FT170: “If liberals believed in being bipartisan they wouldn’t harass conservatives with the IRS.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 17th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Right should Rubberstamp Everything the Left wants Just like the Left did for George W. Bush

If you ever have watched the Daily Show with Jon Stewart you’ve probably noticed a recurring theme.  He gets exasperated.  A lot.  When it comes to the lack of bipartisan cooperation on the side of the Republicans.  And by bipartisan he means just giving the Democrats what they want.  Just to give up their core beliefs.  And vote for things that violate everything they stand for.

It’s the conservatives that really annoy him.  And Democrats in general.  Especially Tea Party conservatives.  Who just won’t buckle under.  And give the Democrats what they want.  Like the Republican establishment.  RINOs.  Who like the ruling class in Washington.  And want to be a part of it.  Unlike those Tea Party conservatives.  Who sound like a broken record.  We need limited government.  And lower tax rates.  Not an expanding federal government.  Paid for with higher tax rates.  And their opposition to Obamacare despite it being law really gets stuck in their craw.

President Obama’s reelection was a mandate.  At least that’s what the Democrats thought.  That the people approved of the president.  And everything he did in his first term.  That shellacking the Democrats took in the 2010 midterm elections?  Causing the rise of the Tea Party in the first place?  Because of those backroom deals?  That the Democrats made to pass Obamacare into law?  That was just an anomaly.  It meant nothing.  That was only some tin-hat wearing crazy people.  Tea-baggers, they called them.  No.  Real America reelected President Obama.  Because they wanted him to do more.  So the conservatives should just accept that.  And rubberstamp everything the Democrats want.  Just like they did for George W. Bush.

Based on the Demographic Numbers one Must Question if the Obama Presidency is Legitimate

Oh, wait a minute, they didn’t do that.  They fought him relentlessly.  Especially after the Democrats won big in the 2006 midterm elections.  Taking back both the House.  And the Senate.  For they hated George W. Bush.  And never accepted him as legitimate.  What with the debacle of the 2000 election.  Where to this day they say the Republicans stole that election.  Thanks to the Supreme Court.  Making Al Gore a millionaire in the process.  Peddling his global warming fear.  But poor Al Gore got robbed in 2000.  Because the Republicans cheated.  And suppressed voter turnout.  The only way Republicans can win elections.  Or so say the Democrats.

Of course the numbers don’t agree with that.  The demographics.  Then.  And now.  In 2001 liberals were at 17%.  Moderates at 38%.  And conservatives at 43%.  Today liberals rose to 20%.  Moderates fell to 32%.  And conservatives rose to 46%.  Conservatives are the majority.  Then.  And now.  (See In U.S., Nearly Half Identify as Economically Conservative posted 5/25/2012 on Gallup).  So conservatives can win elections.  Based on these numbers.  And should be able to do so easier than liberals.  So it must be the liberals.  They must be the ones cheating.  And suppressing voter turnout.

So Bush was legitimate.  Based on the numbers.  And it is doubtful the people want the Republicans to rollover.  Or rubberstamp the Democrat agenda.  For they did retain the House in 2012.  As they should have won the Senate.  And the White House.  Based on the horrible economy.  The killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi.  And Obamacare.  That the majority just doesn’t want.  Which begs the question.  Is the Obama presidency legitimate?

This Bipartisan Spirit of the Left is Fear and Intimidation of their Political Opponents

So how did President Obama win reelection?  And how did the Democrats hold onto the Senate?  Well, there was the mainstream media.  Which is liberal.  Following in the tradition of their godfather.  Walter Cronkite.  Only out of the closet.  For there are no closet liberals these days.  There’s Hollywood.  Television.  The music industry.  The public schools.  And our universities.  All liberal.  Just a small sliver of the population.  But a highly leveraged sliver.  As they have greatly amplified voices.  Which gives them legitimacy.  As television and movies sway a lot of people.  Especially the young.  Who our teachers program in our public schools.  And our professors brainwash in our universities.  Despite all of this, though, we’re still a conservative people.  While liberals still hold at 20%.  So there must be something else.

Which brings us back to cheating.  And voter suppression.  Liberals hate the Tea Party.  And conservatives.  Blaming them for their loss of the House.  In that 2010 shellacking.  Ever since then liberals have slandered the Tea Party.  Called them racists.  And every other dirty name in the book.  Including tea baggers.  They hated these people.  And were not going to allow a repeat of 2010.  With President Obama in the White House it put the liberals in charge of the executive branch of government.  Giving them power.  Which they used.  By having the most feared agency of the federal government harass the conservatives.  Especially the Tea Party.  As groups applied for tax-exempt status the IRS harassed them.  Asking them for a lot information.  Personal information.  That they could use against them.  Such as releasing the names of their major donors to liberal websites.  Who destroyed and intimidated these donors as best as they could.  Some of these people faced costly audits by the IRS.  Even suffered through costly audits from the Labor Department.  The message was clear.  If you tried to exercise your First Amendment right against the Obama administration beware.  For you will feel the wrath of the federal government.  Muzzling the opposition.  Making it easier to win.  Despite the horrible economy.  Benghazi.  And Obamacare.

