National Review Online says Scandal is not an agenda. The editors go on to explain why the scandals engulfing the Obama Administration, by themselves, are likely to be insufficient in massively swaying the next two national elections.
Basically, the editors call on conservatives to do something they should be doing all the time: to present compelling and attractive alternatives to failed existent policies and to plans for continued Democrat intrusion in the future. (On the other hand, the President, to his benefit, avoided articulating any sort of agenda in the run-up to the 2012 election.) Implicitly, the NRO call means conservatives must engage the low information/low commitment voter. After all, a powerful agenda goes beyond merely rallying the base.
Naturally, attractive conservative candidates are also useful. Then you’ve got something.
But as the Scandal is not an agenda headline was read, the first thought was about the Obama Administration itself. That is, the thought the headline inspired was that these scandals were in no way a part of the agenda of the Administration.
Of course not. Everyone knows that. Instead, they are a natural consequence of the Obama agenda.
Government has become a real-world game of reduced choice and freedom for the citizenry and increased power and control for politicos, “elites,” and bureaucrats. And no American president since Richard Nixon is more practiced at taking extra-Constitutional power and control than Barack Obama. Whether it’s an issue of personal choice or national-level economics, the President and his party stand by, ready to help you (assuming you’re on the correct side of the issue), all for your own good.
The President mocks “politicians who want to decide whom you can marry.” So if a man wants to have multiple wives, or vise versa, or a brother and sister beyond the age of consent want to marry one another, that would be OK, right? You say, “That’s against the law.” I say, “So was sodomy.” If two fifteen year-olds have consensual sex with one another, no one goes to jail. But If one of those same fifteen-year olds has consensual sex with a thirty-five year old teacher, it’s rape. If you prefer chicken strips over cheeseburgers, it’s an issue of personal choice but if you prefer homosexual sex over heterosexual sex, it’s your genetic destiny.
And we know the President and his party mock those who disfavor abortion on demand, that is, abortion at any point in a pregnancy and for any reason a woman determines, including changing her mind. Keep your hands off my body and all that. But then why not legalize recreational drugs? They are things—so is tobacco, for that matter—that people put in their bodies. You say, “Drugs are against the law.” I say, “So was alcohol during Prohibition.”
The President favors government “investment” in green energy, publicly funded jobs, and ‘infrastructure’ projects. I ask why not let people keep more of their own money and then they can decide for themselves where it’s “invested” (or for that matter, spent)? The answer, we know, is because the President and his fellow travelers can make better decisions for you than you can yourself. Trust me, I’ve looked at this and it’s for your own good.
The President thinks students shouldn’t pay more for college. As such, he must think the American people will be there to pay the difference should costs increase. Perhaps, Nixon-like, he could instead decree that college costs will go down by reductions in faculty costs, staff sizes, and cuts to the many bells and whistles (climbing walls and fitness centers, intercollegiate sports programs, cable and high-speed internet in dorms, common area cappuccino bars, Taj Mahal-type dormitories, overseas “study” programs, etc.) which have little to nothing to do with educational outcomes?
The President thinks he “saved” General Motors and Chrysler. Is it possible to view this effort as simple government intervention in picking winners and losers, that is, rewarding the automobile unions while destroying investor value and centuries of bankruptcy law? The fact those companies had to be “saved” to begin with, with taxpayer monies, also shows that for one reason or another—think wage, benefit, pension, and product issues—they were unable to compete in the first place.
The President thinks stealing is wrong. So is it stealing to finance our current government lifestyle with borrowing futures generations will be forced to pay? Or is it stealing to repay this debt with pennies on the borrowed dollar(s)? The President also thinks lying is wrong, but if it’s wrong to lie, then why offer the false promise of the government meeting our every cradle-to-grave need? And while we’re at it, doesn’t a “living” Constitution mean that there are no absolute standards, just shifting policies and priorities grounded in… nothing?
I’m Professor Mockumental and I approved this message.
We all know the left is wise and that when we can finally find it in ourselves to submit to them—it’s for our own good—that all will be well.
For example, we could all have good jobs working at the city/county/state/federal government memory hole (or high-speed rail facility) if we’d only let go our antiquated ideas about freedom, self-governance, and market economies.
And the left tells us the people are also wise, assuming the people mirror the positions of the left’s elites.
