that the House Democrats are targeting for tax increases are these small businesses, not the stereotypical "coupon clipping" aristocrat that Congress would have you believe.

One of the advantages that small businesses enjoy is their ability to react quickly to changes in their market spaces. They are quick to hire when business expands and quick to fire during a retraction (as we are in now). Having dealt with small businesses for years I've come to learn that they are also quick to respond to higher operating costs such as tax increases by reducing what usually is the largest expense they incur: payroll. Small business is already staring at the sunset of the Bush tax cuts; however, now Congress proposes to burden them with an additional surtax to pay for ObamaCare.

Does anyone believe the new ObamaCare surtax will expand employment? That begs the question as to whether Democrats actually care about unemployment. Judging the Democrats by their actions (instead of their intentions) indicates that there is a growing gulf between the working (and employing) class in America and the ruling class in Washington.

Comments (12)

The ruling class in Washington have their heads so far up their collective asses, it's a wonder they all don't just die from lack of oxygen. Hell, they'd be doing us a favor. All this energy wasted to solve a "problem" by implementing laws that don't address the root causes.

I wouldn't cry if their oxygen ran out...

It's pathetic the attempts they try to "fix" things. I mean this "stimulus" is a great example to ask them, "If you guessed so wrong on the economy, how the hell are you so sure you can fix healthcare?"

Even worse is seeing your state governor, Martin O'Malley, sit in front of congress and essentially beg for a second stimulus. This jackass has the gall to run rampant and put Maryland in finiancial dire straits, and then go and BEG for more money. But that is what liberals do best, spend money without real effect, claim they are doing good while, beg for more money, and leave people living in reality with a sore ass...

Dems and taxes
Dems and taxes

Go together like a belt and slackses.

This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other.

geez Trajan, bad enough I'm getting raped by the government...now I've got that dopey tune in my head!!! *sigh*

Fundamentally, our system of gerrymandering and protection of the incumbent leads to politicians who have little or no experience in how things really work. Then, the seniority system rewards long term politicians with power. All they know is government and the part they know best is raising revenue and spending that revenue. The result is a hodgepodge of conflicting plans that end up accomplishing very little, but at great cost.

For example, we have a "not so much" stimulus program that is more a reward for political support than a stimulus. That, and the fact it takes a long time to get government money out the door (we knew "shovel ready" was as much a lie as the "the check is in the mail") raised expectations to a level that even a casual observer knew could not be met.

So now, with unemployment having skyrocketed and getting worse, these guys are off to their next two projects, cap and trade and national health care, which will result in more job losses. But, these politicians have no understanding of the contradictory nature of the problems. They are unable to focus on the most pressing problem. The most pressing problem is neither global warming or nationalized health care.

The President should be looking at the totality of the problem, but he is not. The good news is that John Stewart is starting to make fun of him with "fix the economy".

We need new politicians. The ones we have are just not working out.

Rick

Breaking News! Looks like the Blue Dog Democrats are reading the poll numbers and are putting the brakes on "health care reform". At least they're trying to slow the train wreck down and discuss it further rather than rush it thru via Nancy Pelosi's "Emergency Express".
Bet those Blue Dogs are going onto Nancy's hate list.

it's not unreasonable to ask if the Democrats pushing for these tax increases actually know where jobs come from.

For some time, it has been my belief that this is the basic difference between liberals and conservatives on the economic issues:
Liberals believe that wealth is found lying around on the ground, and the strongest, fastest, whitest people who find wealth on the ground are now enjoying it and that's just not fair.
Conservatives understand that wealth is created by people. There is no source of wealth other than hard work. And there is no reason to create wealth other than to enjoy it.
Obama wants to take wealth away from people. Why? Because, in his community organizer mind, whoever has it does not deserve it.
Reagan (for example) wanted to allow people to have more of their wealth. Why? Because, the more they got to keep, the more they created. The more wealth that's created, the better everyone's life is.
It's not politics--it's mathematics.

If Bammy keeps it up, blue dog democrats and
yellow dog democrats are going to be dog-faced
democrats. The post-election elation and
fellation is becoming an abomination. Look
for Obama to be inserted into the Captain Planet series reruns and Michelle to be doing faux alligator Buxton Organizer
faux-alligator Buxton Organizer ad spots.

I say tax the wealthy at 5%. The economy will come crashing down, it will be indisputable. Then throw the bastards out, wipe out all of Obama's people and changes, and be done with him once and for all.

re: 3,4

Married with Children meets

Barry'd with Taxes.

Does anyone believe the new ObamaCare surtax will expand employment?

I believe it will - it'll expand GOVERNMENT employment. After all, you're going to need a bureaucratic structure to collect the money and properly dole it out. That structure's going to be thickly larded with layer upon layer of collectors, inspectors, collector inspectors, middle and mid-upper and upper managers - with any luck at all it'll be at LEAST as productive as the Luxury Tax was in the early '90s. (Which collected about half of what it cost to administer, and was abandoned when it was realized that it was killing a lot of small businesses.)

It'll probably increase employment in the medical sector also - at least somewhat, since you're going to need people to understand and administer the crap coming down from Washington.

That begs the question as to whether Democrats actually care about unemployment.

Sure they do. They LOVE unemployed people, because when you give them money, they'll do what you tell them. And you don't even have to actually raise what you give 'em, just the PROMISE of more money will get their vote every time! They care so much about the unemployed, they do everything they can to make sure there's more of them!

But ask if they care about employment - that's a different matter! Someone employed isn't so dependent on government handouts, therefore they're harder to control. So given a choice between high numbers of employed people (as we had under Bush, till the dems ran off the cliff) and high numbers of unemployed - as you said, judge them by their actions.

Judging the Democrats by their actions (instead of their intentions) indicates that there is a growing gulf between the working (and employing) class in America and the ruling class in Washington.

No! Ya think?! And there you have the strategy of class warfare. Those fomenting it know that they're vulnerable to their base, so they've got to do whatever they can to keep the anger and discontent focused elsewhere. It is not the fault of Democratic stupidity that ran up massive deficits (looking like up to $2 trillion for THIS YEAR ALONE) it's BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!OMG! (Ignore Cap and Trade and the Stimulus, and the looming health care bill, they're not relevant.)

Liberals never seem to run out of their petty grievances and resentments, and never seem to run out of reasons to use them as excuses.

Why is it that the answer to every problem is either a spending program, a tax program, or some new regulation?

I think it's time for some serious job losses -- in Washington. This malignant arrogance has got to be stopped.

Add a comment

Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.

That aid -- about $17 billion -- is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

Conservatives will surely be quick to point out that this smells a lot like political payoffs, but I disagree. The places that are always begging for -- and receiving -- the most Federal money are generally large cities with large minority populations. These cities (Washington DC, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, etc.) have been controlled by Democrats for decades, and in many instances (e.g. Detroit) their minority community has ascended to power within the local Democratic party structure, and reliably delivers >90% of minority votes to Democrats on a regular basis.

It is no surprise, then, that these cities have received a huge chunk of Federal aid dollars. They have gotten the lion's share of this money for decades.

But the big cities are still not happy. The New York Times is also reporting that big cities are upset over the fact that Stimulus money for transportation projects has been awarded largely to rural counties for improvements on inter-city and inter-state highways. According to the Times report, major cities house 2/3 of our nation's population and contribute 3/4 of its economic activity, and those cities expect a similar share of Federal transportation aid to help combat problems like traffic jams and chronically underfunded public transportation systems.

This story serves as yet another example of the growing chasm between the politics of large urban areas and the rest of America. While counties (and sometimes states) without enormous urban areas have generally been able to plan and pay for their own infrastructure and welfare improvement programs with only a modicum of Federal assistance, city and state governments long under the control of liberal Democrats have grown progressively more dependent on massive Federal aid. The differences between Texas (no state income tax and a fiscally conservative approach to government) and California should put any disputes over this subject permanently to rest.

It is ironic, yet entirely truthful, that the Democrats have morphed from the party that once championed the common working man into the party that now champions massive and politically-powerful city, state governments and Federal agencies over their less urbane counterparts in so-called "Middle America." Democrats also enthusiastically support Big Labor and Big Business over small businesses and the self-employed, thanks to the billions of dollars in lobbying money and political contributions that they have gathered over the years. Name any major Democrat legislation (stimulus, TARP, SCHIP, Fair Pay, Cap and Trade, health care reform, etc.) and I'll show you a bill that disproportionately benefits Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Government.

If it's "Big," then you can bet it has "Democrat" written all over it.

...

And speaking of "big," this piece from TigerHawk is essential reading (h/t Instapundit):

The Obama administration aspires to restructure large parts of the United States economy. Because its efforts have been broken into separate initiatives with different justifications, few people other than news junkies have noticed how extraordinary Barack Obama's agenda is. Perhaps a number will help: 35%. That is the aggregate percentage of United States GDP produced by the three industries that the Democrats hope to restructure from the top down: Health care (17% of GDP), energy (9.8% of GDP), and financial services (8% of GDP). Think about that. Without even considering the transformational impact of proposed anti-business laws of general application, such as the Orwellian "employee free choice act," the Obama administration wants to redesign 35% of gross domestic product from the center. And he proposes to do it all in a rush this summer, lest the decline in his popularity and that of the Congressional Democrats erodes his power to do so.

Even FDR wasn't that reckless with his party's power during his first year in office. And liberals complained that George W. Bush had an "Imperial Presidency"?

Comments (20)

You dont say! Never would of imagined the corrupt contemtible demoncrats would be fleecing the taxpayer for their own disgusting political apparatus.

PUKE!!!

Thats [ contemptible ] in every sense of the word. Hard to spell check when your pissed off.

I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell you! If all of Barry's plans come to pass, there will come a time when the American public would look forward to seeing all those bastards before a firing squad. Impeachment would not be enough.

I held my RomCo "Surprise Meter" up to the news article...it didn't even register!!

Mind you, since Obama ascended to the throne, I've been re-calibrating it daily to increase it's sensitivity...and it STILL wouldn't register!!

On a smaller scale, there's a fellow employee here who is always begging me for $10 or $20 to get her through to next payday. Today, for the first time, I had to say no.

From the article:

The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.

Excellent misleading! Awesome work by USA Today and then Wizbang.

jp2, you actually helped prove the point. . these locations voted for more largesse from the public treasury, and voted Democrat of course.

So much for the myth that Red locales receive more government aid, glad to see you've owned up to that one.

IJHYYA

jp2 doesn't see the irony. The people on the dole vote for those who will keep them on the dole.

I would think jp2 was trying to put the blame on Dubya for those 2005-2007 years. It's never to late to blame ol' George W. but it sure is pathetic.

"That aid -- about $17 billion -- is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation."

These same areas "regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts" and did so during the Bush White House when Congress was controlled by Republicans.

Nothing has changed. Those areas continue to see the most aid now, just as they did during the Bush administration.

Was that too simple? Does the truth not fit into the culture war waged by the right?

"the Obama administration wants to redesign 35% of gross domestic product from the center."

So in the first year of Obama we will become a 35% Communist country. Then they'll take a break and start acting somewhat in America's best interst next year, or at least appear to do so since it's an election year.

But God help us if the leftists hold power in 2010. 2011 will see us going 70% or more Communist at which point it will be impossible to stop the slide to total Communism short of a second America Revolution.

There's little left to do but pray that the ignorant and information retarded wake up and start paying attention before November 2010, and just in case they don't stock up on weapons and ammunition.

"Was that too simple? Does the truth not fit into the culture war waged by the right?"

Gee, maybe it was so simple you didn't realize you were copying and pasting what was right there for all of us to read. I gotta tell ya, the part where it said, "Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation," was a dead giveaway for me.

Pimps give de hoes de franchise. Hoes pay de pimp back. Jes' like MackyDonald do, fer shizzle.

Would you have made the same comment if the President was John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, Trajan?

Scandal!

So let me make sure I follow this logic: Stimulus is supposed to help areas of the country most effected by downturns and job losses. Job losses tend to focus around areas that are inherently more distressed. Inherently distressed Americans voted for Obama over McCain.

Ergo, Obama is creating scandal and is paying back his voters?

That's some good logic...

Should we be surprised by Obama's shredding of the Constitution or his thugocracy? What is depressing are his lemmings. Who could ever imagine so many people would embrace Marxism so willingly?

Our city is in a shitstorm of a mess. Our mayor has his hand out begging for stimulus money because city officials have done a piss poor job of managing what they have.

Charlie Crist, in his infinite non-wisdom, decided that Floridians needed a property tax break, and there it was as a referendum on the last ballot; a doubling of the homestead exemption. That's when the law of unintended consequences reared its ugly head. And everybody thought they were going to save money so it passed. Then cities across the state decided to scramble to find more ways to charge fees to make up for the shortfall. Our homestead exemption was doubled and I got a whopping $125.00 in savings for the year. BUT! I also got a new bill in the mail from the city amounting to a new garbage fee and storm water run-off fee. The new bill was $120.00 a year.

The clincher is that every home in Jacksonville gets this new bill. Even those homes whose owners rent their property and are not eligible for the exemption. One would think the city would be happy with the new bonus.

No.

The city suddenly has a $70 million budget shortfall. This, on top of a new 1 penny sales tax increase that began 9 years ago to fund their "Better Jacksonville Plan". This plan was, among other things, supposed to fund a new courthouse. The first round of estimates for the courthouse was (we were told at the onset) was about $170 million. Now it's $350 million and 9 years later they haven't even broken ground yet.

But that hasn't stopped them. This sudden new "budget shortfall" has them scrambling for MORE money. Now they're considering a local income tax and/or a 14% increase in property taxes.

My husband and I are scrambling to hasten our retirement. I'm getting out of the city. In fact, we're likely to leave Florida altogether. I've had it. I'm tired of being pecked to death by ducks. Fees for this, fees for that and the constant whining by city council members and officials that they "just don't have enough money", and the tired old fear mongering that, "We'll have to cut funds for police and fire protection!"

As far as I'm concerned, Wyoming is sounding good.

F*ck it, why not pack up and haul ass to the Cayman Islands, Oyster? If paying taxes and fees is the Worst Thing Ever, then isn't it obvious that you don't belong in contemporary North American/European society?

Whoa there canuckle-head.
At least down here in Canada's hat stand, citizens are allowed to have a say in how things are done. This includes the right to complain. And the right to move.
Inequitable taxes is a large part of why we had a revolution here a couple of centuries ago.
But why bother... I'm talking to a guy that thinks Smith supported government welfare societies...

"then isn't it obvious that you don't belong in contemporary North American/European society?"

There is nothing contemporary about taxation without representation. It's as old and rusty as those thumbscrews from the dark ages.

Add a comment

For the week ending June 27, the number of Americans receiving state jobless benefits rose 159,000 to a record 6.88 million, more than double the level during the same period in the prior year.

"Not as bad as expected" will be the prevailing media news theme until Congress finishes with Cap and Trade and ObamaCare. Thereafter, as the momentum increases for Stimulus II, a decidedly negative spin on employment and negative GDP will predominate. Manipulating the news cycle is an integral tool in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi strategy. But as today's unemployment data demonstrates, joblessness continues to rise and federal tax receipts will continue to shrink as a result of fewer wage earners and disappearing private sector profits.

Yet to emerge is a Democrat that will make the case for how private sector growth will result from their policy initiatives passed this year. It must be said again: the private sector creates the wealth that pays all of the taxes the government collects. What are Obama/Pelosi/Reid doing to promote private sector recovery and growth?

Comments (9)

"The private sector creates the wealth that pays all of the taxes the government collects."

Very good point Hugh, and it does bear repeating

After the government collects the wealth it consumes and redistributes that wealth. Quite often in a way that benefits their lobbyists and political connections. The "Culture of Corruption" is still in power in Washington.

"What are Obama/Pelosi/Reid doing to promote private sector recovery and growth?"

So far, nothing.

Zilch, zero and nada. But they are very good at it.

"What are Obama/Pelosi/Reid doing to promote private sector recovery and growth?"

Hey, they've got Tim Terrific printing money as fast as he can. And Steny Hoyer just gave a couple of campaign contributors an $18 million contract to redesign the Pork Tracking website that doesn't work.

I don't know where this is all leading but I gut is telling me very bad days are coming. I hope I am wrong. ww

"Not as bad as expected." Hey - maybe that should be the DNC campaign slogan for 2010!

Actually Scott Ott recently came up with something similar.

"Not as bad as expected"....I don't think people who lost their jobs, or had their hours cut, or anyone looking for a job...is buying into this.

The spin really is incredible.

And if W were still president the headline would easily be:

Unemployment soars, at record high!

From the article...
For the week ending June 27, the number of Americans receiving state jobless benefits rose 159,000 to a record 6.88 million,....

by the end of September the Summer Jobs will have dried up, and artificial positive impact they have on the unemployment rate will end. as the GM and Chrylser layoffs the unemployment rate will easily crest 10%...or higher.

Then there's the re-casting of the budget deficit...which will push it above $2 TRILLION just for this year.

At that point America's economic "chin" will be VERY exposed. Luckily we have no enemies in the world who will try to take a poke at it!

WildWillie, you're not wrong!

And of course the "Not as bad as expected" excuse is a lie, as the "stimulus" was rushed through to prevent unemployment from climbing above 8%.

Or at least that was the line they used to sell it to the useful idiot crowd.

Add a comment

These examples come from blogs, newspapers, TV, comment sections, etc. Some were from political sites and platforms, some not.

Keep in mind, these are all examples used to describe Mrs. Palin after just a 6 minute, 50 second resignation speech. After just a bit of reading this, I was exhausted.

Anyway, here is but a few minutes of surfing. (Warning: Some of it gets a bit explicit):

Bizarre, nutty puppy, sociopath, silly, weirdness, quitter, depressed, a tool, megalomaniac, rubbish, non-coherent, white-trash, Mark Sanford's soul mate, illogical, Caribou Barbie, rambling, not cognitive, wingnut, Michael Jackson's supplier, she's pregnant, Bristol's pregnant, Willow's pregnant, Todd is leaving her, stupid, starred in "Specs Appeal VI (a porno about women in glasses), Todd is pregnant, she is "tea bagging" the Appalachian Trail, manager of the Wasilla Dairy Queen, illiterate, "in a scandal with hookers and blow", horrible, clueless, Fox news host, imbecile, she was "fucking John McCain", twit, run on a platform for more retardation, meth addict, dangerous, has the moral fiber of Satan.

One said "Sarah Palin seeks to control your thoughts and eliminate your basic human freedoms."

Just a couple of clicks revealed that.

Sheesh.

I am constantly amazed that this woman, who supposedly has not the education, insight, or ambition to reach an office of substance, has the type of effect on liberals that holy water had on Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

The disdain these people have for this one "incompetent" woman speaks volumes as to their collective self-esteem issues.

The punditry suggests that she did this on a long 4th of July weekend so it would not garner much attention.

Are these people kidding? Anything she would do at any time would garner this type of hyperventilating coverage.

While I believe she chose to do it on this particular holiday weekend, I believe it was meant to send a message more in keeping with the reasons for our observation of this holiday: Freedom, independence, individualism, and spirit. That is what I feel is the reason as to the timing.

Whether this has to do with cranking up a 2012 Presidential run, I have my doubts. However, the idea of her "quiting" due to the difficulties of scrutiny is disingenuous and bogus. The minute Barack Obama was sworn into his Illinois senate seat, he was off to the 2008 presidential races. The difference between the Governorship and one Senate seat out of a hundred is that as Governor, you actually have to make decisions. Obama had the luxury of voting "present" during his phony tenure as a Senator. Governor Palin has no such option.

That said, how many times, from the left and the right, have we heard there is no "voice", no messenger with which people can relate to coming from the Republican leadership and those in the Conservative spectrum.

Governor Palin may not have her eyes set on the 2012 Presidential Race, and that may be a wise decision, but there is no denying the void that exists between our elected officials on the right and the people of this country.

Sarah Palin is genuine. She may not be a policy wonk, but considering where the current Wonk-in-Chief has gotten us, that's not a bad thing. She also has the "it" factor. If not for her, McCain's defeat would have been Carteresque in its legacy. His "campaign suspension" should go down as one of the biggest and most disastrous purposeful blunders in the history of American politics.

The economy got Obama elected, not McCain's choice of a running mate. If anything, it saved him from sheer embarrassment.

Sarah Palin seems an extremely capable, driven person. One who could easily fill a void. One to be the voice, not necessarily of politicians trying to get their message across, but a voice for us, trying to get ours across.

There is no need for Sarah Palin to "re-brand" or "rehabilitate" herself. No need to change her image. Political bomb throwers, leftist loons, and jealous media shrews like Maureen Dowd have their opinion of her, and they ain't changing. That's a good thing. Know thy enemies..

Sarah Palin came out of nowhere. Governor of Alaska. America's North Pole. Look at what she has done with it. Garnering tens of thousands of people at large gatherings, they weren't there to see John McCain. She still commands attention from the media, who report every little thing, whether true or not, about this woman, her job, and unfortunately, her family.

Her love of Alaska notwithstanding, she has now thrown off the shackles of that far off land, allowing her, if she wants, to become whatever she wants.

There's not much one with such drive and ambition can truly accomplish from up there. And what there is to accomplish there, she has done it.

The end of Sarah Palin?

I don't think so.

Comments (79)

forget 2012...we need her in 2010 or 2012 won't matter anyway!

In 2010 she can be a free-agent, and can rally Conervatives to targeted Congressional seats!! And being beholden to NO ONE, especially the Republican higher-ups, will give her more freedom!

I think she will (a) make lots of money (b) piss off the Left and (c) help the Republicans and/or Independents and/or TEA Party candidates create and effective firewall against the Dems. We NEED that firewall!!

I read in my local paper on the opinion page some writer of no consequence said when Palin spoke as she announced she would not seek reelection and will step down she appeared shakey and unsure of herself. I thought she was perfectly composed and quite sure of herself. No head tossing from side to side to read a teleprompter just a heart felt speech given with little referral to notes. She speaks her truth, which I find to be my truth. I think a good number of Americans will agree with Sarah Palin. Should she run for higher office. I know what her policy will be. The right thing. What ever that may be at the time. Certainly different from what we currently have.

Apparently Sarah roams their liberal subconcious thought process and commands them to eject bile all over their respective keyboards.

They are so obsessed with Her they will comment on here in about 3...2...1

There is one thing liberals do well, hate.

RE: 3:
Looks like their Moms all sent to bed early 2nite. Once Mom and Pop are asleep, they'll start cutting as pasting under the blanket with a flashlight.

I don't think it's the end of Sarah Palin either, but I do think it's the end of her ability to get high electoral office.....and that's actually a good thing. She needs to be free to be a ferocious spokesperson for ideas and causes without the media savages getting bogged down in campaign idiocy.

They did quite the job on her, and McCain didn't help.

As Obama gets in deeper, we'll have our chances to win hearts and minds. And no amount of anti-Palin hysteria will be able to blunt an effective message.

The life of one Palin (Sarah or Trig for that matter) is worth a million Andy Sullivans.

In other words, not the king but the king-maker.

