Sunday, January 24, 2010

The rewriting of history: DOMA and DADT

I need to start by saying that I didn't know what the initials DADT stood for. But I ended up in an online discussion about the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) when someone started to mention DADT; Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

You may have heard Bill Clinton say, recently, that he "didn't want" to pass don't ask, don't tell... but that he was forced to. He implied heavily that it was conservatives who made him do it. So lets start there.

Don't ask don't tell was passed into law in 1993. Since then, Obama has repeatedly said that he was going to repeal it. Let's go back in time.

1993 was the 102nd/103rd, congress in the house of representatives.
The 102nd congress was made up of 267 democrats and 167 republicans.
The 103rd congress was made up of 258 democrats and 176 republicans.
It would have been statistically impossible for Republicans to not only get a bill passed on their own, but steamroll it through.
The process started in the house, as the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was put into a congressional defense spending bill.

In the Senate, 22 members voted "No" on Don't ask, Don't tell. 18 of those members were Republicans. 4 senators who voted "No" were Democrats.

Here's the vote in the House for DOMA:
As expected, all but one Republican voted Yes.
Not expected? 118 Democrats voted yes, while only 65 voted no.

The next time someone tells you that Republicans made it impossible for the Democrats to oppose DOMA or DADT, please send them those links.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Brown is the new Red White & Blue

I didn't cry when Brown was elected, but I did get very very emotional.

Its funny, because I realize that my emotions were a mirror of what the left felt when Obama was elected. For a long time, the left felt as if no one was listening to them. They thought that the right was able to do 'whatever they wanted', unfettered, and that they had no voice.

Which is pretty much how the right has felt about the democrats in charge for the past year.

If you had told me 5 years ago that some day a democrat politician would get into office and
  • spend $787 Billion for a 'stimulus' bill
  • take control of some banks and part of the auto industry
  • actually pay consumers if they destroyed their old gas-hogging cars to buy new 'green' cars
  • attempt to take over the health care insurance industry which was making 4% profits, and call them greedy
I'd call you a victim of right wing paranoid conspiracy theories.
Yet, here we are.

So I realize that here I am, the mirror image of where the left was a year ago. Except, I don't get to say that my election was historic because a black man was not elected into office. It was just another 'old white guy'. But considering how much the left has been pushing the takeover of health care, and how most of the country opposes it... I can't help but feel relieved. It was a loud message to Democrats. Here's hoping that they actually hear that message, instead of trying to re-define it into something that they want it to be.

That hissing sound is the deflating of Air America

Usually, the hissing sound from Air America is its radio personalities. Not tonight.

Tonight, that sound is the air going out of Air America.
Now to be fair, the economy has sucked despite that stimulus plan last year.

Huh. Who does Air America blame for that?
The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year has seen a "perfect storm" in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry's long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.


But... I thought it was great when corporations fail?
Wasn't that pretty much Air America's theme song?

Anyway... the company that spawned Rachel Maddow, and sent her to another failing broadcast company, has finally gone under. Let's hope that Rachel can continue her magic where she currently resides.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Krugman's nose unexpectedly visits Los Angelos

I presume that's what happens when you live in New York, and you say a lie so gigantic that your nose grows across the Continental Divide?
From his column (my emphasis added)
The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

I read it over and over, thinking that I had misread it. Or that maybe Krugman was being sly and ironic. But he wasn't . He actually believes it.
He didn't even stop there.
Not content with arguing that Obama should have placed some of the blame on the Bush administration for his failures....

Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks.

But he didn’t. Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.) Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch.

Wow.
Any cursory look into any of Obama's speeches, and you find that he does actually place blame on the previous administration.

Here's from the first page of a Google search:

From February 22nd, 2009, Politico:

Obama blames financial woes on Bush


From March 14th, Washington Post:

Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush
President Points to 'Inherited' Economy


Apparently, The Washington Post thought it was a new strategy then.
From July, 29th, 2009, AP:

Obama blames Bush, Wall Street
Says economic woes caused by bad decisions


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yesterday blamed "irresponsible decisions" by the Bush administration and Wall Street for the country's economic woes as government officials said the budget deficit would soar to record heights next year.

Hmmm. Sounds like he's blaming Bush to me?
Let's keep going.


Maybe Krugman meant that he hadn't heard anything recently from Obama blaming Bush?
From AP, January 9th, 2010:

He says "the buck stops with me," but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles — the economy, terrorism, health care — on George W. Bush.


The list goes on. You can do your own search. But you get the idea. To say that Obama hasn't blamed Bush for the economy is a complete fallacy. Its a fantasy. A denial of reality.
There are many things that Krugman has said that has led me to believe that he is not dealing with reality. That his sole job on earth is to protect democrats from criticism.

But this tops them all.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

The walking disaster known as Coakley

How did someone in her campaign ad misspell Massachusetts?
Martha Coakley's first attack ad in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat had an embarrassing mistake in it.

Massachusetts was misspelled at the end.


I understand that its a hard state to spell... but if you're running for senator in the state... shouldn't the people in your campaign spell it right?

Friday, January 15, 2010

Those Republicans who invoke Jesus

I get into arguments with other people online.
I know. Unbelievable. Right?

Anyway, one of those people talked about how 'nutty' Palin was for believing in that old religion called Christianity. Having watched television, I know that Palin isn't the only person bragging about her Christianity. The current POTUS happened to have mentioned his religion a little bit.

So I did some research... and sure enough, POTUS is a Jesus Freak. Even more then Bush. From Politico:
As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

A sweetheart deal for the unions

If you want to pass a wide-ranging bill that will take over health care, its only expected that you'd give away billions of perks. Right?

So who should be surprised at the lastest slap in the face that Obama's team has committed to the American public?

You know how they decided that really wealthy people would pay extra taxes if they had really nice health care plans? Well, it just so happens that union-paying people were in that category. And we couldn't have Obama taxing his own people, now could we?
So naturally, a deal was cut, and people who were in unions were exempted from the plan.

Is there any doubt anymore that this was a bad bill?
That it was merely a way to put more money and power in the hands of the weasels in Washington?

Remember when Trig wasn't Sarah Palin's baby?

I find it really, really hard to take Sarah Palin critics seriously.
These were the same people who said that Sarah Palin couldn't have had Trig, because she didn't look pregnant enough.

So as long as we're going back in time, I want to remind people about the idiocy that existed on the left before Sarah Palin had even addressed the Republican Convention.

This guy is one of the many who fell for the conspiracy theory that Trig couldn't be Sarah's baby. Here is a sample of the logic that was being scratched:
In addition to the facts mentioned above, I want to point out how unlikely it is for a 43-year-old woman to accidentally get pregnant.
Neat.

Then there was the time when a photo of Sarah Palin in a bikini, carrying a rifle, was so much fun that the entertainment reporter for CNN decided it was true.

The thing is that the left has a hard-on for Sarah, and not the friendly kind.
Remember how the AP assigned eleven reporters to "Fact Check" her book? Do you remember what they actually came up with?

Anyway, my point is pretty simple. When you read something about Sarah Palin, double check the facts. Chances are, its not true.

Who said "Teabaggers" first?

Every once in a while I get into an argument with someone who tells me, with a straight face, that it was the Tea Party Protestors who came up with the term "Teabaggers"... and that its not their fault that they call Tea Party protestors Teabaggers.

Most recently, I got into this argument with an earnest member of the left who insisted it was because of protestors who, on April 15th, wore Teabags on their hat.
Forgetting for a moment that putting teabags on your hat is not the same as being asked to be called a Teabagger, I did my research.

Predictably, it turns out that a member of the left who started using the term.

Rachel Maddow went on the air April 9th (6 days before the protest), and in giddy glee, she played a few tapes in a row of guys holding up tea bags who said that we should tea bag the White House.
This, of course, sent Rachel into schoolgirl convulsions. More over, it gave her the presumed license to use the term "Teabaggers" as much as humanly possible.

So let's get this clear: the first person to use the term was Rachel Maddow.
Which couldn't be more ironic,
If you have a differing opinion, or believe me to be in error, please post to me and I'll make the correction or add your counter argument to the mix.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Transcript of Palin on Fox

Raw Story is becoming such a propaganda website that they are giving Media Matters a run for their money. So let's start with what Raw Story said about Palin's first commentator spot on Fox.

In first appearance as Fox News ‘analyst’, Palin dodges O’Reilly’s questions

I'd just watched her appearance online, so I wondered what Raw Story meant. As usual, they start by picking out parts of the conversation to give one appearance of what she said, and then stop right before they ruin their premise.
In this case, they wanted to say that Palin was dodging questions. So they quote Politico:

Interviewed by Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly on his show “The O’Reilly Factor,” Palin trashed many of the critical accounts of her candidacy in the new book “Game Change.” But one story from the book that Palin did not say was “made up” or “a lie” was the description of her uncertainty as to whether Iraq had a hand in the planning of the September 11 attacks.

“I did talk a lot to [campaign strategist] Steve Schmidt about the history of the war and where the attackers could have come from,” Palin said of her debate prep during the fall of 2008 – more than five years after the start of the war in Iraq and seven years after the terrorist attacks that hit New York and Washington.

“I do admit to asking questions about that,” she said.

Of course, they could have just quoted the actual Fox News website. That would have been easy enough. But then they couldn't say, in their headline, that she had dodged questions.

This is from that transcript:

O'REILLY: That's pretty nasty, isn't it?

PALIN: Well, it's pretty made up, too. I — I think that these reporters — who were not in any part of what I was doing there as a VP candidate, I think I explained a lot of this in "Going Rogue," in my book.

O'REILLY: Is he...

PALIN: I was there...

O'REILLY: Is he lying?

PALIN: They were not there.

O'REILLY: Is this guy lying? He says you don't know the difference between North and South Korea.

PALIN: Yes, that surprised me. I hadn't seen the "60 Minutes" and I — I had been warned, you know, don't — don't watch. It's a bunch of BS from Schmidt (INAUDIBLE) and those guys...

O'REILLY: Is that a lie though?

PALIN: Yes, that is a lie.

O'REILLY: OK.

PALIN: That is a lie.

Go to Raw Story and see what they say. Then go to the transcript, and see if its accurate.
Raw Story is quickly becoming one of the least accurate websites that people send me to. When someone heads me in that direction, the first thing that I do is check the original material to see how they misrepresent it.

This time its no different.



Monday, January 11, 2010

$135,294 Per Job

Some facts need little introduction.
For instance... let's say that you found out that a politician had a 'jobs' program that cost more then, I dunno... $50,000 per job. Would that be too much?
Okay, how about $70,000 per job? Too much?
Wait... what if it cost $100,000 per job?

Still not enough?

Obama's Green Jobs Program: $135,294 Per Job

You're wasting a ton of cash once you get up to an amount that high. Heck, you start getting into the category of what the left considers wealthy when you get to that amount.
Anyway... further proof that the government knows how to waste money faster then any other entity.

-John

Friday, January 08, 2010

Who's more racist? Biden Or Reid?

Okay everyone, its time to play my favorite game of "Who's more racist?"

Would it be Harry Reid:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Obama is the nation's first African-American president.


Or Joe Biden:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."


I'm going with answer #3. They can't be racist... because they aren't Republicans!
If they were Republican, they should have left office. But since they aren't, they get the buddy pass.

Obama's 8 time lie, promising to show health care debates on CSPAN


If I could, I'd have every American watch this video, and then tell me what they think of Obama now.

A deficit projection from March 2009

I just wanted to remind everyone about this chart provided by the Washington Post:
The next time that someone tells you that GWB blew up the deficit, take a look at what happened up until 2007... the year that a democrat congress took over.

Noonan: The Risk of Catastrophic Victory

I don't read Peggy Noonan very often. but this is a great editorial about how tone deaf the Obama administration has been:
At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about.

When your government pays someone to tell you how great government health care would be

Would it surprise you to find out that one of the 'expert' economists that the government bought forward to push their health care takeover was actually under contract with the government?
No?
According to FoxNews:

Gruber, according to federal government documents, is under a $297,600 contract until next month to provide "technical assistance" in evaluating health care reform proposals.


Who would have figured that the government would have paid for someone to tell us about how great the government would be at taking over our health care? Huh.

All props to CSPAN

You have to give them credit.
The president promised to make the health care debates open, and of course they are not.

So CSPAN called them out on it.
You can read the complete PDF file here.

It took balls. They could have just stayed quiet, and pretended like no one had said anything. But they held him accountable.
Good for them.