Politico: Democrats debate why independents are deserting them
I don’t think that it is too hard to figure out. They put their ideological agenda ahead of the national agenda. It was foolish to run with cap and trade as the first piece of legislation. Then, when they addressed health care, which is on both the Democrats’ ideological agenda and the national agenda, they became ensnarled in the ideological issue of a government health care plan. The liberals who dominate the party drew a line in the dirt, and they are paying the political price for it. The first priority should have been “it’s the economy, stupid,” but, oh, no, the Democrats had an it’s-our-turn-now attitude, and they are quickly finding out that their safe majorities in Congress may not be safe and that their turn may not last very long.
Who are the independents? I don’t know if there are a lot of true independents, that is, people who have no political allegiances. Most are fickle voters who embraced the flavor of the month and then become disillusioned. The Republicans are still arguing about whether they lost adherents because they were too wrapped up in the social issues, or because they strayed from fiscal conservatism. The answer is both. Will they learn anything from what the Democrats are going through? I doubt it. Did the Democrats learn anything from what the Republicans went through? Apparently not.
There must be a greed gene among politicians. No sooner had the Democrats won in ‘08 than they were talking about a Rooseveltian-style transformation of American politics that would last for a generation. Hello? Does anyone remember Karl Rove and his plan for a permanent Republican majority? How did that work out?
The Politico story quotes Pat Waak, the chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, as saying that the party had so far failed to convince independent voters of the steps it had taken to improve the economy.
“I think the economy is at the base of the tension,” she said. “Quite frankly, we’ve got to do a better job of messaging. There’s a lot of work to be done to get independents more comfortable with what we’re doing.”
How is this for not getting it? The problem is … messaging. People aren’t stupid. They know whether they are better off or worse off since Obama became president. They have a general idea of whether homes in their neighborhood are selling, or whether the malls are filled with shoppers. I’ve heard stories about high-end developments in Dallas that are empty, dead spaces, where you camp in a traffic lane with no fear of being hit by a car.
The biggest failing of the Democrats, of course, is that they have lost the hard-won mantle of fiscal conservatism that they so recently snatched from the Republicans. As I have written previously, my sense is that most independents are former Republicans who grew disillusioned during the Bush years. What they care about the most is fiscal conservatism. The Democrats have shown that they aren’t going to practice it, and the indies are returning to the Republicans.
Here’s the messaging that I think Obama ought to pursue:
We are starting over. We are going to make the economy our first priority. We are going to put health care and cap and trade and other legislation aside until the economy is back on a firm footing. We are going to cut income taxes by 10 percent. The government must share the pain of the American people.
Yeah, right.
Anon says:
Brace yourself Burka
Reply »
Doc Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Perhaps independents have finally woken up to the fact that the Obama administration has introduced legislation that is a dangerous departure from our constitutional heritage. This my friends threatens the very republic that was founded upon principals of individual freedom and minimal intervention of federal government. Just look at the social failures of the fed over the last century: Social Security-Bankrupt, Fannie Mae-Bankrupt, Johnson’s Poverty spending circa 1964-Costs 1 trillion a year and the poor want more, think now….socialism, socialism, socialism,
I used to think that Sen. Joseph McCarthy was crazy now I’m not so sure. Wake up countrymen!
Reply »
MattTX says:
The reason Dems are losing ground with Independents is clearly jobs/the recession.
Fundamentally, there is nothing that Dems could do to avoid that and nothing they will be able to do. The economy was going to suck for a while regardless of what they did.
Our larger problems as a country are mainly structural in origin. We have an emasculated government that is simply not able to pursue coherent policies. For example, the aid to states cut out of the stimulus by Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson. As a result, we now see warnings of another million jobs cut next year from State Governments/services… Something we know about in Texas… The whole stimulus was a mis-structured debacle because of the political need to gain bipartisan support for cloture in the Senate. Republican no-nothingness + centrists = death.
Supposedly the advantage of the US system over a European parliamentary system is that it enables coherent action to be taken without the majority being held hostage by incoherent special interest demands from coalitional partners. Well, that advantage went out the window a long ways back.