I've been thinking a lot about this resignation move from her, and I think it's a smart play for her, if not the ONLY play for her for several reasons:

1. After going from a pretty decent bipartisan in AK politics, she returned from the campaign an icon and walking talking point for hard right politics. This killed the bipartisan, actually get things done work she'd been able to pull off early on in her tenure. Things are turning problematic in AK and if she stuck around, she'd be blamed in some (probably major) part. Quitting now gives her the ability to point fingers and say "when I was there, things were great, see what happens when I'm not there?"

2. Spinning up the "I'm just a mom, working hard and don't deserve this from the media and the Left" vibe gives her more folksy appeal at a time when people adverse to changes such as gay marriage, black prez, Dem rule, etc. are so wound up and looking for comfort. She has always connected well to that "I'm like you, dontchaya know...." side that people are looking for. The "I want to have a beer with Bush" thing. That's a powerful element in electoral politics.

3. Even if she doesn't have ethics problems pending, she's able to use the ethics problems as a cross to die on (without in her mind having her have to actually...die on it). She creates a martyr position for herself that the less time she spends in office, the more opportunity she has to take advantage of that martyrdom. After all... if she stays, then tries to die on that particular cross, she has little opp to say "see, it's SOOOO bad that I stayed...uh... a really long time".

All of this culminates in a basic approach of victimization that is likely to carry some water with the Right for some period.

To me the real question is whether she can last a full 3 years speaking in randomness, platitudes, and spinning up fervor. Palin's speech was a rambling mess to most Americans, even many on the Right. But to those she was targeting with this martyr approach, it was clear as a bell.

It'll take a Palin to verbalize the fear and
anger many have toward this arrogant egotist,
Obama. It's obvious that the Viagra-abusing
Pubs are also Premarin addicts. She may be
there to do a man's job, since our side
acts as if their political menopause is
a badge of honor. While Pubs stand around
"harumphing" Sarah may filet the fish.

Just wondering....
Would the nutty lefties be raising all this hell had J.M. won the election and she resigned to assume her V.P. position? Would that move have made her a "quitter" too in the eyes of the loons? Ive got to believe that the whole of the left are terrified of this woman for they recognize that she has the ability to speak with conviction and that resonates with people.

Of course, pissing off liberals is enough for you fine folks.

Rest assured, though, she doesn't piss liberals off. We're really pulling for her to get the nomination in 2012.

Jake, her speech may have been a rambling mess in your opinion but based on a gallop poll just released it reached it's intended target.

Nearly seventy percent of the reps said they still support her.

Says nothing in the larger scheme of things but it shoots a hole in some people's idea she shot herself in the foot with the base.

That said, in addition to all the other much publicized reason for the hatred pointed her way is one other I thought of.

She may be a female version of Bush in a way.

Think about it, Bush from the very start was derided by liberals and many others on his Texas accent and "down-home" style of talking.

It's one of the same points those that hate Palin point to almost reflexively as if they were Pavlovian dogs.

Kroveechernila - "We're really pulling for her to get the nomination in 2012."

Yeah and a bet a butt load of you guys and gals have wet dreams about it.

Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. At best it might in the presidential cycle after that, but 2012, keep those wet dream alive buddy cause that's all you got.

Sarah Palin is just like Amy Winehouse . . . minus the talent.

I am constantly amazed that this woman, who supposedly has not the education, insight, or ambition to reach an office of substance, has the type of effect on liberals that holy water had on Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

Why do you assume it's "libruls" who are saying these things? She's been undercut by McCain's staff more than anyone else. They've leaked all the juicy bits. Multiple right-wingers are leaving the crazy train as well, ala Riehl. (I suppose they are libruls though...)

Adrian.

That is humor.

I recognize that.

jp2,

That vast majority of creatures saying these things are liberals.

You site McCain's staff as proof of people on the right bailing on her?

Pffft. McCain, aside from a few key issues, is a liberal. His staff did nothing but undercut her after his suspension stunt to draw attention away from the fact that he screwed the pooch.

As far as this Riehl guy, I read some of his stuff, and agree with some of it.

If you find someone out there that you agree with 80% of the time, consider yourself lucky.

Don't be such a tool.

(BTW, I can now add "crazy train" to the list of insults above. Thanks, liberal!))

Its amazing that the people who describe her in this fashion are also the faithful lemmings of Presidente Zero.

I'd rather have Palin with all the faults they ascribe to her than the Dhimmirats in control of the government after Obama's term is up.

Please cover the Dhimmirats proposed "domestic terrorist detention centers" and their new gate speech crimes.

Both seem unconstitutional and an attempt to intimidate conservatives and opposition.

Liberals can blabber about TOLRERENCE ALL THE DAY LONG THEY DONT KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD BECUASE THEIR A BUNCH OF BIGGOTS AND HYPOTCRITS

Sarah Palin is the female version of former President GW Bush but without the Yale education. Palin is unable to understand policy and complicated issues. Palin is unable to manage a staff (see how she alienated McCain's staffers). Palin is unable to understand that everything she says will be reviewed and vetted. Palin is unable to understand the long term consequences of decisions and policy.

Palin comes from the borrow and spend, big government, big spending, compassionate conservatives wing of the Republican party that has been a failure for years. Until the Republicans but intelligence, competence, and ability ahead of some undefined ability, the U.S. will continue down the road to being a one party state.

It is not only the liberal left, but virtually all of the networks of aristocracy who have decreed that the public will not be allowed to push her into their ranks. She speaks strangely; and unlike WJC, GWB and BHO her credentials lack the proper prestige. She does not show the proper respect to those who hold modern Patents of Nobility. How dare this foolish upstart with her Midieval superstitions contend with those chosen by the Lords of Politics and Media.

I think a lot of people had a visceral knee-jerk reaction to her and used every negative comment, report and opinion column to justify that reaction. They're quick to believe outrageous rumors and anything an "anonymous source" says. They don't want to be wrong. There's a clinical term for the obsession some people have with her; always trying so mightily to defend and rationalize the obsession to degrade and vilify the object of their scorn. I'd almost call it a neurosis.

Yes, there are some on the right who have expressed some unfavorable opinions of certain aspects of Palin, but, by and large, they are far more objective observations than wild-eyed name calling and hyperbole - Krauthammer and Noonan to name a couple. I think they're wrong in some respects, but their criticism is not born of some unreasonable hatred. That Palin's detractors seize on this criticism as more justification for their own hostility is quite funny actually. They think they're 'throwing it in our faces'. It doesn't faze me in the least.

To sum her up, in my opinion, she does sometimes ramble. She IS "unpolished". But she's more a woman of action than words. This is something I can identify with. I often have trouble expressing myself. I've always been someone more of deed than word. Because of this, I prefer to look past one's words and examine their deeds. To me, that is the only way to truly measure a person. We're all fallible, but we have to look at the whole person.

Shawn wrote: However, the idea of her 'quiting' due to the difficulties of scrutiny is disingenuous and bogus.

In other words, even though you support her, you don't trust her.

Look, she said in so many words that she was leaving because the persecution launched by the orcs and trolls of the left had made it impossible for her to do her job. Why don't you believe that? More important, if you believe she would lie to you about such an important decision, then why do you believe she's "genuine," someone who can return the common, decent person's perspective to the presidency? If she lies so easily, so fluently, for no better reason than political advantage, then there's nothing new or genuine or honest about her at all. She's just another crooked politician.

Wolfwalker, I think you misread Shawn's comment.

I'd add to the list of adjectives used to describe her, the word grifter. The proof is in the response to her from the right wing.

I also have to say how ironic it is that you write that the disdain some have for her says volumes about their "self-esteem." So, I can only conclude from the things you and the majority of posters here write about Obama that you lack any self-esteem whatsoever?

You also state she's not a 'policy wonk" and has the "it" factor. I guess I would respond to that by saying I personally don't are about a policy wonk as president but I'd like someone who occasionally reads a newspaper and has at least a basic knowledge of the issues that confront the presidency and is not a serial quitter. As for the "it" factor I prefer that job qualification stay where it belongs - with models and Hollywood starlets and not with "it's" finger on the nuclear trigger.

What hgg said.

And # 19?

Liberals might not know the meaning of the word "tolrerence" (or "becuase" or "biggots" or "hypotcrits") but we do know the spelling.

Priceless.

If Sarah Palin had been able to field a running mate (Giulliani, Romney, Thompson or Huckabee) She would have living in the Naval Observatory today.

Burt

And she'd still be "sayin" she could see Russia from her front porch. "You betcha."

In many respects, she's the perfect crystalization of the GOP prerequisites in a candidate - all the right principles, looks good, can plausibly pull off the 'We's just normal folks' schtick, knows almost nothing about policy.

Making Sarah Palin the face of the Republican Party means conceding every state north of North Carolina to the Democrats for the foreseeable future.

The question everyone needs to answer if who voted for Obama who would vote for Sarah Palin in the future. There is not enough uneducated, blue collar whites to sustain the Republican Party. The Republican party can only survive by getting more than 60% of the white vote and Sarah Palin is definitely not the candidate to get the suburban white college educated knowledge worker vote that has left the Republican party due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

hgg, here's a little history lesson for you -- no charge.

Sarah Palin said that one can see Russia from some parts of Alaska. This is true.

Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin, said "I can see Russia from my house!"

Tina Fey is NOT Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is NOT Tina Fey.

You're welcome.

J.

Victor Davis Hanson has the best explanation I've seen as to why the "tolerant" left hates Palin so much.

See: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/what-is-wisdom%E2%80%94sarah-palin-and-her-critics/

A few excerpts:

How infuriating to sit here in New York and think that a winking tart could ever be elected, when seasoned sophisticates like Joe Biden and cosmopolitan metrosexuals like Barack Obama, who see it all, might not have been.

Twenty-first century power women do not marry men like Todd Palin.

Smart women do not get pregnant when it is inconvenient, especially when it interferes with one's cursus honorum. Palin foolishly had a baby as governor, and waddled around with it the entire time-with other snotty kids in tow (just like those trashy folk at the mall who pile out of the Tahoe, in the way just as you are parking your Volvo)! And worse, in the age of sonograms and abortion, she delivered a mentally-challenged child.

These Palins and their extended family, are, well, like the Clampetts who descend on Beverly Hills.

Now that she's resigned, I have to wonder who the dems will demonize next.

Hank, don't be in such a hurry. Isn't it obvious that they're not done with Palin yet?

J.

Jay Tea

Very true and thanks for the correction.I should correctly have said she'd be "sayin" she's qualified cause she could see the Russian Embassy from parts of Washington D.C. You betcha.

By the way I think Tina Fey has the "it" factor also. Has also probably read a newspaper or two in her lifetime.

The last person to get the libs in a tizzie like this was one Ron Reagan. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Good post, Shawn.

I recently came across an interesting comparison of Palin and Obama (at Instapundit, I believe) that I think explains a lot of the unhinged hatred that DC elites have for her.

Barack Obama is the darling of the gentry class and a perfect example of success in an elitist meritocracy -- anyone, from any background, can study hard, impress the right people, attend Columbia and Harvard Law School, leverage their Ivy League pedigree into an outstanding resume of participation in important pet liberal political causes, and eventually become President.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin represents achievement from a truly democratic point of view -- anyone who wants to be successful and make a difference can work hard, lead by example, keep their family and personal values intact, and eventually become a Governor -- and you don't have to attend Columbia or Harvard or win the praise of establishment intellectuals in order to achieve those goals.

That is why Sarah Palin is adored by tens of millions of average Americans, and why she absolutely scares the living snot out of Ivy League intellectuals (from both parties). Despite their flowery rhetoric about "diversity" and "equality," no group of people in this country works harder than rich urban intellectuals to destroy any "outsider" who poses a threat to their power structure.

That's also why intellectuals hated Ronald Reagan. He was a brilliant man, but he was not a graduate of the Ivy League, nor did he identify with postmodern liberalism. And it's why they hated George W. Bush. Bush was an Ivy League graduate, but he completely abandoned the East Coast elitist cocktail party lifestyle and (like Reagan) he had no use for postmodern liberalism.

Funny thing about the American people -- they will always choose a democratic success story over a meritocratic achiever. We chose Dwight Eisenhower twice over Adlai Stevenson, in spite of Ike's decidedly plainspoken demeanor and Stevenson's impressive intellectual pedigree and oratorical skill. I think this also scares elites, because, thankfully, they have never been able to convince average Americans of their intellectual and moral superiority.

Compared to Joe Biden, Sarah is in line for a nobel prize.

Seems like a few trolls are gonna need to recharge the C batteries for their flashlights this AM. Hope Mom doesn't find out and take away their laptops.

To the great undereducated, Presidents do not have to know policy, they set policy. Obama's policy is to break, economically, the United States of America and impose a socialist system upon us as outline in Saul Alinsky's teachings. Sarah Palin's policies, which she implimented in Alaska, work at limiting government, working within the law and expanding freedom. She spoke of what she stood for. That is policy. When the dems say she does not know policy, they mean their policy. I doubt seriously if President Palin would ever bow to a Saudi King.

"I doubt seriously if President Palin would bow to a Saudi King"

If George W Bush were holding the Saudi King's (or Prince's) hand she might make an exception.

There hasn't been this much excitement about a Republican since Schwarzenegger.

I'm still thinking along the Schwarzkopf model for Sarah. Why grind your resources against an entrenched foe when you can go around them?

Time will tell - but the media basically has made this into a 'war'. As such, to begin with they had the advantage. And it's been amusing how some folks have described Palin as a 'quitter' or a 'coward' - because she hasn't engaged in a stand-up fight with the media.

There's an old saying about newspapers - 'never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.' Going up directly against the newspapers, up against the media, would have been long, grueling, damnably expensive... and as far as honest reporting of the conflict goes, you've got to be kidding. It was a fight she couldn't hope to 'win' fairly, and one they dearly hoped she'd get in.

So now - what is she going to be doing? Withdrawing into private life? Doing behind the scenes work, building support networks? She's POPULAR outside of the intelligentsia - that would work to any conservative candidate's advantage.

The media doesn't know what's next, even though she's told them directly. The mindset is so convoluted that she could make a simple statement that 2+2=4, and they'd both say it was wrong and pick it apart looking for the deeper meaning of what she was REALLY trying to say.

In essence, she's dropped off their radar, gone into a stealth mode while hiding in plain sight - and I think she's going to pop up where she figures she'll be able to do the most damage.

There's a lot of media organizations on shaky ground already, judging by the ratings. They think they're invincible... but Sarah's a pretty good hunter. I wouldn't want to be in her sights when she's pissed.

Sarah Palin would have been a HUGE hit if she were only a Dem. But, because she has morals, a conscience, and higher standards than to be a Dem, she is critized for it. What a bunch of bull. Letterman scorns her because her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, but he knocked up his girlfriend out of wedlock. Double standards. Typical left-wing crap. I think Sarah resigned because the left was constantly charging her with unethical actions and even tho they were proved to be unfounded, the state of Alaska was going broke investigating and her family was going broke defending her. Same old same old. Let's pull this crap on the Dems and see how they like it.

I am a Sarah palin fan but it easy for me to understand those who have reservations about her ability to do a good job in elected office at the national level. Although she impressed me with her resume as governor of Alaska (and it should be no secret that Alaska has different priorities than east and west coast states in the lower 55) I am disappointed she was not well accepted by her party and elite so called Republican pundits. But it is what it is. Elected officials aren't very popular in general right now and with the policies of the current majority in Washington and the castrated Republican party leaders I don't see that changing and likely getting worse. So, she has divorced herself from that. To me Palin will continue to draw attention and if she hones her political skills to a more sophisticated level she will gain in popularity. I find myself making excuses for her because I have a good feeling about her, but if she wants to be elected she will need to change a bit. If she doesn't care about being elected but wants to serve a role like Steve Forbes or Bill Bennett and become a pundit for conservative policy without being labeled a Republican politician that's fine too. All I am waiting for is to see what her next major move will be.

...she quit to cash in. Her admirers can excuse anything, but to the much larger audience of non-admirers, Palin will look a lot like those CEOs who wrecked their banks and the national economy while accepting huge bonuses for themselves. John McCain's slogan in 2008 was "Country First." Palin's in 2012? "I seen my opportunities, and I took 'em."

David Frum = librul
McCain = librul

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/98362/The_Republicans_dwindling_options

Me too, DaveD - I have a feeling it's going to be interesting.

The punditry suggests that she did this on a long 4th of July weekend so it would not garner much attention.

Tony Blankley does a good job tearing this apart in his latest column:

She was the only news phenomenon capable of knocking the Michael Jackson story off the cable news lineups...

For instance, as the story was breaking Friday, fellow politically professional panelists were pointing out on-air how stupid Palin was to put forward her big story on a late Friday afternoon during a three-day holiday weekend. Everyone "knows" one buries a story that way. It became my grim duty to remind my fellow interlocutors -- in case they had not noticed -- that all the cable news shows were dropping their programming to switch to wall-to-wall coverage of the Palin announcement and that we were, at that moment, telling a national audience that the story we were talking about was being buried. The story persisted and expanded over the weekend, and my guess is that if any political topic came up at America's millions of Fourth of July backyard barbecue parties, it was probably Sarah Palin. So, who's the fool?

Sarah Palin said that one can see Russia from some parts of Alaska. This is true.

Funnily enough, J., I just started listening to the audiobook of Michael Palin's "Full Circle", describing his journey around the Pacific Rim. He begins in Alaska, where he spends quite some time describing the narrow gap between Alaska and Russia at that point and how easy it is to see to the other continent. Oddly, I don't think SNL ever did a skit mocking Palin, Michael that is, for this.

Maybe seeing Russia has something to do with the last name, despite one being the Alaskan governor and the other a British comedic actor and writer.

Geez jp2, try as You may You just cant manage a positive vote tally.

jp2= librul

Palin doesn't have to worry about the future. The left has trashed her so much, mainstream america is tired of it. If and when she does run, the left will turn off most of the voters and Palin wins. In summary: They shot their wad. Palin knows this and is using it. Smart move. ww

Seeing how pathetic the Obama adaministration is and how they've caused a recession worse than Carter and are heading for record unemployment territory. 2010 & 12 cant come soon enough.

Agree with WW.

And if she does run again, she needs a good answer to what the MSM will inevitably ask over and over again; why she quit.

A commenter named Jim B had a great answer to that on Surbers blog.

""I didn't want to do to the people of Alaska what Barack Obama did to the state of Illinois once he decided to run for president. He stopped showing up for his job on a regular basis, yet still collected a full paycheck for another 2 years. I respect the people I represent more than that. It's a shame that he didn't. Perhaps you should ask Barack Obama why he thought it was ethical to continue collecting money from taxpayers for doing a job he wasn't doing, and then we can continue the discussion."

1) Puts the questioner on the defensive.
2) Reminds viewers of the double standards that the media employs.
3) Puts Palin on the side of the taxpayer.
4) Reminds voters of Obama's dereliction of duty as a senator.
5) Forces Obama to explain his own ethics.

ethics complaints? anything on them detroit city council creatures to complain about? NO! how about charlie rangle? NO! barney frank? chris dodd? chuck schumer? barack hussein obama? hillary clinton? timothy geitner? rahm emanuel? clue fannie mae and freddie mac? hillary a lawmaker cannot fill a position if salary for that position has been raised during that LAWMAKERS TERM IN OFFICE? ETHICS! palin top priority on ethics? i look at palin as a media story of trying to create public interest for her? republicon candidate for 2012? trying to create their candidate hoax on U.S. the people! mcCain obama! whats the difference black white only? bush clinton bush obama? 20 years of the same from them twin parties candidates look where we all are at live now! ethics responsibility? global economy! where our beloved politicians fly around the world on tax payers expense in the name of global economy? expense? bigger goverment? plus expenses they create for own travel enjoymemts? ethics? NO TRANSPARECY? stimulus pork? ethics goverment americans tax dollars given to ACORN? fannie mae! freddie mac! we need new party of new ethics! like we used to have before CIVIL rights took over center stage? ethics! like qualified goverment people holding public office? ethics recalls? drug testing on our beloved public servents? CHANGE! transparency obama the president of open transparency accountability change? made this very clear on the campaign trail? what a liar? been lying pretty steady to U.S. TOO? media over looks this ethics miss cue? yes obama the messiah of open accountability transparency of change! bush twin indeed. ethics palin story. INDEPENDENT NATION. AMEN.

Hank

I have a question for you.

Would you have liked to ask George W. Bush: "Why did you stop showing up for your job as governor once you decided to run for president ?" Why did you continue to collect a paycheck while you were running" "Did you think it was ethical to continue collecting money from taxpayers for doing a job you weren't doing"

So we can all assume Hank you held George W Bush to the same standards, right? Or are you having a big giant bowl of hypocrisy for lunch? Don't choke on it now.

Per the psychoanalysis offered by the author of the post,is your self-esteem a little low today?

"Would you have liked to ask George W. Bush: "Why did you stop showing up for your job as governor once you decided to run for president ?"

I'd like to hear the media ask that question of a lot of people. They could start with asking Hillary why she promised to stay for a full senate term then promptly began running for president. McCain was absent way too much too. As were lots of people while they entertained visions of higher office and grandeur.

The comparison Hank made was between her and Obama. You know, the guy that got elected? As a matter of fact, we could compare her right now to all those who spent more time doing things not related to their job.

Palin just got through saying that the people of Alaska deserved more time and energy than she has been able to provide because of the flurry of ethics charges being thrown at her. Yet, you and others are labeling her a "quitter".

So you'll have that.

Palin resigned the Governorship of Alaska because the dishonest political attacks upon her were costing the state too many tax dollars and too many man hours of her and her staff and other state personal's time. These political attacks not going to end, they were going to increase. She is resigning because, through no fault of her own, it is the best thing she can do to serve her constituency.

She has stated this repeatedly in her July 3rd announcement, her July 4th FaceBook message, and in all of her interviews since her July 3rd announcement. Yet some people REFUSE to accept why she is resigning.

Some people REFUSE to accept this simple truth because it isn't what they WANT to be true, and it isn't what they WANT others to BELIEVE is true. Some people just CAN'T afford to let it be KNOWN that there is an honest, principled politician out there willing to put her constituents' interests ahead of her own.

In case you haven't noticed, hgg, there are no "same standards" in politics. One party is held accountable by the MSM, one party isn't.

Palin received the worst treatment I have seen since the Thomas confirmation, both from the MSM and liberals/democrats. Why shouldn't she fight back if the opportunity presents itself?

Personally, since you asked, yes, I try to hold all politicians to the same standards.
Unfortunately over the years, I've found democrats to be the ones that disappoint the most. When their arguments fail, they resort to emotional pleas and when that fails, personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Hank

Nice non-answer from the folks who like to accuse others of moral equivalency.

Hope you didn't choke on that bowl of hypocrisy.

Oyster - the facts and history support that Palin is a quitter. Personally, I don't want a quitter to be someone taking the "3am" call. If she can't stand the heat she should stay out of the kitchen permanently. I reiterate my first comment that she a grifter.

Bt the way Hank posed the question not the media. Notice his non-answer?

Please, please DO NOT compare palin to Obama.The only comparison is they both breath air. This "woman", is a blight on politics. Uneducated, and incoherent. Unable to express herself or any idea she may come up with...dear Zeus keep her up there in A laska, you betcha ;-)

Non answer hgg?
Truth is I thought it was a stupid question.

