In order to minimize the expected carnage in November's mid-term elections, the Whitehouse is encouraging congressional Democrats to mount campaigns which attack George W. Bush rather than taking credit for the Democrats' "accomplishments" during Obama's term.
Which strikes Hope n' Change as rather confusing: since the Democrats have gotten exactly what they want, why don't they also want voters to be aware of it?
Thanks to a huge Democratic majority and the coordinated efforts of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, we now have trillions in new debt, rising medical bills, crushing unemployment figures, nationalized industries, wide open borders, and two wars being undermined by our allies' lack of belief in American commitment.
All of this being the case, it's not surprising that the Democrats are saying that voting for their Republican rivals would be like reelecting George W. Bush.
Because they'll get slaughtered if they say that voting for Democrats would be like reelecting Barack Hussein Obama.
--
-
-
16 comments:
Our Congressman (Joe Donnelly, IN-2nd Dist.) put out an ad in which he claims to be running against the Washington insiders. What he doesn't admit is that he's been a liberal/progressive vote for six years, an Obama loyalist or even a Democrat. His party is not even mentioned in the ad. Does he tout his crucial Obamacare vote? No effing way. He's running against his own freaking party and hoping the people of the district are stupid enough to buy it. Given the strong Dem makeup of this district, I fear he may be right.
Coming soon: Strange new respect for George W. Bush from the left
Liberal Bloggers : "Yes, We Miss George Bush"
Wow Hoosier Dad, that's scary!
I also read that Dems are planting fake tea party candidates to try to divide our party.
I'm getting so sick of the deceit and trickery and fraud in our elections. The founding fathers NEVER intended it to be a contest to be won any way possible, but simply a vote for the most qualified and ethical person for the job.
*sigh*
The 2010 Democratic campaign strategy can be summed up by the following movie title:
Back To The Future
The mention of "crushing unemployment figures" hastouched a nerve here. Either 9 1/2% according to the Fed, or more like 12% including those no longer looking for work, seems like a pretty bad set of numbers. Sadly, being involved with industries whose employees are classified as "skilled trades" people, I'm amazed we're not seeing MUCH HIGHER numbers, given the percentage of job applicants we see who are absolutely unqualified to be anything but bumps on a log. Thanks LARGELY TO EMPHASIS ON SELF ESTEEM, EQUALITY WITHOUT THE NEED TO REQUIRE PERFORMANCE, REMOVAL OF GRADING SYSTEMS THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE COMPETITIVENESS, etc. etc., most industries treying to hire people with mechanical skills have to abandon hope of any current generation applicants being suitable for any open jobs. We have seen companies placing ads in local papers trying to find retired machinists, electricians, maintenance people, etc. to fill open job slots because no current grads have any useful skills, other than a sincere belief that they are "entitled to make at least $50,000.00 a year as entry level broom-props. The NEA has succeeded in their liberal agenda to make all high school graduates into perfect Democrat voters. Totaly dependent upon Federal or State "programs" to find them a place to stand and wait for their government Check, free cheese, and voter registration cards, conveniently preprinted "Dumbocrat" Pretty soonwe'll be looking to France as a shining example of industrial productivity.
Angry Hoosier Dad- I'm a born Hoosier myself, though I'm shaking my head over your post and hoping that voters in my native state don't fall for the Democrat's nameless "bait and switch" ploy.
Suzy- The planting of fake Tea Party candidates is sad, but was to be expected. For all of us who consider ourselves to be Tea Party types, we must do our own homework about candidates and not lazily accept a "Tea Party Approved" label on someone's campaign literature.
Front Woodsman- you're right, the unemployment numbers are badly (and deliberately) understated. By the government's own rarely-publicized figures, the number grows to over 16% when you include those who have given up hope. Other economists say the number is closer to 21%.
And you're right that the labor market just isn't what it used to be. Companies that should be investing in making products are instead funding remedial training courses to teach basic skills that their "educated" applicants lack.
The market is increasingly filled not with jobs that Americans won't do...but with jobs that Americans can't do.
I didn't mean to indict the whole state of Indiana, just my district. I expect the state to elect a Republican (although a squishy one) to replace Evan Bayh in the Senate and will resume it's solid Republican voting trend in 2012 (after falling under the influence of hopium in 2008). The 2nd District has been reliably union Democrat (read: reliably stupid) since the Studebaker days. They cling to the Democrat party because it's easier than thinking, even while they drown in a sea of debt and unemployment.
Running against the Bush policies.
Since B. Hussein is maintaining the Bush policies, Im am a little confused>
Angry Hoosier Dad- You weren't indicting the great state of Indiana, don't worry. Even here in Texas (where I transplanted from Indiana) there are Obama bumperstickers aplenty. Then again, a lot of people probably just put them on to get access to the Mentally Handicapped parking spots...