This is the bipartisan spirit of the left.  Fear and intimidation.  And when that doesn’t work they speak in an exasperated voice.  Of Republicans.  And their refusal to work with the Democrats.  In a bipartisan manner.  Expressing their frustration.  That 46% of the population won’t just give in to 20% of the population.  Giving up their core beliefs.  And to just vote for things that violate everything they stand for.  Something the Democrats never did for George W. Bush.  But it is a moral outrage when the Republicans won’t do it for President Obama.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Incivility is NOT to Blame for Jared Loughner’s Arizona Shooting Rampage. But the Left still Blames It.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 14th, 2011

The Uncivil Calling the Civil Uncivil

Civility.  Civility.  Civility.  That’s all we hear.  That we must be more civil.  Too much partisanship in the country.  We need to fight less.  And work together more.  Of course, the people saying this just took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections.  But they sure were singing a different song before that shellacking.

Civility?  Please.  Was wishing Rush Limbaugh dead civil?  Was wishing Sarah Palin dead civil?  Was making a movie based on a ‘what if’ assassination of George W. Bush civil?  Was wishing Dick Cheney dead civil?  Was wishing Sean Hannity dead civil?  Was throwing a pie at Ann Coulter civil?  Was saying you’d have sex with Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Elisabeth Hasselbeck because they’re hot even though you hate them civil?  Was dropping a crucifix in a glass of urine and calling it art civil?  I could go on.  But that should suffice to make the point.

Is this truly a cry for civility?  Or simply a way to neuter the opposition’s power?  By calling political dissent uncivil?  Now that they have lost their power?  My, how things change.  Once upon time it was patriotic to debate and disagree.  Of course, that’s only when the ‘wrong people’ were in power.  Apparently.

This Nutcase came from the Left

The shooting rampage in Arizona showed the consequences of the lack of civility (i.e., when conservatives debate and disagree).  At least, so thought those on the left.  Until some of the facts started coming out.  Turns out that the shooter was more of a leftist than a rightwing radical.  That’s right, this Nutcase came from the Left.

He didn’t listen to talk radio.  Didn’t follow Sarah Palin.  Rush Limbaugh.  Sean Hannity.  Glenn Beck.  Or anyone on the Right.  In fact, one of his favorite books was the Communist Manifesto.  Which is not a conservative manifesto.  And he was a conspiracy nut.  One of his favorite films was Zeitgeist: The Movie.  A film citing conspiracy theories about Christ (He was just a myth), the 9/11 attacks, bankers manipulating the international monetary system, etc.  And these are, of course, theories held by people on the Left.  It’s pretty clear that if anyone incited Jared Loughner with vitriolic rhetoric, it was those on the left.

Doesn’t matter.  Still the cry for civility rings out.  Even though a lack of civility clearly didn’t prompt Loughner to do anything.  It was his insanity that did.  Even so, we still need to be civil.  And not debate or disagree.  With the liberal left.  Because that incivility could create a Jared Loughner.  Even though it didn’t here.

Forget the Paranoid Schizophrenia.  Focus on the Vitriolic Political Debate.

The Arizona shooter was oblivious to all the incivility around him.  It was the paranoid schizophrenia rattling around his head driving him.  Not all that vitriolic political debate that is supposedly ruining our nation.  Still, it is a time to reflect.  To step back and take a look at ourselves and say, “Hey.  We can be better.”  Or so David Brooks writes about in the New York Times (see Tree of Failure posted 1/13/2011).

But over the past few decades, people have lost a sense of their own sinfulness. Children are raised amid a chorus of applause. Politics has become less about institutional restraint and more about giving voters whatever they want at that second. Joe DiMaggio didn’t ostentatiously admire his own home runs, but now athletes routinely celebrate themselves as part of the self-branding process.

So, of course, you get narcissists who believe they or members of their party possess direct access to the truth. Of course you get people who prefer monologue to dialogue. Of course you get people who detest politics because it frustrates their ability to get 100 percent of what they want. Of course you get people who gravitate toward the like-minded and loathe their political opponents. They feel no need for balance and correction.

Brooks makes some good points.  And the Left should listen to them.  Because he’s talking about them.  When George W. Bush was president Hillary Clinton said it was patriotic to debate and disagree.  Now she says that this leads to domestic terrorism.  No doubt she and her fellow Democrats believe they alone speak the truth.  And that they have no need for balance or correction.  Because they are always right and loathe their political opponents.  Especially when they get shellacked in the midterm elections.

They’re Civil in North Korea.  And Oppressed

Holding hands and singing kum bay ya isn’t going to change anything.  Because we don’t agree.  If everyone in the country agreed it wouldn’t be the United States.  It would be North Korea.  And they’re very civil there.  Especially when it comes to the government that’s oppressing them.  But I don’t think we want that kind of civility here.

Debate is good.  Dissent is good.  It prevents the rise of tyrants.  That’s why Americans can debate and disagree.  That process has prevented the rise of tyrants.  And we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss that process.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Closer Look at the Obama-GOP Tax Deal Seems to Favor Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 11th, 2010

The Left May Get more Deficit Spending while Making it Look Like the Right’s Fault

As details emerge, the Obama-GOP tax deal to extend the Bush tax cuts just gets worse.  There’s a whole lot of stimulus/deficit spending in that deal.  Not quite in keeping with the spirit of 2010 when the nation rejected deficit spending in a grand way.  But now it’s as if that ‘shellacking’ never happened.

There’s a lot of debate.  Some filibustering.  And a whole lot of theatre.  The far Left is acting like Obama betrayed them worse than an adulterous spouse.  While the Right appears to have already forgotten who won the midterm elections.  Because, according to Charles Krauthammer, who’s very smart, the Right caved and the Left won but are too dumb to even know (see Swindle of the Year by Charles Krauthammer posted 12/10/2010 on The National Review Online).

