The Next Time Liberals Tell You Conservatives Control the Media...

Just point them to the past week of coverage, when a lunatic kills six people and shoots a Congresswoman in the head, and Sarah Palin and talk radio are blamed immediately.

Words fail me to describe the unmittigated gaul of the leftwing fringe--hell, everyone to the left of Sean Hannity--to lecture the public on the ills of conservative opinion. WTF is wrong with these people?

Out With The Old, In With The Old

I expect we'll be seeing a whole lot more stories like this one and this one complaining about Republicans wasting money now that the R's are in charge of the House. These are the same people digging us into trillion-dollar holes less than a month ago, but we do have a word for that: democrisy.

People on the left wonder why we can't take them seriously, and it's probably because their such freakin' hypocrites (among other things). Their faux concern for the poor--the ones they can manipulate best--coupled with their utter contempt for those who actually create jobs and push the economy leaves any smart person rolling their eyes. How could any serious person take them seriously? I mean, stunts like this one, from the group of job-killers that just got ousted, is laughable at best. Cue derisive laughter.

It would have been too much to ask that Democrats stop behaving like Democrats even for a day. I realize that. But watching them try to explain why the 2/3 lock on government they have doesn't make them responsible for everything in Washington is pretty disgusting.

Good-bye and Good Riddance to the 111th Congress

What a mess Democrats have made of things over the last two years. It's not wrong to remind Americans what Democrats have done to them over the course of the last four years: high and long-term unemployment, reckless and pointless spending, increased job-killing regulation and more intrusion into our lives. Worse was the arrogance with which Democrats did all these monstrous things to us. This Wall Street Journal piece sums it up nicely:

For today's left, the main goal of politics is not to respond to public opinion. The goal is to impose the dream of an egalitarian entitlement state whether the public likes it or not. Sooner or later, they figure, the anger will subside and Americans will come to like the cozy confines of the cradle-to-grave welfare state.

Democrats are betting that once Americans start receiving "free" medical care, the demands for higher taxes on "the rich" will be overwhelming. And who knows? They might be right. When 1/2 of Americans aren't paying any income taxes at all and demanding more services, it's hard to argue that they won't want someone else to pay even more for them. My hope is that Americans truly aren't so stupid and greedy as Democrats rely on them to be.

Prediction: Filibuster Reform Will Be About Principle...

Until Republicans control the Senate.

Liberals love the arcane rules of Congress until those rules start gnawing their own posteriors. Then, of course, it's an abuse of power. Kinda like recess appointments and executive orders were during the Bush administration. It was a crime when GWB did it, but liberals embrace these tactics now Their Guy is in charge. I expect the same to be true in the 112th Congress.

We Were in Favor of Oversight Before We Were Against It

Remember when oversight was the favorite word of Democrats? Back in 2006, Democrats were interested in oversight of the environment, welfare, and the FCC. Democrats were really hot for oversight when it meant trying to hobble a Republican president.

Of course, oversight is just another word for putting the brakes on stuff we don't like, which is why it's ok when we're exercising Congressional oversight powers over a Republican president (cuz he's gonna destroy us) but is a shocking power grab by the rat bastards when exercised by Republicans against a Democratic president. In this case, oversight comes in the form of a provision of the 1996 Congressional Review Act.

House Republicans will have carte blanche next year, and will be able to pass as many of these "resolutions of disapproval" as they want. The key is that a small minority in the Senate can force votes on them as well, and they require only simple-majority support to pass. If they can find four conservative Democrats to vote with them on these resolutions, they can force Obama to serially veto politically potent measures to block unpopular regulations, and create a chilling effect on the federal agencies charged with writing them.

Considering the midterm elections were all about reining in government, you'd think Democrats would be all squiggly about doing the will of the people and fulfilling their constitutional duties to provide oversight to the president. But that only applies if the president is a Republican. I'm sure Democrats will love any ramp-up of executive power as long as the guy wielding it has a "D" after his name.

The Next Time Liberals Mock Republican Infidelity

Remind them that Democrats have sex with their daughters.

I Hope Republicans Remember Democrat Dirty Tricks When They Take Over the House in January

For two straight years, we've heard Democrats whining and complaining about how much they tried to work with Republicans to get "bipartisan" legislation. Of course, everyone knew that was horseshit, but today's maneuvers to raise taxes on Democrats' preferred target is probably the best example yet of just how horseshitty Democrats actually are.

This afternoon, House Democrats will hold an up or down vote on vote on President Obama's plan to extend tax cuts to income below $250,000, and they've figured out a way to prevent the Republicans from pulling procedural tricks that might sink it -- a straight vote on whether or not wealthy people deserve an additional tax break. Today, at his weekly press conference, House Minority Leader John Boehner compared the move to fertilizer.

"I'm trying to catch my breath so I don't refer to this maneuver going on today as chickencrap, alright?' Boehner said. "But this is nonsense."

Brace yourself for some procedural jargon: Dems once believed they were faced with two mixed options for holding this vote. The first was to hold an up-or-down vote under the normal rules. But that would give Republicans the opportunity to introduce what's known as a motion to recommit -- a procedural right of the minority that would have allowed them to tack an extension of tax cuts for high-income earners on to the legislation.

The second option -- suspending the rules -- would have foreclosed on that right, but would have required a two-thirds majority of the House for passage: 290 votes, an impossible hurdle.

But Democrats figured out a way to avoid this. They're attaching their tax cut plan as an amendment to a separate bill [the Airport and Airway Extension Act, to wit]. That legislation already passed the House, and has just been returned from the Senate. The rules say it can't be recommitted. So the GOP's hands are tied.

That's what Democrats call bipartisanship.

Voters R Stooopid

That's what liberals always say when voters choose Republicans over Democrats.

At a recent discussion on the Nov. 2 election hosted by the local Society for Professional Journalists, UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin was expounding on why Republicans emerged triumphant, in Wisconsin and throughout the land.
In my questions to Franklin, I noted that the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who'll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich.
Franklin, perhaps a bit too candidly, conceded the point. "I'm not endorsing the American voter," he answered. "They're pretty damn stupid."

Liberals think that anyone who isn't a millionaire should vote for them so the voter can take the millionaire's money. But voters understand that when Democrats promise to screw over only "the rich," the voter is going to get screwed. Why? Because "the rich" employ a lot of those voters or sell goods to those voters who will end up paying for the screwing.

Liberals mock anyone who votes for candidates based on more than their personal prurient interest (such as the pro-lifer who votes for candidates who don't think babies are fair game until kindergarten). Yet the same liberals argued all through the past election cycle that voters should vote for Democrats because of Obamacare (which wasn't supposed to affect anyone who already had insurance *snicker*), immigration and race issues.

In 2006 and 2008, Democrats lied to voters about what they would do and what would happen if Democrats were voted into office. They promised not to raise taxes, then promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, then about who were the uninsured, whose health insurance would change and whose would not, and how much it would cost (remember when Democrats said you could have healthcare like Congress?). Democrats lied about the stimulus bill and unemployment. They flipped off every American over Obamacare, and now they have the nerve to argue that the voters are stupid for not wanting more Democrat bullshit?

Democrats have insulted voters for years (remember What's the Matter with Kansas?) when voters use their brains to vote out Democrats. Let's hope Democrats will have more opportunities to insult the electorate in 2012.

When to Get One's Panties in a Bunch

Apparently, yesterday was the day for liberal outrage.

First, there was the bald racism of Rush Limbaugh, which, apparently, was also a "dog whistle." That's quite the feat, as Tom Maguire points out, since "bald" implies "open and obvious" and "dog whistle" implies "stealth." But who am I to judge? Only liberals seem to know what dog whistles look like anyway. I certainly didn't see one in Rush Limbaugh's insult of Barack Obama. It does prove my long-standing point that any criticism of Teh One must be racism.

Secondly, there's outrageous outrage of Sarah Palin's teenage daughter acting like a teenager, that is to say, inappropriately at times. I had a post, once upon a time, about adolescent speech and school discipline, and was told by someone that it wasn't a homosexual slur. My own opinion on the subject--that children should be taught not to say these things and why it may be offensive to some people--still stands. But having said that, Willow Palin using teenage vernacular (do the same outraged people feel insulted over the use of "bitch" and "slut," I wonder?) in no way reflects on Sarah Palin as a parent or role model (not that some people won't use this incident to attack Palin just as bad behavior by the Bush twins was, somehow, George W.'s fault).

Getting It Straight

Republicans are responsible for everything that happens when:

1. They control both houses of Congress and the presidency.
2. They control one house of Congress and the presidency.
3. They control the presidency but neither house of Congress.
4. They don't control either house of Congress or the presidency.

Only Fox News Is Biased

This video has gone viral today, and for good reason. Take a look. Regardless of whether you think it's acceptable for candidates to shill on TV, it's something they do, and the talking heads allow their favorite candidates on to do it. The problem here, of course, is the rampant hypocrisy of Rachel Maddow declaring that Fox News does it but MSNBC doesn't. That's just a bald-faced lie and she knows it. Thank goodness there are people to call her on it.

Howard Dean: Never Let Facts Get in the Way of a Good Talking Point

Especially when you get to bash Fox News.

Shirley Sherrod Is Now the Club To Bludgeon Conservatives

Does anyone honestly think David Frum is a conservative? There's absolutely nothing about the conservative movement that Frum agrees with, and while he might not be Amanda Marcotte, he spends more time bashing conservatives than discussing his alternatives.

Take the Shirley Sherrod controversy. As I said in the comments of the previous post, I can't believe Andrew Breitbart deliberately edited the video and put it out on the net. It took less than 12 hours for the story to be refuted, and that makes it hardly worth the trashing of his own reputation, doesn't it? I can see that Breitbart snapped up the video like Rosie O'Donnell gobbles down chocolates, but being gullible isn't the same as intentionally harming this woman.

Of course, the leftwingers are all portraying this as the latest example of conservative racism, and it certainly knocked the Journolist story off the top spot on Memeorandum. But the best line comes from Legal Insurrection:

Media Matters and Think Progress, the ultimate out-of-context word and phrase manipulators, are hot on the case because Shirley Sherrod was taken out of context.

So how about some context for the handful (out of many millions) of people who have attended Tea Party rallies carrying racist signs?

How about considering that some of the people were not really Tea Party supporters but plants by the opposition designed to create controversy? Or that some of the photos were not even at Tea Party rallies? Or that some of the people were kicked out of the Tea Party movement? Or that some of the accusations of racist words being shouted are denied and the videos show otherwise? Or that numerous blacks who are active in the Tea Party movement deny that there is widespread racism? Or that the Tea Party philosophy of limited government and free enterprise is completely race neutral?

"Context for we, but not for thee," seems to be the philosophy.

Our Worst President Ever?

The more I think about the abject cynicism of Barack Obama, the more I'm drawn to the conclusion that, despite liberal professors' views to the contrary, he might be our worst president ever.

I don't take any great glee in announcing this. I fully expected to disagree with the vast majority of his policies. But I do try to accept that his vision for America and mine might be different, but that doesn't mean he hates the country, or that he wants to do it harm. There are those who fervently believe these things, but that's just nuts. You can be completely wrong about the maintenance your car needs and still run it out of oil.

After reading this Dick Morris column, though, I'm becoming ever more disgusted with the constant campaign mode of this president and his constant Republican bashing. This isn't just disagreement. It's constant war. Is there a compromise for this president, and is it possible for him to cast those who disagree with him as other than obstructionists?

For my liberal friends, I've noted some of their pet legislation signed into law by George W. Bush: No Child Left Behind (sponsored by Ted Kennedy) and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (co-sponsored by Russ Feingold). What legislation sponsored by and championed by Republicans has Barack Obama signed into law? Where, precisely, has he compromised?

The answer is that he hasn't. His rhetoric is designed not to bring sides together but to blame someone, anyone for the ills of the country, and that scapegoat won't be himself. His cynical approach to illegal immigration is just the most recent example.

Like Dick Morris, I believe that heavy fines and enforcement will drive most illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin. Unlike him, I don't think all of them will go because there are reasons besides the dollar to stay in this country. But Obama's cynical and racist ploy on this issue (trying to appeal to Hispanics who are disenchanted with him) is not worthy of America. Only 18 months into his term and he's already vying for the worst president slot, IMO.

Free Enterprise at the Texas Democratic Convention

Don't let Democrats fool you; they like the free enterprise system as long as it benefits themselves. Take a look:

Comparing a President to Hitler Is OK...

Except when it's your guy.

And on Tuesday Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) took it to a new level as he approvingly quoted an article that likened the Obama administration's success in getting BP to set up a $20 billion escrow account to assist Gulf coast residents to something that Adolf Hitler would have done...

A perfectly reasonable comparison. One man pressures an oil company to compensate the victims of an oil spill and another is responsible for a world war and the murder of millions of people. In fact, someone owes Hitler an apology here.

I'll admit it's a ridiculous comparison, but so was all this. And somehow, I'll bet Barbara Morrill wasn't writing about how terrible those comparisons were.

Is General Betray Us a Liar or Not?

Enquiring minds want to know. Back when George W. Bush charge General Petraeus with turning around the war in Iraq, Democrats of all sorts called him a liar and accused him of not doing the things he claimed.

But now, Obama's putting Petraeus in the driver's seat in Afghanistan and we're supposed to forget Hillary Clinton's language butchering accusation.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief."

That was sooo 2007. Now, Petraeus can save Obama's a-s-s in Afghanistan. Well, maybe. But, apparently, he's the best Teh One could find to replace the last guy he said was best for the job.

Shocker: ACORN Admits to Voter Fraud, Works With Democrats

For years, I've read lefty blogs which were so scared that Republicans were stealing elections. We heard about voting machines which switched your vote from Democrat to Republican. We heard about Republicans at polling places changing ballots. We heard about intimidation by police officers who asked people if they'd voted.

And yet, the same people skeered of Diebold care not a whit about voter fraud conducted in the name of Democrats. In fact, some of the same people who were complaining about Diebold have championed ACORN and decried any investigation into their practices.

With the admission today from Project Vote workers that ACORN "works" for Democrats and "deliberately promotes voter fraud," I'm wondering if the same indignant Diebold-haters will be all over ACORN now? Somehow, I think not.

Hypocrisy from the Left: Who Would Jesus Abort?

Coffee spewer of the day: Nancy Pelosi claims she has to craft public policy that conforms to her Catholic faith, or something, which is a weird argument to make if you are a leftwinger. I mean, I thought liberals hate letting values affect one's vote. Not that any person with 2 brain cells believes Pelosi lets her WWJD bracelet change her mind about issues like, say, partial-birth abortion.

From Hot Air:

When conservatives talk about religious values informing public policy goals, the Left shrieks about the separation of church and state and usually refers to the Right as an American Taliban. Pelosi will get a pass, however, because she uses the religious language to argue for their pet causes. It’s a good idea to capture this moment anyway, for the next time someone argues that “Christianists” are attempting a theocratic takeover of America.

We have a word for this: Democrisy.

Will the Justice Department Be Prosecuting This One?

Sestak confirms WH job offer to get out of Senate race

If only it were Halliburton offering the job...