Larry Sheldon- You make a good point, but the alleged prez is only maintaining some of Bush's policies. All of the policies which are actively destroying the country are Obama's very own.
Remember two years ago, when Barack Hussein made his acceptance speech and "condemned" John McCain for having been in the Senate for 25 years, as if that was so awful? Remember how Barack conveniently "forgot" to mention that his own running mate had been in the Senate for THIRTY years? And remember how so many people went along with the program just so they could vote for a black guy? Will they regain a bit of sense this November? We can only HOPE.....
Let's not be too nostalgic for GW. He was conservative in some things, but he grew the federal government, expanded federal power over us and fed the deficit monster. He racked them up. Obama is just running the table.
Guiltless Capitalist- You're right that Bush was no fiscal conservative. We've always assumed (though don't have proof) that some of this was his attempt to give enough goodies to the liberals that they'd allow him to spend money on military expenditures.
But Bush's fiscal policies (and those of other Republicans) no doubt contributed to the mess we're in, even though we'll give Democrats the larger share of the blame.
Let's remember, too, it goes alot farther back than Bush....all the way back to the Great Depression when social programs and bailouts began. Each President has worsened it to a greater or less degree (or at least has not been able to reverse it).
Its so lame for presidents to keep pointing fingers backwards. What can our current (or future) president do to make our country BETTER, no matter what it takes, or how politically incorrect it may be, or what's in it for their own benefit?
Wait...I don't think we have anyone like that on the horizon...
:-(
Suzy- You're absolutely right. The "Ponzi Scheme" mentality has been going on in this country for along time. It won't help placing blame on anyone...it will only help when we STOP the madness. Which is going to mean a lot of people lose money and benefits they've been promised. And step one will require the government to say "We weren't really making promises...we were lying through our teeth."
Suzy suzy suzy... You don't really want to support people that will tell you what needs to be done. See... there isn't any solution that starts off "all you have to do..." or that fits into an easily memorized soundbite you can pull out at the coffee machine at work or your church group. Real solutions are tediously difficult to explain, don't "solve" everything, involve suffering on many people's part and don't cause anyone to get a warm feeling of self worth and moral superiority. When implemented they may not improve things in the short term and they sometimes "fail". History is replete with examples.
Here's one. A recent President suggested a way of handling the immigration mess with MEXICO that included
1. All current "illegals" got to stay, but had to register within 12 months. Failure to do so meant Prison Time (probably just 90 days) followed by deportation and being barred from legal immigration for 10 years.
2. IF you registered, which most would since they got to stay, they had FIVE YEARS to actually physically return to Mexico and apply for a work permit. If they had no criminal record, paid some fees/fines and passed some qualifications such as having employment lined up and tests they would receive one. They could then start working towards a Green Card / Permanent Residency.
4. Anyone who was deported and returned illegally had mandatory prison time starting at one year and increasing thereafter. There is no parole or time off for good behavior etc in the federal system.
3. Employers who were found employing illegal aliens were subject to vastly increased fines and repeat offenders would DO JAIL TIME. This included responsible officers of even large corporations. Corporations had to establish to the satisfaction of the government who was a "responsible party", but see Sarbannes-Oxley if you think that means giving the feds the name of a janitor or something. It don't. Put a CEO or Vice President of Human Resources in prison for a year, even a country club prison and just WATCH how quickly and effectively people's backgrounds and identities can be checked.
Now, I know you were out there calling your senators and congressman and talk radio supporting this plan even though it was more fun yelling about "AMNESTY" etc. Anybody that told you it was better than waiting for a Democrat who would REALLY open the borders didn't get called a RINO by YOU, right? You don't yell about closing the borders and then hire an illegal to trim your trees and mow your lawn, right? (To answer your question you say..." Are all your workers legal residents? Gosh, I just HATE to appear racist, but you know about the problems lately. I mean -- they have a Driver's license and auto insurance in their wallets, right? I mean... YOU'RE driving the truck so YOU do, right?" Of course, that could be embarassing and you DID say you wanted some PRESIDENT or somebody to fix it. Sorry about that.
The fix for Social Security he proposed... you supported that, too? Just kidding.
Moronpolitics- I don't think Suzy said she wanted or expected a president to fix the problems or tell us what to do, but did say that she'd like this (or any) president to finally put political concerns aside to at least make the situation better instead of worse. And she also quite realistically said that she doesn't see anyone who is currently likely to do that. Certainly not the stranger we currently have in the Whitehouse.
Post a Comment