Front and Center

Politics, society, and other random randomness

Category Archives: politics

Republicans inciting violence! oh, wait. She’s a Democrat. Will she get condemned?

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have seen those on the left calling for condemnation of statements made by folks on the right.  But what about when one of their own says something in the same category?   It seems a senator was suggesting that americans take up pitchforks…she’s a Democrat!

But lets look at some of what she says:

“…they insist on a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest americans, completely unpaid for”

Lets look at this the way it should be looked at. If the projected loss in revenue is indeed $700 billion over 10 years, that means spending would need to be cut from elsewhere for it to be “paid for.” The problem is, instead of suggesting that cuts be found, its easier to criticize the cost. Further, someone should ask a pertinent question: if continuing a tax cut that is unpaid for is such a bad thing, how is continuing ANY of the tax cuts good, since NONE of it is paid for?

“we are fighting for the middle class”

No. you are pulling the wool over the eyes of the middle class in hopes of getting them vote for you and keep you in office.

“70% of Americans don’t itemize deductions.”

So what? That has nothing to do with extending tax cuts. Wait…unless you’re building towards a bigger point…

“so that big ol complex tax code? its been written for wealthy america.”

Ah, there it is! Let’s dig at the high income earners! THATS what you were getting at! Unless there are rules in the tax code that say “only wealthy americans can get these deductions,” you just bent the truth, Senator.

“they have all kinds of ways that they can use the tax code to avoid paying taxes.”

Ah, yes, a famous tactic, used often by Democrats. Let’s imply that the high income earners aren’t paying their “fair share.” Too bad that the top 5% of income earners (making over $158k/yr) make 35% of all adjusted gross income (AGI) in the US, but pay almost 60% of all income taxes paid. The top 10% ($114k and up) make 46% of US AGI, but pay 70% of all income taxes paid. So, that leaves the bottom 90% of income earners to pay the remaining 30% of income taxes paid. This includes the bottom 50% of income earners, who pay less than 3%. The point? High income earners pay a lot in taxes, as they should, but implying they aren’t paying their share is rediculous.

“Its about leveling the playing field”

Its not the government’s job to redistribute wealth and calling it “leveling the playing field!”

“If they think its ok to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because theyre gonna pout if we don’t give more money to millionaires, it really is time for the people of america to take up pitchforks.”

Where do I start on this one? First, Republicans want to extend tax cuts for EVERYONE, not just the wealthy. Second, can someone explain to the Senator that a tax rate cut is not giving money away? To give something away implies there was possession in the first place. When someone has a tax cut, that means they get to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY! I can only assume that she and other Democrats feel the government is entitled to everyone’s money and should be able to tell folks what they can and can’t do with it. Finally, the pitchfork comment, which is what came to my attention in the first place. I’ve heard many of my left-leaning friends screaming about something someone on the right said, how it should be condemned, and implying that Dems don’t do such. Well, let’s see if those people step forward and comment on this one.
The rest isn’t worth breaking down, other than to mention that she throws in a few digs at the wealthy just to get her constituents even more ticked off at Republicans and at the filthy rich people. It’s a shame that Congress can’t have serious discussions about this type of thing, but also a shame that people don’t realize people like her are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Advertisements

QuickHit: Just a question or 3

Why is raising the retirement age for earning Social Security such a big deal, when the changes wouldn’t be implemented until 2050 and 2075?  That means the folks most affected by the changes either a)haven’t had much chance to start contributing to social security or b)haven’t been born yet!  Further, where is this idea coming from that keeping the retirement age where it is is some kind of right?

Speaking of rights, do people realize what the concept of a “right” is?  Its as though anything that someone feels a person should be entitled to is a right, even if it involves forcefully taking time, talent, or treasure from someone else.

Is it not possible that allowing the tax rate cut for those over the $250k mark may not end up costing $700 billion over ten years?  Can we really predict how people and revenues will behave 10 years out?  If the economy improves, wouldn’t that number come down?