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 — and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years — which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years — $630 billion of it above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Business as usual.  After a repudiation of business as usual.  This reminds me of the movie Patton

Just before Patton was relieved of Third Army, he had an angry phone call with General Beetle Smith, Eisenhower’s chief of staff.  Patton wasn’t a fan of the Russians.  He thought we would fight them sooner or later.  He wanted it to be sooner, when we had the army in Europe to do it.  He said if SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces) didn’t have the guts to do it, he did.  He could get us into a war with those ‘sons of bitches’ and make it look like their fault.  Good movie.  But, alas, Patton was relieved of command soon thereafter.  He would later die from complications from a car accident.

Now Obama doesn’t remind me of Patton in the least.  For Patton was a good leader.  But it looks like Obama is going to get his deficit spending.  And he’s going to make it look like the Republicans’ fault.

If at First You don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie Again

So much for the hope and change to change the previous hope and change that changed little as hoped in Washington. 

We elected Obama because the Republicans had lost their way.  And because of the abysmal job Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al have been doing, the American people have given the Republicans a second chance.  And what do they do?  Even before they officially take power in the House of Representatives?  They’re already caving.  I guess old habits are just hard to break.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate-tax rate of 35 percent — it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 — that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

And, of course, another 13 months of unemployment benefits.  Exactly what is the liberal Left bitching about?  The only downside appears to be a 2 year delay in raising the top marginal tax rates by 4.6%.  And only confiscating a third of dead people’s wealth instead of half of it.  What a bunch of whiny cry babies.

Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 — and who abandoned the Democrats in 2010 — is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the Left.

The Left knows that they must lie to win elections.  And that’s what Obama is doing now.  He’s going to run for reelection in 2012.  It’s time to say he’s a centrist again.  Do they not see this?  Or is this all part of a great lie?  Just more theatre?

The Era of Big Government is Over?

The 2008 Democrat primary elections were pretty nasty.  Obama and Hillary Clinton took off the gloves at times.  The Clintons did not like this little usurper.  Obama.  For it was Hillary’s turn.  When she conceded to Obama, she and Bill announced their support for the Democrat candidate.  But there was a simmering hatred below the surface.

Obama offered Hillary Secretary of State as a consolation prize.  Partly to assuage the Clinton machine.  And partly for that reason given in The Godfather: Part II.  Keep your friends close.  And your enemies closer.  (That’s actually from the Sun-tzu’s The Art of War but I doubt Obama would have ever read that, what with it being a military book.)  To prevent a possible 2012 primary challenge from Hillary.

Now either it’s more theatre, or an attempt to hit his liberal base upside the head, but Obama called on the big dog.  Bill Clinton.  The man whose wife Obama dissed during the primary election and denied her her place in history.  And he supports the Obama-GOP deal (see Bill’s Back: Clinton commands stage at White House by Ben Feller, AP White House Correspondent, posted 12/10/2010 on Yahoo! Finance).

Clinton comfortably outlined how the pending package of tax cuts, business incentives and unemployment benefits would boost the economy — even though it included tax help for the wealthy that Obama had to swallow.

“There’s never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan,” Clinton said. “But I really believe this will be a significant net-plus for the country.”

When he finished his pitch, Clinton played the role of humble guy, saying, “So, for whatever it’s worth, that’s what I think.”

“It’s worth a lot,” Obama insisted

Clinton was once right where Obama is.  Even worse.  He lost both houses of Congress after his first midterm elections because he went too left, too.  Then he moved to the center.  And, with the help of Dick Morris (then Democrat strategist), and a Republican Congress that checked his spending, he got reelected.  Is this a sign that Obama will follow Clinton’s lead?

Perhaps.  But Obama is a whole lot more arrogant than Clinton.  It just may not be in his nature to be politically expedient.  I mean, it just may not be in Obama’s DNA to say the era of Big Government is over.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republicans and Obama Compromise to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2010

It’s not that the American People Disagree with Obama.  They’re just not Smart enough to know what’s Best for Them.

Well, problem solved.  Sort of.  For a year or so.  Then they’ll have to do it all over again.

Obama will extend the Bush tax cuts.  And it will only cost another year of unemployment benefits.  That’s good because we have all grown weary of this recession (see Obama defends tax deal, says he’s kept promises by Ben Feller, AP White House Correspondent, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

With fellow Democrats balking, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that a compromise with Republicans on tax cuts was necessary to help the economy and protect recession-weary Americans. He passionately defended his record against Democrats who complain he’s breaking campaign promises.

What’s this?  Some of that bipartisanship he was talking about when Obama ran as a moderate during the 2008 presidential campaign?  Can you feel the love?  You better pinch me because I must be dreaming.

Obama cast his decision to accede to the GOP position on extending the tax cuts in stark terms.

“It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers — unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

He said the American people agree with his position, but “I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party.” Reflecting the newly increased Republican clout in Congress, he said: “I haven’t persuaded (Senate Republican leader) Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded (House GOP leader) John Boehner.”

Now there’s the Obama we all know and…., well, know.  Who else could suffer such a categorical rejection of his polices and still think the American people agree with him?  Talk about illusions of grandeur. 