But I'll answer it anyway.
If I had the chance, I'd have asked Bush that question.
I'd have asked Romney and Kerry.
Being from Ma. I thought they both spent too much time campaigning and not enough time doing the job they were elected to.
I'd have asked both Clintons, Biden, Obama, all of them, except for Gore, who seems to be insane so why waste the time.

If Palin runs again, the MSM will pose that question. I hope she gives that answer.
You know, the answer in post 53 which seems to have struck a nerve with you.

"Yet, you and others are labeling her a "quitter".

That's because she just quit her job. Have you been paying attention, Oyster?

Personally, I love Sarah Palin. I hope she never goes away.

Palin/Sanford 2012!!

Falze,

The only place in Alaska where you can actually see Russia is from Little Diomede where you can see across 2 1/2 miles of the Bering Strait to Big Diomede which is part of Russia. The rest of Russia is far enough away from the Alaskan mainland to be below the horizon and out of sight.

During the campaign, one of the networks sent a reporter to Little Diomede to talk to the residents and show their view of Russia. When asked, the Diomedians said that the governor had never visited the island.

Note: Since Big Diomede is on the other side of the international date line, if you do go to Little Diomede, you can look into tomorrow.

During the campaign, one of the networks sent a reporter to Little Diomede to talk to the residents and show their view of Russia.

Heh. So some MSM outlet has the resources to send a reporter all the way out to Bumf*ck, Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, but they never seem to have enough time or interest to investigate things such as Obama's college transcripts or exactly how he allocated the tens of millions of Annenberg Foundation money he was responsible for giving out.

I wonder why that is?

Like I said, a neurosis....

I think a few people had a visceral knee-jerk reaction to her and used every positive comment, report and opinion column to justify that reaction. They're quick to believe outrageous excuses and anything Sarah Palin says. They don't want to be wrong. There's a clinical term for the obsession some people have with her; always trying so mightily to defend and rationalize the obsession of their idol, Sarah Palin. I'd almost call it a neurosis.

Fixed.

Sarah will able to, if nothing else, get plenty
of face-time with the American people. And what
she says will, over time, crystallize the growing dissatisfaction with the feckless
Obama regime. If you think the Left hates
her now,"you ain't seen nuthin' yet". If she
abets in the fall of Obama and his minions
she will have done a served a high purpose.

Michael,

Get a grip.

What's with the quotes around the word woman? Like there's any question as to whether or not Sarah Palin is a woman. All you are proving by doing that is how friggin' ignorant you are.

"Uneducated and incoherent?" Since she's not in with the "wine and cheese" crowd, this means she has no viability in politics?

Great correlation, Mikey.

Cause, you know, they've done such an effective job with things lately.

Just because she doesn't express herself in the way in which you believe to be acceptable does not mean she is a "blight" on politics.

You are such a tool.

Quitter.

Read the August issue of Vanity Fair online.

Written prior to Sarah's mid-career breakdown, the article plainly foreshadows the event via applied behavioral statistics, it turns out.

At least one real eyebrow-raiser. See if you can spot it!

I read it, BryanD.

Amazing how many Alaskans immediately consulted the DSM after meeting with Palin, and all came up with the same diagnosis.

Amazing how not a single person critical of Palin would go on the record.

Amazing how Purdum has seemingly made a career out of finding rivals of Obama's and publishing these anonymously-sourced hit pieces.

And amazing how dipshits like you will eagerly aid and abet that scumbag in his smears...

J.

@Madalyn, I wanted to reply to your comment, but by extension many of the general issues others have also raised.

You said: "Sarah Palin would have been a HUGE hit if she were only a Dem."

Absolutely and completely false, IMHO. Just because she's female doesn't mean Dems would have embraced her.

You said: "What a bunch of bull. Letterman scorns her because her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, but he knocked up his girlfriend out of wedlock. Double standards."

This has nothing to do with Letterman alone. It has to do with the fact that Palin's household couldn't even live by the abstinence-only education standards she so adamantly supported. Whatever, Letterman sucks. So what? The point still remains that the reason her daughter's pregnancy was an issue is because PALIN made the inherent issues involved an issue in the first place and then refused to acknowledge she was absolutely wrong.

You said: "I think Sarah resigned because the left was constantly charging her with unethical actions and even tho they were proved to be unfounded"

Sorry, wrong. "Constantly" was a less than a handful of charges, most of which were filed BEFORE her VP candidacy.

"the state of Alaska was going broke investigating"

Again, wrong. This is patently false. The state isn't going bankrupt and it's not going bankrupt from having to investigate a few ethics complaints. That's why they hire lawyers in the first place... to deal with such issues.

"and her family was going broke defending her."

So they say. I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just saying that you're having a bit of blind faith that this is fact without the slightest shred of proof. Even if $500,000 has been spent defending her, do you know if it's from their personal accounts or the trust fund setup specifically to deal with legal issues that come up? (Yes, the fund exists, although the name escapes me)

Same old same old. Let's pull this crap on the Dems and see how they like it.

"You mean holding our elected officials to a certain standard, allowing a due process to ensure politicians are acting ethically? Are you arguing that elected officials generally (meaning both parties) shouldn't be subjected to any type of ethics investigations?

"Nearly seventy percent of the reps said they still support her."

Good, that's 70% of 20%, which is 14%. Less public support than Ross Perot had in 1992.

Jake you and Bob ought to get together and see which of you can drool more quickly into shoes in some closet.

I seem to recall all you dhimmirats telling us Clinton's perjury was no big deal. Yeah you folks have no double standards. You just don't have any standards at all.

Its how you can justify supporting Presidente Zero.

@Thomas Jefferson I have no idea what you're saying other than that I suck. Sorry to paraphrase.

"I seem to recall all you dhimmirats telling us Clinton's perjury was no big deal."

Dhimmirat. Cute.

While it's fun to generalize radically, I want to make sure it's very, very clear that I NEVER supported Clinton's perjury. So you can group me in whatever random category you choose to, but the fact is, I was a vocal critic of Clinton after all that, and since then.

Falze,

The only place in Alaska where you can actually see Russia is from Little Diomede where you can see across 2 1/2 miles of the Bering Strait to Big Diomede which is part of Russia. The rest of Russia is far enough away from the Alaskan mainland to be below the horizon and out of sight.

During the campaign, one of the networks sent a reporter to Little Diomede to talk to the residents and show their view of Russia. When asked, the Diomedians said that the governor had never visited the island.

did you have a point?

More evidence that Peggy Noonan hates Sarah Palin:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

Adrian,

I used to think you were one of the smarter wingnuts around here.

Do you have ANYTHING of substance to add?

Hell, even jp2 elaborates on his incoherent diatribes once in a while.

I try to revive a tired, two day-old thread with a inflammatory comment and this is the thanks I get?

Sheesh.

Add a comment

As Lewis relates, the problems at AIG (and particularly AIG Financial Products, the unit that was excoriated in the infamous "bonus payments" of a few months ago) were not the result of some ingenious evil scheme hatched by devious masters of the universe. The AIG implosion was, rather, the result of some incredibly dumb decisions, a lot of greed and the inexplicable regulatory failure of government agencies. That the government failed in its mission to regulate Wall Street and the financial sector should surprise no one. And before any stereotypes like "wealthy bankers/ Republican Party" take root let it be known that this was a truly bipartisan fiasco until 2006, at which time the Democrats cornered most of the political cash (particularly from AIG).

In short, AIG blew up because it had underwritten massive risk via credit default swaps (CDS) with other major investment banks. In these CDS trades, AIG basically insured other investment firms against losses they might incur on trillions in mortgage bond holdings. These "insurance contracts" were unregulated on the insurance side, hence the failure of state insurance regulators to step in and stop the practice. However, no one should assume that New York state insurance regulators were unaware of what AIG was doing. The unregulated aspect of CDS was the fig leaf regulators hid behind as AIG publicly boasted about their business.

However, the SEC and the Federal Reserve had no such fig leaf to hide behind because the counter parties to AIG's massive insurance bets were the largest commercial and investment banks in the world. It is certainly in the purview of those agencies to question counter party risk at places like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. But apparently they didn't ask the right questions and $180 billion tax payer dollars later the right questions are still not being asked. As Lewis notes:

At no point did anyone from the U.S. Treasury or the U.S. Congress, or any of the various New York State authorities that had gotten involved, call them up, much less visit A.I.G. F.P.--as, say, someone might who was genuinely curious to know what, exactly, had happened there.

The AIG failure is Exhibit A as to how ineffective and unresponsive government regulation can be in a rapidly evoloving industry such as finance. It is also a testament to the unmitigated disaster that can result when politicians and bankers both have regulators on a short leash. Congress has a thing for holding widely publicized and televised hearings after a disaster has occurred. But conducting actual oversight of regulators to prevent disasters? Not so much. Are you sure you want these people in charge of health care?

Comments (14)

Two short leashes, one neck = disaster waiting to happen.

The difference between unregulated capitalism and strict government oversight of business is often (if not always) that the latter offers a false sense of security. The price of this false security is not only the cost of the regulation itself but a general lack of self-protection and the natural instinct of the regulated to find ways to fool or avoid the regulators.

So naturally the answer from our President and congree will be....more regulators!

of course that should read "congress" above.

And who was the guy at the NY Fed in charge of regulatory oversight of this fiasco?

That's right! Our current 'genius' Secretary of the Treasury.

Regulators are almost always behind the curve. Not only that, they are invariably captured by the industry being regulated. With that understanding, it is amusing to see the left (as long as Bush was President) claiming all we needed was more regulation. They would never bother to explain how to do that, but they were sure it was all Bush's fault.

Rick

Thanks for the link. It's good reading.

I find it rather disturbing that regulators failed in this area. High finance -- a business complicated enough that even its practitioners don't fully understand it -- is an area that demands effective regulation and oversight.

"High finance -- a business complicated enough that even its practitioners don't fully understand it -- is an area that demands effective regulation and oversight."

And yet, we continually put it in charge of people who only seem to have a talent for getting elected.

Seems like a dumb-ass move to me, for some reason...

J.

Hey, at least the Congressional "Now that the horse is out of the barn" Hearings would provide a couple of days distraction and intertainment for the sheeple.

If you want to see a graphic that really drives the point home in regard to just how big the failures were, go here. If the whole graphic doesn't show on your monitor, scroll to the right for a real eye opener.

And these are just the bankruptcies - not the ones "bailed out".

Its alright if We go another 50 trillion in debt. Just so Michael TM Jackson gets a proper Sharptongue send off and a day of the year proclaimed a National holiday. A day on which all level 3 offenders are given amnesty.

You see, Congress has way more important things to do besides thier "jobs".

The big weakness, actually, this that for a long time (and I think still), financial companies essentially had carte blanche to choose their own regulator; and often, they'd go for the weakest regulator ...

Let's not forget Barney Frank and his ilk.
They legislated things that practically
guaranteed a doomsday in the housing market.
This bastard should be burned at the stake.
I'm sure he has an appropriate gown for
immolation....ala Jeanne D'Arc.

Add a comment

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Tuesday became the latest Democrat to open the door to a second stimulus package. ....Hoyer, speaking to reporters earlier Tuesday, sounded more amenable to the idea of another economic package. "I think we need to be open to whether we need additional action," Hoyer said.

While Senate Majority Leader Reid says he has no appetite for a second round of spending legislation his record would show that talk is the only thing that is cheap about his history of deficit spending.

There is little doubt that Stimulus II is in the works. Democrats have a crowded legislative calender to contend with as ObamaCare and Cap and Trade enjoy priority right now. But as unemployment worsens and GDP continues to shrink, progressives will not be able to resist another round of heavy spending.

The most interesting question is whether Republicans will offer any opposition (or even token resistance) to the Democrat's binge spending. It is looking moreso everyday that the Republican congressional leadership (pardon the oxymoron) is going to stand by and watch the place burn down. Schadenfreude can be deceptively appealing, particularly on the heels of a landslide defeat in 2008, but everyone must live with the consequences of the Democrat's fiscal craziness. Somewhere, sometime soon an opposition Party must emerge. The damage created by a second stimulus plan may be irreversible for generations.

In a search for accountability the first place to look may be among the Republican Senators that sold out on Stimulus I. Perhaps a quick litmus test of Michael Steele and Mitch McConnell's resolve would be to determine if they can control Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. If they can't reign in those two the odds are high that a third party platform may emerge, which will mean the end of supply side policy for years.

Comments (95)

With every penny Obama and his team spend American's fall deeper into a crisis of confidence mode. When people are worried, they hunker down, withdraw and protect.

ENOUGH
OBAMA
ENOUGH

REEL IN YOUR GOVERNMENT

I would hope the Republicans would stand fast on a second helping of Democratic stupidity. If they have to pass anything, maybe they should pull back the unspent funds of Porker I. As least we wouldn't be as far in the hole as we are now.

Collins and Snowe vote with Obama's votes 92% of the time, and with the GOP

EDIT: Huh - odd...my remaining post got truncated...here is what I typed:

"Collins and Snowe vote with Obama's votes 92% of the time, and with the GOP less than 50% of the time...I wouldn't count on those two to come back to the fold...

I'm not sure playing the simple refusenik is the GOP's best strategy here. Why not reach out to moderate/centrist Democrats in an effort to minimizer the budget impact? Maybe carry home half a loaf instead of none.

Here we go again. another $275 billion in tax cuts.

GarandFan#2..."hope the republicans stand fast"

It is all too clear to me why the republicans continue to get their asses handed to them on major bills. When there's going to be a rumble over a bill the democrats want to pass, they show up in dungarees, hard hats, hob nail boots and brass knuckles. The republicans by contrast turn out in tuxedos,top hats, patent leather shoes and white gloves.
What a bunch of wusses.

Doing the same thing over again, and expecting a different result....insanity defined.

The Republicans can't do much to stop the socialists, other than try to bring the public's attention away from the Michael Jackson Rhythm and Blues Show and Revue and on to the pending economic disaster. Our best hope is to try to pressure Dem Senators in traditionally conservative states who are up for re-election in 2010, like dumbass Bayh.

Jusr another nail in the Dims electoral coffin.

"We inherited this problem because of excessive spending! We're going to fix it by spending more! And if that doesn't work, we'll spend even more!"

What am I missing here?

Falze: "What am I missing here?"

The truth! Which will be provided to you in the re-education camp. Please pack one SMALL bag and board the bus promptly when it arrives.

When you return you will know what you are "missing"...and will be joyful.

Well, how's that 'stimulus' working out for everyone? I just know ya'll are rolling in mounds of cash! After all, the Democrat party spent what? 3 *trillion* dollars!

Whats that you say? Haven't seen a damn penny of it? No idea where its going? Lost your job at the dealership or haven't framed a house in months now? Factory shut down production and told everyone to go home because the auto plant is shut down and isn't buying anything from you?

Ya'll do get back to me when all that spending kicks in and rescues the economy... it'll happen *ANY* day now.... or so they tell me anyway.... ya, any day now.....

According to early reports about the first 'stimulus' package, some 80% of it wasn't scheduled to be spent until next year.

They want more before they spend all the first load.

Torches and pitchforks, tar and feathers, tree and rope, take your pick.

Tree and rope by an open pit would do just fine.

Davidt,
To your comment that 80% of the stimulus isn't slated to be spent till next year, remember that a lot of it was for Democratic pet projects and not due till year 2 so that it could help grease the electoral skids for the 2010 elections. Now that they are realizing that things are not improving rapidly enough, they think that they can't wait that long, so hence the need for stimulus round #2 which might spend the money faster for more immediate effect.

Faster more immediate effect Leo?

Hard to effectively put us trillions more in debt any faster than this Dunce has accomplished immediately upon grasping the Czar reigns.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Rmemeber how George Washington died:   He caught pneumonia, so his doctors bled him. He didn't get better, so his doctors bled him again, because the first treatment obviously wasn't sufficient.

It could happen to us.

Without the Stimulus, the recession would probably be over by now. Government intervention is much more likely to aggravate and prolong economic programs by interfering with the market's attempt to recover. Passing more federal control programs (TARP, financial industry regulation, Cap and Trade, Obama-care, etc.) is going to make business less optimistic and less interested in investment/expansion. You can fool most of the people most of the time (Obama's secret motto, stolen from his hero, Lincoln), but you can't fool the market. For a sense of how the recovery is going, take a look at the Dow. Another stimulus and we may break through the 7,000 barrier on the way to new lows.

Passing more federal control programs (TARP, financial industry regulation, Cap and Trade, Obama-care, etc.) is going to make business less optimistic and less interested in investment/expansion.

Exactly, Bob...it's called risk avoidance. I'm not sure if the recession would have ended already, but small business ($100mm sales or less) is taking a hard look at the sort of risks you mention before they invest a dime, especially energy and health care.

Of course, the original stimulus was too small. to do what it was designed to do. Many (Krugman included knew this would happen), and knew that conservatives would claim the first had failed when the only thing it had failed in was size.

Yipes, that's a painfully-punctuated paragraph. It's early where I am, that's why I'm writing like Gov. Palin. :)

Just saw the trillion dollar ad for Mugabe's country, zimbabwe....how are we different? It is hard to tell the difference between chavez, mugabe and obama and, with a congress like this one, we have a lot of wannabes joining in.
After the combo of obama and pelosi, I really am becoming a sexist, racist pig....with good justification!

Ah, and this is the true reason most of the stimulus money hasn't gotten where it needed to go: they want to make the first seem ineffective, so they can have another!

After more thought and considering the responses from the left, confusion still abounds...

If the argument is that not enough was spent quickly enough - why did they write a bill that could only result in barely any spending for a year?

If the argument is that too much spending is the problem - why did they triple-down on previous spending?

And if that is still the case - why are they talking about spending even more?

If the argument is that taxes are too low - why did they raise spending instead of taxes?

If the argument is that the money isn't getting out as fast as needed using a stimulus package that is already supposed to target "shovel ready" projects - why are they talking about another stimulus to do the same thing - that can't hope to fund anything ready to be funded because those would already have been funded by the first funding?

If the new stimulus would be similar to the earlier stimulus, that is a tax rebate, in order to simply put money in people's hands - why not just accept that letting people have more of their money is stimulative and cut taxes like Christine Romer claimed before she joined the cult of Barry?

Belief in socialism has truly become a religion with Obama as its god (as indicated by influential members of the media) where belief in outcomes are based entirely on faith, despite all empirical evidence showing the opposite result. Much the same as AGW with Gore as that religion's god. Despite rising greenhouse gas emissions, no warming. However, the models (which cannot accurately predict past temperatures) say we're going to rise, therefore our faith embraces what god says, not what the evidence demonstrates.

Not that this is new - for the past 8 years the left has seen Bush as god - able to summon hurricanes to smite blacks, control the weather, simultaneously be inept and a moron and yet still fool the majority and pull off a giant hoax about 9-11 and WMDs, etc...things that no human could do, but were continually attributed to a god for the secular left.

What makes me think that the people on this site are insane, is there ability to shift reality to suit whatever they want to hate(democrats).

You guys, all seemed were pretty cool with the tax cuts in the stimulas, (250 billion worth) which create the same deficits you claim to hate. in fact, you wanted more. Many of you shouted there wern't enough tax cuts in the bill.

Of course none of you complained when Bush cut taxes (again creating more deficits.) Nor did you sqwack when Dick Cheneny said, "deficits don't matter."

If any of you were willing to admit the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible (because he cut revenue when he cut taxes, and kept spending at the same level, meaning large deficits for future generations to pay.) then I'd believe you are sincere on your alarm over deficit spending. However, I don't think any here will do that, so why should anyone take your supposed alarm over deficts as true now?

How's that Straw Man Action Figure working out for you jmc? Pretty good? You seem to be getting in a lot of practice.

You exactly right jmc.

This years deficit could top 2 TRILLION $ and we really shouldn't be alarmed; after all Bush left us with a $450B last year so hey, so it's OK.

Do yourself a favor and study the relationship between deficit spending and GDP before posting such sophmoric tripe.

Without the Stimulus, the recession would probably be over by now. Government intervention is much more likely to aggravate and prolong economic programs by interfering with the market's attempt to recover.

This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. I feel sometimes, like I should spend a day arguing for your side of things, just to help you guys do it properly. At least then when I get into a debate with another view point, I'm debating something that a valid case could be made for.

Look, there are plenty of people, who beleive meddling in the economy by the government is bad. Specifically, look to the Austrain school of economics, if you want to see a perspctive that argues for complete removal of the government, from the market place. That is what you should be reading about. The austrains beleive, that government's do things incredibly ineffciently and that over the long term, bad things happen when the government gets involved. They would argue, as you do, that stimulas is a waste of money, that it is getting us further into debt (that would include tax cuts btw that do not have a corresponding cut in spending). They would argue, against the fed, against monetary policy, against, the prinintg of more money (as Bernake, and much of Europe is doing now)

However, what they wouldn't make is the ridiculous claim, that things would be better, now without the stimulas. in fariness They would say we just spent 500 billion in spending and took 250 bilion in tax cuts and nothing happend. They would call it a waste. I don't agree with that assesment but it is at least a possability that one could logicaly assert.

However, the government spending money has not made things wore (in the short term at least) and we most certainly wouldn't be out of this recession if governement isn't involved.

Here is why:
1) We face Rising credit card defaults.
2) We face a Commercial Real Estate problem ahead (as this secotr overexpanded as well.)
3) We have consumers that don't want to spend (No one wants more debt now or can afford to take it on.)
4) We have 500 trillion in derivatives going boom across the world.
5) Plus we still have falling housing prices.

So in short, the Austrains would agree with you that government involvement is bad, they would argue that bad things happen when the goverment gets involved. They would argue we need to let the market correct itself, and take our licks. But they would also recognize those licks would be very painful and are something that would take years to correct, instead of making the insane assertion that all of those problems are going to go away in 6 months because the goverment stayed out.

500 trillion in deravitives, tanking doesn't go away just go away. Even without stimulas spending.

Passing more federal control programs (TARP, financial industry regulation, Cap and Trade, Obama-care, etc.) is going to make business less optimistic and less interested in investment/expansion.

The facts, seem to belie this, when it looked like the goverment wasn't going to do a bailout stocks plummeted.

Your exactly right jmc.

I know.

This years deficit could top 2 TRILLION $ and we really shouldn't be alarmed; after all Bush left us with a $450B last year so hey, so it's OK.

After starting with a budget surplus, Bush added about 1.7 trillion in off the books federal spending with his medicare prescription drug program (without raising taxes to pay for it. I guess the money is suppose to magically appear), plus when you count the future costs of the Iraq war (veterans care etc..) on top of your number It sure adds up. All while cutting taxes.

So no! it's not okay, if you truly bleive deficts are bad. you don't though. you are a hypocrite who only beleives it when a democrat does it. That is why I have no respect for someone like you. If you just said deficits were bad no matter who did it I would take you seriously. You are not a person worthy of being taken seriously though.

Do yourself a favor and study the relationship between deficit spending and GDP before posting such sophmoric tripe.

Good god, We ran deficts all through the 1800s where we had the largest economic expansion the world has ever seen. Do yourself a favor and actually read a little abut economics before you get in a debate with someone who knows what they are talking about.

"Do yourself a favor and actually read a little abut economics before you get in a debate with someone who knows what they are talking about."

And as soon as he/she shows up, I'll listen.