Fundamentally, we are going to keep having fundamental problems like this in US politics until we embrace real systemic reform, including at the least reform/repeal of the Senate filibuster and holds, reduction of the smugness, pomposity, and clubbiness of Senators, and an equivalent to the Council of Economic Advisors for Congress that they are somehow forced to listen to. And our elected representatives need to actually learn something about Economics (as do we all). It will be no better for the GOP when it eventually retakes power – and how coherent were the Bush years, really? It is not possible for us to make coherent policies as a country, because our system of government does not allow it, and so we will keep on sinking under the weight of our own inertia, no matter who is in charge of our Titanic.
The blind lead the blind.
Reply »
Dukakis_in_a_Tank says:
Good call, Burka. Because a great way to deal with deficits is to cut revenue by 10%. It’s not the government that the government needs to “share the pain.” It’s that people need to realize that you can’t get something for nothing, and if you want a stable, free, and productive society, you have to pay taxes that might not be returned to you dollar for dollar. But conservatives will never let the selfish and short-sighted tendencies of the people to go unnurtured.
Reply »
The Freedom Doctor Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Government revenue increases when they cut taxes. History has proven that, look it up. People need to stop demanding that the government do everything for them because that is unsustainable. Personal responsibility and living within our means may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is better than the alternative. Have you ever seen a county go bankrupt before?
Reply »
Sam Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
By definition, the Laffer Curve is not a straight line. Revenue suffers when taxes are either too high or too low. Fluctuations in the economy affect the actual tax level, but the middle range of the curve is a relatively flat area so it doesn’t matter much if taxes are not at the absolute optimal level.
Reply »
el_longhorn Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Sorry, Freedom Doc, but that is just BS. Show me one real world example where a tax cut produces more revenue (other than the one time pop that you get when you raise or cut capital gains as people time their capital sales appropriately). State or federal – show me just one example.
When tax rates are 40% and they are cut to 35%, the government takes in less revenue. It really is as simple as it sounds.
Anon Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
It really isn’t. Compliance goes up and increased economic growth from tax cuts can, and has, resulted in higher government revenues. However, that’s been the case when you have substantially higher marginal rates than we do now. The fallacy is that this can go on in perpetuity. The Laffer Curve basically says there is an optimal level of taxation which pretty much has to be true. I think the argument is over which side of the curve we are on right now.
Anonymous Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 9:48 am
If Democrats are the true believers on this, why have so many of Pres. Obama’s team failed to pay their taxes?
Reply »
MattTX says:
Dukakis -
Worrying about a budget deficit in the middle of a liquidity trap = death by great depression.
Reply »
Dukakis_in_a_Tank Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 11:06 am
That may be true. But we should still direct our deficit spending to its most productive uses. Tax cuts are one of the least effective fiscal measures for stimulating the economy. We should be putting people to work like FDR did. Oh, wait. Nevermind. Burka thinks it’s politically impossible. Scratch that.
Reply »
MattTX says:
Ok, I agree then Dukakis, though I am not completely sure about what is the best remedy (putting people to work like FDR).
Political impossibility means that things are going to get worse before they get better.
Reply »
Anon says:
Are those million jobs in districts that actually exist or are they the ones that the Administration made up?
The whole “dysfunctional government” meme is a very popular talking point on the Left now. People don’t agree with everything they are trying to do, therefore there must be some type of dysfunction in the structure of government. It couldn’t be that the policies they are pursuing are idiotic.
Oh, and if you want to follow the FDR model, then attack Germany.
Reply »
A2Z Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“It couldn’t be that the policies they are pursuing are idiotic…”
Yes, but none of those policies are in place yet, are they? So you can’t blame the current state on that. We are still living under the policies of the Bush administration, last I checked. Bailout? Initiated by Bush, finished by Obama. Stimulus? Anyone with half a brain knows the stimulus was in no way meant to be the magic bullet. It will take a combination of fixes over time to pull us out of this hell pit. Have all of you people totally forgotten what the word “patience” means? Obama has ALWAYS warned it will get worse before it gets better.