It reminds me of that line in the movie Tootsie where some aging soap opera star was lamenting about being an old has-been.  Dorothy (Dustin Hoffman) soothed his feelings by saying he wasn’t an old has-been.  He couldn’t be.  Because you had to be famous first to be a has-been.

Or that scene in that classic movie This is Spinal Tap, the fake documentary about a fake, aging rock band.  The interviewer noted they were playing smaller venues instead of arenas like in their heyday and asked if that was a reflection on their popularity.  They said ‘no’.  Their audiences weren’t getting smaller.  They were just becoming more selective.

And you can forget about pinching me.

Americans Lose Faith in the Unmanly Obama

Unhappy with this compromise, the Left is questioning Obama’s manliness (see Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled by Sam Youngman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

“President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The public is with Obama?  Talk about a struggle with reality.  Or a very, very short memory.  If the midterm elections weren’t a rejection of Obama’s liberal agenda I don’t know what rejection is.  So, no, the public is not with Obama on this.  Only the far Left is with Obama.  That 20% of the population that the other 80% can’t stand.

“This is only a tough fight [now] because Americans have lost faith that President Obama is fighting for their economic futures,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and former official with the Clinton administration.

Do you think?  Things have gotten worse under Obama.  Even after he spent billions of dollars to make things better.  So, yeah, most Americans have lost faith in Obama.  If they even had any in him in the first place.

Compromise is a Four-Letter Word on the Left

Bipartisanship is all well and good.  As long as you can make the other guy be bipartisan, that is.  The Democrats aren’t happy.  Especially the leadership, who usually march in lockstep with Obama (see Obama defends tax deal while Reid seeks changes by Charles Babington, Associated Press, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

“It’s something that’s not done yet,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We’re going to have to do some more work,” Reid said after a closed-door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.

Reid isn’t happy.  Neither is Pelosi.

Across the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, normally one of Obama’s staunchest allies, made plain her unhappiness, issuing a statement that contained no commitment to help pass the plan. “We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead.”

Yes, Reid and Pelosi are all for compromise.  As long it’s not them doing the compromising.  Typical liberals.  Never happy.  Even with the most liberal president ever to inhabit the White House.  He just isn’t liberal enough for them.

The Really Sad thing is that Pelosi got Reelected with 80% of the Vote

Furious, Pelosi vented on Twitter (see Pelosi attacks Obama-GOP tax plan as House Democrats signal fight by Russell Berman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

In a post on Twitter, Pelosi said the GOP provisions in the tax proposal would add to the deficit and help the rich without creating jobs. The GOP provisions “help only wealthiest 3%, don’t create jobs & add tens of billions to deficit,” the Pelosi tweet said.

Then issued a statement.

“We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead,” Pelosi said. “Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

Nevadans barely reelected Reid.  Pelosi, on the other hand, got something like 80% of the vote.  Scary.  So that means about 80% of the people in her district agree with the political philosophy of about 20% of the country.  That screwball far Left.  The same people that supported Joseph Stalin.  And Fidel Castro.  Is it any wonder that Pelosi doesn’t have the foggiest idea about creating jobs?

Pelosi and the Democrats have been in power since 2006, 2 years before Obama’s election.  That’s 4 years of legislative control.  And things have declined during those 4 years.  So why in the world would anyone believe that she and her Democrats know anything about jobs and economic growth?  I’m sure she believes they do.  They just need more time.  Because that fifth year is always the charm.  Stalin, Mao, Castro – they all had 5 year plans.  And all the magic happens in that fifth year.  Apparently. 

Elections Have Consequences

The 2010 midterm elections were a mandate to shrink the power and scope of government.  Yet you wouldn’t know that listening to Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  Even some Republicans seem a little too eager to reach across the aisle. 

The Republicans need to acknowledge that Obama was right.  Elections have consequences.  And they won this time.  Not the Democrats.  And they need to legislate like they got a pair. 

Many feel the extension of the Bush tax cuts came at a high price.  No doubt they’re wondering what they will pay to repeal Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Message of the 2010 Midterm Elections: The ‘Teenaged’ Voted for Maturity?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2010

Two Americas:  The Silly and the Sensible

Well, the 2010 midterm elections have come and gone.  And everyone has had their say about what they meant.  Few agree.  At least, few on different sides of the aisle agree.  Two interesting columns show the thought on these two sides.  The two Americas.  One sensible.  The other silly.  You decide which is which.

Graydon Carter, editor for Vanity Fair opines in Man Up, America!

What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums? You call it teenaged.

Meanwhile, Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal (see Americans Vote for Maturity):

‘The people have spoken, the bastards.” That would be how Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling. The last two years of their leadership have been rebuffed. The question for the Democratic Party: Was it worth it? Was it worth following the president and the speaker in their mad pursuit of liberal legislation that the country would not, could not, like? And what will you do now? Which path will you take?

So one says the electorate is stupid, immature and churlish.  The other says the electorate is mature, sober and discerning.  One says the voters are idiots.  The other says that they are thoughtful.  One is a sore loser.  The other an objective realist.  One silly.  The other, sensible.

Conservatives, Moderates and Independents Exasperate the Liberal Elite

To make it clear, this is what the liberal elite think conservatives, moderates and independents are.  Too stupid to know what’s good for them.  It is just so exasperating that 80% of the electorate has the right to vote.  Like the children they are, they should be seen and not heard.  While those better than them tell them how they should live their lives.

Noonan further points out the folly of the silly by pointing out their negative ads.

