Political parties in the United States

Paladino and the People

by Bill O'Connell on September 15, 2010

Share and Recommend:

The old bull Republicans continue to get rocked. Add Carl Paladino and Christine O’Donnell to the list that includes Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller and others. It drives home the point that was exposed in a Rasmussen poll that 72% of GOP voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with their base. On the Democrat side it is just the opposite where 61% of Democrat voters say the Dems in Congress fairly represent them. While the Democrats are standing pat, rank and file Republicans are asking for a new set of cards.

Liberty’s Life Line endorsed Mr. Lazio, because New York state government is such a dysfunctional mess it was felt more political experience and a detailed plan would make more headway than an outsider. However, the fire in the belly that Mr. Paladino demonstrated, we wish Mr. Lazio had. But Lazio ran another lackluster campaign as he did against Hillary Clinton for Senate, missing the key issue for voters by focusing on the Ground Zero mosque instead of the broken government. Oddly, he had a 24 page plan on how he would change things, but you had to hunt to find it. I have two suggestions for Mr. Lazio: drop out of the race on the Conservative line and free that up for Mr. Paladino, and give a copy of your plan to Mr. Paladino.

For the Republican party’s old pulls, it’s time to clean out your desks. Enough of the lamenting that we need moderates to win in the general election. When the going gets tough moderate Republicans vote with the Democrats. When do moderate Democrats vote with Republicans? Never, because there are no moderate Democrats. We don’t need any more Arlen Specters, Susan Collins, or Olympia Snowes. It is time to get polarized, energized, and laser focused on the issues that affect Americans. If that means we have two extremes, left and right, so be it. It also means Americans will have clear choices.

So let’s get behind the nominees and also put the old bulls out to pasture.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

Control of Congress and the Economy

by Bill O'Connell on July 25, 2010

Share and Recommend:

The Democrats like to point to the Clinton presidency as proof of their fiscal responsibility. It was a period of strong growth, balanced budgets, and prosperity. They then point to the Bush presidency, all eight years of it, and deride it for deficits, and ultimately a very severe financial crisis. But it is worth taking a moment to recall that the federal government is made up of three co-equal branches of government with built in checks and balances. The Congress is not subordinate to the president and it does not work for him. It is an equal branch of government that checks and balances the power of the presidency. For the purpose of this discussion, I will leave out the third branch, the judiciary.

Despite the famous 1992 Clinton campaign slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid,” the recession had already ended in March 1991. When Clinton took office he had a Democratic Congress and he pushed through a massive tax increase in 1993 without a single Republican vote. We know what happened to Congress in 1994, the Republicans took over for the first time in 40 years. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tried to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which was included in the Republicans’ Contract with America. It passed in the House but failed by one vote in the Senate. After losing this round, Gingrich met with the Republican leadership and put forth the idea of acting as if the amendment had passed and just start submitting balanced budgets. They succeeded in the last three years of the Clinton presidency to produce budget surpluses and decrease the national debt. This included a tax cut by the Republican Congress in 1997, and the economy grew much stronger after the Republican takeover of Congress than under an all Democratic government.

In the 1996 election, the Democrats regained control of the Congress under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Up until that point the economy had grown steadily under President Bush despite two wars. With Bush in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress we had tax cuts and seven years of economic growth. In December of 2007 the economy went into recession, almost one year after the Democrats regained control. Now with a Democrat in the White House, and the Democrats in control of Congress we are looking at massive growth in government, a whopping tax increase bearing down on us that will hit on January 1, 2011, and a growing debt that may eventually bankrupt us.

So what is all this talk about eight years of failed Republican policy? Under Clinton and a Democrat Congress it was two years of a tax increase and modest growth. Under Clinton and a Republican Congress it was six years of tax cuts, budget surpluses and strong economic growth. Hmmm….same president, different parties controlling Congress. Under Bush we had seven years of growth and tax cuts with a Republican Congress. Under Bush and a Democratic Congress, recession, fiscal crisis. Hmmm…same president, different parties controlling Congress.