Reply »
Dallasite says:
I’m not so sure dealing with the health coverage crisis is a mistake. We all know someone out of work, therefore without affordable health insurance. We all know someone with a “pre existing condition”.
Business owners see health coverage go up 20 to 30% every year. Passing a bill at the beginning of his term may prove to be a wise move in the long run, when citizens later see that the sky didn’t fall when the bill passed. I was at a luncheon in Dallas in which Judy Woodruff spoke Monday. She asked for a show of hands of those who thought some kind of health bill should pass and the vast majority did. Audience was KERA large donors and the Dallas Assembly, so a bipartisan group.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
do you have even a shred of evidence for this or did you just extract it from your backside?
Reply »
Tim says:
“Government revenue increases when they cut taxes. History has proven that, look it up.”
Ok, I’ll bite. Explain how government revenue increases when you cut taxes to 0%?
Let me explain to you how this has worked in the past:
1) Taxes cut at beginning of upswing in business cycle.
2) Business cycle is booming thus providing more revenue.
3) Business cycle goes into trough. Government revenue WAY down.
4) Republicans observe 2 and cry “SUCCESS!”, ignore 3 completely.
If you want trickle-down to work, we need to tax more on the upswing when the economy can handle it, so that we can cut taxes on the downswing to stimulate the economy. You generally don’t need to encourage people to invest in the economy when it’s on the way up. I frankly don’t think trickle-down works very well at all because I feel it’s better for the economy to convince 8 people to buy a $20,000 car than to convince 1 person to buy a $160,000 car. And millionaires don’t tend to buy 8 $20,000 cars.
But for the love of pete the least Republicans could do is actually figure out how it works, and not keep yammering about cutting taxes in all seasons and conditions.
Please do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Sim City.
And the reason that independents have deserted Obama is because they’re Republicans.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The majority of regularly voting Indies are disenchanted Republicans. Who knows if/when we will see the Obama first-timers vote again.
That said, you’re dead wrong on the idea of a tax cut, Burka. That’s NOT fiscal conservatism…just look at the federal budget deficits under Reagan and GWB. Tinkle-down economics has been provent NOT to work, contrary to Freedom Doc’s argument. Look up the budget deficits under recent administrations back to Nixon and you’ll see that it is, as Burka said, the D’s not the R’s that are more fiscally conservative.
You’re also wrong on the Dem priorities, Burka. TARP and the federal stimulus packages were done before cap and trade and before healthcare, the latter of which IS a HUGE economic issue.
And, Burka, way to jump on the idiots’ bandwagon. Hello!? Anyone remember when the current economic downturn began? And who was president? And that EVERYONE, including those in that Republican Administration said it wasn’t going to get better overnight? That we might have a genuine depression…which we averted thanks to what WAS done!
Geez…and the bitching saying that Obama and the Dems’ should be held responsible started as soon as he was sworn in. I’m thiking that it’s a bunch of sour grapes from those who will not be satisfied no matter what he does. What really needs to happen is Obama needs to find a way to get his original voting base to step back up to the plate and let their voices be heard.
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) says:
The “independents are abandoning the Democrats” meme is a canard foisted on the pliable media by the Republicans.
Selfsame media will be scratching their collective head in November 2010 when the Republicans make modest gains in the House and lose ground in the Senate.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Harry, it’s in all the polls.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Where’s the poll that says, “I voted for Obama but no longer support him”?
Reply »
Emptyk says:
Burka, one more time.
You write:
“I don’t think that it is too hard to figure out. They put their ideological agenda ahead of the national agenda. It was foolish to run with cap and trade as the first piece of legislation.”
Fact is:
HR 1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Passed by the House Jan 28, 2009
Passed by the Senate Feb 10, 2009
Signed by the President Feb 17, 2009
You have repeated factual inaccuracies. We can argue about your point of view and opinions, but this is the second time that you have misstated the passage of economic legislation. Please correct your factual errors.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Amen, Emptyk. Burka still hasn’t figured it out. But the economy WAS and has been the first priority and was treated as such. It’s just so much easier to complain, without bothering to look at the real facts, when the desire for “instant gratification” isn’t realized.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Yes, Emptyk is right that the stimulus package preceded cap and trade and health care. Since the passage of the stimulus, the Democrats’ main efforts have been directed at their pet legislation–no surprise there–and they have been unable to get anywhere with it because of the doubts over the costs. When Chet Edwards votes against the House version of the health care bill, you know it has huge problems.