Two small points on the election’s atmospherics that carry implications for the future. The first is that negative ads became boring, unpersuasive. Forty years ago they were new, exciting in a sort of prurient way. Now voters take for granted that politicians are no good, and such ads are just more polluted water going over the waterfall. The biggest long-term loser: liberalism. If all pols are sleazoid crooks, then why would people want to give them more governmental power to order our lives? The implicit message of two generations of negative ads: Vote conservative, limit the reach of the thieves.

For smart people, liberals are pretty dumb.

Ranaldo Magnus Earned his Rendezvous with Destiny

Too many people want to be politicians for the wrong reasons.  They want to be career politicians.  To be part of the ruling elite.  The American aristocracy.  For special privilege.  And because of this, a lot of inexperienced and unqualified people are in Washington.  President Obama perhaps being one of the most unqualified and inexperienced ever to hold elected office.  (Come on, be honest.  What qualifications and experience did he have?  Not as much as Sarah Palin.  And the Left ridiculed her.)

Ranaldo Magnus, on the other hand, did it the old fashioned way.  He earned it.  His rendezvous with destiny.  As Noonan points out so well:

Ronald Reagan was an artist who willed himself into leadership as president of a major American labor union (Screen Actors Guild, seven terms, 1947-59.) He led that union successfully through major upheavals (the Hollywood communist wars, labor-management struggles); discovered and honed his ability to speak persuasively by talking to workers on the line at General Electric for eight years; was elected to and completed two full terms as governor of California; challenged and almost unseated an incumbent president of his own party; and went on to popularize modern conservative political philosophy without the help of a conservative infrastructure. Then he was elected president.

And what did President Obama do?  A partial term as U.S. senator.  Before that?  Community organizer.  A pretty sparse resume.

We Need More Like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington Entering Public Service

Whatever irrationality there was that swept Obama and his Democrats into power is gone.  The grownups spoke this past Tuesday.  And they voted for maturity.  Let’s hope the grownups build on this.  And from them another Ronald Reagan earns his or her rendezvous with destiny.  Again, from Noonan:

Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can’t just bully them, you can’t just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.

This is the true American tradition.  Benjamin Franklin.  George Washington.  The two grand old men of the Founding.  These men were in the autumn of their years when they entered public service.  Old but wise.  Experienced.  With real-world talent.  Masters of persuasion.  Everything that Obama and his Democrats are not.  We need these wise and experienced.  To answer the call of service.  After having a life and a string of accomplishments.  The question is, are they out there?  Yes.  They are.  As we saw this past Tuesday.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As Usual, the Democrats are Trying to Deceive the Voters to Get Reelected

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 24th, 2010

Yes, I Voted for Obamacare.  But I’m Really a Reagan Democrat.

America is a center-right country.  That’s why liberals don’t run as liberals during elections.  They lie.  And deceive.  They morph into something the people actually want.  Which isn’t who they are.  They move to the center.  They sound like conservatives.  Even invoke Ronald Reagan’s name during the election.  The leftist of liberals are all Reagan Democrats at election time.  Once the polls close, though, they go right back to castigating Reagan and his policies.  And scold us that we can’t return to the failed policies of the past.

Bill Clinton ran as a New Democrat.  But once in office he governed so far to the left that he lost both houses of Congresses at the midterm elections.  Barack Obama, too.  Well, is about to.  Lose super majorities in the House and the Senate.  Why?  Because he campaigned as a centrist.  And has governed as the most liberal president to date.

Obama did not run on the platform of nationalizing our health care.  But that’s the path we’re on.   Obamacare is forcing insurance companies to raise their premiums to comply, setting the stage for further attacks against these greedy corporations.  Some are dropping children-only policies because of the mandate to insure those with preexisting conditions.  With that mandate, no parent will spend money for insurance until their child needs health care.  Obamacare is full of such legislation that has but one purpose.  To kill the private health insurance industry.  To make way for the public option.  And, eventually, nationalize health care.  But he didn’t campaign that way.  Because the voting public clearly didn’t want this.

Don’t Look at My Liberal Legislative Accomplishments.  I’m Actually Against Everything I Voted For.

You see, liberals cannot be honest during campaigns.  They can’t say that their economic policies will make the recession worse.  And prolong it.  Which they have.  They can’t say they are going to raise everyone’s taxes.  Which they will after their commission reports after the election.  They will say that there is no choice but to raise taxes on everyone to reign in the out of control deficit spending.  And they can’t say that we will lose our doctors or the health insurance we like and want to keep under Obamacare.  Which we will.  They can’t be honest about these things and still win elections.  So they lie.  And they deceive.

And now here we are.  At the midterm elections.  If you have been following the campaigns across the country, you’ve no doubt noticed something.  Or, rather, noticed something that’s not there.  That is conspicuous by its absence.   Obama and his Democrat controlled Congress passed an enormous amount of liberal legislation in not quite two years.  And nary a Democrat is running on their impressive liberal legislative accomplishments.  In fact, some are now campaigning against their own legislative record.  Why?  Because they governed against the will of their constituents.  And it’s election time.  So now it’s time, once again, to lie.  To deceive.  And they found a new game this year.  Thanks to the Tea Party.

Oh, these people hate the Tea Party.  They came up with that pejorative ‘tea bagger’ to describe these people.  They did everything they could to mock and belittle these people.  Because these people scare them.  They’re educated.  They understand the issues.  And they know who these liberals are and see through all their lies.  So what’s the logical thing for these liberals to do during this election season?  Why, support Tea Party 3rd party candidates. 