But don’t expect honesty on the campaign trail from the Democrats. It’s just not the Chicago way.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (5)

Obama’s Memory Quiz

by Bill O'Connell on July 17, 2010

Share and Recommend:

President Obama’s new tack on the campaign trail is to get people to forget the last year and a half and try to scare the voters by saying, “Remember who got us into this mess and who is getting us out of it.” Is that supposed to rally the voters to the Democrats jamming budget busting program after budget busting program down their throats? Let me make two points to any voter to whom that strategy may give pause.

George W. Bush isn’t running for office
According to the Bureau of Economic Statistics, the recession started in December of 2007. Who was in control of Congress for a full year by December of 2007? That’s right, the Democrats.

So if you want to punish those who were in charge when the recession hit, with Bush gone, that leaves the Democrats. Fire away.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Putting the Champion of the Little Guys Myth to Rest

by Bill O'Connell on April 20, 2010

Share and Recommend:

The Democrats are currently trying to roll out that old war horse, “class warfare” in a desperate attempt to arrest their freefall in the polls. The myth is that they are for the little guy when they are the party of big government. Businesses, once they get big, are hardly fans of the free market as they would much prefer to settle into a profitable market niche and not have to keep battling against upstarts.

Show Me the Money

An organization known as OpenSecrets.org, has a website that has information on contributions to the 2008 presidential campaign. The list of top contributors is not a list of contributions by corporations but by contributions from those company’s Political Action Committees, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families, but it does give you a sense of where the people who make up these companies see their bread buttered.

If you look at the top 20 donors to Obama compared to the top 20 donors to McCain, the 20th donor on Obama’s list gave 32% more to Obama than the top donor to McCain. As with any large organization there will be individuals who support Republicans and individuals who support Democrats, as well as their PACs wanting hedge bets by giving to both. But the amounts are telling.

What is particularly illuminating is with regard to Wall Street and the Banks. The Democrats are latching onto the sound bite that they want more regulation to protect the little guy, while the Republicans want less regulation so that Wall Street and the banks can get rich at the expense of the little guy.

Who’s Dumber Wall Street or the Democrats?

Does anyone believe that the leaders of Wall Street would give money to a candidate or party without expecting their point of view to be heard? Does anyone believe that the Democrats would take contributions and then turn around and burn those who contributed so generously, particularly before a very tough election? Okay, now that we have that settled let’s look at the numbers.

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to Obama’s election were as follows:

Goldman Sachs — $994,795
Citigroup — $701,290
JP Morgan Chase — $695,132
UBS AG — $543,219
Morgan Stanley — $514,881

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to McCain’s election were as follows:

Merrill Lynch — $373, 595 (subsequently sold to Bank of America)
Citigroup — $322,051
Morgan Stanley — $273,452
Goldman Sachs — $230,095
JP Morgan Chase — $228,107
Wachovia — $195,063 (acquired by Wells Fargo)
UBS AG — $192,493
Credit Suisse — $183,353
Bank of America — $166,026
Bear Stearns — $117,498 (subsequently sold to JP Morgan Chase in a fire sale)
Lehman Brothers — $114,357 (Bankrupt)

It looks like four of the companies with people who gave to McCain didn’t survive the meltdown and either disappeared or were swallowed up by the winners. If you look as people from companies that gave to both candidates, the amounts are significantly different:

Goldman Sachs associates gave $764,700 more to Obama than McCain
Citigroup associates gave $379,239 more to Obama than McCain
JP Morgan associates gave $467,025 more to Obama than McCain
UBS associates gave $350,726 more to Obama than McCain
Morgan Stanley gave $241,429 more to Obama than McCain

I am not suggesting any quid pro quo for the contributions, but people do things for a reason. Who do you think will be more sensitive to the needs of Wall Street, Obama or the Republicans?

So look for a Financial Reform package that is a lot of smoke and mirrors that actually does nothing constructive. Republicans will oppose it, and Democrats will try to flog them as being for Wall Street and the Banks and against the little guy, but facts are facts. Remember, after passing ObamaCare Democrats tried to paint the picture that they stood up to the insurance companies, when they passed a law that will compel millions of Americans to become customers of those same insurance companies. Do you think that is why the opposition from the insurance companies was muted?