And finally, will someone recognize that the problem isn’t just revenues, its also spending?  That the main excuse for wanting to let the cuts expire and supposedly bring in the $700 billion is to try and fund the government WITHOUT cutting spending?

Just a few thoughts.

At this rate, we’ll NEVER fix the issues

Today is the final vote on recommendations from Obama’s deficit panel.  For those who missed it, President Obama put together a bipartisan panel of 18 appointees, tasked with producing solutions for debt reduction.  The commission did its job, recommending multiple ideas that, if enacted, would help move the country towards fiscal stability.

As expected, the response was chilly at best.  Folks on both sides took the expected approach–“we need cuts, but don’t cut programs that I support!”  Republicans didn’t like the idea of tax increases on gas.  Democrats didn’t like the notion of raising the retirement age or lower tax rates.  Neither side wanted to sign on to doing away with popular tax breaks (even though lowering tax rates would offset it).

So, unless there is some sanity injected into things, we will continue on the rocky road to fiscal disaster.

QuickHit: very good article about tax cuts and small businesses

today on Yahoo, there is a very good fact checking article about tax cuts and small businesses. As is usually the case, both parties are bending numbers to make their argument look better, but the truth is in the middle:
FACT CHECK: Small business caught in tax battle

“I’m Tired”

Back in 2009 a former Marine and state senator posted a vent on his blog.  It’s being circulated again, wrongly attributed to an actor with the same name.  But its an interesting read.  Read the original, it should make for interesting discussion:

I’m Tired.

Tax shenanigans, or why $700 billion is unaffordable, but $3 trillion is affordable

The level of back-and-forth over the extension of tax rate cuts enacted under Bush 43 has reached a fever pitch.  From the right, we get “all or nothing!” or “no one should have a tax increase in this economy!” or, to borrow from a classic hip hop song by the one-hit-wonder group, The Double XX Posse, “not gon be able ta do it!”  From the left, we get “no tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires!” or “tax cuts for the rich” and “no subsidizing the rich” or “they don’t need it.”  But my favorite is that, in essence, we can’t afford the $700 billion cost (CBO projected).

For the life of me, I could not figure out how anyone would have the nerve to specifically talk about the $700 billion that extending the current rates for high-income earners may cost (remember, they are projections, so its only a guess), but not talk about how the cost of the rest of the cuts.  After all, the same CBO that produced the $700 billion number also stated that the TOTAL cost of extending ALL current tax rates would be $3 trillion.  So what gives?

Just more political shenanigans.

Let’s step back for a moment to 2007.  From wikipedia:

The PAYGO system was reestablished as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress:

It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year.

Less than one year later though, facing widespread demand to ease looming tax burdens caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress abandoned its pay-go pledge.

So, to set themselves apart from the previous congressional crew, the swept-into-power Democrats in the House re-enacted a rule that makes a lot of sense–if we are gonna spend it, we are going to pay for it. Tub notice the next next line: it lasted less than a year. PAYGO was shelved, allowing major pieces of legislation, like the Bush Stimulus package in 2008 and Obama’s Stimulus package in 2009, to be passed without the rules applying. Then, new statutory PAYGO rules were again passed in February of 2010.
In addition, Obama signed new budget rules. From Businessweek:

Under the budget rules, any tax cuts benefitting individuals earning more than $200,000, or couples earning more than $250,000, must be offset with new tax revenue or spending cuts elsewhere.

Apparently, the tax cut line-in-the-sand was drawn long ago. After bucking the PAYGO rules, now the rules must apply and for those high-income earners, tax cuts aren’t affordable.
Here’s what’s missing.
Lets be honest. If there is an argument to be made, its that NONE of the tax rate cuts are affordable. But let’s stick to the current discussion. The reason that Democrats are saying we can’t afford the $700 billion is not because we can’t afford it. That can’t be the case, since evidently, financing $2.3 trillion via debt is not a problem (and allowed under the rules!). The real problem is that offsetting spending cuts would have to be made. History has shown that Democrats are not big on cutting spending (unless its Defense related). Any mention of cutting programs, especially entitlement programs, is met with more resistance than a goalline stand in the national championship game. Any other arguments, like referring to lower tax rates as a “subsidy” (how can the government grant or gift a person their own money) or “welfare for the rich” (once again, its their money) just distracts from the true discussion.

Don’t worry, my Dem friends, I’ll tackle the Repubs too.

The left says the GM bailout is a success. The right disagrees. Who is correct?

Logo of General Motors Corporation. Source: 20...

Image via Wikipedia

This week, GM launched an IPO, moving forward in a turnaround that many thought unlikely a few years ago.  Just a couple of years ago, GM was losing a ton of money, closing dealerships, and about to go into serious bankruptcy.  Bush 43 began the bailout process with over $17 billion in loans.  Obama and Co continued the bailout, but with a caveat that many still consider controversial to say the least:  the United Auto Workers came out with a larger stake in GM than the shareholders and bondholders, even though the amount GM owed the union was less than that owed to the shareholders.  Many feel that letting GM go into bankruptcy and emerge leaner and profitable would’ve been better and allowed the pain to be shared more equally.  Many also felt that allowing the unions to end up with a larger share that seemed out of proportion was an obvious example of the Dems giving special treatment to their union supporters.

Sidenote:  many of the left leaning sources that are celebrating the IPO are saying the company would’ve died without the bailout.  This isn’t necessarily true.  A large number of companies that go into bankruptcy eventually come out.

So my good friend Ocie asked me this morning:  “GM IPO, we’re making American cars, people are employed, was the $50B bailout of GM worth it?”  My immediate answer to him was that it would be worth it once the US breaks even on its investment at least (the US Treasury owns a 33-35% stake in GM, that it took instead of money payback).  Having thought more about it, I would say that it has its positives and negatives.  I agree jobs were saved, but there is no guarantee jobs would not have been saved via bankruptcy.  I will say that bankruptcy may have had more of a negative impact “down the line,” as in the vendors that do business with GM.  But it can’t be denied that politics played a part in the end result–the union ended up with a larger stake than stock and bond holders.  And it will be years before the US is fully divested and paid back on their “investment.”

So let’s declare that it was worth it, but should’ve been done differently.

Why do people hate Sarah Palin so much?

I’ve often seen how people (usually left-leaning) react to anything that has to do with Sarah Palin.  Just the mention of her name evokes a visceral reaction from many that makes me scratch my head.  I’m not  a fan of her, but I don’t see her as being any worse than any other politicians.  The only difference between her and most other politicians is that she actually has a following.  Is that it?

On the Huffington Post, there is an article about how Palin child Willow had a meltdown on Facebook in response to someone criticizing her mom’ s TLC show.  While what she said was enough to have gotten me grounded for life if I had said the same at age 16, it has given Palin detractors another chance to take shots at her and her entire family.  It is as though people are so anxious to hate the other side that they must make it personal.

Calm down, people.  She’s just another politician.

Earmarks: most states give much more than they get (NYers, ya’ll get hosed!)

People hear about “earmarks” but many aren’t sure what they really are.  In short, an earmark is when a piece of legislation is added to a bill directing money be spent on a specific project.  Members of Congress do it all the time to steer federal money home to their districts to fund different things.  Of course, many will yell about pork until it pertains to their own district.  Then, its not pork, its critical.  Need an infamous case?  Look up the “Bridge to Nowhere” debacle in Alaska.

Brandon Arnold writes a good article in Politico about how most states are getting less in earmarks than they should based on how much tax revenue comes from that state:

You and Your Neighbor’s Pork.

 
The article is good, but his follow-up is even better, with a chart showing how much states pay in taxes and receive in earmarks. New Yorkers are definitely getting the screwjob here:

 
Earmark Donor States.

 
Of course, if all earmarks are banned, we won’t have this problem.

QuickHit: Charlie Rangel on trial–it could be ugly

Congressional Rep Charles Rangel from NY will be on trial this week on ethics charges.  Rangel has been in Congress for many years, representing his Harlem district.  He has already threatened to walk out due to the fact that he ran out of money to pay his legal team.  Look for this one to be popcorn worthy.

More here: Rangel Ethics Trial Begins

Tax cuts, small businesses, and the $250k line

During the long drawn out battle regarding the Bush Tax cuts.  Democrats have drawn the line at $200k/yr for individuals and $250k/yr for families as the dividing line between those who should get permanent tax cuts and those who shouldn’t.  The main argument is that the $700 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years is unaffordable.  Republicans counter that not only should there be no tax increases in these economic times, lots of small businesses will be negatively affected.  Of course, the truth (as I see it, of course) is somewhere in the middle.

A logical approach would be to extend them all temporarily (give it a year or 2), then let them expire.  Now, people are right now saying I’m crazy.  But if we’re going to be for real about getting the deficit under control, that should be option 1 on the table.  Republicans like to say “no tax increases” but there has to be a middle ground where folks aren’t overtaxed and the government is getting more revenue.  If anything, add a new bracket for folks making a million per year or more.  Either way, its illogical to completely remove the idea of a tax increase of some kind to combat spending.

Democrats, on the other hand, have established $250k as the line in the sand.  Mind you, no one has any idea why this number is the magic number.  But as Dems often do, it becomes an emotional issue.  That approach started from the beginning, when the tax cuts were enacted.  Despite the easily researchable facts that the cuts actually removed a number of lower income taxpayers from the tax rolls, reduced the lowest tax rate, and shifted the overall tax burden to the highest income levels (look it up), the cuts have often been referred to as “tax cuts for the rich” simply based on the sheer amount that an upper income earner got to keep (not “was given to them” as is often used as yet another argument).  What’s often heard is that folks making that much money either “don’t need a cut” or “won’t spend it.”  Or, that they cost too much.  I usually wonder how it can be said that the estimated $700 billion over 10 years is considered unaffordable, when the rest of the cuts are estimated to cost over $2 billion over the same time.   This is why if anything should be done, ALL should be rolled back.

I predict that the White House will give in to all cuts being renewed for 2 years in order to avoid all of them expiring on 12/31/10, which would be a political disaster.

Quack! Quack! The Lame Ducks are here! What to watch for.

No, I’m not talking about all those Canadian Geese that are blocking traffic and crapping all over your lawn.  I’m referring to the “Lame Duck” session of congress.  For the uninitiated, the term refers to the congressional session between the elections and the beginning of the new congressional term, when many of the members of congress are simply biding their time before they are shown the door and replaced.  It’s a time where lots of shenanigans can occur; if you’ve been voted out and you only have a few weeks to “live,” you can vote on some things with no concern as to how it will affect you.

In this case, congressional democrats originally had lots of plans for the session.  Unfortunately, November 2 hit like a category 5 hurricane and messed up their plans.  But no worries, there will be fireworks.  Here is a sample of what to watch for:

  • The biggest issue to be resolved will be the extension (or not) of the Bush Tax Cuts.  Republicans want all of them made permanent.  Democrats want to draw the line at people making $200k/$250k individual/family.  There is talk of a 2 year extension of all cuts, but Obama and Pelosi are holding firm that they want no compromise.  Another compromise by Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY) popped up over the weekend.  We will see if anyone pays attention.
  • The estate tax, aka the “death tax,” if not addressed, will go from 0% back to its original level of 55%.
  • Funding of the government is currently done via a temporary spending bill.  Congress will have to put in place a new spending bill for the year.  Should be a simple thing, right?  No.  Dems are refusing to accept a Repub proposal to hold spending at 2008 levels to reduce spending.

Other things that may come up include “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (which needs to go), the DREAM Act (a little too soon and too controversial right now), and the Alternative Minimum Tax, which could hit a lot more people if nothing is done.

Politicians aren’t serious about fixing problems

President Obama has installed a Debt Commission in order to come up with ways to reduce the deficit.  The report of the commission is due in December.  Everyone knows going into this that there will be some hard decisions that will have to be made, and not everyone is going to be happy.

Wednesday, an initial copy of the Commission’s report was released.  In it they suggested many ways to get the deficit down.  Among them:

As expected, folks on both sides have gone nuts.  The idea is, yes cut the money–but not for the folks that I support!

I’ve linked to a breakdown, as done by radio host Neal Boortz.  Some don’t like him, but read it anyway, since he breaks down each of the suggestions:
Let the Games Begin.
As mentioned, the negative responses weren’t slow in coming:
Response to deficit plan–tepid to “unacceptable”.
They just aren’t serious about fixing things.

Flashback to 2008 and the Democratic Party wave

While reading an article from 2008 that discussed the victories of the Democrats during that election cycle,  one thing really jumped off the screen:

Nearly two-thirds of those polled after they cast their ballots called the economy the most important issue facing the country — the most single-minded electorate in two decades of exit polling.

So much of the country puts the economy as the number one priority. So what do the Dems do? Ram through a stimulus package that was inefficient and then spent months on health insurance reform. In other words, the recent loss shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. And its not so much that the American voters were fickle as it was that the American voters spoke–but the Dems didn’t listen.
From 2008, In congress, a Democratic Wave.

Alvin Greene for President??

Alvin Greene. A name that makes democrats in SC simply cringe. I won’t go into his backstory here, but now he’s considering another run…

Alvin Greene might run for president.

Greene, the unlikely Democratic Senate nominee in South Carolina who lost overwhelmingly to Republican Sen. Jim DeMint last week, called the state Democratic Party on Tuesday to ask how much it would cost to run for president.

Read the rest here (and scratch your head): Alvin Greene Mulls Presidential Bid

A shot at Bush and Republicans–from a Republican

Many times, I’ve tried to explain that the anti-spend, anti-government angst didn’t just start when Obama took office.  Many conservatives’ ire began during Bush’s 8 years in office.  Many were upset at how much money was being spent by Bush and the republicans in congress, but such complaints were overshadowed by the war and the economy to an extent.  Now, re-elected governor Rick Perry takes a shot at Bush and his republican congress:

“They cowardly and selfishly empower themselves politically by compromising liberty issue by issue, often selling principle for a bridge, a museum, or some building named after them back in their home district or state,” writes Perry in the 187-page polemic.

Read the rest here:

Rick Perry knocks George W. Bush, Mitt Romney for ‘big government’ policies

D. Kuhn: “Jim Webb: Why Reagan Dems Still Matter”

Interesting article on Senator Jim Webb, described as a “Reagan Democrat.” I’d forgotten that term existed.
Jim Webb: Why Reagan Dems Still Matter

“Obama did Muslim prayers?? I TOLD you he was a muslim!!”

I would imagine that’s what some folks are saying if they saw a recent article about President Obama’s planned trip to Indonesia. A quote from his teacher:

Mr Obama attended classes on Islam while the Christians attended classes on Christianity, said Effendi. Barry, he said, was alone among the pupils in that he insisted on attending both.

“His mother did not like him learning Islam, although his father was a Muslim. Sometimes she came to the school; she was angry with the religious teacher and said ‘Why did you teach him the Koran?'” said Effendi.

“But he kept going to the classes because he was interested in Islam. He would also join the other pupils for Muslim prayers.”

Heaven forbid he actually want to find out about both religions!

More here: Barack Obama joined Muslim prayers at school, teacher says

Unwittingly, taxpayers help public unions finance candidates they like

Came across an interesting article in the Washington Examiner about how public sector unions and campaign financing.

When government employees favor one candidate for public office over another, and the disfavored candidate wins, this creates a poisoned atmosphere and an awkward situation in the workplace.
Public officials are chosen, either directly or indirectly, through popular elections, and the government employee should be indifferent as to the outcome of the election.

More here: Diana Furchtgott-Roth: Stop campaign funds from public-sector unions

QuickHit: Show me REAL Healthcare Reform

People are thinking that Republicans have a snowball’s chance in Hades of repealing the so-called Health Care Reform bill.  That’s a waste of time.  You know what would impress me?  If they turn around and say that they are going to create legislation to provide REAL healthcare reform.  Reform that addresses what the previous bill should’ve addressed–the rising costs of health care.  Every year, the costs of getting medical care goes up.  Ladies and Gentlemen, THAT is the main reason the cost of health insurance goes up every year.  So let’s see if someone comes up with a way to address that.

“Bush Screwed the Working and Middle Class.” How?

I was in a discussion where someone stated “Bush screwed the middle and working class.”  My reply was to ask exactly how he screwed them.  We then got into a discussion about corporations, tax breaks, and outsourcing.  But it really made me wonder:  do people know the difference between when something the government does puts them in a bad situation, vs when they themselves do it?  When they hear that a policy or program is bad, or doesn’t benefit them, do they actually do the research to find out why?  Or do they simply believe what they hear and don’t research for themselves?

Its apparent that many people don’t bother to find things out for themselves.  We are a nation of people who tend to enjoy being led around by the nose, trusting others to tell us what we need to know instead of finding out for ourselves.

In the end, I didn’t get an answer as to how Bush screwed the working and middle class.  I’m sure someone has an example.

“its only been 2 years”

Similar to the “sky is falling” argument that I’ve seen a number of times, I’m also seeing a number of people express their surprise at how the American people voted Republicans back into power after just 2 years.  But that ignores an important fact.  Democrats trounced Republicans in the 2006 Congressional races.  In the House of Representatives,  the demographics went from being 229 Republicans, 201 Democrats and 1 Independent, to being 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans.  Dems also came out with a 51-49 seat edge in the Senate.

Translation:  Democrats have had 4 years to make things happen (Bush did NOT do a lot of vetoing).  Not the 2 years most are saying.  So maybe people don’t really have such short memories after all.

The sky is falling!!

Unless you’ve been sleeping under a rock, you have heard or seen that republicans took over the House, gained seats in the Senate, and won a few governors races.  From the reactions of many of my left-leaning friends, one would think the world is about to end, or that something large, dark, and ominous is coming (Think the dark planet in “The Fifth Element” or a comet or asteroid in “Armageddon” or “Deep Impact”).

While I’m sure this puts a wrench in the plans of Dems to get certain things passed, its not the end of the world.  The government has gone back and forth between the major parties for years and the country has yet to fall off the edge of the flat planet and drift into outer space.  Its not even the first time that one house was controlled by one party, while the other (and the White House) was controlled by another.  Republicans and Democrats will have to figure a way to work together.

Now we get to see if President Obama really meant all those nice bipartisan things he said before getting elected.

Joe Scarborough might be my new hero

This one is worth reading. Joe Scarborough wrote a kick-butt piece about how the media should stop throwing gas on the fire–as in, stop exaggerating political differences for the sake of ratings.
Give hyperbole, partisanship a rest

Democrats can’t win for losing

Interesting piece by Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post. I don’t agree with all he says (and explaining why is not the point of this post). but a lot of what he says makes sense. A couple of things he said i REALLY agree with:

It’s one of the great fallacies in politics: Candidate Jones says X, Y and Z during the campaign. Candidate Jones wins the election. Ergo, the public agrees with X, Y and Z.

and:

Most voters – particularly the swing voters – aren’t as well-informed as they might be on major policy issues. What they do have are experiences and instincts and emotions that politicians play upon in order to win elections. Rarely, however, do the election results add up to a mandate. More often it’s nothing more than a temporary license to govern. 

Read the rest here: Democrats suffer from Americans’ unwillingness to accept economic reality

A review of outgoing SC governor Mark Sanford

After seeing a couple of my friends disagree on the performance of outgoing governor of South Carolina, Mark “I’m Hiking the Appalachian Trail All The Way to Argentina” Sanford, I tried to do some quick reading to see if I could find some reviews. As is custom, Democrats thought he sucked. Republicans gave him more favorable reviews, though he ticked some of them off as well (he brought pigs to the capital!).

Sanford gets passing grades from large majority of South Carolinians

I voted. Did you?

The voting deed is done. Barring a runoff of some type, the voting pen (or finger, for the touch screen) has been put away until the primaries of 2012. I won’t go into which candidates I voted for, but the candidates I voted for represented all 3 parties. I noticed that someone named “write-in” was running for every office, but I didn’t vote for them. How did they do that??

Sidenote: Interestingly enough, there was no one running for “Gwinnett County Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor.” Maybe I’ll run for THAT next time!

I Love Political Correctness

Victor Davis Hanson has a good piece about political correctness run amok.

Quick Hit: Georgia Governor’s race

On Tuesday, there will be people holding their noses as they vote for governor in Georgia. The two candidates (sorry, but the libertarian candidate has about as much chance as winning as I do) are Democrat Roy Barnes and Republican Nathan Deal. Deal has made the news for numerous issues, including an ethics investigation that found him guilty of using his office to benefit his family business and for a loan that went bad when his son-in-law’s business went kaput. Barnes is a former governor who, while in office, pushed an education reform bill that, in spite of its good parts (more funding, reduce class size), proposed to make it possible to fire a teacher without a hearing.
So, many teachers, who tend to be union members and vote Democrat, remember what happened the last time Barnes was in office. But they don’t want to vote Republican Meanwhile, many Republicans look at Deal as tainted goods, but will never vote Democrat. Based on the polls, Deal is going to win. But its going to be very interesting.

Those Crazy Tea Partiers are VIOLENT! (Part 2)

Here are the videos to go along with the previous piece.
First, the video that made the original rounds, showing Valle being taken down:

Now the video that shows the full story:

innocent? not so much. Profitt deserves to be charged–but so does she.

Those Crazy Tea Partiers are VIOLENT!

At a recent even for Congressional candidate Rand Paul, a Paul campaign volunteer, Tim Profitt, was caught on tape supposedly head stomping Lauren Valle. Valle, who was hired by MoveOn.org, has been all over the news telling how she was basically minding her own business and simply wanted to hand Paul a mock award. Video (which did indeed show her getting wrestled down and a foot planted on her shoulder) appeared to show her getting unduly attacked by some goon-acting Paul supporter.
The left-leaning talking heads are going nuts, comparing things to German, circa 1930, and how Hitler’s Brownshirts (the folks that became the Nazis we are all familiar with) used to beat down the opposition. So, Tea Party=Nazis.
But hold on a second. A subsequent video shows that Ms. Valle is not as forthcoming with the truth as she should be. Let’s put aside that she was a person dressed up in disguise (which meant no one knew she was part of the opposition). She is seen not handing the so-called award to Paul, but shoving it through the passenger window at him. Once she realizes security is after her, she runs around behind the vehicle. Meanwhile, Paul gets out and starts walking towards the building. You then see Valle coming around the front of the vehicle trying to run at Paul again. At THAT point she gets taken down.
Any sane person can understand why she was taken down–security saw her as a threat. Not exactly how she’s telling it, no?
Let’s see if Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews choose to address this or if they simply continue to use it as an anti-TP plot device (not to mention, Paul’s opponent’s use of the video in an ad).

“We need you to take one for the team…”


Former President Bill Clinton went to Florida and tried to get a Dem candidate to quit a race…

Former President Bill Clinton last week almost succeeded in persuading Kendrick B. Meek, the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Florida, to drop out of the three-way race — but Mr. Meek changed his mind at the last minute, a spokesman for Mr. Clinton said Thursday evening.

If you were Kendrick Meek, what would YOU do?