Hello, I’m Devious.  Democrat Candidate for Office.  And I want to Deceive You

The Democrats are heading for a shellacking this November.  They’re desperate.  Especially poor old Harry Reid.  The consummate professional being beaten by some Tea Party hack.  Well, that’s how the Left views it.  So they’re turning up the devious this election.  The following quote comes from an article by Jim Rutenberg published 10/22/2010 at The New York Times on line (see Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes).

Democrats are working behind the scenes in a number of tight races to bolster long-shot third-party candidates who have platforms at odds with the Democratic agenda but hold the promise of siphoning Republican votes.

And, you’ve guessed it, these 3rd party candidates are balloted as ‘Tea Party’ candidates.  They’re competing against the Democrat candidate.  And the Tea Party endorsed Republican candidate.  That’s right, the actual Tea Party, the grassroots movement with that name, doesn’t endorse these ‘Tea Party’ candidates.

Democrat operatives are actually calling people, identifying themselves as registered Republicans, to promote these 3rd party candidates.  They’re trying to deceive registered Republicans into voting for the more conservative ‘Tea Party’ candidate in lieu of the ‘liberal’ Republican candidate.  If they deceive enough registered Republicans with this trick, they may just be able to Ross Perot their election (Perot was the 3rd party candidate that swept Bill Clinton into office).

Whether they do or not it sure says a lot about the Left.  They just can’t win elections honestly.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Whose Recession is it Anyway?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 11th, 2010

The Democrats had a Big Say in Bush’s Last 2 Years

Obama keeps saying he inherited a mess.  That’s why the economy is worse now than it was under Bush.  Because all that bad in the Bush administration had momentum.  Obama just couldn’t turn it around on a dime.  He would need time.  But this is a bit disingenuous.

The Democrats took control of the Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.  How big a deal is this?  Big.  The Democrats are already chastising the Republicans for what they may do if they win control of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections.  If the Republicans win and they don’t rubberstamp everything the Obama administration wants, they’ll attack the Republicans as obstructionists.  Why?  Because if you don’t have Congress a president has a very difficult time advancing his agenda.  Just like Bush did.  When the Democrats were obstructionists.  (In the Democrat’s world, being obstructionist against Republicans is being patriotic.)

So you have that.  The last two years of the Bush administration were hamstrung by the Democrat controlled Congress.  Nancy Pelosi.  Harry Reid.  Big time liberal Democrats.  The last two years of Bush’s presidency were theirs.  They controlled Congress.  They dictated what happened in the House and the Senate.  They controlled the committees.  Appointed the chairpersons.  All of them.  Including the ones with oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd).  Who caused the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008.  So, given all of that, you cannot assign sole responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 on George W. Bush.  The Democrats were knee deep in that mess.

Members of the Obama Administration are Taking to the Lifeboats

If the Obama administration was the Titanic, the 2010 midterm elections are its iceberg.  Unlike that ill-fated passenger liner, though, this iceberg is on everyone’s radar.  And they’re taking to the lifeboats.  Gone or soon to be gone are Robert Gates, David Axelrod, Larry Summers, General James Jones, most of his economic advisors, and, of course, Rahm Emanuel.  To name a few.

Ewen MacAskill wrote in the Guardian (see White House staff exodus exposes Obama to charges of disarray) that it’s an Obama problem.  Unless you’re in Obama’s inner-circle, he doesn’t really care what you think or say (as is evident by the number of his czars – his real trusted advisors).

In a blog on the Politico website, Alvin Felzenberg, the presidential historian and author of The Leaders We Deserved, writes: “These departures are a reflection of Obama’s leadership style. Why he has such a difficult time earning and retaining the loyalties of people outside his circle of intimates is anyone’s guess.”

Unable to influence Obama to change course before this November’s bloodletting (and knowing that he may very well double down after the bloodletting instead of tacking to the center a la Clinton), they’re leaving.  Before they’re branded for life for the political carnage of this administration.

Obama’s Economics Team Hit the Ground Running

Besides having Congress for the last 2 years of the Bush presidency, the Democrats came in prepared.  They were honing their economic plans during the 6 months before Obama took the oath of office.  Or so says Professor Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.

“The exhaustion rate for this administration is more accelerated due to the problems they encountered in January 2009. There was no presidential ‘honeymoon’,” Baker said today. He added that some of them had been working intensively on economic policy in the six months before Obama took over.

After 2 years of control of Congress and a 6-month preparation to ‘jump-start’ the economy, an objective observer can’t be all that impressed with the results.  And finds it hard to blame George W. Bush.  Especially when Christina Romer (a member of Obama’s economics team) guaranteed us that unemployment would remain under 8% if Congress passed the Obama stimulus plan.  And what did we get?  Record deficit spending and a higher unemployment rate.

Romer, in a statement she has since said she regretted making, promised Obama’s economic stimulus plan would get unemployment down to 8%, whereas it has stayed above that, with the latest figure at 9.6%.

Don’t forget, they were working on that stimulus plan for 6 months.  And the real unemployment rate is north of 10%.  When you put it all together, this recession is more Obama’s than Bush’s.  Which probably has a lot to do with the exodus from the Obama administration before the midterm elections.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Look Out – Here Comes the Middle Class Tax Hike

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 25th, 2010

A Little Business Primer

Who hires more people?  Big corporations?  Or small businesses?  Some may be surprised to learn that small business provides the majority of American jobs.  Little guys taking a risk.  Doing something they love.  Are good at.  They earn a living.  And provide jobs with benefits for others.  Not too shabby.

These people start their own construction company.  Buy a restaurant (from a lunch counter to a fancy place with table cloths and a wine steward).  Captain a fishing boat.  Move up from fixing cars in a backyard to operating a three-bay service garage.  Open a multi-chair hair salon.  Run a landscaping business (and snow removal business in the winter).  Sell ice cream to tourists from an independently owned Ben & Jerry’s on the strip.  Or buy and operate a McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Dunkin’ Donuts, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, etc.

These are not fat cats running fortune 500 corporations.  They’re no Donald Trump.  So they keep things simple.  And yet protect themselves.  They operate as an ‘S’ corporation.  This is sort of a hybrid between the regular ‘c’ corporation and a partnership.  There’s limited liability (you limit your losses to only what you invested into your business).  And there’s no business tax on earnings like in a partnership.  All earnings are distributed to the shareholders (which could be just one person).  And taxed as personal income. 

I Will Not Raise Taxes on Anyone Earning Under $250,000

Sounds good.  Stick it to the rich fat cats.  But who else makes more than $250,000?  I’ll give you a hint.  Reread the previous section.

A small business owner operating as an ‘S’ corporation is likely to earn more than $250,000.  But they’re not fat cats.  Far from it.  Let’s pick a number.  Something you think is fair for a business owner’s salary.  Someone who probably has his or her house mortgaged to the hilt.  Works 7 days a week and puts in on average 80 hours each week.  If they could earn, say, $75,000 working for someone else, would you begrudge them earning, say, $100,000 working for themselves?  For the sake of the argument, let’s say you don’t.  That’s less than half of the $250,000 tax threshold.  The small business owner, the generator of American jobs, should be safe from any Obama tax hike, right?  Wrong.

As a business struggles to grow, a business owner plows most of their earnings back into their business.  To buy a new copier.  Replace a furnace.  Buy new software.  New computers.  A network for your computers.  Inventory tracking.  A new delivery truck.  Decals for your new delivery truck.  Building signage.  A ‘yellow pages’ ad.  New telephones.  A new website.  New invoicing software with a custom-designed invoice form.  Etc.  But before you can spend this money, you have to earn it.  And, once earned, an ‘S’ corporation small business owner pays taxes on it.  Even if they invest it back into the business.  So, the higher the tax rate, the less they can grow.  And the fewer jobs they can create.

The Obama administration keeps bitching about the greedy bankers and big corporations who are sitting on their cash.  (And they sit on their cash for good reason.  They already have excess capacity.  So there’s no reason to expand.  Because there’re no markets to expand into).  The one area, though, where there may be expansion possibilities is in small business.  Raising taxes on those earning over $250,000 per year, though, will kill small business growth.  Kill jobs.  And prolong this recession.  So why do they persist in attacking the ‘rich’?  Because in terms of voters, they’re less of them than those earning under $250,000.

Playing the Numbers

The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year.  If Congress doesn’t extend them, taxes will go up and the economy will tank even further.  And Obama will have violated his no tax rate increase for anyone earning less than $250,000 pledge. 

But there will be no vote before the midterm elections.  (See Congress Punts on Taxes by Martin Vaughan and John D. McKinnon at the Wall Street Journal on line.)  The Republicans want to extend them across the board.  This is a problem for Democrats.  If they do, it endorses George W. Bush’s economic policies and discredits their own.  And angers the liberal base.  They would rather extend the cuts only for the middle class.  This, however, won’t help the small business owners (i.e., the job creators).  So the Republicans are opposing this as it will not help the economy. 

Let’s look at the numbers.  Note the chart at the bottom of the Wall Street Journal article referenced above.  Especially the fine print.  It reads, “2008 tax year, an additional 25% of filers are in the 0% rate category.”  In other words, 25% of the voters pay no federal income taxes.  If you add that figure to the sum of the top three ‘Pct. of filers’ in that chart it equals 95.1%.  In other words, approximately 95.1% of voters earn $140,550 or less.  Only 4.9% of the voters earn more.  Hence the class warfare.  And after stirring up the masses (the 95.1%) to hate the rich (the 4.9%), they have no choice but to keep on hating.  I mean, they can’t tell the 95.1% that they were wrong, can they?  Especially when the poll numbers are moving against them.

So, of course, the Obama administration sticks to the time-honored playbook.  And attacks the rich.  In hopes of persuading enough of the 95.1% to forget about results and to just vote their hate.  We call it playing the numbers.  There’s only one problem.  Most of the 95.1% work for the 4.9%.  So if you make it too costly for the 4.9% to expand and create jobs, they won’t.  They may even cut back.  And the 95.1% are the ones who will suffer.  They may see a reduction in their benefits.  Work longer hours (because their boss can’t afford to hire a new employee). They may even lose their job.  And their house.  They may not like that.  But at least they can find solace in their hate.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #23: “Those who seek a third party cede the election to the opposition.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2010

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES are often election spoilers.  Dissatisfied with the direction of their party, they leave that party to form a new party.  This, of course, will split the party they left.  Some may follow.  Most will probably not.

Third party candidates have small followings.  They typically have a single issue that pushes them to leave their party.  That single issue, though, may not be as important to those they leave behind.  And this one issue may be anathema to the opposition.  Guaranteeing very few, if any, will follow that candidate into a third party.