How's that Straw Man Action Figure working out for you jmc? Pretty good? You seem to be getting in a lot of practice

You don't even know what a strawman is. I didn't mischaractorize things on your side at all.

Fact: Bush cut taxes.

Fact: He cut them without cutting spending. In fact he increased spending.

Fact: When you cut revenue, and increase spending you get deficts.

This isn't a straw man this is what happend. If you beleive deficts are bad, you should also complain about this. You don't though. You believe democrats are bad. That is why I think you are a nitwit.

"Do yourself a favor and actually read a little abut economics before you get in a debate with someone who knows what they are talking about."

And as soon as he/she shows up, I'll listen.

Look, there are plenty of people, who beleive meddling in the economy by the government is bad. Specifically, look to the Austrain school of economics, if you want to see a perspctive that argues for complete removal of the government, from the market place. That is what you should be reading about. The austrains beleive, that government's do things incredibly ineffciently and that over the long term, bad things happen when the government gets involved. They would argue, as you do, that stimulas is a waste of money, that it is getting us further into debt (that would include tax cuts btw that do not have a corresponding cut in spending). They would argue, against the fed, against monetary policy, against, the prinintg of more money (as Bernake, and much of Europe is doing now)

However, what they wouldn't make is the ridiculous claim, that things would be better, now without the stimulas. in fariness They would say we just spent 500 billion in spending and took 250 bilion in tax cuts and nothing happend. They would call it a waste. I don't agree with that assesment but it is at least a possability that one could logicaly assert.

However, the government spending money has not made things wore (in the short term at least) and we most certainly wouldn't be out of this recession if governement isn't involved.

Here is why:
1) We face Rising credit card defaults.
2) We face a Commercial Real Estate problem ahead (as this secotr overexpanded as well.)
3) We have consumers that don't want to spend (No one wants more debt now or can afford to take it on.)
4) We have 500 trillion in derivatives going boom across the world.
5) Plus we still have falling housing prices.

In short, I know more about the economic thought fueling your side of the argument than an idiot like you will ever know about it. Much less my side of the economic argument.

What is the Austrain school of economics?
And who are the austrains?
Are they like zetans?

The austrians btw, would also argue that government helped create this mess we are in (Specifically greenspan) by cutting interest rates that led to the cheap money and loans that helped fuel the housing bubble.

So please, go read about them, or go read, some similar views (I would say Milton Friedman, but Bernake is monetarist) and is therefore running the printing presses and printing more money. which I've seen people here say is bad. So if you are going to get as extreme as you can (about no government involvement in the economy) look to the Austrian school. (Hell look to any school. Just study of the basics of something if you are going to form your whole world view around these beleifs of yours)

What is the Austrain school of economics? And who are the austrains? Are they like zetans?

Do you guys always act like children? You caught me in spelling error. Good for you. Now if you are going to argue for the goverment staying out of the economy, go read, a little about the economic thought behind it. At least then when you argue your side of the coin, you'll do so without looking like a total moron.

"Fact: Bush cut taxes.

Fact: He cut them without cutting spending. In fact he increased spending.

Fact: When you cut revenue, and increase spending you get deficts."...jmc@33

Tax revenues increased under Bush.

Tax revenues increased under Bush.

Not according the congresonal Budget office (The guys Kim uses when she says health care is going to cost us an ass load) No according to Bush's economic advisors.

You can't have it both ways if you want to avoid deficits. If you cut revenue (taxes) you have to decrease spending, or if the converse hapens and you increase spending you have to increase revenue (taxes).

Again, If the stated goal is to avoid deficts.

Reminds me of the movie"Goodwill Hunting"(or however it is spelled)where the guy is nailed on his knowledge because he read a certain book which would change when he read the next book.

Eh asshat, they have only distributed 10% of the stimulus funds and most of that has gone to financial institutions who have sat on it! Ever hear about any of those "shovel ready" projects lately? How are they progressing? Remember they told us stimulus bill needed immediate action, congress and the president had to sign it right away or it was the "end of western civilization!" Complete BS.

What-ever you think of the stimulus theory, the results speak for themselves. The execution of the stimulus plan gets an "F".

Oh, and spare us the comparisons to European fifdoms...we had enough of that style thinking with comparisons to Japan during the '80s.

Reminds me of the movie"Goodwill Hunting"(or however it is spelled)where the guy is nailed on his knowledge because he read a certain book which would change when he read the next book.

are you saying I'm going to change? Because I don't actually believe in the austrian school of econmics. I actually could spend another few hours arguing against all the the premises, I just wrote about.

The Austrian view supports those who want the governemnt out of the economy, I am just pointing out, those who think that, should read more about the economic theories that support there views, so they get it right. For the record, I tend to beleive more in the Neo-keynesians.

CBO data on tax revenue after the Bush tax cuts:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

"You caught me in spelling error."

Therefore, using the rules of argument that are normally propagated by the left, your entire argument is null and void. Quick, cheap, easy and simple, right? No thought required, I can see why it's SO damn attractive to the folks on the left.

jmc - you start off apparently arguing that because nobody bitched mightily when Bush spent $250 bil, we now have no cause to bitch about Obama's spending, because it's necessary.

Well, politely, you're a damn fool. I don't care what economic theories you worship, there's not a bank out there that'll let you remedy an overdraft by shoving through an addition 8 checks for the same amount.

(If there is one, please let me know. I'll switch banks ASAP.)

For some unknown reason, they actually want FUNDS IN YOUR ACCOUNT to cover what you spend, otherwise you're going to be hit with overdraft charges AND have to pay the original amount to boot.

And we're getting perilously close to the point where we won't be able to borrow any more money - while Obama's looking to kite MORE checks that WE will have to pay for down the road. And you express surprise we're objecting to that?

Maybe, just MAYBE the key to fixing the economic problems we're having ISN'T to spend a hell of a lot more money that we don't friggin' have!

Maybe we need Obama to come on and go "I'm looking at the world economic situation, and it's dire. We vastly need to revamp our governmental spending, and I'm sorry to say we're going to have to SHRINK the size and scope of public involvement.

"This means - if you need health care, you can get it as you've been getting it at emergency rooms, or you can apply for Medicaid. The money for the stimulus that hasn't been spent - won't be spent. This isn't the same thing as SAVING money, it's NOT BORROWING it in the first place, and not committing to paying the debt down the road.

"Cap and trade would gut our economy - and we can't stand it. I'm removing that from consideration - this doesn't mean normal air pollution controls aren't going to apply, but we will no longer even consider destroying our economic and industrial base NOW for a nebulous danger that isn't showing any signs of occuring. And for those who insist that global warming is a clear and present danger - there is evidence to the contrary in expanding glaciers worldwide.

"We must severely prioritize our spending, and be as responsible as possible in our choices. If it isn't necessary to the functioning of our country, it faces cutbacks or elimination.

"On education - the government will no longer pay to subsidize poor performance and administrator-heavy school systems. Under new guidelines, there will be a school superintendent with a staff of 1 person per twenty schools supervised. The money we send down to school systems isn't for administrative overhead, it's to educate children - and frankly, you've been doing a damn poor job of it. The message I'm sending to you, as well as every other branch and service the government provides - clean up your houses, do audits, eliminate waste that isn't directly associated with your function.

"We are past the point where we have money to waste on patronage, on non-productive jobs awarded as favors, on back-scratching payola, on corruption and graft that's been business as usual. That ends, and ends now."

And pigs are going to fly over Mecca under their own power before we get THAT sort of speech from Obama.

Eh asshat, they have only distributed 10% of the stimulus funds and most of that has gone to financial institutions who have sat on it! Ever hear about any of those "shovel ready" projects lately?

Uhh, idiot. read what I wrote.

What-ever you think of the stimulus theory, the results speak for themselves. The execution of the stimulus plan gets an "F".

Uhh moron. I didn't argue about that at all. Nowhere did I present an argument saying the stimulas has worked. (actually I think it has helped a lot, but I never made that argument. I don't even want to waste time on that when many are not able to even articulate the economic viewpoints that support there side.)

The argument I made is that there is no way we would be out of recession now whether, the goverment acts or not. And I explained how the economic viewmpoint that most supports your view on goverment involmvent and stimulas in general would agree. Whether you think the stimulas is a failure is another issue entirely.

Oh, and spare us the comparisons to European fifdoms...we had enough of that style thinking with comparisons to Japan during the '80s.

Take a reading class you buffoon. I never mentioned Japan once In fact I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can find a reference to it. All I said about europe is they are printing money. They are prinintg money. You are the kind of moron I was ranting about.

CBO data on tax revenue after the Bush tax cuts:

From Bush's own treasury department:

"Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)"

since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Translation: THe economy was goo during Clinton and because there were no tax cuts, the goverment had more money. Bush cut taxes and the economy was good but the goverment didn't take in quite as much as under clinton.

However, If i were on your side (I'm not but I'm heloping for the day) A more consistent argument woud be to say that economy was good under both so why not cut taxes and spending? That is the argument you should be making. If you care about deficits. Because when the economy tanked, those deficts started growing because the tax revenue had been cut, but spending hadn't.

Which is fine if you are of the beleif that we shouldn't be spending on social security and stuff anyway. A beleif which many of of you share.

The question is are you honest enough to admit deficts are bad no matter how we get there or are you a hypocryte that doesn't dislike deficits but instead just dislikes the Left and will start saying deficts are great f Republicans do it tomorrow? (as long as they do it by tax cuts of course) Which is it?

jmc

You said the following in #39 about tax revenues:

Not according the congresonal Budget office (The guys Kim uses when she says health care is going to cost us an ass load) No according to Bush's economic advisors.

I provided a link to a CBO (your preferred source) report to Congress that showed tax revenues increased from 2003 (1,783 trillion) to 2006 (2,407 trillion).You responded with a comment from Treasury. To paraphrase your remark, your not even on your own side here.

The Republicans lost the 2006 mid terms because they lost their base, which was digusted with their deficit spending. That has been well discussed on this blog.

jmc -

Re dueling CBO reports -

Last I checked, 2007 (the link for HughS) is after 2006 (your linkage) and his direct CBO link is more credible (IMHO) than your link to an interpretation of a report. And the actual report, when actually looked at, has this as the conclusion.

The analysis presented in the paper suggests that permanently extending the President's tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 likely would lead to a long-run increase in the capital stock and an increase in national output in both the short run and the long run. If the revenue cost of that tax relief is offset by reducing future government spending, the increase in output is likely be about 0.7 percent under plausible assumptions. If, instead, the tax relief is extended only through the end of the budget window (i.e., it is temporary), the tax relief would increase national output in
the short run, but long-run output would decline as future tax rates increase.

The analysis also suggests that if only the portions of the President's tax relief that primarily reduce marginal tax rates are extended (i.e., the lower rates on dividends, capital gains and the top four ordinary income brackets), it is likely that output would increase regardless of whether the revenue cost of the relief is financed through a future reduction in government spending or a future increase in tax rates, although the increase would be considerably larger if government consumption is reduced.

Now, forgive my obtuseness, but it seems to me like reducing government spending is actually suggested in both paragraphs. I realize in the Age of Obama such a thing is widely considered to be impossible - but just maybe it ought to be considered!

Good God Jlawson. Did you even read What I wrote before you responded to me?

You caught me in spelling error."

Therefore, using the rules of argument that are normally propagated by the left, your entire argument is null and void. Quick, cheap, easy and simple, right? No thought required, I can see why it's SO damn attractive to the folks on the left.

Now this, for those who are interested is a strawman. The left does not beleive a spelling error wins you an argument. Anyone who beleives it on the right or left is a moron. Do you beleive it Jlawson?

jmc - you start off apparently arguing that because nobody bitched mightily when Bush spent $250 bil, we now have no cause to bitch about Obama's spending, because it's necessary.

No. That is a mischarecterization. First when you figure in medicare and iraq you are well over 2 trillion. Seoncdly if you just said right now. What Bush did was also way too much deficit spedning. I'd take you seriously. You won't do it though. You will defend Bush's deficit spending to the end and attack Obama for it. Pure Hypocrisy.

Well, politely, you're a damn fool. I don't care what economic theories you worship, there's not a bank out there that'll let you remedy an overdraft by shoving through an addition 8 checks for the same amount.

This is so bad. I was explaing an econmic theory, that is for YOUR SIDE!!!!! Not my side. I was explaining an economic theory that is AGAINST GOVERNMENT involvement. I was saying (politely) fools like you should look at it and at least read your own damn side of the argument in economics, so you understand it. I made no argument about whether the stimulas is working. Is everyone on the right illeterate? You are the second person to accuse me of that when I made no argument about it at all.

For some unknown reason, they actually want FUNDS IN YOUR ACCOUNT to cover what you spend, otherwise you're going to be hit with overdraft charges AND have to pay the original amount to boot.

That's great and what does that have to do with whther defict spending is bad when Republicans do it or whether or not we are going to be out of recession in 6 months?

And we're getting perilously close to the point where we won't be able to borrow any more money - while Obama's looking to kite MORE checks that WE will have to pay for down the road. And you express surprise we're objecting to that?

No. READ WHAT I WROTE!. I made no argument about that at all. I even said there is a valid argument to be made for that side of things. THE Austrian School of economics suppprts your side on this. READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT! I made no argument against it(I do think stimulas is needed, but that is a sperate argument. and one I have no made in any of my posts)

Maybe, just MAYBE the key to fixing the economic problems we're having ISN'T to spend a hell of a lot more money that we don't friggin' have!

Ugg, this hurts. This really hurts. I haven't made the argument we need to spend at all. I have made 3 arguments.

1) Cutting taxes (as Bush did) Without cutting spending leads to deficts (And I want to know why this doesn't upset defict hawks.)

2) There is econmic theory that supports the idea that in the long term it might be best if the goverment does nothing (Note , that theory does not beleive we would be out of this mess in six months though. it postulates it is best to take our hits let banks fail and in the long term the economy will correct itself)

3) People who don't beleive the goverment shoud be involved should read the above econimic or similar theories to postulate things correctly.

There you go. those are the arguments i made.

Maybe we need Obama to come on and go "I'm looking at the world economic situation, and it's dire. We vastly need to revamp our governmental spending, and I'm sorry to say we're going to have to SHRINK the size and scope of public involvement.

"We are past the point where we have money to waste on patronage, on non-productive jobs awarded as favors, on back-scratching payola, on corruption and graft that's been business as usual. That ends, and ends now."

The austrian school would support you on this and your other points on spending. I am not an austrian. I saying those who argue against the governemnt spending in the ecoonomy should read them so they don't make silly claims that every thing would be hunky dory in 6 months without the stimulas. The Austrinas would say the stimulas was a waste but they would at least acknowledge that having 500 trillion in derivatives go boom in the eonconmy is going to hurt for a while.

Not according the congresonal Budget office (The guys Kim uses when she says health care is going to cost us an ass load) No according to Bush's economic advisors.

Actually I was off on this. I need to find the link but the data I see indicates, that the econmy heated up under Bush and that there was increases in tax revenue, from the economy being hot in that period (more profits more porfits to tax). However, the econmy also heated up under Clinton and the goverment revenue was Higher because he had higher taxes(higher taxes + hot economy = more government money) That is not an argumetn for higher taxes (I'm for that, but it is not the argument I am making) I am saying the goverment gets more money when it's taxes are higher. ou dislike that, or think it is stealing that is a sperate issue. It doens't change the fact that it is getting more money.

Now here is the thing. I can respect the argument that the goverment doesn't need more revenue. I respect the argument that the governemtn needs to cut taxes and spending. I don't beleive that, but I respect it. you are right that 'till 2006 anyway, the govnment was taking in more revenue. However it is also a fact that the gvornment was taking in more revenue than that under Clinton, because he had a hot econmy and Higher taxes. So what you say? because we are doing well doesn't mean the goverment should take more of it. I again understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that when the eocnmy cools it is going to have less revenue if it's taxes or low. So unless it cuts spending as well we run deficts.

The Republicans lost the 2006 mid terms because they lost their base, which was digusted with their deficit spending. That has been well discussed on this blog.

I can now respect you. If you can say running deficts when Republicans (or Bush) do it, is bad too. I beleive you are against deficts no matter what.

Now, forgive my obtuseness, but it seems to me like reducing government spending is actually suggested in both paragraphs.

Jlawson look what is a deficit? It is a case where the government is spending more money than it is taking in right?

So if Obama increases spending (buys himself a health care system) and doesn't get more revenue (taxes revenue don't go up to pay for it) We get massive deficts right?

So if we agree on this, then, we must agree on the converse.

That is if. If we cuts Spending (taxes revenue goes down) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict.

So if you are against deficts, you think Obama is wrong for the first scenario. then you must think Bush was wrong for the second. If you are against deficits.

So just say it. You can qualify it. You can say "Obama is doing worse than Bush" But just admit he ran up major deficts too by cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending. Say I agree with Dick Cheny 99% of the time but he was wrong when he said "defcits don't matter" That at least is an honest argument to me.

Yes, the angry troll certainly seems to have nailed the views on conservatives on this site regarding spending and tax receipts...indeed I was a "nitwit" for thinking that they might "mischaractorize" the views of said conservatives. The responses to the troll's claims show that they indeed know exactly what conservatives are thinking on these subjects. Not a dissent in sight.

You're going to need a bigger stick, JL, I think this one might have fallen asleep on a Paul Krugman book at some point and thinks they picked it all up by osmosis.

You're going to need a bigger stick, JL, I think this one might have fallen asleep on a Paul Krugman book at some point and thinks they picked it all up by osmosis.

Krugman is a neo-Keynesian I've been explaining the Austian view, postulated in a large part by Friedrich von Hayek who was the leading critic of Keynes. Basically he, Like you would be against stimulas.

I was explaining the viewpoint of the econmist school of thought that most supports your side dummy. not making an argument either way about stimulas. How did you get this stupid?

That is if. If we cuts Spending (taxes revenue goes down) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict.

The first part of this should have read:

if we cut revenue. (that is taxes go down.) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict

That should make the post less confusing.

That is if. If we cuts Spending (taxes revenue goes down) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict.

Let's look at things another way, JMC. (I don't know why I'm bothering to do this, but what the hell...) Maybe what we've got is a difference in terms.

The government gets a certain amount of income each year. That income is LIMITED to what it can get off revenue generated by taxes and user fees. Can we agree on that?

Spending above and beyond that is deficit spending, that goes onto the national debt if it isn't paid off during the course of the year.

The national debt is like a credit card with a continual balance - each year interest has to be paid on it, but that interest doesn't cut into the amount actually owed. Do you agree with that?

There are severa ways to increase income. One is by raising taxes, which slows economic growth. Another is by lowering the level at which people pay taxes - the more people paying taxes, the larger the amount collected. A third way is to grow the economic base by lowering taxes for a time.

A larger economic base yields increased revenue, correct? So does an increased tax rate - though in the long run you get less. Increasing the number of people paying increases the amount gathered also -

Now, given a choice between the three methods, which is preferable?

Asshat - "Nowhere did I present an argument saying the stimulus has worked."
Eh Asshat, who said you did?

Asshat - "Take a reading class you buffoon."
Eh back at you Asshat, I was referring to your style of thinking, not Japan.

Asshat - "Ugg, this hurts. This really hurts. I haven't made the argument we need to spend at all. I have made 3 arguments."
Eh Asshat, you demonstrably haven't made them very well. Perhaps a little less EGO.

The government gets a certain amount of income each year. That income is LIMITED to what it can get off revenue generated by taxes and user fees. Can we agree on that?

Yes. I said the same thing. If you spend above the income you take in you get a defict.

Spending above and beyond that is deficit spending, that goes onto the national debt if it isn't paid off during the course of the year.

Also agree, in fact I said the same thing. two posts ago. when I wrote:

"Jlawson look what is a deficit? It is a case where the government is spending more money than it is taking in right?"

I'm not going to insult you, but I would ask if we are going to have a discussion you do read what I wrote. perhaps you just missed this, but you seem in our last go around to have not read much of what I wrote at all.

The national debt is like a credit card with a continual balance - each year interest has to be paid on it, but that interest doesn't cut into the amount actually owed. Do you agree with that?

Sure. I would agree that is what happens. We are there on the basics.

There are severa ways to increase income. One is by raising taxes, which slows economic growth.

I agree here, somewhat, If you raise taxes to pay for your spending you are not defict spending that is true.

Another is by lowering the level at which people pay taxes - the more people paying taxes, the larger the amount collected. A third way is to grow the economic base by lowering taxes for a time.

Well, now we are in into real debatable terrority. For instance, the Bush tax cuts are in place in through a large part of his presdiencty right? So government revenue should have went up by this logic right?

Yet During that time he ran up a total of $3.35 trillion in deficts. Hardly an increase in revenue, it seems. My source is the REPUBLICAN Heritage foundation btw.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/11/president-obama-set-to-exceed-president-bush%25E2%2580%2599s-deficits/

So, if he is running up 3 trillion in deficts, in his term. can we agree that if you dislike deficts, he did bad? Even if you think Obama is doing worse?

A larger economic base yields increased revenue, correct? So does an increased tax rate - though in the long run you get less. Increasing the number of people paying increases the amount gathered also -

Again we are in real debatable terrority. Many economist would argue, that tax cuts only work for stimulas if they are spent. That is if I give Warren Buffet a tax cut and he just puts it his bank account, it did the econmy no good. Lead to no econmic growth. But let's skip all that for now.

You agree that deficit is spending more money than the goverment has right? So if you think It is bad that Obama is doing this, You must agree that George Bush was reckless when he created 3 trillion in deficts during his term as well. That is if you a logicaly consitent person.

Eh Asshat, who said you did?

That was your argument dipshit.

Asshat - "Take a reading class you buffoon." Eh back at you Asshat, I was referring to your style of thinking, not Japan.

Dispshit. You do it first. Where was I talking about european fiefdoms?

Eh Asshat, you demonstrably haven't made them very well. Perhaps a little less EGO.

Dipshit. Maybe they didn't seem well made to you because, you are a buffoon. A subhuman incapable of thinking.

Yet During that time he ran up a total of $3.35 trillion in deficts. Hardly an increase in revenue, it seems.

Only if you see spending as the equivalent of revenue generation, and from what I'm reading of your comments, you're tieing the two togther and not seeing them as independent events. I'm probably wrong on that.

Revenue is INCOME.

Spending is OUTFLOW. (Or something like that.)

What I'm referring to is increasing the amount of revenue coming in, independent of what's going out.

(And with everything else going on post 9/11, a deficit was to be expected. Didn't see the Democrats clamoring to reduce spending, by the way...)

Now, as far as the future goes (since what's spent is spent, all we can really do at this point is figure out how to most effectively spend the money that's going to be coming in, and figure out how to increase that to a sustainable maximum) I see three ways to increase revenue.

1. We can tax the hell out of the 'rich'. (This is the equivalent of skinning a sheep instead of shearing off the wool each year. You get the wool, the skin, and mutton, but that's it for the sheep. The putative 'rich' will find ways to avoid confiscatory tax rates.)

2. We can reduce taxes on business and let them expand, which will generate more revenue in the long run. (Shear the sheep, encourage them to breed.)