It’s time to drive home the point that this Administration is allied with Wall Street, GE, health insurance companies against us. It should not be hard to do. People are listening closely like never before.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Why Americans Hate Washington Incumbents

by Bill O'Connell on February 27, 2010

Share and Recommend:

This week we had President Obama hosting a seven hour talkathon on his stalled healthcare initiative. His purpose was to show his reasonableness and willingness to listen to Republicans. Republicans took the position that the Democrats couldn’t pass their bill despite having large majorities in both houses of Congress, so why not start over and be truly bipartisan? Doing so might actually produce some bipartisan legislation.

But this was not about bipartisanship it was about a performance. If the Republicans didn’t subscribe to the Democrats definition of bipartisanship (see previous post), then the Democrats would jam it through using a highly controversial technique. Although 60% of Americans oppose the healthcare plan, President Obama will ignore the will of the people because, “a majority vote makes sense.” (See video: Obama Defends Reconciliation: A majority vote makes sense). He is referring to the Republicans using the filibuster in the Senate to block the legislation.

That was Then, This is Now

But it wasn’t too long ago when Republicans objected to Democrats stonewalling President Bush’s judicial nominees. Republicans threatened to change the rules so that judicial nominees could not be filibustered. Now tradition holds that a President generally gets approval on his judicial nominees unless they are unqualified, even if you disagree with their judicial philosophy. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg clearly votes with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court with regularity. The Senate confirmed her 96-3. Stephen Breyer, another solid liberal won confirmation 87-9. President Obama, the great uniter, while a member of the Senate voted against both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. So much for bipartisanship. So when the Republicans talked about changing the rules for confirming judges, not nationalizing 1/6 of the U.S. economy, Democrats had a very different view. (See video: “Nuclear Option” is Arrogant Power Grab Against the Founders Intent). Could there be a greater hypocricy? Biden: “”I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” Joe Biden, call your priest.

Americans are Disgusted

Americans are rightly fed up with Washington incumbents who are only interested in increasing the scope of their power and getting themselves re-elected. Their pompous arrogance borders on nauseating. They should all be voted out.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Remember the 23rd!

by Bill O'Connell on November 6, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Conservatives, do not lose heart. Tea Party people, stand firm. Like many great turning points in history, they often involve an historic battle that is lost. The Alamo. Remember the Maine. Dunkirk. Pearl Harbor. 9/11. What they do instead is rally the troops, get them fired up and motivated.

The Battle

In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the aloofness of the professional pols came to a head. It was the epitome of a recent Rasmussen poll that said 74% of Republicans said their elected leaders were out of touch with the base. On the Democratic side, the opposite was the case were most Democrats felt their elected leaders held similar views to their own. So what happened in the special election in New York’s 23rd district?

Republican party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava to defend a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War. Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-”reform in workers ability to organize”, pro-gay marriage, pro-Obama stimulus package, and endorsed by the Working Families Party, an ACORN front group. That was more than conservatives could stand. Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring, conservatives from around the country rallied to him, and Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race and threw her support behind…the Democrat!!

So the race was between a Democrat and a Conservative, with the Republican candidate a footnote. The Democrat prevailed by about 5% and picked up a seat for Nancy Pelosi.

The Talking Heads

The liberals started rubbing their hands and crowing over the Republican party self-destructing. I see it differently.

In a Gallup poll, 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 20% described themselves as liberals. That leaves 40% in the middle. The prevailing wisdom among the Republican Party leadership is that we need to run “moderates” and have a big tent to win elections. I say, do the math.

If you need 50% to win the election, and many times you don’t, then run a conservative candidate. You will start off with the 40% that call themselves conservative, and then you only need to win 25% of the middle to put you over the top. (40% in the middle x 25% = 10%; 40% conservative base plus this 10% = 50%).

Liberals have the tougher job. Starting out with only a base of 20% self-described liberals, they need to win 3/4 of the middle to get to 50% and win. It’s even tougher for them because they typically have to go hard left to win the primary and then try to swim upstream to get back in the middle without anyone noticing.