The Green Party, for example, is an environmental party.  Environmental issues, then, dominate their political agenda.  Environmental policies typically do not result in jobs or economic prosperity.  They will draw some people from the Democratic Party.  But only those with extreme environmental views.  They will draw no one from the Republican Party which is more associated with jobs and economic issues than environmental issues.  They, then, would have little impact on the party they oppose.  But they may have a negative impact on the party that they would have otherwise supported.

And then you have your core voters.  They have and always will vote for their party.  Populist movements rarely change the way they vote.  Populist movements may be single-issue.  They may be more of a subset of an existing political party.  Or they may be vague on details completely.  They may be many things but the paramount thing they are is popular.  And they pander to the people that are demanding something.  And whatever that is, they say they will give it to them.  Populist trends, though, don’t sway core voters.

SO WHO ARE in the two core parties?  The liberals?  And the conservatives?

Liberals are pseudo-intellectuals who want to tell others how to live.  Because they are ‘smarter’ than everyone else.  Most have never held a real job.  They inherited their money or made it big in Hollywood or in some other entertainment genre (the guilty rich), are college professors, sponged off of government (the self-proclaimed political aristocracy) or are in the mainstream media. 

Conservatives typically have jobs.

Few people agree with liberals so they have to offer special privileges in exchange for votes and political power.  They get the support of the poor because they get the poor dependent on their charity.  They get the entertainment elite by stroking their intellectual vanity.  They get the various minorities and single-issue groups by throwing a few bones to them (i.e., by buying their votes).  They get Big Business with crony capitalism.  They get the unions in exchange for anti-business legislation.  They get the young by being weak on drugs and morality.  They get a lot of women because of their abortion stance.  They get the illegal immigration community because they dangle citizenship in front of them while getting as many as they can addicted to welfare (so when they do become citizens they will become good Democrats.  Of course, with the majority of illegal immigrants in question being Hispanic, it will be interesting to see how that loyalty will play out.  A lot of Hispanics are practicing Catholics.  Will they continue to support the party that attacks their religion and religious values?  After all, they’re leaving a corrupt nation where only the ruling elite live well.  They come here for a better life for themselves and their families.  And many work hard for it.  With their religious values being a strong part of their lives.  Will the liberals tempt them with their welfare state after citizenship?  Time will tell).

Many agree with conservatives because they, too, just want to work and provide for their families.  And they would like their children’s future to be a good one.  (Again, the Hispanic question is interesting.  For they have conservative values, too.  Amnesty for illegals may be a Faustian bargain, but wouldn’t be ironic if it’s the Democrats who are selling their souls?  I mean, this large bloc of Catholics could very well vote for the religious right after citizenship.)

So liberals must appeal to their base during the primary election to get their party’s nomination.  Once they have that, they then must start lying about who they really are during the general election.  Because their views and opinions are minority views and opinions. 

The conservatives just need to be themselves.  When Ronald Reagan did just that, he won in a landslide.  Twice.

LET’S CRUNCH SOME numbers.  Some simple numbers.  Let’s say there are only 11 voters.  America is a center-right country based on honest polling.  So let’s say that 4 voters are conservative and 3 voters are liberals.  The 4 in the middle are independents and moderates.  So what happens at an election?

If all of the independents and moderates do not vote, conservatives win (4-3). 

Liberals cannot win unless some moderates and independents do vote.  So liberals must encourage the moderates and independents to vote.  And, of course, to vote for them.  While making sure their base votes (‘vote early and often’ is their mantra).  As well as some criminals.  And some dead who haven’t been purged from the election rolls.

Independents and moderates, therefore, determine elections.  And the general election is all about getting these votes.  Both sides turn down the volume on the ‘extremist’ positions they held during the primaries.  Conservatives talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.  Liberals campaign as conservatives.  (Bill Clinton ran as a new kind of Democrat with some very conservative planks in his platform.  When he won, though, he moved so far back to the left that he lost the House and Senate at the midterm elections, proving once again America is a center-right country.)

So back to our little example.  If the conservatives get 2 of the 4 independent and moderate votes, they win (6-5).  Liberals need 3 of their votes for the same winning margin.  Advantage, conservatives.

Now let’s look at a rift in the conservative party.  Two leave and form a third party.  And take 2 votes with them.  For the sake of argument, let’s say these two call themselves the Anti-Abortion Party.  It is doubtful that any liberals will leave their party to join them.  And it is doubtful that independents and moderates would make overturning a Supreme Court decision a key voting issue.  They tend to tack to a centrist course through the prevailing political winds.

So the Anti-Abortion Party candidate will only get 2 votes.  This candidate will not win.  That leaves only 9 votes in play.  Which means getting only 5 votes will win the election (less than a majority of the total 11).  All the third party candidate did was to make it easier for the liberals to win.  They only need 2 of the 4 of the independent and moderate votes.  Conservatives now need 3.  The third party took the conservative advantage (only needing 2 additional votes to win) and gave it to the liberals.

THE MORAL OF the story here is that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition.  The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it is still ‘less’ evil.  You should never lose sight of that.  If a political statement is only going to result in the greater evil, it is better to be more pragmatic than idealistic when voting in a general election. 

The energy of a third party or third party-like movements (such as the new Tea Party) should be marshaled during the primary election.  To get good candidates who can win general elections.  And who will remember that they are the people’s representative, not a member of a privileged, ruling elite.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,