When we the people don’t mirror those positions, we’re too stupid to see things for ourselves and have to be limited to 15 ounce soft drinks, shaming women to breast-feed, or having bureaucrats and politicos disapprove the permits for the new Chick-fil-A.
Finally, remember the good gospel of the learned leftist: when a person is pro-life and pro-normal marriage, their ideas are hateful. Conversely, when a person is pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage, their ideas are…ideal.
God gifted Solomon with wisdom and when two women appeared before him who both claimed to be the mother of a child, he offered his “split the baby” ruling in order to discern who the real mother was.
God appears to have not gifted U.S. Senator Patty Murray with wisdom. Murray’s non-motherly and unwise threat is that Democrats will take the country over the fiscal cliff unless Republicans relent on tax increases.
Let’s see: Democrats and cliffs. Hmm. Lemmings comes to mind.
Elizabeth Warren’s U.S. Senate candidacy is the comedy gift that just keeps giving. From The Boston Globe:
US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.
But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.
In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.
I guess all this fraud and deception can be justified in that she’s trying to win the seat long held by Ted Kennedy.
You know, tradition.
If Elizabeth Warren were a Republican, she’d be getting something worse than the Christine O’Donnell treatment.
From the Rev. Martin Luther King (in part):
…I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…
So when Democrats celebrate Barney Frank for being a homosexual (with a fundraiser!) versus the content of his character or epitomizing American ideals, have we made progress on the dream or not?
Absence makes the disgust grow lower. That’s the phrase, isn’t it?
Wait. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
And Bill Clinton has been absent quite a while. Long enough to make many forget he was to the U.S. economy as Jud Buechler was to the championship Chicago Bulls of the same era; that is, he stayed out of the way and let the heavy lifters do their thing.
But not all is well with the pols in donkey land.
“There are not a lot of moderates left in the Democratic Party, and Cory [Booker] is one of the few of them left,” said former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, an early Obama ally who has become increasingly estranged from the party. “I would like to think Cory speaks for a lot of voters in the Democratic Party, but sadly he doesn’t speak for a lot of Democratic operatives within the party. This isn’t Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party anymore.”
Recall that Clinton won 42% of the vote in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996.
I’m not really sure there are any moderates left in the Democrat party and recall hearing within the last few months that the most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate is less liberal than the most conservative Democrat. But isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be? In general the Democrats are the party of liberalism and Republicans are the party of conservatism?
Like Jud Buechler when Michael Jordan is on the team, there’s plenty to be said about staying out of the way. However the hubris and massive blind spot of the current crop of politicos, the never let a good crisis go to waste types, has given us failure instead of success. We have an Administration of not-even-close-to-being Jud Buechler-types who think they’re Michael Jordan.
As a result of this hubris, inexperience, ineptness, and being wrong on literally every policy, we now have the least successful President since Jimmy Carter.
But come November, we also have a chance to make things better. Barry Oh’s! term can be perhaps viewed as a learning experience—a painful, across the board disaster—for our country.
(If you must, read the original here.)
IT’S finally sinking in.
We Democrats are getting ready to harvest the Obama whirlwind, savaging the Big D brand in ways that will long resonate: think 2010 on steroids and then put that on turbo.
Does it really have to be this way? Based on core Democrat principles, yes.
“Look. Democrats are for government. Big government, bigger government, huge government, bloated government of any kind. Borrowed government, corrupt government, international, federal, state, county, parish, city, whatever. It’s good. It’s all good. All government is good. Except Republican-led government,” DNC strategist Alicia Tubeiktomy told me mournfully. “If John Dillinger was alive at this moment, he’d go into government and not into robbing banks. Why? Because that’s where the money is, that’s why. But if we lose to the Republicans, that’s all likely to change.”
She said many Democrats are “coming to grips with a much weaker economy, weakened foreign policy and worsened foreign relations, reduced personal freedom, diminished buying power, greater unemployment, shocking energy costs, and ridiculous government debt” and that Democrats are going through the six stages of political grief. “We’re at No. 4,” she said. (Political sadness.) “We’ve still got one to go.” (Political acceptance.) “And then comes step six. The end.” (Political annihilation.)