Putting Elections on a Platter

So what has been the strategy of the Republican Party leadership? Run moderates, because “we can’t win elections with the conservative base alone.” That’s true but neither can the Democrats win with just their liberal base and as I just proved, theirs is the tougher job. But when you run moderates, here’s what happens. A good portion of the conservative base stays home, disgusted. So from starting with 40%, you maybe now have a 20% base. You just let the Democrats pull even. Now you have to win not 25% of the middle but half of the middle. Let’s say the middle is a continuum from almost conservative to almost liberal. If Republicans keep their base, then they can just go after the middle group that is “almost” conservative. If they alienate their base then they have to get every vote in the middle that is the least bit conservative and maybe some liberals. On the flip side, if they keep their base by running conservative candidates, that forces the Democrat to get all the liberals, all moderates, and some who lean conservative, to capture 3/4 of the middle. After going hard left to get nominated, that is an almost impossible task.

Don’t Let Obama Fool You

Obama’s election had an historical element to it that we are not likely to see again. He is an incredibly good speaker, that is, until you realize that is all he is. Put up a moderate like McCain, and it was no contest. The only time it became interesting was when McCain picked Palin, which got the base energized. But the McCain campaign completely mismanaged bringing Palin on board, and the moment was lost.

Remember the 23rd!

So, conservatives have to rally and the Republican leadership has to pay attention. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, “Don’t go wobbly.” Start putting conservatives on the field and turn the tide of the battle.

The next battle is Florida where Charlie Crist…better update his resume, there is a new kid in town, named Marco Rubio and he’s a conservative.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Frank Rich’s Conservative

by Bill O'Connell on November 2, 2009

Share and Recommend:

In his Sunday column Frank Rich described Republican candidate for New York’s 23rd Congressional District a “mainstream conservative by New York standards.” So what did Dede Scozzafava do after falling so far behind the Democratic and Conservative candidates that she decided to drop out? Well, naturally, she endorsed the Democrat! Why would a conservative endorse the Conservative, rather than the Democrat? Because, perhaps, she was a RINO? That is, a Republican In Name Only.

Party On

What frightens the statists more than anything else is that the Tea Party people know how to walk and chew gum at the same time. They know that protesting is one thing, but it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t bring about results. What was demonstrated in New York’s 23rd District is that just like the Minutemen back in Revolutionary times, conservatives could rally, join the fight, and win. The lock the left had on the media is gone. The statists no longer control the information game, putting their spin on the news. If this were 20 years ago, Doug Hoffman the Conservative candidate in the race, would have been, at best, a footnote in history. His story would not have gotten off the local newspapers in that rural part of New York State. In today’s world, he quickly got on television, talk radio, and the blogs, got his message out and the rest is history.

What’s the Lesson?

Despite Frank Rich’s hand wringing and Dede Scozzafava’s backing the Democratic candidate, how has the race changed? From neck and neck between the Conservative Hoffman and the Democrat Owens, recent polls show Hoffman surging into the lead with one poll showing a 5% lead and another showing a 17% lead. The lesson is that if you give Republicans good conservative candidates, they will vote for them. If you instead go for weak, moderates, then the Republican base stays home, and the independents choose between the professional statist (Democrat) and the amateur statist (moderate Republican) and as I like to say…in a contest like that why wouldn’t you pick the pro over the amateur?

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Bipartisanship Begins At Home

by Bill O'Connell on February 24, 2009

Share and Recommend:

New York, like many states, is in the midst of a state budget crisis. The state is facing a $14 billion budget deficit. The cause of the problem is pretty clear, too much spending. State spending has grown far in excess of inflation and population growth. What provided the wallop is the sharp downturn on Wall Street, which drastically cut revenues to the state. But the state does not have any reserves to speak of.

We’re All in This Together, Right?

Everyone is being asked to tighten their belts. The Democrats had previously held the State Assembly and now control both houses of the legislature and the governorship. Among the strongest supporters of the Democrats in this very blue state are the labor unions. They wholeheartedly support the spending increases that the Democrats propose every year especially where those increases shower wages and benefits on their members.