I’m not expecting Obama to deliver a miracle. The recession began on Bush’s watch, but it has lingered on Obama’s watch.
I don’t see that the economy is Obama’s chief priority. His speeches on the subject have mainly been about reducing expectations. Health care is what he really cares about. Cap and trade was foolish — a bill that wouldn’t even take effect until 2014. It was a no-brainer to say that he was going to work on the economy before he did anything else.
Reply »
Pat says:
Paul, sounds like you’re quoting “Austin-Think” again.
Reply »
stormkite says:
The main reason the “independents” are “deserting” Obama is that the majority of so-called “independents” are those who’ve decided that the GOP isn’t sociopathic ENOUGH. They’re far to the right of Genghis Khan, and extremely upset that the Cheney Administration didn’t repeal the Magna Carta and bring back chattel slavory and debtors’ prisons. The idea that they might ever have been induced to vote for any sane candidate is laughable.
Reply »
Rog says:
As a liberal democrat, I think the biggest mistake Obama has made so far was to follow Bush in bailing out the banks “too big to fail.”
I suspect a major change is on the way in the war in Afghanistan, with the troops coming home.
We’ll see how that plays out.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
The Republicans are cynically attacking Obama for trying to fix the recession they created, as well as those pesky little problems they gave us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their attacks, along with the harsh economic remedies (bank bailouts, stimulus, etc.), have hurt him among Independents. It’s chicken****, but that’s today’s politics.
As for tax cuts leading to revenue growth, didn’t we just see someone try this stupid idea again? Wasn’t it the core of Bush’s economic policies? The same policies that took this country to the brink of a depression?
When the economy finally recovers and health care passes, many Independents will return to Obama. Only about a third of them are recently disaffected Republicans, by the way, and the GOP has given them no reason to come back.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
Burka, I think there is a 50-50 chance Democrats will lose the House in 2010 IF the GOP continues their mojo by picking up between 25-40 House seats or even more.
The Senate is more different, I see Democrats getting Ohio, New Hampshire and Missouri at least.
Reply »
Keenest Observer Ever? says:
Emptyk says:
Burka, one more time.
You write:
“I don’t think that it is too hard to figure out. They put their ideological agenda ahead of the national agenda. It was foolish to run with cap and trade as the first piece of legislation.”
Fact is:
HR 1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Passed by the House Jan 28, 2009
Passed by the Senate Feb 10, 2009
Signed by the President Feb 17, 2009
No response, Paul?
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
That was a great piece of legislation. The spendulus bill is very popular with the voting public and has produced all sorts of jobs in places like Arizona’s 15th CD. Good call!
Reply »
Aaron Burrlesque says:
The Prez/Dems of 2009 are repeating the exact same mistake they made in 1993. They paid for it in 1994 at the ballot box, and they will pay for it in 2010 at the ballot box. Rahm Emanuel was there for both. He oughta know.
It’s almost breathtaking that Repubs are in such an advantageous position so quickly after Bush/mortgage crisis/2008 election. Only the Dems’ incompetence could pull off such a feat.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
I’m shocked that Philip Martin and the BOR boys aren’t on here crying about how Burka is just a mean Republican and how everything he writes is a bunch of propaganda for the Republican spin machine. Or perhaps Philip has finally taken a nom de plume?
Reply »
paulburka says:
I’m not a Republican. And I’m not mean. I just write what I think is out there. If the Democrats think that they have nothing to worry about this election cycle, it’s their funeral. They’re fixing to get killed in Texas.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Paul, you seem to be conflating the Democrats’ situation in Texas with how they are doing nationally. Texas is very different than the rest of the country in many ways.
Obama’s and the Democrats’ popularity will live and die by the state of the economy. If the recession is over by 2012 (and odds are it will be, in spite of the poor efforts of the feds), Obama can take credit, and get re-elected. The outlook for the 2010 national elections is less certain, simply because the economy may not be back by then.
But I don’t think Obama or the national Democrats give a rat’s-you-know-what about the Texas political situation, since Texas will not stop being a Republican state for the near future. Demographic changes take time.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Anon, if the economy continues to tank in 2012 you can bet Obama will be SCREWED at the ballot box since his promises of running a non-partisan government in DC have fallen apart with the Democrats shoving Health Care Reform down the throats of people in the House (which 39 or 40 Blue Dog House Democrats voted AGAINST) and in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid can’t even get his own party to unite on a new health care bill that Montana’s Max Baucus is proposing.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
As long as we’re hypothesizing on Burka’s party affiliation, anybody who’s read TM for the last 20 years knows his employment in State Senate and his love for the “old style,” Bullock way of doing things in the legislature: “Do what’s good for Texas.” So I’d wager that if you forced him to choose, Burka is an old-school conservative, pragmatic Democrat in the mold of the late Ray Farabee or John Montford, who supported W in the ’90s and ’00s, and who most probably votes reliably Republican these days. Although he wishes he didn’t have to.
But hey, what do I know? I’ve only subscribed to TM for 20 years.
Reply »
Seriously? says:
Paul, please explain how cutting income taxes by 10% will allow Democrats to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Also, your entire post is written under the presumption that, barring the appropriation of Republican messaging/policy prescriptions, Democrats have lost independents for good. Or at least until November 2010. Are you one of these independents? What real evidence points you to these conclusions?
Reply »
Eugene Keilin says:
Paul, with apologies for the length of the following,I agree with your conclusion, but not with the way you get there.
In the absence of a grave national security crisis, the by-elections next year and the Presidential elections three years from now will largely be determined by the economy. Always have, always will. You are also right that the economy is not getting the attention it deserves either from Congress or (so far as we can tell) from the President.
When Obama was inaugurated, it was widely believed (by economists, Wall Street, and people who actually operate a business) that unemployment would rise above 10%, defaults and business failure would increase, and things would not get much better before next year at the earliest. It was also clear that any stimulus program, even a good one, would not have much effect before next year, and that aggressive monetary policy (low interest rates, an increase in the money supply, banks ready to lend) was the fastest-acting aspirin in the medicine cabinet. A lot of people said as much, including the President, but the message didn’t get through.
The passage of time has proved that consensus to have been correct. Our economy is so big (and now so connected to the rest of the world) that it has enormous momentum when it’s moving and enormous inertia when it’s not. Physics is not the same as economics, but it takes a lot of energy to get a huge body at rest up to speed again; if you supply less energy, it will take more time.
We really did go very far out on an economic limb. After 9/11, George Bush told Americans it was their patriotic duty to spend, and Americans cannot be faulted for a lack of patriotism. Bush was the Spender-in-Chief (remember when Clinton balanced the budget?) and credit was so easy that even a caveman could do it. We built so many houses and so many cars, and used so much imported oil and borrowed so much money that the correction, when it came, was bound to be wrenching. This is not politics or ideology, and the wonder is that each epoch of the New-Economy-that-changes-all-the old-rules is built so quickly on the wreckage of the previous epoch that was built on the same fallacy.
Our economy will recover when confidence and true demand return, but no one can predict exactly when that will be. The stock market is betting it will be soon, but doesn’t seem too sure about it.
To his credit, Obama tried to say many of these things in and around his inauguration. Remember all the times he said (correctly) that problems which were created over years would not be solved in months? Maybe he didn’t say it often enough or find the most compelling way to say it. Anyway, it didn’t stick. Congress didn’t get the message and neither did the man in the street, since both expected the recovery would be prompt and relatively painless. And Obama did move on to other concerns.
That, finally, is where I part company with you. Your distinction between ideology and national interest appears to reflect your own ideology. If you don’t believe the science on climate change, I won’t be able to persuade you, but a lot of well-meaning and well-informed people think it’s just as big an iceberg as the economy. If so, it is a global problem that requires a global solution—good thing national issues are so much easier to solve!—and Obama inherited (and accepted) a tenuous global consensus that the Copenhagen conference next month would be an important chance to get everybody moving in roughly the same direction. In order for Copenhagen to succeed, the U.S. has to provide leadership and to lead by example.
The virtue of leadership is that it lets you choose the path, but the price of leadership is courage and foresight. In environmental matters, American leadership has no credibility without Congressional consent, so trying to get something passed made sense. Of course, neither Congress nor the public was fully prepared for this, so Obama got a one-house bill, which is less than half a loaf, and it gave his political adversaries a windfall.
On health care, you do acknowledge that there is a real national interest, but you dismiss the public option as more ideology. I agree the virtues of a public option are debatable—in a democracy, what isn’t?—but there are plenty of people who know something about health care (and who happen to be Independents or Republicans) who support it as sound policy. We can’t seem to have an informed debate about this question—a lot of people don’t even know that Medicare is a public program—but the Democrats are not solely (or even primarily) responsible for this sad state of affairs. I suppose we’re beyond “death panels” at this point, but not beyond the silly idea that anything government touches is just one step closer to our collectivist, despotic doom. As you suggest, we are a conservative country, and health care wouldn’t be such an issue if the private sector alone really worked.
To his credit, Obama has tried to make a simple point over and over: the place to start any debate is not whether you want to go here or there but whether you are satisfied with where you are. Yes, it will cost something to deal with climate change, but it will cost a lot more if we don’t. Yes, any health care bill that Congress can pass will cause problems and have unintended consequences, but the health care system we have today costs too much, covers too few, and doesn’t provide the best care.
The proposed solutions do have an economic impact (I think it’s positive on balance, but we could debate that, too), but the impact of doing nothing is even greater. The price of gasoline has doubled in the last few years, and, over a slightly longer period, so has the cost of health care. If we don’t conserve the former and reform the latter, we’re going to wind up rationing both. Besides, even if you don’t buy climate change, how about the national security impact of buying imported oil from our enemies and depending on China as our banker of last resort?
I acknowledge my own bias—I think Obama and the Democrats are headed more or less in the right direction—but these are really difficult times. Like you, I wish Obama spent more of his political capital on the economy and I don’t deny he has a political problem, but I don’t think he’s responsible for the low level of discourse, and I do think he’s aiming at the right targets. (A lot of Democrats think he’s put too many issues off to another day, but that’s an argument for another day.)
Reply »
Doc says:
Why don’t you people wake up about taxes? You have been so programmed to regurgitate that party line. No. 1 Fact The Federal Reserve was illegally ratified way back in 1913. Quickly followed by the Revenue act which brought a draconian agency into power called the IRS. Until then our nation had never collected income tax only tax for the war effort.
No. 2 It is a fact that income tax revenue goes directly to the Federal Reserve a private cartel of individually owned banks not owned by the government or we The People to pay for the interest charged the government for printing worthless paper known as fiat currency. as a result our society has been completely transformed by the burden of ever increasing taxes and the costly social programs they have spawned.
No. 3 The government does not operate off income tax revenue even though they perpetuate the myth that they do. It is corporate taxes, interstate transportation taxes, gas tax, sin tax, tariffs, telecommunications taxes, road and bridge taxes, licensing fees, the list goes on and on. Now do you feel free? Can you even think free? Answer No.
Reply »
Scarecrow says:
The Socialism initiated by the Bush Administration to bailout non-regulated bankers who have turned around and kicked independents and what is left of the middle class in the butt has become the Democrat’s Socialistic tag – and it is sticking. Democrats have not crafted a coherent voice. Independents are waiting to hear that voice. Yes – Congress and President Obama have not paid enough attention to the economy. It IS the economy STUPID!
Reply »
Doc says:
Trying to rationalize what the Democrats have done in the short time that their numbers in the house have allowed them to steam roll their socialistic agenda through Congress is nothing short of idiocy. WE should have allowed many of the banks, Wall Street firms, and AIG to go bankrupt and then to dictate terms to them instead of allowing these unrestrained criminals to continue un-prosecuted. Yes, it would have been painful, but there would be many irresponsible mortgage holders, investors, and CEO’s that would have gotten what they deserved instead of dragging down the rest of America with them. It’s called free enterprise, it’s called capitalism, it’s called accountability of which we have none of in the current Obama administration. The Japanese do not bail out failing banks every few years when their economy goes into hyper inflation they let the banks that are failing fall, and then they sort out the mess. We should be taking lessons, but the same idiots (Dems) who rode all federally backed mortgage providers into the ground work with federal regulators who have spent their entire lives working in the banking industry then are supposed to objectively rule over these elitist bankers who implored their organizations to via ACORN and insane derivatives thanks to Clinton’s deregulation of the industry during his term? What a joke! Wake up people!
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Let’s keep it simple and straightforward …people are jumping to the middle because 1) the economy sucks and does not look like it is going to get better anytime soon; 2) money give-a-ways with no accountablity and hyper-exaggerated job creation figures; 3)a national debt that will bury the American dream for my grandson’s generation; 4)a still unregulated CDS and derivitives market; 5)an administation that allows the banks to use taxpayer money to play in the hedgefund markets which, in turn, manipulates the price of crude; 6)an administration that has bit off more than they can chew and is doing a half-assed job of completing any of them. I could go on, but I’m cutting it short.
Middle America is growing weary of both radical elements in each party. They just don’t listen. Once elected, no matter the side, they forget their promises and tear out on their own agendas, leaving all of us peons scratching our heads and questioning our votes.
Reply »
Noreen says:
I would like to see these videos reviewed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIqyCpCPrvU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7LtVwDCbs&feature=channel_page
Reply »
GB says:
“Most are fickle voters who embraced the flavor of the month and then become disillusioned.”
I tried reading this without imparting any tone or sentiment, but I can’t help but read this line as anything but an attack on the many, many people who can’t find a party with which to identify because the parties themselves have become so schizophrenic. With Republicans running up the debt, a lot of conservatives feel homeless. I’m sure the Democrats have done a similar turn to potential voters.
Don’t say they’re fickle, just not ready to commit to fickle parties trying to figure which way the wind blows.
I enjoy the blog. Keep writing.
Reply »
Doc Vega says:
I am really sick and tired of Democrats making excuses for Obama’s outright ineptitude and disregard for American traditions and Christian ethics. These precepts are what helped our forefathers define our inalienable god given rights so that federal intervention could not take them away, we have gotten Muslim interjected diatribe, even a justice Hamilton who stands to get elected who actually proclaims that Christian prayer in public should be outlawed while Islamic prayer should be allowed. I can’t believe people are accepting this. It was enough with the Gay marriage and the abortion issue, but this opens the flood gates to an alarming element of an administration that is dead set upon shoving radical change straight down our throats, you people are busy rationalizing Democratic policy as being valid at this juncture when a 22% unemployment figure looms as their legacy. Under Bush we had seven out of eight years of prosperity while the people like Democrats rode Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae into the ground and continued to fund ACORN. How much of the financial collapse could we attribute to those two glaring realities Democrats I ask you?
Too bad Ron Paul was stifled by media indifference as his website was getting 600,000 hits while McCain and Obama were attracting half those numbers. Proof in y mind that the media was bought off and orchestrated toward electing the Manchurian candidate, Obama.
Reply »
Doc Vega says:
Once again wake up about taxes will you. For the government to lift income tax would allow all that money that would normally be wasted by the Fed to be invested directly into the economy the resulting stimulus would come back to the government in the form of sales tax anyway. With Americans freed from the immense burden of income tax they could lead better unhindered lives. This would also force the Fed to be more economically accountable and start dumping all the useless programs that waste money and also lay off the incredible burden of federal employees and their suffocating hold on taxpayers with their fraternity of costly benefits. Remember Obama immediately hired 600,000 federal employees to help stir economic stimulus. What a crock! Why aren’t people outraged. It’s going to take a lot more tea parties no matter how much the media tries to ignore them!
Reply »
Seriously? says:
Yeah, Doc! That’s right! I hope your crusade to take over the Republican Party is successful! You go get ‘em! Palin/Beck 2012!
Reply »