No matter if the contenders in the Republican primaries are stepping all over one another trying to be everything not Barry, Democrats everywhere are now beginning to see that Obamaworld is set to destroy their political futures. And the media, you ask? Yes, they’re in the tank, but all they’re seeing Jimmy Carter with more melanin.
In fact, it seems President Obama has caused deranged conservatives, now broadly defined as anyone who fails to see the President as the greatest leader since Abraham Lincoln, to reclaim America. However, these deranged conservatives — they view Obama as an “idiot with initiative” — are wrong. Rather, based on his record, they should view him as an idiot with initiative with melanin.
Newt Gingrich, a Vietnam-era war wimp who supported George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, had the gall to tell a crowd at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Okla., that defeating Obama — “the most inept president in modern American history” — was “important” because “he is totally inept.” Excuse me? Who killed bin Laden? And remotely from the White House video-teleconference center at that?
How can the despicable big nasty otherwise known as the Catholic Church still be represented in the public arena by warm, caring, loving Catholic Democrats who would never want to burden a woman with a disease like a child? These people are my heroes, people like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, and John Kerry.
Still, not all is well. “All this social ram-jam, along with the economic policies of Joe Friggin’ Stalin, makes the Democrats look like we aren’t a modern party,” James Carville told CNN’s Erin Burnett, fretting about the President’s initiatives. “Doesn’t he understand that there is no free lunch; that it’s an economic fallacy?”
Following a speech in Boston on Thursday, even John Kerry recoiled at his own party: “I used to be a Democrat, then a liberal, and now I’m a progressive. Regardless of name, I look at us and I’m telling you, it would seem we’re nothing but a bunch of leftist idiots. Was everything we thought we knew wrong? Economically, all we can do is to try and let the media demolish the Republican candidates and to hope no one shows up to vote.”
Despite all the massive Obama and Democrat failures, they aren’t enough to keep me from slinging some anecdotal mud. For example, Alan Simpson, a gay ranch hand and former U.S. Senator from Wyoming, recently called Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum “rigid and homoerotic,” after seeing him in a men’s room at Reagan National, one of his (Simpson, not Santorum) favorite watering holes. Arlen Specter, who was a Democrat and then a Republican and then a Democrat (again) and finally, an ex-politician, told MSNBC: “Mitt Romney is a disgraceful flip-flopper. What he instead needs is what I had: total ideological flexibility.”
Democrats have a growing panic at the thought that Republicans will soon be directing their fire on the President’s signature economic accomplishments instead of one another and are stricken at the thought of giving back the Senate as well as even more House seats than were lost in 2010. More and more, Democrats openly yearn for a fresh presidential candidate and are even talking of Joe Biden, who could perhaps parlay his plagiarism and Senatorial experiences into presidential victory. Or maybe not.
Democrat jitters have increased exponentially as they’ve watched Obama’s fundraising limited to only two significant categories: George Soros and Hollywood. And despite the President’s taxpayer-funded Super Bowl ad, virtually no one in America believes the vacuous babble about “Detroit being back” or that because we’re at halftime in an American Depression, we need to “stay the course.” The President, sans teleprompter, looked especially unpresidential (despite the raucous applause) when he blurted out that “Michelle really loved it that they lengthened the Aspen airport to accommodate Air Force One” at a recent fundraiser held at Leonardo Dicaprio’s mansion.
Obama’s multiple slips threaten to give back all that Ted Kennedy, a dead man, once told the Chappaquiddick Chamber of Commerce: “If we can limit ourselves to being the party of crony capitalists, corrupt union and government leaders, and the vast welfare state, we should remain relevant for a good long time.”
Obama, whose name comes from the Latin root “deranged Democrat zealot,” has recently gone on The View to make his case for a second term: “I understand many Americans are suffering as a direct result of my policies, legislation, and bureaucracy, but I need them to all forget all that and focus on Hope and Change. If for any reason that doesn’t work, think about Winning the Future.”
Democrats, knowing they’ve indebted the American people with bills that can’t be paid and promises that can’t be kept while still managing to move the country backwards by every meaningful positive statistic are in danger of going the way of the Whigs and the Bull Moose party: living posthumously; drafting preferential legislation for women, minorities, and green energy; favorable jobs programs and benefits for illegal immigrants; and, celebrating the success of public education.
It’s all quite sad, but the only thing that would be worse would be Republican governance.