So while the Democrats, with no place to hide, are scrambling to close the budget gap why do I see commercial after commercial on television urging me to tell the governor and the legislature to make the necessary cuts elsewhere and not to touch their sacred cow. The commercials are from the police unions, the teacher unions, the health care worker unions, the university professor unions, the public employee unions, all urging us to rise up and make sure the cuts are not directed at them.

Chutzpah

After years and years of spending increases under both Republicans and Democrats, and year after year of fat labor contracts for these unions because the politicians were too cowardly to confront them or turn down their money and electoral support, we are now in this mess. But now instead of shouldering their share of the burden, some of which was a result of their greed, they are telling their fellow New Yorkers to take on more of the pain and spare them. How about a little bipartisanship on behalf of the unions and suck it up and help your fellow New Yorkers carry the load you created.

Where’s Ronald Reagan when you need him?

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Just What Is Bipartisanship?

by Bill O'Connell on February 15, 2009

Share and Recommend:

“marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties” — Miriam Webster Dictionary

The talk about bipartisanship and the accusations about a lack of bipartisanship are flying back and forth with such intensity, who could blame the casual observer for throwing up their hands and wishing a pox upon both houses?

President Obama and Bipartisanship

I believe that President Obama is sincere in his desire for bipartisanship. His willingness to meet with and listen to conservative columnists, and Republicans is indicative of his desire to change the tone in Washington. On the stimulus bill, I think he just painted himself into a corner by letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill while he held those meetings. Listening to the other side is a start, but it falls short of the definition. It remains to be seen if President Obama recognizes where this approach fell short or if it really is just window dressing.

Democratic Leadership and Bipartisanship

The Democratic Leadership has a very different view of bipartisanship. Their view is, “we stake out a position and you (Republicans) agree with it and that’s bipartisanship.” If they don’t agree, they are rabid partisans, doing it strictly for future political gain. But if you look at the definition of bipartisanship above, the Democratic Leadership is just not interested. The stimulus bill was put together solely by the Democrats and when asked by a reporter if the bill was bipartisan Nancy Pelosi responded, “That depends on how the Republicans vote.” That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.

When President Bush came into office, he brought with him his experience in Texas where he worked very successfully with the Democrats in the legislature. However, the Democrats in Congress were so angry with the outcome of the election in 2000 that they never gave him a chance, voting against anything he proposed.

Republicans and Bipartisanship

The Republican leadership has expressed their appreciation to President Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle. However, as genuine as the gesture was they were still pretty much excluded from the legislative process. They fully understand that elections have consequences, but they want to be heard, they want to offer alternatives, they want the opportunity to persuade. If denied that by the Democratic Leadership, they will take their case directly to the American people and in 2010 get the public’s decision.

Is Bipartisanship Possible?

Is there such a divide that bipartisanship is just not possible? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is trying to tackle that issue through a non-profit organization called American Solutions. That organization polled Republicans, Democrats and Independents to find areas of widespread agreement. The key to bipartisanship is to first find areas where you agree. Then look for areas where you differ but not so significantly that there is not room for negotiation and compromise. Lastly, is to recognize those areas where the difference is so wide that you simply have to agree to disagree. This is a list of ten initiatives that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree on.

English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)

We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)

The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)

Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)

Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)

Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)

We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8 )

We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8 )

Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)

We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)

As you can see by the percentages, the support for each of these ten measures is rather substantial. Bipartisanship on any one of these issues should be very easy to obtain. You just have to ask yourselves: how many of these are supported by the Democratic Leadership or President Obama? You can see that a number of them are not only not supported, but adamantly opposed.

So what is your view of bipartisanship? Is it where you surrender your principles and fall in line with your opponent? Or is it trying to find common ground among all Americans and not pushing a partisan agenda where government runs the smallest aspect of your life?