3. We can expand the tax base by including lower income brackets in the tax structure. (Shear the sheep, castrate half the lambs. Politically very risky, especially when you've been campaigning on 'tax cuts for 95% of the people', which was mathmatically impossible to begin with and ignores taxes on items like tobacco.)

As I've said - at this point the past is past. Obama's spending like a drunken sailor (apologies to drunken sailors everywhere - at least you're spending your OWN money) and shows no sign of slowing down.

Which means we have to increase revenue. What's the best, most sustainable way to do that?

jmc,
Where are your sources to back up your broad
brushed allegations against "you guys" at
Wizbang?
And don't act obtuse that you don't understand
the above question.

jmc, comment #25:

What makes me think that the people on this site are insane, is there ability to shift reality to suit whatever they want to hate(democrats).
...
Of course none of you complained when Bush cut taxes (again creating more deficits.)
...
If any of you were willing to admit the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible (because he cut revenue when he cut taxes, and kept spending at the same level, meaning large deficits for future generations to pay.)

Nice try at shifting reality, jmc. There's a reason the conservatives here don't take economic advice from liberals like yourself, even with your wall-of-text treatises.

It's because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You work from false premises. You are a part of the "reality based community" which has demonstrated for the better part of a decade that it just isn't very familiar with reality.

Don't feel too bad, though: we know you're not insane. You're just stupid and dishonest.

Only if you see spending as the equivalent of revenue generation, and from what I'm reading of your comments, you're tieing the two togther and not seeing them as independent events. I'm probably wrong on that.

Well, I'm not sure, how my point is coming across, but I don't see the two as the same thing at all.

Revenue is INCOME.

I certainly agree with this.

Spending is OUTFLOW. (Or something like that.)

I certainly agree with this as well. In fact for the sake of clarity i will use this terminolgy only from here on out.

What I'm referring to is increasing the amount of revenue coming in, independent of what's going out.

okay. I'm clear on what you mean.

(And with everything else going on post 9/11, a deficit was to be expected. Didn't see the Democrats clamoring to reduce spending, by the way...)

Well, I'm not saying they did (for the most part there are of course always exceptions)

Now, as far as the future goes (since what's spent is spent, all we can really do at this point is figure out how to most effectively spend the money that's going to be coming in, and figure out how to increase that to a sustainable maximum) I see three ways to increase revenue.

Okay, I feel like this is a bit of a seperate debate though. Now we are getting into whether we should spend more on stimulas or not. Tax or not etc... these are all valid debates to have, but I want to conclude the first, before we get into to any of that.

my question is do you think the 3 trillion Bush ran up was also a bad thing? I understand you don't think we have more to spend, I understand you are against Obama's plans at this point to fix the economy. but do you think the 3 trilion Bush ran up and left for future generations to pay was reckless as well?

2. We can reduce taxes on business and let them expand, which will generate more revenue in the long run. (Shear the sheep, encourage them to breed.)

Again I think this is a seperate debate. and I'm willing to have it. Maybe not today, because I'm exhausted, and have some other things to do. Maybe tommorow on this part.

As I've said - at this point the past is past. Obama's spending like a drunken sailor (apologies to drunken sailors everywhere - at least you're spending your OWN money) and shows no sign of slowing down.

The thing is prior to Obama, the biggest deficts in American History were ran by Bush. I understand the argument, that the past is the past. But if you look at it that way, the money Obama has spent is the past as well.

What I'm looking for is honest logical consitency a viewpoint that says:

I dislike deficts, when Obama does it Bush does it or jesus does it. That is consistent. That I respect because it is a standard to hold all sides to. It is the equivelent of making me say, that if I think locking detainees up without a trial under Bush is bad, that it is also bad under Obama. It asking a person to be consistent in there arguments.

jmc, Where are your sources to back up your broad brushed allegations against "you guys" at Wizbang?

I said "you guys" seemed fine with the tax cuts in the stimulas and didn't mind Bush's deficits. If you don't think that statment reflects you, consider yourself excluded from it.

"my question is do you think the 3 trillion Bush ran up was also a bad thing?"

My answer is that it doesn't matter at this point. The money is spent. It's gone. It has vanished with the snows of yesteryear, leaving a fiscal memory that will be a long time resolving.

It is, to be Pythonesque - a deceased parrot and you keep shaking the cage trying to get everyone to say it's alive and taking part in the discussion.

What I'm trying to argue is the best method of raising revenue in a sustainable fashion, because something's got to give. What Bush did and/or why is no longer relevant.

But if you look at it that way, the money Obama has spent is the past as well.

No, because it hasn't been SPENT yet. It's been programmed, and allotted, but it has not been SPENT at this point.

And again - it's not relevant. What's the best way to raise revenue in a sustainable fashion? Because the bill isn't going to pay itself, and there will come a time when we will no longer be able to borrow our way out of the problem.

(Correction: about 10% of the 'Stimulus' package has been spent. That leaves 90% unspent. And a whole lot of programmed deficit spending can still be averted by cancelling 'health care reform' and 'cap and trade'.)

The thing is prior to Obama, the biggest deficts in American History were ran by Bush. I understand the argument, that the past is the past. But if you look at it that way, the money Obama has spent is the past as well.

If you are talking absolutes, almost maybe. but if you are talking % of GDP, No. FDR was much higher at s max of 30% of GDP.

% of GDP

Even in inflation adjusted dollars, Bush just reached the FDR numbers:

1996 dollars

While we can agree that the past is the past, the Obama projected deficits dwarf anything previously seen:

Compare deficits

Rick

jmc,

You know the requirements for commenting at
Wizbang are few and simple. One of which is
do not broad brush this site or its commenters.
Of course it could be changed to where the
requirements become as complex as the federal
government, which could make it more difficult
or down right impossible to comment here.
Maybe downright oppressive....

My answer is that it doesn't matter at this point. The money is spent. It's gone. It has vanished with the snows of yesteryear, leaving a fiscal memory that will be a long time resolving.

it matters if you are trying to determine the conststency, of your opponent. I am trying to determine, if you hold your side to the same standard. you hold the left too. If you do, this shouldn't be hard to answer.

What I'm trying to argue is the best method of raising revenue in a sustainable fashion, because something's got to give. What Bush did and/or why is no longer relevant.

yes, but this is a seperate discussion than the one you replied to. I was making 3 points in my multiple postings. you felt they were inflamatory, or interesting enough to respond to. So I think we should complete this discussion before we move on to the next debate.

No, because it hasn't been SPENT yet. It's been programmed, and allotted, but it has not been SPENT at this point.

And it is not coming back. Once it is spent will you agree that the past is the past? Are you consistent in this? Will you say, say it didn't matter that Obama spent it, I won't critisze that because it doesn't matter instead I will move on to the next spending, taxation debate?

And again - it's not relevant. What's the best way to raise revenue in a sustainable fashion? Because the bill isn't going to pay itself, and there will come a time when we will no longer be able to borrow our way out of the problem.

So just say, we can't follow Bush's road on this. Then Add we shouldn't do what Bush did to a greater degree, as Obama seems to be doing in terms of deficit spending.

Basically, I am looking for honesty of argument. A willingess to say, I don't like it when my side does it as well.

Because if you are unwilling to do that, why should anyone beleive, this isn't just politics? because if you really care about defict spending you should care when your side spends recklessly, while cutting income(taxes.) as well.

Have a nice evening, then, JMC.

I'm done. You're not serious - you're just looking to blame.

You know the requirements for commenting at Wizbang are few and simple. One of which is do not broad brush this site or its commenters.

Of course it could be changed to where the
requirements become as complex as the federal
government, which could make it more difficult
or down right impossible to comment here.
Maybe downright oppressive....

it sounds like that is what you want. What's next? Do I have to post a link everyime I say you don't like Obama? That is a generalization as well. I assume most here don't mind Bush's tax custs. i have seen many argue that it was great without any comment about spending increasing while this was happening. I also have seen many say they don't like Obama. I feel free to make that those broad statements without a link.

If you are going to try to create some rules please try to keep then grounded in reality, otherwise just say we don't want you to post anyhting that disagrees with us. Because that's all you are in effect trying to do, with your comments.

Have a nice evening, then, JMC.

I'm done. You're not serious - you're just looking to blame.

What a total cop out. This just proves you have no consitency at all. My statement is true regarding you. You don't don't care aboutDeficits. You only care about it when the Democrats do it. basically if the Republicans get in and run 20 trillion in deficts you won't complain. I bet you feel free to complain about Clinton too. There won't be no "The past is the past" Where he is concered. Hypocrite.

Maggie here is your link:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/07/stimulus-ii-the-sequel.php

Scroll down to the bottom and you will see a post from jlawson where he proves the point I was making.

Nice try at shifting reality, jmc. There's a reason the conservatives here don't take economic advice from liberals like yourself, even with your wall-of-text treatises.

That makes you the fourth moron here who thinks I was presenting economic advice from the left. I was giving you an economic summery of right wing econmist from the austrian school. God you people are fucking idiots.
depp=true

I was giving you an economic summery

No, jmc, you were spouting lies and trying to pass them off as reality. HughS called you out in comments #43 and #47.

(And... my God, either go back to school, kid, or learn to use a spell checker. At the very least, refrain from labeling other commenters "moron" or "fucking idiot" when they demolish your "summery of right wing econmist" twaddle.)

jmc,

I take it nothing posted at Wizbang is to
be serious where you're concerned.
My post did not intimidate or insinuate any
thing about Obama.

Read it again, my comment was about this
website and its commenters. Period.

Does that read complex or political to you?
Or are you obtuse?

JLarson I applaud you and your efforts - excellent responses to jmc. By the way, you have the patience of a saint!!!

jmc you have lost the debate.

I take it nothing posted at Wizbang is to be serious where you're concerned. My post did not intimidate or insinuate any thing about Obama.

You are missing the point. The point was, when I make a statement, say for example, "You guys don't like Obama" That is a generalization.

The same as, "You guys don't mind Bush running deficts."

I asked then what are you looking for, a link on every generalization?

There are some things that seem to fit a large part of the regulars on this side. They don't like Obama and they don't seem to mind the Bush Deficits. You seemd to be complaining that I didn't post my link when I made a generalization. I have no intention of doing that. If you you agree that Bush running deficts is reckless as you think Obama running deficts are, then you are not a hypcrite. Otherwise the generalization holds true. Which is it?

Read it again, my comment was about this website and its commenters. Period.

And read my reply again because I obviously addressed this.

Does that read complex or political to you? Or are you obtuse?

It reads, like you don't like what I write, so you want me to quit.

JLarson I applaud you and your efforts - excellent responses to jmc. By the way, you have the patience of a saint!!!

jmc you have lost the debate.

Not by any objective standard. The debate was whether it is hypocritical to complain about Obama and deficts when Bush ran massive ones. Jlawson copped out and refused to answer that. So It's pretty obvious I won.

When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts, you are a troll jmc.

No, jmc, you were spouting lies and trying to pass them off as reality. HughS called you out in comments #43 and #47.

Nothing of the sort happend. And over the long term Bush's tax cuts brought in less revenue. Because the economy cooled off. When this happens far less money is coming in. As happend in 2008.

(And... my God, either go back to school, kid, or learn to use a spell checker. At the very least, refrain from labeling other commenters "moron" or "fucking idiot" when they demolish your "summery of right wing econmist" twaddle.)

I type fast and make errors. Luckily for me they have invented a spell checker. Until they invent a logic checker idiots like you are screwed :)

When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts, you are a troll jmc.

And you are a liar. explain to me how I moved the goalposts when this was in my very first post that jlawson replied to?

Of course none of you complained when Bush cut taxes (again creating more deficits.) Nor did you sqwack when Dick Cheneny said, "deficits don't matter."

Obviously I didn't move the goal posts I stuck to this and jlawson refused to answer. obviously you are one of those people who don't read or think about posts, before you reply.

This is why your post is vague and generalized. You can't name specific points jlawson won, because he didn't win any.

jmc,
Next time there will be no warning.
Or discourse.

"What I'm looking for is honest logical consitency a viewpoint that says:"

jmc, you're only looking to play logic games on a website where you think can get away with it. Typing fast is not even an excuse for making errors, as you should well know if you really are I.T. as you claim. "Oh, sorry guys, I was typing too fast and that explains why I screw up at my technical reasoning so much.", isn't going to fly well with superiors in that field. How's that for consistency?

As far as the binge spending is concerned, I always wonder how much control even the Democrats have over it and what is being purged in the process.

Do you think it was also bad Bush ran 3 trillion in deficits?

Yes, absolutely. If Obama hadn't come along and increased spending by an even more ridiculous degree, Bush's deficit spending would have been the worst in U.S. history. Regardless of Obama's fiscal policy, what Bush did was an embarrassment to the conservative principles he supposedly stood for.

Which is why solving the problem of deficit spending by even more deficit spending makes no sense to me.

"The debate was whether it is hypocritical to complain about Obama and deficts when Bush ran massive ones. Jlawson copped out and refused to answer that. So It's pretty obvious I won".

That and a dollar will get you a burger at McDonalds. If such a 'win' makes your life complete, then it's a pretty shabby life.

I was trying to get you to actually think about where the money would come from to pay for ALL the excesses - but you were too busy looking for your 'consistency' to think about that. You want blanket condemnation of Bush before you'll move the discourse along? Hope you don't mind standing there for a while then...

As I said, jmc, you're stuck playing the blame game and nobody's playing with you. Maybe someday you'll figure out that's what the folks who've screwed us all with the latest round of deficit spending would rather you fixate on, instead of judging them by what they actually DO versus what they SAY.

OregonMuse -

"Which is why solving the problem of deficit spending by even more deficit spending makes no sense to me."

What? You mean when you bounce a check at your bank, you can't fix it by bouncing a few more?

Dude, you need to go to JMC's bank! The more you bounce, the better your credit line!

(For what it's worth, I agree with you - it makes no damn sense at all. But try getting the fools inside the Beltway to realize that...)

Yes, absolutely. If Obama hadn't come along and increased spending by an even more ridiculous degree, Bush's deficit spending would have been the worst in U.S. history. Regardless of Obama's fiscal policy, what Bush did was an embarrassment to the conservative principles he supposedly stood for.

Finally anhonest broker. Seriously thank you. I appreciate the consitency of argument.

Which is why solving the problem of deficit spending by even more deficit spending makes no sense to me.

I respect, this point of view. Some of my best frineds, share it with you actually. I actually take more of a keynsian view, which is that stimulas spendingis a good idea in a deep recession. But your viewpoint is certainly valid, and one for which there are plenty of prominenet economist to back you up.

Anyway, thanks for being consistent.

You want blanket condemnation of Bush before you'll move the discourse along? Hope you don't mind standing there for a while then...

I need an acknowledgement that you apply your standards evenly, but apparently you don't. So why should I take you seriously?

What? You mean when you bounce a check at your bank, you can't fix it by bouncing a few more?

Dude, you need to go to JMC's bank! The more you bounce, the better your credit line!

The reason this is dumb, is I really never made an argument about whether the stimulas was good, or needed or not. And I don't think I can have that discussion with you, because you are not intellectually honest.

If I said as a hypothetical for example that, Newt Gingrich was the biggest scum on earth because he cheated on his wife. Wouldn't you expect me to say Clinton is also bad, for cheating on his wife? Wouldn't you doubt my honesty If I refused to?

yet you don't beleive a person should be consistent. You think it is unimportant.

"So why should I take you seriously?"

I tried to talk with you about where the money was going to come from. You wanted me to be 'consistent' in blasting Bush and Obama for deficit spending. As far as I'm concerned, I was consistent in that I was trying to talk to you about where the money was going to come from to PAY for the spending.

I'm talking about ways to put out the fire, you're obsessed with not even THINKING about that until you assign blame for how the fire started, much less who's spraying gasoline around to make it hotter.

But then, you're not really interested in consistentcy, are you? You simply wanted a condemnation of Bush.

Sorry, dude. You managed to successfully avoid the actual problem, that you and I and our children and grandchildren are going to be paying the bill that's being so eagerly run up by the idiots inside the Beltway.

So you 'won', because I'm not going to play. Nice victory, ain't it?

So go get your burger, dude. Maybe it'll be consistent enough to make you happy.

"But then, you're not really interested in consistentcy, are you? You simply wanted a condemnation of Bush. "

If you condemn others for the same thing, yes. The thing is you are not interested in putting out a fire you are interested in blaming Obama. Your "the past is the past" won't apply to him. You are dishonest.

"I'm talking about ways to put out the fire, you're obsessed with not even THINKING about that until you assign blame for how the fire started, much less who's spraying gasoline around to make it hotter."

Well, no you replied to me when i was talking about consistency of thought. I didn't respond to you.

Again. if we were having a discussion on morals and marriage and I said Adultury is the owrst thing a husband can do, but Bill Clinton is a great husband, you'd have a right to call me on my hypocrisry.

You will ignore this point though, because , you will not admit your own hypocrisy. you are being dishonest.

Oreganmuse wasn't. I would have a discussion with him on whether stimulas is bad or good because I am get the feeling he wouldn't just ignore facts that don't support his view. He would deal honestly. If we are discussing say morality in marriage again. If he condemed Clinton for being a cheat he wouldn't pretend like Gingrich never did it, if I brought it up. You on the other hand will only accept things that support your side. You will pretend it didn't happen if it doesn't.What is the point in havinga discussion if that is the view you take?

"you are being dishonest."

And with that - I suggest you look in a mirror for someone being dishonest.

Goodnight and goodbye.

I saw Susan Collins in a 15 sec soundbite
today commenting on the "laxity" of counter-
terrorism in our federal buildings.

This woman sounds like a doddering pre-school
teacher talking to mentally challenged toddlers. What's up with Maine!? What
the HELL is up with the Republican party?

Jeezus, JMC. Don't you ever shut up?

I believe that jmc has a lot of time on his hands. Maybe he is one of the new "Obama Unemployed" waiting for his stimulus check.

Add a comment

These IOU's are useful to the state of California and the recipients only as long as banks are willing and able to exchange them for cash. It appears now that the banks are sending signals that they don't want to accumulate this quasi currency for much longer:

A group of the biggest U.S. banks said they would stop accepting California's IOUs on Friday, adding pressure on the state to close its $26.3 billion annual budget gap....The banks had previously committed to accepting state IOUs as payment. California plans to issue more than $3 billion of IOUs in July.

The California IOU example may wreak havoc with President Obama's monetary and fiscal policy goals as it exposes the risk of issuing fiat currency. Kevin Hassett made this point quite clearly yesterday:

The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama's health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California's. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

This type of scheme only works as long as the money and financing flows and therein is the flaw of the "business as usual" argument. If the banks refuse to accept the California IOU's it is game over. If the banks continue to eat the scrip issued by the state it is a de facto bailout of California's fiscal insanity by the U S taxpayer.

Comments (22)

One other possibility for the California IOUs. If banks stop accepting them, we might see a secondary market develop. There isn't much of one yet b/c you can still get cash value from the banks. But if the banks stop accepting the scrip, then peopel might buy the IOUs at below value ...

At the point that the banks stop accepting the Registered Warrants, expect to hear several things.

1) News reports from barely literate, morbidly obese SEIU members complaining how they will be starving soon, because they can't buy groceries.

2) Karen Bass and her lapdog from the State Senate will appear and blame the Republicans for stalling the "budget process with unreasonable demands"

3) The Republicans will be too busy fighting over who is ideologically pure and trying to defend their members from their irate constituents to offer an alternative explanation, i.e. cuts need to be made everywhere, we have a revenue problem, fewer workers = fewer taxes collected

By September, and yes it will take that long, there will be a 10% spending cut along with some "Stick it to them rich bastards" tax, which will drive even more of them "rich bastards" out of the state and into Nevada and Arizona.

Hugh: There was an instance where the Government issued IOUs. That during the Revolutionary War. These IOUs were called Continentals. They finally became more and more worthless as the war progressed, until they were not worth the paper that they were printed on.

The liberal Democrats will not be able to get past the fact that they have run the state into the ground. That's what liberals do. It is the model for what Obamalala and his horde have in store for the rest of the country. When Grey Davis was run out the people voted Arnold in thinking he would SAVE the state. This should be a lesson as to what happens when you elect a moderate RINO.

Banks no longer accepting this funny money? Politicians and other thugs/criminals/phonies will begin that familiar drumbeat of "minorities and women" hardest hit. The world will come to an end and the Feds will HAVE TO take over. Voila!! Feds will then run the "offending" financial institutions and all will be well. HA!

Obviously things are going well in Sacramento. Yesterday the legislature spent time writing up an apology to the Chinese for the way they were treated in the 1800's. Karen Bass was scheduled for a meeting on the budget but declined to attend. Priorities you know.

But isn't Califoneeyuh too big to fail?

Will we start to hear from Schwartzenegger on a daily basis how he will be forced to halt all payments for social services, killing the elderly, the halt and the lame, closing the prisons and insane asylums, and removing the state highways? That's what's happening in today's soap opera in Illinois.

Didn't someone by the name of Madoff just go to jail for a similar scheme?

I mean, promises of payments as long as people continue to work and businesses continue to run and "invest", in California then they will get money...

Unless the state severely cuts back spending, to match revenue coming into the state, IOUs may continue to be their future...

Dumb ass liberal Democrats...Maryland will soon following that route given the Democrats cannot curtail their spending...

A secondary market and unforseen competitor for toilet paper has now been implemented by Ahhnold.. See Barry, this is how You libs run a Government. So imaginative You are You idiots.

I tried to walk out of a department store with a TV, having very carefully left my "IOU" where the TV had been. Even after I explained to the Security people that this was the new currency in Kalifornia they refused to allow me to keep the TV.

Slow learners...and grumpy about it too!! Geez!

HA HA HA

Confederate currency anyone?

Buy them up at a discount and use them to pay your taxes. Hard for the state to turn them down. Even if you double pay and put yourself in a refund position, that will be 100% and you would have paid the taxes at whatever discount you paid for the IOUs.

UPDATE: Banks have stated that they won't be accepting IOU's after the 10th. Hmmmm...could it be that the banks are not impressed with the legislative priorities so far displayed regarding the lack of a budget? Debating cow tails and apologies to dead people? Maybe this is the wake-up call those fucking idiots in Sacramento need.

Andy T: "Buy them up at a discount and use them to pay your taxes. Hard for the state to turn them down."

that is the FINEST idea I have heard yet!!!!

thanks!!

Not to rain on your parade, but Kalifornia has already told us that it will not accept IOU's for payment of taxes. A state assemblyman has already proposed a law that says the state would accept IOU's in payment but only if there were still an outstanding amount to be collected.

Personally, I'd like to see those selling supplies to the state refuse to provide anything unless paid immediately IN CASH!

I saw an article that stated that the politicians would continue to pay themselves in cash. It is only the business people dealing with the state and the tax payers who would be given the IOU's.

GarandFan#16.

Just heard a blurb on radio news a short time ago that a court (?) has ruled that IOU's can be used to pay state taxes.

Any IOU from California is worthless to the nth degree. The democrats in Sacramento have spent decades running the Golden State into the ground.

i sure hope they figured out how to fix this budget gap because the major banks are going to stop accepting those IOU's on Friday, I think it's time to legalize marijuana and enjoy the tax bounty that overfloweth from the cup, or bong i should say yovia.com/blogs/timlara

PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. Those IOU's are about as toxic as mortgage default swaps.

California should give the same thing it receives from taxpayers for late or under payments.

"An underpayment penalty will be charged when taxes are not paid by the due date. The penalty is 5 percent of the unpaid tax as of the due date plus 1/2 of 1 percent each month, or part of a month the tax remains unpaid, not to exceed 40 months. The maximum penalty is 25 percent of the total unpaid tax.

A delinquent penalty will be charged on unpaid taxes if a return is filed late. The penalty is 5 percent of the unpaid tax due for every month that the return is late, up to a maximum penalty of 25 percent of the unpaid tax. The minimum penalty is $100 or 100 percent of the unpaid tax, whichever is less."

Add a comment

Comments (63)

John Ziegler's interview today with Palin's spokesperson(and future Press Secretary to President Palin) Meg Stapleton...

http://www.1260.am/programming/podcasts/popup/?ID=1864

Very informative.

President Palin? Not after placing a huge wart on her political future by quitting her post and citing some pretty tenuous reasons for doing so.

I like Palin a lot, but I can't defend this move from a political future standpoint. Quite frankly, any GOP voter who thinks she has even a reasonable shot at POTUS in '12 is, with all due respect, delusional.

Maybe, Peter, but not necessarily.

SO MUCH FOIR QUITTING!

On November 4, 2008, Biden was re-elected as senator, in addition to winning the vice presidency.

That Peter or those people have some serious hope for change going on. I generally dig her too but 2012 is out and it looks questionable at best after that for elected office, at this point. Stranger things have happened though.

Delusional, Peter? Maybe. Quite frankly - and I write this without sarcasm or malice, but perhaps some confusion - there was a time in the recent past I could never have imagined the citizens of this country electing a Barack Obama to the presidency. So, I do not discount anything anymore. For me Palin's resignation was an eyebrow raiser but not a career killer.

Who cares. Palin has zero chance of being elected president and if the Republican Party is stupid enough to nominate such an incompetent individual, the Democrats would have a chance of winning all fifty states.

Conservatives will start their recovery when competence becomes the most important aspect of a candidate. Sarah Palin is the last person to carry the torch for competence.

Supertincan - compare Obama's resume and accomplishments with Palin's.

It's very clear who the incompetent is. (Especially after you google Grove Parc.)

I agree with #9. Maybe Palin is incompent, but what about obama?? (Oh yeah, he so cool...spit!) Besides she had just given birth to a child with a disability, was running a large state, had other young children, had to deal with a teen age daughter's pregnancy, had a son who was sent into a war zone, was throw on the world stage, and had to take the vile attacks from a dishonorable media that no politican on record had to face.
All woman, but still had more balls (the right kind) than obama could ever hope to have.
She came across as good, down to earth person...I thought that's the change everyone wanted.

She should use her time on FoxNews today to just tell the truth and apologize to the American people.

Adrian,
Please paraphrase how you would like her apology to the American people to read.

"I thought that's the change everyone wanted."

Well, yes... as long as it was the right kind of change. You know, the kind of change that doesn't actually change anything in the Washington status quo, and in the political patronage of our system.

So we were told about how 'revolutionary' Obama was, (they just didn't quite specify in just what sense) and how much hope he brought to the system, (especially to the well-connected of ACORN, looking for payoffs for their support) and how excited everyone was, (especially seeing just how MUCH could be spent and how much could be 'diverted' to the proper bank accounts) and how many tingles went up journalist legs...

And it was all to disguise the fact that nothing really changed except the rate of government spending went way the hell up, and the Chicago political machine got a good foothold in Washington.

How's THAT for change you could believe in?

It's not surprising that Palin's so reviled by the folks she threatens.

#13 WELL SAID!

Since Obama was elected with NO experience at all, all bets are off when it comes to past formula's. ww

I'll just bet she scares hell out of Adrian. When Americans listen and watch Sarah Palin give a speech. There is no head tossing left and right to switch between teleprompter screens. That is not lost on those watching. People know Sarah believes what she says. Her promises do not have expiration dates. Don't worry, AB, unlike your hero B. Hussein Obama, Palin would not think of taking away the rights of those who wish to critique her. She can now sue, however.

*Breaking News*

Looks like she's flaking out again.

Developing . . .

Here's 2 new nuggets from the lady who wants to lead the world:

1. She says there's a "Department of Law" in the White House. Nuff said about that.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=8016906&page=1

2. She says she knew the president was in Russia because she could see him from her house. (Just a little joke their folks)

There sure is a 'department of law' in the White House. I believe it is located in the 'Resolution Desk.'

I just do not get it. What is so appealing about Palin? The GOP tends to really admire the legacy of Reagan, and in my opinion Palin is no Reagan. So what's the appeal? I understand that her populism is appealing to many, as is her "I am a real American" rhetoric. But beyond that, what substance does she have? Seriously. Seems to me the GOP could find a much stronger candidate.

What substance does Fauxbama have? He is apuppet, incapable of forming his own coherent thoughts(w/o saying 'ummm' all the time), and totally reliant of reading someone elses script.

That's OK hgg. There are not 57 states either and no known language called Austrian.

Alaska has a Department of Law, she probably meant to say Department of Justice.

Of course people who voted for the guy who thinks there are 57 states of Austrians speaking Austrian while giving asthmatic children breathalyzer for treatment would never understand a verbal mistake like that.

Damn DaveD for stealing my taunt!

"I don't need a title to be the one to usher in what it is that needs to be done in our state or our country." - SP

Doesn't she know we already have a "One"? I can't wait to find out what it is that needs to be done.

Palin/Sanford 2012!!

GianiD:

"What substance does Fauxbama have? He is apuppet, incapable of forming his own coherent thoughts(w/o saying 'ummm' all the time), and totally reliant of reading someone elses script."

Ok.

So what is appealing about Palin to you??? Why do you think she is a good political leader?

I read an article where it mentioned Palin has now accumulated around $500,000 in legal bills. To me this should be the story and it should be in bright lights about what is wrong with people serving our country as elected officials. The Palin's I would guess are an upper middle class family and having to pay $500k with the prospect of even more if she served her term is just frightening. This is what will force typical middle class people out of politics and we will be left with the super rich or super connected as our politicians.

Love Palin or hate her but if the money end of this along with the stress being put on the family is what is really forcing her out, it is a very bad day for our democracy.

Hey hgg, your Savior-N-Chief seems to be confused on who the President of Russia is....

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5655E720090706

LOLOLOL

Maybe, Peter, but not necessarily.

Jeff, that's not an argument. Provide a reason why it's not necessarily so that she's severely damaged her political future.

ODA315

As long as he didn't say he could see Palin from Russia all's right with the world.

Shortly after winning the re-election, President Bush and Cheney should have had a private meeting on how to best have Cheney resign (citing health reasons or some such), and appointed a Vice President who had a decent shot at winning in 2008 (possibly Pawlenty or similar) -- it was not done to the detriment of conservatives and Republicans.

This move by Palin is a good move for Alaskan conservatives, as Parnell will have a better shot at retaining the governorship. Why is everyone at Wizbang playing checkers when the game is chess? Palin is playing chess. Quit calling her stupid and go give yourselves a mini-mental status exam. If you score above 22, go buy yourself some ice cream.

So nehemiah would rather have Bush and Cheney lie and cheat in order to maintain political power. Maybe you would be happier living in Russia. But thanks for showing exactly what the right stands for. Party before country.

And fyi, Palin is not playing chess, she's playing go fish.

Ryan A -

"Why do you think she is a good political leader?"

Looking over what she's done for Alaska with an impartial eye, she's head and shoulders about what Obama did in his time as a state senator, or a US senator.

Max, no one with a 6th grade education would have any difficulty proving nearly all liberals are liars. The question is do the liberals themselves know they are. Seems everyone except college professors know communism does not work. They, however turn out students like your esteemed BHO who believe it enough to try and foist it upon those who do not wish it. Sarah Palin recognizes this and will fight against it using just the truth as a weapon. That scares hell out you doesn't it?

"Looking over what she's done for Alaska with an impartial eye, she's head and shoulders about what Obama did in his time as a state senator, or a US senator."

I don't understand why you and Giani had to answer this by comparing with Obama. I didnt ask how she compares to Obama. I asked why people find Palin so appealing. It's a pretty direct question.

I know that she has achieved some things as governor of Alaska, but I think that her political rhetoric, while appealing to a certain base, severely limits her possibilities for the GOP. I just don't see why so many people have such high hopes for her--seems to me the Republicans could find someone quite a bit stronger for a POTUS candidate in 2012.

"Max, no one with a 6th grade education would have any difficulty proving nearly all liberals are liars."

Ok, prove it. Assuming you have graduated the 6th grade, that should be no problem.

I've got a sixth grade ed.

Let me give it a shot.

Clinton.

And all those who voted for him.

Next?

Zelsdorf:

"Max, no one with a 6th grade education would have any difficulty proving nearly all liberals are liars."

Prove it then, Mr Ragshaft. Or, avoid making stupid broad claims like that.

"The question is do the liberals themselves know they are. Seems everyone except college professors know communism does not work."

Most modern economists seem to agree with the idea that communism fell flat on its face. And many of them are professors. So what's your point again? Some lame attempt at assuming that all liberals somehow support communism? Come on, you can do better than that.

"They, however turn out students like your esteemed BHO who believe it enough to try and foist it upon those who do not wish it."

It's less about communism and more about going back to some of the stuff that Keynes was trying. Not that that was the best idea, but that's a closer approximation of what is happening--the whole idea that government spending can pull us out of this mess. I am doubtful.

But throwing around words like communism and socialism seems to get people all riled up, so folks like Palin keep doing it. Kind of irrelevant in my opinion. Even the very liberal Paul Krugman denounces communism, so you might want to rethink your schematic a little.

30. Posted by nehemiah, Watch for Biden to step down for 'health/family' reasons, and be replaced by Hillary.

davidt,

for Biden, a more reasonable situation can be given, and no American will need any further explanations. Just the following needs to be said: "Hereafter, Joe Biden will be replaced as Vice President, for obvious reasons."

"I've got a sixth grade ed."

I don't believe you.

Tell us again how you want republican politicians to lie and cheat to maintain political power, nehemiah. Why do you hate democracy?

Ryan A -

Part of the problem is that people IGNORE what Palin's done in Alaska. I could recite chapter and verse on what she's done, and you'd shrug and go "So? Isn't that what any marginally competent governer supposed to do?"

(Well, yeah - but take a look at some who aren't.)

One of the reasons I find her so attractive IS the fact that she's competent, capable, and accomplished. That's pretty rare in Washington, and I think she'd have shaken up the whole place if she'd been the VP elect.

That help any?

Ryan, I do not know the last time you attended an institution of higher education but I can tell you they do not teach anything in the liberal arts other than socialism and yes, communism. Call them what you will, they exist and they instruct our children. But then you can deny all you wish. You want an example of lying. Barney Frank. You pick the topic and have him speak on it. Or how about our newest Senator? Or your current President? How about most of the main stream media? Paul Krugman denounces communism? That proves what? What he professes is the same thing just different words. You can all a pig anything you wish, however when I see one, I will call it a pig. By the way, Krugman is an ass.

JLawson:

"Part of the problem is that people IGNORE what Palin's done in Alaska. I could recite chapter and verse on what she's done, and you'd shrug and go "So? Isn't that what any marginally competent governer supposed to do?""

Ya, it's what they're supposed to do, but as you say many do not do their jobs. So accomplishments do matter.

"One of the reasons I find her so attractive IS the fact that she's competent, capable, and accomplished. That's pretty rare in Washington, and I think she'd have shaken up the whole place if she'd been the VP elect."

Ya, that helps. I always think it's good to know what people's opinions are about these kinds of things. I have to admit that some of Palin's speeches about political issues have colored my opinion of her--a lot of it has to do with the way she decides to present herself. Just my take.

That's your proof that nearly all liberals are liars, ZR? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

If you've ever even been admitted to an institute of higher learning, this country is in much worse shape than any of us could possibly imagine.

"... a lot of it has to do with the way she decides to present herself."

Well, one thing you can do is go by how they present themselves - as any hiring manager will tell you just because you give good interview doesn't mean you'll be good at the job. I think it's better to judge someone by WHAT they do, or have done... not what they tell you about what they're going to do for you.

Of course, I also distrust used car salesmen and telemarketers. And man, the deals I've missed out on...

JLawson:

"I think it's better to judge someone by WHAT they do, or have done... not what they tell you about what they're going to do for you."

I think that's a good rule of thumb when dealing with ALL politicians, whether of the conservative or liberal mindset. A shifty lot, them political folks...

I get your point about Palin, and it's well taken. My point is that some of her rhetoric is going to drive certain folks away, but maybe that's her intention!

Who knows what people are really like? It's hard to tell once they are put through the CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc circus.

The Palin's are only in the upper class, and yes $120K as governor puts you there, because of her salary. Before that, I tend to dount they were too much above the median as a family. Snowmobiling does not pay well. Todd worked in the oil fields, and while the pay is good, it is a tough life and you earn every penny. $500K in legal bills is a lot for anyone. It was in all likelihood going to grow significantly because her tormentors were going to continually file frivilous complaints. The fact that she was 15 for 15 in dismissals indicates there was nothing there.

Taking the heat for doing your job is one thing. Going broke for it is another. The Dems are very good at criminalizing policy differences (witness what they are trying to do to the lawyers who wrote memos). This is what they did to Palin. That is bad enough. What was done to her children was worse. The Letterman thing was relatively minor. Trig has been abused, photoshopped and basically told his life is not worth the oxygen he consumes.

Palin definitely has her faults. I want to see more substance out of her before I cast a Presidential ballot. I do think she has what it takes, but I am not sure. Even Obama's people said during the campaign that the only difference between the two of them is that he had a six month head start on studying the issues. An adoring press not pushing him helped as well.

She is definitely not Reagan. Reagan's style was the velvet around an iron fist of core principles. She needs to articulate that core in a convincing fashion. You don't get to do that when you are thrown in as a VP candidate. You have to do what you are told. She did that relatively well, but we still don't know much about her.

Why is Palin so appealing?

Aside from what Jlawson wrote (which I agree with) she connects with everyday americans.
She's one of us. She lives our lives. She's not rich, pretentious or elitist.
She believes in the greatness of America and seems proud to be an American.
She's an ordinary person who has achieved extra-ordinary results in her life.

Zels:

"Ryan, I do not know the last time you attended an institution of higher education but I can tell you they do not teach anything in the liberal arts other than socialism and yes, communism."

Uh, I am attending one now, and I assure your perception of liberal arts education is a bit flawed. When was the last time you went to a university? Your assertion that all lib arts education is communism is hilarious.

You're saying that ALL mathemetics, history, political science, economics, philosophy, anthropology, linguistics, and life sciences departments teach communism and socialism?

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

If you are then you have no idea what you are talking about, once again. This broad brush approach isn't working to well for you, is it?

"You want an example of lying. Barney Frank. You pick the topic and have him speak on it. Or how about our newest Senator? Or your current President? How about most of the main stream media?"

No, I didn't ask for random examples. You made a claim that you could PROVE that "nearly all" liberals are liars. And I asked you to do so, not give me 3-4 random examples. The same kind of cherry-picking could be done to "prove" almost any ridiculous political claim. You made the claim, so I will sit back as you prove your case. Or you could back off from making stupid claims like that.

"Paul Krugman denounces communism? That proves what?"

Well, since you made the claim that all liberal arts is about teaching communism, that seems to be evidence in contradiction of your claim. Krugman, an economist (which is a part of the lib arts curriculum) certainly does not argue that communism is the way to go. You might disagree with him politically, but that is another matter.

"What he professes is the same thing just different words."

Right. Ya. All Krugman does is push communism. Very insightful analysis. And just for your information, I certainly do not have any allegiance to Paul Krugman--he's just one of many economists that I have been reading of late, from Friedman to Keynes to Sachs to Krugman and so on. Good stuff to be reading about these days.

hgg, that'd be Tina Faye, not Gov. Palin.

But then again, liberals have recently had an issue confusing popular performers with effective politicians.

Hank,

Thanks for answering that question I put up there earlier. Your answer makes sense...it seems that Palin appeals in a similar way that GW Bush did, as more of an everyday person. Reagan had a certain amount of that kind of appeal for conservatives as well. That makes sense to me, especially considering all of the scandal, corruption, and elitism that comes from many of our politicians (both sides IMO).

On November 4, 2008, Biden was re-elected as senator, in addition to winning the vice presidency.

Not the same thing at all. Biden didn't quit his seat to run; he was still a senator before and after the election.

Ryan A -

"Who knows what people are really like? It's hard to tell once they are put through the CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc circus."

That's why you've got to dig a trifle deeper. The internet makes that much easier now - and I'm surprised more people don't use it for anything more than re-affirming their political beliefs.

Back in 2000, I had the choice of voting for Gore or Bush. (I'd voted for Carter, and didn't THAT work out well... that was the last time I voted in a Presidential election based on what 'everyone' thought about the candidate...) I looked at what Bush had accomplished, read his biography ("A Charge To Keep"), looked at his governing style, and then compared him to Gore.

There wasn't much of a comparison. I voted for Bush, based on who I thought would do the better job. Then, when Kerry went up against him in '04, I was surprised there was even much of a contest there. Kerry hadn't accomplished ANYTHING that really showed leadership potential.

The Bush ANG 'AWOL' meme was a bogus charge - I was a personnel specialist dealing in APRs and attendance recording for the AF Reserve and could see clearly on his records that he did his required duty... but that didn't really matter when it came to the news cycle, or what floated around on the blogosphere. (You will find plenty of people who dissected those records left, right, and sideways, but their opinions didn't count because they didn't know what they were actually looking at. And I found it kind of funny that the news media didn't bother to go out and find a retired personnel specialist to explain it to them. But then - nobody familiar with the regs and the procedures would have seen anything wrong, so there would have been no story. Better to remain ignorant, and keep the ratings high with a bogus story.)

As far as Kerry being relieved of command early for light wounds - well, most folks assigned a command in the Navy will work hard at STAYING in command, because to leave it early means you'll never get another shot at it. Kerry bugged out of a command slot - then did what he could to damage the military. Why should I vote for a CinC who wouldn't stay with his men in a combat command?

Digging into Obama's record... well, you don't want to go that route. Two words were enough - 'Grove Parc'. I couldn't vote for someone who'd screw over his constituents like that.

So the info is out there, Ryan - you just have to dig a bit deeper than the media provides...

"Why is Palin so appealing?"

There have been many good answers to this already, but I'll add one that is a big bonus for me:

SHE'S NOT A LAWYER.

NEVER VOTE FOR LAWYERS!!!

JLawson,

I think you make good points about digging deeper and finding more about about people, and the fact that so much information is out there.

When I wrote: "Who knows what people are really like? It's hard to tell once they are put through the CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc circus."

...I was thinking more along the lines of who the person is, versus who they are acting like. I think that there is Palin the actual person, and then Sarah Palin as she and others presents her in speeches, at rallies, and throughout the media. The publicly presented version of Palin, and especially some of her social and political views, were not something that I found very appealing. From some of her domestic views to the ways that she talked about international issues. I never felt that she had the depth for the job that she was trying for.

Many people make the same claim about Obama, based upon his political history and his experience. I think that's a pretty fair point. The jury is out for me on what I think about Obama. We'll see. But then, when it comes to a president I do not expect either angels or heroes. They're all politicians, and we're all caught somewhere in the middle.

"NEVER VOTE FOR LAWYERS!!!"

Haha. Well, that takes care of about 98 percent of our politicians, doesn't it?

"Well, that takes care of about 98 percent of our politicians, doesn't it?

No doubt. More Democrats than Republicans but regardless of party all lawyers make horrible politicians. People who make a living out of twisting and contorting laws should not have the authority to make law as all the laws they make will be very twistable & contortable.

well, anyway, thanks to those of you who answered why you like palin. it's interesting to hear your opinions. and while i might not share the same view of her, i certainly respect your positions and opinions about her. i understand why palin appeals a bit more, and that helps when trying to discuss all of this here and elsewhere.

ok, time to get away from the laptop for a while. see you all around!

I like Palin because She has a sunny disposition..Loves children and is genuine.

A winning combination.

914- Are you serious? That's all you are looking for in a president- "loves children"??? or is that some kind of pro-life code?

As for you claim of genuineness, I know this is a losing battle with wizbangers, but you have got to be kidding me. genuine? sarah palin? she has got to be one of the most self-interested opportunists ever. good god, people, get a grip.

AATH -

"is that some kind of pro-life code?"

It's always got to be something, isn't it? Can't take a statement at face value, always got to be reading something else into it... even if that thing isn't there, you're going to find it.

It's all about the hamiltons,
Nice broad brush you have, all you wizbangers.
Do you post at Wizbang? Does that make you a
wizbanger, or something more questionable.
Broad brushing this site or its commenters
could cause you to gain a shovel.
But keep digging....

Add a comment

There's something about the debut of progressive Democrats in the Oval office that brings with it the gushing descriptions of brilliance and brains, whip smart personalities and towering intellects. From JFK to Clinton to Obama the mantra has been consistent: these are really, really smart guys. Unfortunately, as far as the first two were concerned, auspicious beginnings were soon overwhelmed by the hard realities of the office. Kennedy was quickly humbled by the Bay of Pigs disaster; Clinton by the 1994 mid term elections. It appears that the economy will be President Obama's banquet of consequences.

While Robert McNamara was ushered into Washington to the sound of hosannas, called to serve by a president who was wildly popular at the time, he left the town in ignominious defeat, reviled by the very electorate that had showered him with praise. McNamara had a poorly thought out strategy for the war in Vietnam and he will be forever remembered as the principle architect of failure in that mission. For such a smart guy, no one at the time would have thought that a writer like David Halberstam would have later said of him...

"[He] did not serve himself or his country well. He was, there is no kinder or gentler word for it, a fool."

The Obama administration would be well advised to study the rise and fall of Robert McNamara.

Comments (9)

Robert S. McNamara betrayed those who served in Viet Nam twice. The first time was by prosecuting the war in a way he believed would fail. The second time by writing that book of his so that everyone knew about it.

Military service is largely based on trust. You trust those you serve with to do their jobs so you can do yours. You serve knowing you may die as a result of your service. You follow orders and trust your leaders won't waste your life.

McNamara did not keep faith with those who served.

Upset Old Guy: Very well said. As a Vietnam era veteran, I became aware of the deception while I was in. I cannot tell you the conflicting emotions I experienced. ww

ww

I wish I could say I fully understood that when I served (11/69-10/73. I'm an era-vet as well). I didn't, but time allows the thought process to continue. McNamara stole that time from so many.

I promised myself I would not speak ill of the man after his death, but.... UOG

McNamara and his 'whiz kids' thought they knew it all. No one could tell them anything. Hmmm....sounds just like the current administration.

In other news: Apparently Michael Jackson has been "put on ice" awaiting His "Paul Wellstone" moment. Lets all scurry on down to the Forest lawn Cemetery and see Him moonwalk out of the casket for cryin out loud.

There are 58000 people whom would agree with Halberstam.

Something to remember about McNamara:
His worst legacy wasn't Vietnam. It was the complete wrecking of the military acquisition and supply planning chains, as well as his boosting of Mutually Assured Destruction.

McNamara knew fairly early on that the war in Vietnam was a mistake but he kept it to himself sending tens of thousand of Americans needlessly to their deaths. Johnson figured it out soon after and did the same. May he and Johnson burn in Hell.

Obama is incapable of learning anything. You have to be open to new ideas. You have to be willing to reassess results. You have to be willing to adapt. You have to be honest. He is none of the above.

Obama will spend several decades of his life telling everyone how none of it was his fault and that if the people around him and the voters hadn't backstabbed him, then he would have succeeded.

Add a comment

The election of 2008 was hardly unprecedented. Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush on pure style and media spin, just as the first President Bush beat Michael Dukakis on rhetoric and style in 1988. While Reagan beat Carter with arguments supported by evidence, his most effective tactics used style - we still remember and ask if we are better than four years ago. This goes back at least to JFK's victory over Nixon in 1960, effective use of media and style to win over the public.

This brings up the question on 2012. Many Republicans have assumed that Obama would follow the path of Jimmy Carter and implode, opening the door to the 'Next Reagan'. A closer look at the matter indicates such optimism may be unfounded. First off, Carter recovered from most of his mistakes, and Obama has learned how to move beyond his blunders; the plain fact is that wit ha compliant media Obama's blunders have a political half-life of only a few weeks at most, far too short to damage his re-election chances significantly unless he either commits a major mistake immediately before the election, or makes so many mistakes that the weight of their total overwhelms him. It could happen, but it would be foolish to expect it to be so.

The second problem is the missing New Reagan. By the time the GOP Convention finished in 1976, many Republicans knew that if Gerald Ford lost, Governor Reagan would have the de facto lead for the 1980 race. Reagan was tested by other would-be nominees, but he was clearly the leading man from the start. Putting it bluntly, the GOP has no such candidate now. Look at 2008; John McCain frankly took the nomination by default, because no one really showed up to make a strong case. Conservatives got excited about Fred Thompson, but to be blunt Mister Thompson lacked the stamina and energy to sustain a serious campaign. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were too thin and brittle to be successful, showing no ability to attract supporters outside a limited spectrum. John McCain got the nomination for the same reason that John Kerry won the Democratic Party nomination in 2004; he was believed to be the most "electable" in a field of uninspiring contenders.

Who, frankly, inspires the nation from the Right? Those with strong followings, like Sarah Palin, tend to attract support from a tight range of political opinion, lacking the means to attract and win over the undecided and doubters. Others do their jobs well, Like John Boehner, but have no evident charisma to build a national following. Worse, the national party has two serious problems - they are out of touch with grassroots Republicans, supporting senior Republicans even when they do not represent the party's ideals (one notes that the GOP has refused to condemn Governor Sanford's adultery and malfeasance, even after his confession) and sometimes even opposing fresh contenders in the party who have broad support and represent reason for hope. And second, the national GOP has siloed, with factions standing off against each other in petty feuds, preventing unity on critical issues and campaigns. The matter has become serious enough, that many who oppose the Democrats and President Obama, do so without declaring support for the Republicans who might run for reform. The simple fact is that right now the voting public has little confidence in the Republican Party to be any better than the Democrats. And until that changes, President Obama and the Democrats have little to fear from the next election or two.

- copied over from WizPol -

Comments (32)

If the Democrats continue doing so horrible then the public may decide for change again. Also this "it's not our fault will wear thin". If the Reps find some balls and call the Dems on their mistakes during the election cycle it will make a difference. The "let us not offend anyone attitude" hasn't work. Obama mistakes are piling up quick. If he doesn't get his stuff square away quick the mountain will be too high for even the MSM to cover up. I hope he does because he really hurting the U.S. right now.

As I stated before, I think the GOP need to get on message of what is right and take the lumps that go with it instead of using political language design to "win elections". I think there are Republicans that would make good Presidents. We just don't hear about them. One of them would be Hailey Barbour.

I was watching TV on Friday when a person gave an unexpected speech concerning their future. While many have all sorts of opinions on what was said. What I saw was the first shot of a campaign for the White House in 2012.

Huckabee, Barbour and Palin are three candidates who could take out Obama. There will be other "moderates", of course, but these three are all very charismatic and formidable candidates.

The prevailing issue right now, however, needs to be the 2010 congressional elections. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that the Republicans storm back into a majority and bring much of this socialist lurch to an abrupt halt. But as you said, a galvanized and conservative message from the Republican Party will need to be crafted before that comes to fruition... and Michael Steele is proving to be an impediment to that objective.

"This brings up the question on 2012. Many Republicans have assumed that Obama would follow the path of Jimmy Carter and implode, opening the door to the 'Next Reagan'. A closer look at the matter indicates such optimism may be unfounded."

This is exactly the sentiment that runs through my mind everytime someone here seems so assured that Obama is sealing a Republican blowout in 2012.

The attention span of the general public is about 2 inches. And as you said, unless he continues to reneg on promises and fails to turn things around in any measurable way (or has a major blunder just before the next election) I have little confidence in Republicans gaining any ground. Frankly, I'd like to see a lot of them tossed out on their arses along with a boatload of Democrats. We can trade them one-for-one in every case as far as I'm concerned; a new Democrat for an old one and the same for the Rupublicans. As long as they make more sense and act like they're actually working for the people rather than their cronies and take our disgust with pork seriously, I'll give them a fair listen to.

"...his resume was the thinnest in memory...."

Thin? It was fucking NON-EXISTENT! Obama will remain or fall based on the state of the economy. And the was the Democrats are screwing with it at the moment, it doesn't look good for them. You'll note that people are starting to talk about economic 'recovery' in 2011. What happened to late 2009, and 2010?

Today, Obama is all about an aggressive domestic agenda (basically the economy) and a rather submissive foreign policy (the apology tour). The MSM can camouflage and obfuscate the rhetorical blunders but they cannot hide poor long term results that have concrete effects on the lives of the average American. Obama will have a longer grace period because he is considered attractive, articulate, exotic, unflappable, etc. and his popularity numbers still suggest a disconnect between the man himself and domestic programs which are unsustainable financially. The Chinese and Indian economies are growing without overwrought rules governing carbon emissions. And there are several countries in Europe (Germany in particular) that are trying to pare away parts of their socialist programs. Do the math. The competition is out there. The current president has entered office with a rigid ideology that is unfit for the current economic climate. My belief is that the only way this President will get re-elected is if -as in the first Clinton administration - the Republicans regain enough influence in Congress in 2010 to thwart some of his socialist policies and save Obama from himself.

Anyone else notice the resemblance to Jimmy Carter?
No real experience.
Non-existant foreign policy.
The "feel good" candidate, when running for office.
Proves over and over that he has no idea what is going on, but thinks he is the only one who can fix it. In other words, doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Of course Obama is more of a socialist than even Carter.

I think America is getting REAL tired of the "OHMYGAWD IT'S AN EMERGENCY WE CAN'T THINK OR READ WE JUST NEED TO ACT!!!!" approach Obama and the Dems have adopted.

Every Bill is RUSHED through! Every action, from buying GM to closing Gitmo is something we have to do NOW!!!!!!!!

The Republicans should HAMMER this nonsensical approach!

People need to realize how quickly events move in the world of politics. Barack Obama wasn't anywhere on the political radar in 2003; if someone had suggested that an obscure Chicago politician whose middle name was "Hussein" would be the chief executive following Bush, we'd have nominated him for idiot of the year.

Where was Bill Clinton in 1988? Where was George W. Bush in 1998?

Pundits have this weird shortsightedness, imagining that the players on the stage *now* will dominate the political spectrum three years hence.

that pretty much explains why Obama and the Dems are smashing things through as fast as possible since the Deification. By next year, everybody in the House is up for election and will need to mend fences. It's all gotta be done NOW, while the American voter can still be hoodwinked with shotgun legislation. By next year, they'll all be worried about getting reelected. That's why they don't even bother to read the socialist crap they're stuffing down our throats.

If we don't change things in the 2010 elections, we're in for some serious damage to the country. And legislative arrogance like we've never seen before.

I agree with sanssoucy. All of this talk that the Republicans have no figure to lead them to victory are premature. Hardly anybody knew who Obama was two years ago (if only that were still so) and yet here he is (Yay). I am sure by 2010 we will have a far better picture of the contenders in 2012; but right now, mere months after the last election, it should not be surprizing that someone has yet to stand out.

Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush on pure style and media spin, just as the first President Bush beat Michael Dukakis on rhetoric and style in 1988.

Pardon me, old chum, but I think I witnessed a different election in 1988 than you did. I think it was Hunter Thompson who said something like "the Society of Moody Loners issued a statement today saying that if anyone felt inspired enough by either candidate to assassinate them, they need professional help."

Neither candidate had much for rhetoric or style; eventually, it came down to "fumble-mouthed guy with great resume'" vs. "droning, bloodless technocrat." Fortunately, the technocrat lost.

J.

"Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush on pure style and media spin,"

Ross Perot sucking off a lot of conservative votes is what got Clinton elected and reelected.

The economy will be in the toilet by 2012 and I dont know if Obama making 20 million illegals legal and ACORN screwing the census and doing blatant illegal crap with the press's blessing is going to save him. If Cap and trade gets passed along with the national sales tax people will be just about fed up enough to say I want CHANGE and I HOPE the republican can unscrew the pooch.

McCain was a joke thrust upon us by dems voting in republican primaries early in the season. If the GOP doesnt fix that then the republicans will be stuck with another wishy washy middle of the road candidate with a record of "Crossing the aisle" AKA someone who folds to the democrats at every rough vote. The dems will accept him and quietly vote for him over the boondoggle Obama and then happily call racism when Obama isnt reelected and proceed to continue to get their agenda passed in increments which Obama is steadily doing now.

I still look for the dems to increase the size of the supreme court by 2 and if they get slaughtered in the mid terms (which I think is likely) I look for that emergency legislation to be passed in late Nov 2010 while they have the votes to push it through. Obama will shrug his shoulders and say hey The congress did it and this isnt a dicatatorship and happily appoint 2 more far left liberal supreme court justices who will make ginsberg look like a whacko gun toting far rightie.

Ross Perot sucking off a lot of conservative votes is what got Clinton elected and reelected.
~retired military

I don't suppose anybody remembers that Ron Paul's supporters threatened to stay home or vote Democrat if their idol wasn't the GOP candidate for 2008.

I hope Libertarians are happy with the economy Obama is re-engineering.
Maybe they'll vote Republican next time.

"Pundits have this weird shortsightedness, imagining that the players on the stage *now* will dominate the political spectrum three years hence."

I have been puzzled by that shortsightedness too. The best thing, for me, about Palin resigning is the reminder that events will not necessarily follow the dismal trajectory we imagine today. Strange things happen and the world changes, despite all the planning and scheming.

DJ I agree with JT. Bush the Elder won on experience. Dukakis did not know what he stood for except that if his wife was raped and murdered, he would not be for the death penalty. ww

"I hope Libertarians are happy with the economy Obama is re-engineering.
Maybe they'll vote Republican next time."

Those Libertarians who voted for Bob Bar, not Ron Paul, totalled 523,686 people. Lemme see... 59,934,814 plus 523,686 still equals a hell a lot less than 69,456,897. I think most Libertarians are more pragmatic than idoligical and did vote for McCain. I know I did.

Now, the Ron Paul diehards are a whole 'nother ball game, I don't think they represent the core of the Liberatian Party.

Be of good cheer & keep your eye on former eBay CEO Meg Whitman!

*Breaking News*

Todd and the Palin Children® have decided to remain on for use as photo ops for the new governor after Sarah leaves.

Developing . . .

The problem is that if the economic numbers have turned around Obama will go back for another term. It doesn't matter how bad he helped make the economy if small business figures out the rackets and scams quick enough to start the cycle upwards (even a little). I agree with Bobdog 2010 is a very big deal.

Adrian, you're not any better at humor than you are at political thinking (or any other kind).

Americans are slooooow to wake up, but they ARE waking up! When the unemployment numbers go double digits, and when inflation starts to suck the value out of the moeny in people's wallets, our Dear Leader isn't gonna be so "Dear" anymore!

"breaking news

Adriane Browne makes another appearance and makes a total ass out of himself.

Oh wait that isnt news.

There are three parts to any product or service. (Politicians are in the business of servicing the public, dontcha know.) Those three parts are Production, Distribution, and Marketing.

Conservatives are most often physically intuitive people, and so we only think of production as important. Most liberals are emotionally intuitive people, so they understand the full importance of convincing rhetoric in Marketing their candidates.

McCain's campaign sounded like, "Hey, wanna join the Army?" Obama's was "I have hope we can have good change in the bright sunrisey future of vision."

The next conservative who wins will have a message of hope, of change, and of functionality. Reagan had it, Palin had it, and until we send that message, we'll be on the outs.

(As for Distribution, just elect a bunch of Republicans in your local races, and somebody's gonna get ambitious enough to take it to the next level. That's the free market at work.)

People may end up pissed at the current administration, but that doesn't mean the GOP is off the hook.

The GOP leadership and senior congresspeople have lost their credibility among too many libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans, period, end of story. They might get votes out of them out of simple pragmatism, but they will not regain trust.

Similarly, they've lost fiscal conservatives over the stimulus related RINO bullshit. Efforts at unity after the horse already bolted out of the stable and sold the farm are nice, but far too late to be of use.

Most importantly for the future, however, the GOP has simply failed to ditch the label of being the "Party of Clueless Old Cranky White People Trying To Make You Do Things Because We Think Jesus Says So". No offense to Jesus, mind you, and nevermind how accurate the image is overall, it is (with the ample help of public educators and college faculty) how younger people see the party.

If there is one thing guaranteed to alienate and terrify that demographic, it is the notion of someone else telling them they can't do what they want to do, and having the power to make it stick. There is a completely irrational level of fear and hatred directed at the GOP simply because 18-24 year olds can't stand being preached at.

Every time some old fart like Ted Stevens went and made an ass of themselves by showing that they're half senile about some modern issues, or that they're too busy trying to ban various types of pants or pornography or whatever to seriously govern, it hammered one more nail into the GOP's coffin. It cemented the image of the GOP as a bunch of out of touch geezers, and guess what; that demographic that "never votes" went and did so.

While we're on a roll here, might as well toss in the GOP's inability to effectively deal with corruption and over-large government. They had years to do something about that and only ended up falling all over themselves like a bunch of pigs at the "business as usual" trough. The accusation during the campaign was so damn effective because enough of it was true, nevermind that the Democrats are an even bigger bunch of rambling shitbags. There are a few standout exceptions but frankly, the GOP doesn't deserve them.

If there was any justice in the world, Reagan would claw out of his grave and stomp around like Iron Man (heavy metal one, not the silly movie) and shoot freaking death rays out of his eyeballs, slagging idiot GOP senators left and right. It would rid us of the idiots while giving him something to do other than spin in place.

Quote: When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.

There were a lot of Pauls at the poll last November. Obama is buying even more Pauls since then. They wont care if some promises are broken as long as some of them are kept. Unless there is a MAJOR crisis, economic or terrorist, then you can count on the number of Pauls growing. He will lose some of the smarter ones, but buy more than he loses. Even if the economy keeps getting worse, he will just promise more hand outs and they will not see the correlation. It will have to get really, really bad before the Pauls will blame him.

So if things get really, really bad by 2012, is that good news or bad news? I think I can stomach a "greatest" depression in order to get rid of these politicians who are destroying our country in more ways than economics.

Personally, I am looking for someone who is going to watch out for my liberties next time around. If that means leaving the republican party, then I will. I am totally pissed at the republicans. The Constitution has been ignored, and the Feds have their hands where they don't belong. Until a Republican admits this and is willing to fight to make the Constitution viable again, they will not get another one of my votes.

I think America is getting REAL tired of the "OHMYGAWD IT'S AN EMERGENCY WE CAN'T THINK OR READ WE JUST NEED TO ACT!!!!" approach Obama and the Dems have adopted.

*Cough* *cough* *Patriot Act* *Cough* *cough*

Sorry. Something's stuck in my throat.

It is good, James H, that you coughingly mention the Patriot Act because it is an excellent example of a bill which is widely known to have been passed by both parties in both houses without being read.

That said, since the Democrats, after passing the Patriot Act, have had buyers remorse and the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress are now totally dominated by the Democrats it is easier to sleep at night now that they have repealed it.

Oh, wait, that hasn't happened has it?

I don't suppose anybody remembers that Ron Paul's supporters threatened to stay home or vote Democrat if their idol wasn't the GOP candidate for 2008.(from my #14 comment)

#17 P. Bunyan, your number 523,686 is irrelevant as it does not account for the numbers of Libertarians who stayed home or voted Democrat as a protest.

"P. Bunyan, your number 523,686 is irrelevant as it does not account for the numbers of Libertarians who stayed home or voted Democrat as a protest."

Of course no one can really know what that number was, but do you think it was even close to 9 million? I'd guess it was closer to less than 100,000 when all's said and done. And again, there is a difference between Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians.

Also I don't think not voting for either establishment candidate is a bad thing. Sure I can't often bring myself to do it, but I wish I could and that more people did. Our two party system screws us and we always end up having to decide whether to vote for the giant douche or the turd sandwich.

But good point about the Patriot act, and for that matter all the other horrible evil things that President Bush did that are now just fine since Obama is doing them.

James H, thank you (really) for bringing up the "Patriot Act" in response to my comment about "emergency legislation". It makes MY point perfectly!! (so really, thank you!)

1. there was a REAL emergency going on. 3,000+ Americans dead, two cities attacked, one of which still bear visible scars. And an intelligence gap the size of the Grand Canyon. So yup, sometimes there are REAL emergencies!
-but-
2. The "Patriot Act" came with something NONE of the Obama "OHMYGAWD" crap has: "SUNSET" provisions!

and p.s., key members of BOTH Parties did read the Patriot Act in its entirety. I met personnally with one of the Democrats who DID get to read the whole thing. She has since had "buyer's remorse", but even so she pointed out that the "Sunset" provisions made it palatable.

why no "Sunset" provisions in Obama's march of the cliff crap? Oh yeah, when you're lying broken and bloody at the bottom of the cliff there's no real need!

What Justrand said.

What we experienced in the last election was the OJSS (OJSimpson syndrome) which is the willing suspension of disbelief regarding reality or what really is the case. There is only hope for a return to sanity in the next election IF there is a realization on the part of the Independents that they were had. Personally I dont think much of Independents because they are largely without conviction about anything, but they are all we have and they have to realize that OJSS is a disease and they can overcome it by applying logic and critical thinking (just a little). Obama will continue to own the koolaid drinkers, largely the blacks, students, government workers, and others who have never thought for themselves and are pretty much constitutionally unable to do so. Let's call them what they are, chronic co-dependents. Without an awakening of the Independents who supported Obama last time around, we are dead, toast, just like the Europeans, Brits, and all the rest who have given up and just want to get along and survive. We are about to see how far along we are in this country to that European/socialist model state.

Add a comment

Here in Oklahoma City, the organizers of the first two OKC Tea Party protests (held February 27th and April 15th of this year) canceled their plans for a July 4th Tea Party, in favor of a larger protest to be held on September 12. You can read more about the "912 Project" founded by talk radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck here.

But another group of citizens seized this opportunity and organized a "Sooner Tea Party" for July 4th. I wasn't able to attend the protest, but reports seem to indicate a decent-sized crowd (1500 or more) and a rally that captured the spirit of the nationwide Tea Party movement.

With the death of Michael Jackson and the resignation of Sarah Palin filling the weekend news cycle, there was little coverage of the Tea Party protests in the national news media. And there has been virtually no ridicule of the Tea Parties from the usual liberal suspects during the past few weeks. Liberals greatly overplayed their hand on April 15th with their non-stop barrage of tasteless and crude "teabagging" comments. Perhaps now they are hoping that if they just ignore the Tea Party protests, the movement will quietly fade away.

But as long as government continues spend recklessly while the economy teeters on the edge of what could turn out to be a very deep double-dip recession, the Tea Party movement won't be going anywhere.

Comments (17)

I went to the Tea Party in London, Kentucky on Saturday. London has population of 7,000. Turnout was 125 (I counted). It's amazing how knowledgable the people, both the speaker and in the audience, were on the issues. I even got the opportunity to speak on Cap and Trade for 10 minutes.

I'm sure we'll get the usual comment that because Bush rang up large deficits conservatives have no right to complain about Obama over spending by far more. Of course, that amounts to nothing more than some kid's complaint to their parent that "Jimmy gets to set off fireworks in their garage so why can't I set them off in ours?"

The message that much of the public wants congress to rein in deficit spending seems to be getting through to moderate democrats, and as that message is heard the chances of passing an expensive healthcare plan decline. The weak economy, global cooling, and new science may derail Obama's carbon cap and tax proposal as well. With dwindling support for more big spending measures Obama may already be a lame duck President, because apart from throwing money around, he doesn't seem to have any significant ideas other than to make the military openly gay.

I've been puzzled by the insistance by the Obama administration that while Bush 'broke the bank' as far as spending went, spending much, much MORE is supposed to fix things and get the economy back on an even keel.

Yeah. Sure it will. Works that way in real life, doesn't it?

I wonder sometimes if Obama's not just trying to run out the clock on his tenure. Yeah, he's got three+ years to go, but he's got a Democratic Congress to make his whims law, though apparently even some of THEM are starting to question his judgement...

But look at how long his policies and proposals are supposed to take before they show any positive effect. In the mean time, the economy's uncertain because nobody's got any idea which way things are going to go with the Cap&Trade sword hanging over our heads and a whole lot of things we 'absolutely must have' like alternative energy mandates and a 'health plan' - both of which are likely to be be busting the budget even MORE.

Obama's going to FUBAR the economy, then ride off into the sunset for a quiet life of congratulatory dinners, speaking fees, book deals and honorary degrees, never inconvenienced by the crap he's arranging for the rest of us.

"marched" in a parade in Grass Valley, CA, as part of a Tea Party contingent. There were HUNDREDS of us, and we were cheered by nearly all.

But yes, being California and not far from Sacramento there were a few Obamanites along the route. One yelled out as I was passing by:
"You lost...get over it!"
I yelled back:
"You're losing NOW, wake up to it!!"
he was dumbfounded...and had no response as the people around him started laughing at him!

the fact is that MANY folks in the crowd and marching with the Tea Party contingent were Democrats or Independents. This was NOT a "Republican" thing...though the media tries to make it so, when they cover it at all.

one last add...

I talked with LOTS of folks in the Tea Party contingent before, during and after the parade. Virtually WITHOUT EXCEPTION these are people who have NEVER in their lives taken part in protests of ANY kind! EVER!

there is an anger and determination to fight back that is growing. I pray it remains peaceful. Because the other universal truth at these Tea Parties is that they're all thankful for the 2nd Amendment! Me too.

jus' sayin'

I worked a double on Saturday but plan on attending a Tea Party even if I have to drive a 100 miles. Which I will since I live out in the middle of nowhere. My towns pop. 384.. lol

Looks like they're having a ball!

Adrian Browne: "Looks like they're having a ball!"

Serious people, taking serious issues seriously. Unlike the media which doesn't take these seriously...at their peril.

You'll see a smile or two at the Tea Parties...mostly caused by people realizing they are not alone and we ARE going to take back the country. But in general people are MAD at the erosion of all of their freedoms, and the destruction of our economy.

Attended a tea party in a local suburb of Chicago and was very pleased with the enthusiasm
shown for our country. As one man stated, "I'm 60 years old and you might be wondering why I care after all most of what is being done now will not touch me in my lifetime. I tell ya why I'm here, it is going to hurt my children and grandchildren and I owe it to them to at least try to make a difference." Amen brother - Amen!

Houston had a big rally Friday. The temps were 100 with the heat index well above that. ww

But as long as government continues spend recklessly while the economy teeters on the edge of what could turn out to be a very deep double-dip recession, the Tea Party movement won't be going anywhere.

You should add this line to the end:

Unless it's a Republican President, then we don't care.

Obama owns this recession He caused jp2, and He is going to pay in spades.

Attended the Tea Party in Atlanta on the 3rd, where talk show host Herman Cain (2004 GA Senate candidate) was broadcasting his evening show live. 7000 people attended, and pretty much all stayed the first 3 hours.

jp2 -

Thing is - a Republican President that had any sense of fiscal responsibility whatsoever wouldn't take a $300 bil defecit and run it up to well over a trillion. Democrats don't give a damn about the future, they'll spend everything YOU have and work to drag more out of your wallet.

Those tea parties ARE CERTIANLY MUCH BETTER THEN ATTENDING OR WATCHING THOSE DUMB BBOORRRIIINNNGGGG AWARD SHOWS AND BEATS SOME DUMB CELEBRATIONS LIKE CINO DEMAYO AND KWAANZA AND THERE IS NO SUCH A CELEBRATION AS KWAANZA

I guess it can't be called a protest without giant puppets, eh Adriane

"a Republican President that had any sense of fiscal responsibility whatsoever wouldn't take a $300 bil defecit and run it up to well over a trillion."

Reagan/Bush took the national debt from 35% of GDP to 65% of GDP. Has Obama doubled the national debt as a percentage of GDP?

Add a comment

Here are the winning entries:

1) (griff) - "I bleeping told you ACORN was the bleep you stupid bleeping hayseed bleeeeeep. I'm a bleeping Senator now you bleeping bleep and there isn't a bleeping bleep you or any other bleeping voter can do about it for six bleeping years."

2) (Stephen Macklin) - "It's my Senate seat.I stole it fair and square."

3) (GMAC) - "I'll have you know that *THIS* is the 'Al Franken decade' at last and nothing you can do is going to stop it!"

4) (jim2) - "Soros tops Caligula, who had needed ALL of a horse to make a senator."

5) (Porkopolis) - "After weeks of practice in front of a full-length mirror, Senate-elect Al Franken channels John Kerry and tries out his 'Do You Know Who I Am' pose on an unsuspecting constituent."

6) (iwogisdead) - "Al Franken reacts to learning that he has to pay for his coffee in the Senate cafeteria."

The Readers Choice Award this week went to griff's winning entry. In its place I offer this editor's choice caption:

(Rick13) - "You just watch Kevin! In five years I'll prove how stupid the people of Minnesota really are, and I'll be a U.S. Senator!"

That's all for this weekend. A new edition of the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ will debut Friday morning.

Comments (2)

I do'nt care who the bleep you are! That is some bleepin funny bleep bleep.

Bleepin Congrats griff!

AL FREAKLAND and HIT HIM WITH A HAMMER

Add a comment

In a nutshell, I've decided to focus on Wizbang and Wizbang Pop! The other sites, while still there, are being phased out. I won't go so far as to say that they are being permanently shuttered, but the focus will be on the aforementioned two sites, and there are no plans for the other sites.

The two sites I will be concentrating on will be getting a variety of upgrades and new features in the coming weeks. As always all of us who write at all of the Wizbang sites appreciate your support and patronage. We are committed to providing you the best opinion, analysis, and entertainment and lifestyle coverage possible.

Carry on...

Comments (58)

Interesting move and probably a good one.

Focus is good.

Does this mean the end of Blue? Please say yes.

Goodbye Lee Ward.. Parting is such sweet sorrow.

Does this mean the end of Blue? Please say yes.

Yes.

Does this mean the end of Blue? Please say yes.

Yes.

*sniff, sniff*

Okay, moving on....

Does that mean Lee will be back here? OMG!!! This ought to be fun.

Getting rid of wizbang blue is a good thing.

I kind of liked Blue, as long as it wasn't the screeching insanity of Ward's writing. The other contributers, especially Paul, had some good pieces. It's always good to get other points of view. I'd much rather get those points of view from Blue, instead of say, Kos or DU. Ah well.

Oh, god. Here comes Lee Ward, under six or seven pseudonyms. Just when I thought he was safely contained by giving him his own ward in the asylum.

Spittle and bile will be everywhere.

I believe Blue was was good idea. I don't agree with shutting it down. That said, it did have one significant problem and that was Lee Ward.

A better solution to Blue would be to fire Lee and put somebody better in charge. While I disagree with Paul Hoosen on many things, he is intelligent, respectful and not a raving lunatic, in other words not Lee Ward.

I don't know if Paul would want that job, if not there must be a million other Left wingers who could run the site who aren't ignorant asses.

Wizbang Blue found wanting
Now for weeping and gnashing
of thy deceitful teeth.

I agree with those above who thought Wizbang Blue served a purpose. Lee Ward was clearly the only significant problem. I feel Paul was making an effort to bring some civility to the site in contrast to Lee's twisted aggressiveness. I like to hear how folks on the left view the world and it was nice to have contrasting philosophies in such close cyber-proximity. Sad really. Maybe Blue can re-invent itself a bit like Sarah Palin (which would be wicked irony for Lee Ward).

I agree w/Eric - Lee's pretty well unhinged. Paul at least is respectful, even if he disagrees, but Lee - hell, look at the wholesale banning he used to do. If you make your opposition unable to respond, you must be right about the issue!

I'll miss the Blue - but as the rule of blogs goes, it's your blog, your decision, and you've got your reasons for it.

Over on the Blue site Paul Hooson wrote the following. . .

Hello Mac. I always appreciate your comments. Looks like I might be writing more of these nonpolitical pieces on the auto industry, Cds, DVDs, etc over at Wizbang Pop as it looks like the site publisher has offered me an invitation to continue to write there.

So it looks like Paul will still be writing his nonpolitical pieces on Wizbang Pop. Thanks Kevin for letting Paul continue in that role.

A while back I told Lee Ward that he needed to find a Section Editor for Wizbang Blue similar to what Maggie Whitton does for Wizbang. If authors of pieces are going to mix it up with commenters then an independent referee is needed to decide when to use the disemvoweler or to ban someone. As it was, way too many people got banned by Lee for things no different then what Lee was doing, such as calling Lee a liar; a label Lee used often against others. I don't know about others, but it's the diverse points of view and the ruff and tumble debate that brings me to these pages. Clear rules of engagement and an independent referee are must haves for any blog to gain readership, and without readership you might as well be writing to your diary.

I expect that Lee Ward was the Mr. Hyde embodiment of some Dr. Jekyll like person in the real world. To that real person I say thanks for your contributions. Even if I didn't agree, I always learned something from reading and commenting on Wizbang Blue.

Truth to be told, I never paid much attention to Wizbang Blue. I only occasionally saw links from the main Wizbang page, but disregarded them in favor of the main blog. Have you considered revamping the Wizbang front page a bit? As a reader, I find that the links in the gray column tend to blend into the background, so I ignore them.

I never clicked through to Blue as simply reading the clips on the main page showed all the rage and nastiness of all the other lefty sites. Basically, Blue brought nothing new to the conversation. You lose nothing in dropping it. Good decision. A little more at Pop would be nice.

Kevin,

I always thought that the idea to create another side to Wizbang was a good one, but there was one reason why it never worked, and everyone knows what that reason is. I am still not sure how the "editor" over there was able to gain as much control over the content of that site that he did. There were some interesting authors at the start, but one by one they abandoned ship.

Ward was basically the same commenter that he was here a few years ago, just with the power to ban people left and right. I pretty much stopped even looking at the Blue side of the site because of how he ran the show, and was always wondering when the powers that be were going to drop in and pull the cord on him. I have also always wondered why it was Ward who got so much control of the site, and not someone like Mantis or Larkin. What happened to them?

With Lee in charge, the site became little more than a parody of an alternative viewpoint.

Still, there was potential there, and I do like the idea of having two perspectives on this site. I was kind of hoping for a coup d'état that would establish Blue as a more viable and respectable part of this site. Too bad it never happened.

Anyway, considering most of the nonsense that is posted over at Blue, and the absolute lack of growth in the content for the most part, I agree with your decision. I do think that Paul H. was working hard to keep the ship afloat, and that should be recognized. Only so much that one can do.

Too many copycat columns on Wizbang main page is Wizbang's problem so Blue is not to blame for any traffic woes or failure to communicate a global vision on behalf of the owner, Kevin.

The main page is the inducement and the main page has been "stoved up". Combine all pages (Paul is your best author; he actually seems to have *done something* and *been places* in his life: that's good!)

Conclusion: the Wizbang main page readership-type is now in "turtle time" mode, to borrow a phrase from hockey. Expand your base. The Pop person can help by featuring a Girl of the Day pic. Airbrushed real estate ads??? What are we doin' here???

One alternative that would allow you to ditch the Blue site and still be able to present altervative perspectives: add one or two editors/contributors to the main page. Just one idea. That would add something new to the main page content.

Wizbang Blue was always good for a chuckle. It will be missed...

I would have few problems with Mr. Ward being "promoted" to the main page -- with one major caveat:

He have absolutely no power over editing or deleting comments, and kept completely away from the banning tools.

The sociopath wouldn't survive a week around here without his phallic compensation methods...

J.

There's a major problem with presenting "two sides" on Wizbang's front page: This blog, for better or for worse, has established itself as a conservative site with an extremely partisan community of commenters. How many liberal bloggers, particularly quality liberal bloggers, would be willing to fill an Alan Colmes role here when they could find a far friendlier audience at other sites?

Jay Tea --

Is it just me, or do you now spend more time on Oliver Willis's blog than here?

James, when I was a staffer here, I actively sought out a couple of liberals to present contrasting views. I roped "Pennywit" into contributing for a while, and lobbied "mantis" so hard I think I sprained both of our shoulders.

I liked the idea of an in-house "loyal opposition" -- it kept both sides sharp. As long as a certain level of civility and respect is maintained, it can work wonderfully. I think it's very valuable to have an ear on what "the other side" is thinking -- as well as a constant reminder that they are our rivals, not our enemies.

That entire paragraph is precisely why Mr. Ward would never survive on the main page. And why I would dearly, dearly love to see it happen.

J.

More time commenting, James, but not more time reading. Wizbang is still my home page.

I tend to go where I think I'm needed more than wanted. Over there, I can "fight the good fight." Here, there's not much call for my efforts -- the crew (authors old and new, as well as regular commenters) have things quite well in hand, and don't need my help.

Thanks for noticing, James...

Hey, Jay Tea -- what's your email address? Feel free to grab mine from the Wizbang log and contact me directly.

Jay Tea:

"I liked the idea of an in-house "loyal opposition" -- it kept both sides sharp. As long as a certain level of civility and respect is maintained, it can work wonderfully. I think it's very valuable to have an ear on what "the other side" is thinking -- as well as a constant reminder that they are our rivals, not our enemies."

I agree with you completely, especially your last point. I think the rivals not enemies point gets lost on a lot of sites--Kos among them. Balance and opposing views are good for critical thinking and discussion. Having more than one side represented helps to balance the echo chamber effect. Unfortunately, Blue was never really able to build a strong community of contributors that could keep pace with the kind of cohesion that exists on the main site.

I like the idea of putting some opposing views on the main site, but I think that Ward is not the right one to put there. But, of course, I see why you would vote him in, just to see the frenzy ensue. Very sadistic of you, Mr Tea! Haha.

Seriously though, I think the idea of having opposing POV's still has a great deal of merit. I wonder what Kevin thinks about that.

James, I don't have access to the Wizbang logs any more. I'm as out as out can be. However, if you drop a comment on one of my articles over at Contentions (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions/contentions?author_name=thayer), I'll get your e-mail address and can respond.

J.

Jay Tea: Done.

Personally, I think Paul Hooson could survive on the main page, but he'd have to learn to link to sources OR be prepared to take a regular beating for not doing so. Given that he takes that beating on a regular basis, and with a modicum of grace, I'd bet on the latter. But, I think he'd have some value.

Jay, I sure like your idea of allowing an in-house opposing viewpoint writer here. I'd be more than willing to volunteer for that duty for occasional posts. But, I'm also actually pretty happy to have been given the opportunity by Kevin to be posting entertainment, media and business features over at Wizbang Pop which is an excellent but underrated and under-read website. Tracey does a wonderful job over there and sure deserves far more readers than she now has.

I continually sought to expand the limits of Wizbang Blue by breaking new ground and attempting to expand it into more Cds, DVDs, music, motorcycles, automobiles, business and entertainment posts and to encourage more than just political readers to come over and take a look, making it look a little more like ROLLING STONE, NATIONAL LAMPOON, EASYRIDERS, MOTOR TREND and BUSINESS WEEK all combined. I wanted it to be cool, yet just irreverent enough to be funny, controversial, but always entertaining. Not stale. Not conservative in so many meanings.

Over at Wizbang Pop, I promise to bring plenty of fresh new edge there, along with a varied array of media, business and entertainment features.

I sure appreciate all the kind words from a few here. Wizbang Blue was an interesting struggle each day, finding something cool enough to keep the site interesting or fresh. I honestly believed it was getting better recently, as comments were picking up, and there was a lot more than just politics over there. It became the big city West Coast viewpoint of the world.

My more political pieces can still be found at my Progressive Values website. But Wizbang Pop will give me the opportunity to better cover some of my true loves such as music, film or business news.

Mr. Hooson, congratulations on escaping the association with Mr. Ward. Keeping your shots up could NOT have been cheap.

J.

I thought Kevins' idea of having both sides of
the political argument represented on Wizbang
was an innovative idea. True fairness and
equal access. An idea before its' time, so to
speak.

Lee Ward on the main page here? I think it's a horrible idea. Lee has never simply offered a different point of view. Lee is confrontational, abrasive and ill-tempered. One could easily look down the right column of blurbs from the other Wizbang sections and, without exception, be able to pick which ones were Lee's just by the title. If he were on the main page, I would seriously begin to question Kevin's decision to allow him there and look for somewhere else to make home.

My dear Oyster, I sympathize. But think for a moment -- how long would Ward last with THIS crew of commenters (myself included), and without his cudgel of banning? How long would he last before he snapped and went completely over the edge and Kevin got rid of him, or he quit?

It's the very definition of "red meat," my dear Oyster -- a car wreck that we could all slow down and gawk at, without the icky guilt associated with real accidents.

Indeed, we could take pride in our involvement in that particular wreck. It would be a true Roman circus event.

J.

Lee Ward on the main page here? I think it's a horrible idea.

I agree that would be a horrible idea.

Jay Tea, I seldom disagree with you, but in this case I very much do so. This site does not need an irrational demagogue.

I understand you, but Kevin already gave him a chance to succeed. He obviously failed. Why reward him with a second chance?

james h - "How many liberal bloggers, particularly quality liberal bloggers, would be willing to fill an Alan Colmes role here when they could find a far friendlier audience at other sites?"

Horse hockey.

The vast majority of "liberal" commenters here are of the troll variety and offer a near zero ability to actually conduct an honest debate.

There's no campaign afoot to disallow "quality liberal bloggers" they are free to enter and debate to their hearts content and I suspect by and large they would be treated with respect and lively debates would ensue.

That they don't says nothing about Wizbang or the authors that reside here.

Marc:

I did not say that Wizbang hosts a "campaign to disallow 'quality liberal bloggers,'" but rather that a quality liberal blogger would likely find Wizbang an extremely hostile environment.

I think Lee Ward is the name of a part some otherwise respectable person was playing. I find it improbable that anyone who takes themselves seriously could be so consistently immune to logic. It had to be a shtick and the person behind it someone known to many of us. It's probably the longest running April fools joke in history. To that person I say bravo.

There's no campaign afoot to disallow "quality liberal bloggers" they are free to enter and debate to their hearts content and I suspect by and large they would be treated with respect and lively debates would ensue.

The problem I'm seeing with liberal blogging sites is that their positions aren't based on facts, it's based on the feelings that are shared by the community. You see the frothing on Kos and DU - there's little to no possibility that they're going to accept their ideas are anything but correct. To even question the ideas, much less attempt to think otherwise, would 'sever' the bonds with their community.

Honestly, the fact she's Republican is what does it for me. This is the party that openly, gleefully hates women, openly gleefully hates homosexuals, openly gleefully promotes the murder of doctors brave enough to provide abortion services, openly and gleefully hates the poor, openly and gleefully believes in some sky fairy that thinks I'm inferior to men etc etc etc.

Keep in mind that when I talk about "quality liberal bloggers," I'm certainly not referring to the denizens of Daily Kos and DU. I'm thinking more of Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Drum, and Ezra Klein.

I think Lee Ward is the name of a part some otherwise respectable person was playing. I find it improbable that anyone who takes themselves seriously could be so consistently immune to logic. It had to be a shtick and the person behind it someone known to many of us. It's probably the longest running April fools joke in history. To that person I say bravo.

Mac, I too have thought that for a long time. I always thought Lee could be JayTea's alter ego and assumed it was he who was playing us.

Either way, Lee has no place on the main page or any page associated with Wizbang. He eschews logic and spits venom at those who disagree with him. His constant drumbeat over at Blue was to label every Republican a racist who dared speak out against Obama and his policies. His rage against Sarah Palin was disgusting and endless, he was obsessed and this website is better off without him. While I disagreed with Paul in nearly everything, he is not nearly as unhinged as lee and can hold intelligent debates. He would be a welcome contributor to the main page as well at Pop. Although like SCSIwuzzy says above, Paul needs to work on his linking ability.

For the record, I am not "Lee Ward," never have been, and if I ever did act like him, someone please shoot me.

I preferred to think of him as my mirror image; opposite in every way. Me with a goatee, perhaps.

And let me reiterate: my endorsing Mr. Ward for posting privileges on the main page -- with the very important caveat that he have NO ability to control comments or implement bans -- would be the most spectacular slow-motion car crash imaginable. Without his authoritarian tools to enforce compliance with his wishes, he'd crumble and dissolve into a complete intellectual collapse and emotional meltdown.

And that, my friends, former colleagues, and fondly-missed commenters, would be sheer delight to watch.

Even more for those of us who'd be throwing gas on that fire.

Yes, that's a bit petty and vindictive of me. So be it.

J.

Jay,

First let me say I never thought Lee Ward was your Mr. Hyde, but he is someone's Mr. Hyde or shtick.

Without his authoritarian tools to enforce compliance with his wishes, he'd crumble and dissolve into a complete intellectual collapse and emotional meltdown.

Before there was Wizbang Blue Lee Ward did comment on these pages without any of the "authoritarian tools to enforce compliance" and he offered a different point of view and seemed reasonably able to defend his points. Only when he was given control of Wizbang Blue did he become totally immune to reason. At least that's how I remember it.

FWIW, my comment about Jay being Lee was with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.

he offered a different point of view and seemed reasonably able to defend his points. Only when he was given control of Wizbang Blue did he become totally immune to reason. At least that's how I remember it.

I actually remember it differently. I remember his comments and engagements before Blue and while he may have had some reasonable comments, he certainly displayed the unhinged characteristics that only grew exponentially over at Blue. I think it would be interesting to see him commenting over here on the main page.

Jay Tea, I remember Lee Ward from several years back, when we had a long-winded argument about whether logins and user accounts should be required. Kevin decided against it, and I left for about a year. The atmosphere around here was just too poisonous.

If Lee Ward starts showing up here again, the same thing is going to happen, probably with the same result. He brings hate speech with him, and I personally want nothing to do with him. I don't think I'm alone.

I notice that out of 57 comments in this thread and that thread there are no comments defending Lee.

I find it improbable that anyone who takes themselves seriously could be so consistently immune to logic. It had to be a shtick and the person behind it someone known to many of us. It's probably the longest running April fools joke in history. To that person I say bravo.

If it that were the case, Mac, I would think Andy Kaufman had been reincarniated. However, Lee's level of cleverness never extended outside of him using the Caribbean island-esque nome de plume of "Lee Ward."

The attempt was made. Kudos for that.

I will say, however, that, at least to me, Blue was nothing more than distracting headlines on the right side of the main page devolving into the mere existence of "shock." The same 3-6 people writing, whining, and commenting on eachothers works had not a grab 'em by the scruff and pull 'em in sort of allure.

The few times I attempted to post there, my comments were promptly taken down, with no reason given.

It was not a failure of idea or attempt, but of the attitude behind the blue wheel.

As far as I am concerned, Wizbang has nothing to prove. The availability of differing opinions is so widely accessable in this medium, this site stands strongly on its own merits.

We have a highly educated, very expressive readership on both sides of the aisle, who contribute to the forensics in such a way that an entire entity, or even main-page accessability to a contrary point of view is not needed.

Wizbang has evolved into an informative, educational, highly interactive place. The site fits into its right-leaning cove perfectly. Its content is not hateful. Its survival does not depend on allowing "another" side to flourish.

Confusion in identity is not what we need. We are what we are and should be damned proud of it.

-Shawn

james h - "but rather that a quality liberal blogger would likely find Wizbang an extremely hostile environment."

And that is precisely what I disputed, show where that may be true.

As JT noted he convinced Pennywit, a noted liberal, to add content here.

Go ahead find in this long list of her posts where she was consistently treated in the manner you suggest.

Um... Marc, it might come as news to The Author Formerly Known As Pennywit that they are of the distaff persuasion.

Having met said person for lunch one time, I feel moderately comfortable in stating that said blogger was a he.

Not that I verified it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but on first impression, I was fairly certain he was a he.

Dude did NOT look like a lady...

J.

Jay Tea's been reading Shaw or Wodehouse or he's making fun of King George V, either one.

Combine all boards.

Get rid of Ward over at Blue, replace him with bryanD. Now THAT oughta liven things up a bit.

OK, I'm confessing. I'm indulging my inner bomb-thrower here.

But damn, doesn't it sound tempting as all hell?

J.

There was one admitted registered democrat among the main board contributors. What happened to him?

Shawn,

My thoughts exactly. For about two weeks I tried to become a commentor over at Wizbangblue. I thought my posts were respectful even though they disagreed. Each time Lee Ward came back with a response to my comment, I responded again.

Pretty soon it became a sort of, "If you respond with the same thing again, you're a liar!"

To which i'd respond again attempting to point out what I believed to be the flaw in Lee's argument and the strength in my own.

It wasn't long before he called me a liar and said liars needed to be banned. Thus I was banned.

Then, as you mentioned, Wizbangblue became annoying headlines on the right side of the page.

Get rid of Ward over at Blue, replace him with bryanD. Now THAT oughta liven things up a bit.

I dunno, WizbangBatSh!tCrazy doesn't have the same ring to it...

Add a comment