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

The Audacity of Those Republicans!

by Bill O'Connell on February 1, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Frank Schaeffer writes in the Huffington Post, under the headline Republicans: “Go To Hell America”, 100% Partisan Vote”, about the vote on the so-called stimulus package. As Shakespeare said, “Me thinks he doth protest too much.” In actuality it was a bi-partisan vote, bi-partisan against the stimulus package.

Stimulus?

As more details about this pork-a-palooza come out the American people grow more concerned and less supportive as evidenced by a recent Rasmussen poll with support slipping from 45% to 42% and opposition growing from 34% to 39% with 19% undecided. Which means that 3% moved from the support column and 2% from the undecided column into the opposition column. In other words, more people supported John McCain than support this package, and McCain lost.

So why is Frank Schaeffer on the verge of having a stroke over this? When you look more closely it’s pretty clear. By all Republicans voting against the measure, they did not give the Democrats the fig leaf they were looking for. If this is truly a stimulus package and if the Democrats need no Republican votes to pass it, then pass it and take all the credit when the economy rockets to life. The dirty little secret is that the Democrats really don’t believe this is a stimulus package at all.

The Big Payoff

The purpose of this package is to help the Democrats to consolidate power. It begins by paying back those who supported them. Why else is there money in the package for Hollywood, family planning, teacher’s unions, massive transfers of money from the federal to the state governments? The “tax stimulus” of about $10 per week, is aimed at those who pay little to no income taxes. “If I give you a check for nothing today, will you give me your vote in 2010?” They are pushing to reach that tipping point where the majority of voters pay no income tax and maybe even get checks from the government. Once that magical 50% line is crossed look out. By having majority rule, they can then jack up the tax rates on “the rich” to astronomical levels, and there is little that can be done about it short of another revolution. Remember those famous words, “Taxation without Representation”? And why should it matter to rich Democrats, since they don’t pay the taxes they owe anyway (Rangel, Daschle, Geithner).

The Republicans could have done a great thing for their party and the country: sent a message to the world — we stand together! Imagine the impact on tomorrow’s stock market, and our enemy’s view of America and our standing in the world if instead of a partisan Republican “NO” vote the backing of the recovery plan had been unanimous approval! — Schaeffer

Sorry, comrade, it’s time for Mr. Schaeffer to get a reality check. First of all that was a bipartisan NO! Second, the stock market has fallen 1,600 points since Obama was elected. That’s not exactly a vote of confidence from the financial markets. Look, the measure passed. If it is a truly good stimulus package the stock market should rise on that alone. Does he think Wall Street cares whose vote is in which column? Please!

The Republicans might have then shared the credit, even won a few elections in the future. Now their fate is sealed. Obama will succeed. America won’t forget who to thank. — Schaeffer

You would think that Mr. Schaeffer was born yesterday. This package was put together by President, I mean, Speaker Pelosi. She gave the back of her hand to the Republicans. They had no role to play in putting this package together, so let’s put the bipartisan rhetoric back in the museum case where it belongs. President Obama’s dinner with conservative writers, his cocktail parties, his Capital Hill meetings with Republicans were all just PR and window dressing if they have no input on the legislation. When asked if the package was bipartisan, Speaker Pelosi said that depends on how the Republicans vote. In other words, if they vote for what we are trying to cram down their throats, its bipartisan, if not, well just call on Frank Schaeffer to scream FOUL!

If he wants a true stimulus package, cut the pork, cut the unnecessary spending, eliminate the capital gains tax and cut tax rates, not give out $10 per week that will barely buy a pizza. If you want to build a serious stimulus package, I am sure the Republicans would stand ready to work with President Obama, but it’s time for President Obama to realize that he’s the one with the 70% approval rating not Nancy Pelosi, whose Congress has approval ratings in the single digits. He should take the lead not follow hers. But for now someone has to watch the American people’s backs and their wallets, and that, my friends, are the conservative Republicans.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →

Political parties in the United States

Paladino and the People

Control of Congress and the Economy

Putting the Champion of the Little Guys Myth to Rest

Why Americans Hate Washington Incumbents

Remember the 23rd!

Frank Rich’s Conservative

Just What Is Bipartisanship?

The Audacity of Those Republicans!

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll