The Rabid Conservative

From the Washington Times:

In the past month, Mitt Romney has delivered a widely panned defense of the health care legislation he signed as governor of Massachusetts and been the constant target of national Democratic attacks – and also has seen his poll numbers rise and his status solidified as the best-positioned candidate to win the GOP nomination and take on President Obama.

Makes sense.  They got to start attacking the GOP front-runner because their front-runner is about to have his butt handed to him in the 2012 election.  It’s always been conventional wisdom that if your candidate sucks and you know he/she sucks, rather than keeping him from sucking less, you make sure his/her opposition sucks more.

Sorry Lib-Crats, but nothing is going to cover up the broken promises, the lack of hope and change bill-of-goods that was sold to us during the 2008 race.  No amount of blaming-it-all-on-Bush will convince the American public that Barack is any different than any other stupid liberal politician with his Keynesian economics, socialism lets-all-work-together-ideals, and failure to deliver on all the promises given.

Can anyone defend Obama and the Democrat record on anything? 

Yeah, I said it.

Out today is another Democrat who thinks that calling names is going to make headway and prevent another shellacking when 2012 rolls around and Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) goes down in history as a one-term president.  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the newly crowned DNC chair, came out showing her ‘foot-in-mouth’ disease by calling the Republican party as anti-women, because of the recent votes in the House and Senate relating to the de-funding of Planned Parenthood (a.k.a Abortions-R-Us). 

Well, if we follow the DNC line of reasoning, like they so much want us to do, yet criticize us for not seeing it their way, then every effort to rid the world of the number one killer of babies, namely abortion, that was thwarted by Democrats would make them “anti-baby”.  And while on that track, they are also big into euthanasia (anyone remember Terri Schiavo?)  Standing up for the unborn and saying that it’s morally wrong to kill them in Planned Parenthood sponsored clinics has nothing to do with women in general. 

Moron.

The GOP absolutely loves women, and in particular, the right-thinking kind.  Does anyone recall that the first woman to ever be elected to Congress was a Republican?   And then there are ladies like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Condoleezza Rice, Jan Brewer, Liz Cheney, S.E. Cupp, and of course, Sarah Palin who is contemplating replacing That One, as President, all of which are adored by the GOP.  The GOP has women all over the country, serving and doing their part to make the country just a little more sane.

Oh, and by the way, my best friend in all the world is a Republican woman.  (luv ya hun!)

By the way, Ms. Schultz is the second Schultz this week to say something completely stupid.  While I doubt that Rep. Schultz will have to eat her crow as quickly as Ed Schultz did, she’ll find out that her inability to see reality will be the Dems undoing.

Can’t say that bugs me much.

To my friends, stay rabid.

I’ve said it before, elections are one of those things that have consequences.  But I’m not the only one who has said that.  Over the course of the last four years, the Lib-crats have pontificated that 2006 has been about the “mandate of the people”.  And with that power, boy howdy did they ever run with it:

So today, Nancy goes in and says, “elections should not matter as much as they do” to a group at Tufts University this week.  She certainly wasn’t thinking that way in November 2006 when she gave that self-congratulatory speech, now was she?

But now, with the Tea Party firmly tearing through the Washington establishment, Nancy is missing those good ol’ days when people didn’t stand on beliefs – they just stood on what special interest would fund them at the time.

Elections are supposed to matter a lot because if people don’t like the direction of their government, they should have the power to change it.  November 2010 demonstrated that, after four years of change promises made by lib-crats, which only made the problem worse by failing to pass a budget – instead, spending every waking hour pushing the socialistic Health Deform bill. 

By the way, Nancy, while you may call Republicans your friends, I scarcely can think of a Republican who would openly call you their friend.  You represent government that no one really wants – at best a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable one.  And you’ve never been the best at anything, except for caricatures.

In closing, I give you this insta-classic video to play over and over until either you get tired of it or Nancy gets actually voted out of the House…or your computer crashes.

Elections have consequences.

Back in 2008, Barack Obama made a very clear "in your face" kind of statement that solidified the GOP opposition’s resolve:

"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."

I don’t think he would have made such a spurrious statement if he knew the kind of tidal wave that crashed against the Democratic doors at the hands of the Tea Party and GOP.

So, here it is 2011 and Mr. Obama’s statement is absolutely true – however, the consequences are no longer pointing in the Democrats favor. Elections have consequences and the GOP just got put into office by the people of Wisconsin.

Newly-elected Governor Walker has proposed a series of changes that would, effectively, take $30m from the state’s $3.6 billion budget. Gone though, would be ability for labor unions in the state to collectively bargain except for wage increases, as well as forcing employees to pay union dues and require a vote to stay organized.

Police and firefighters would be exempted, but the law would apply to state and local public employees.

By the way, I’m not a big fan of things like Card Check and mandatory union membership initiatives. If people want to be part of a union, great, but no union should ever have the ability to force anyone who doesn’t want to contribute or be a part into it. That’s basically communistic behavior, in my opinion.

Democrats cry foul because they feel like they’ve been cut out of the process with respect to the spending reforms proposed by Governor Walker.

Really? Kind of like how the Dems ram-rodded things like ObamaCare down everyone’s throats and locked the GOP out of the discussion – because they could without impunity. And then, the Dems pontificate how "elections have consequences" and that "this is what we get".

Shoe’s on the other foot now. I don’t hear many of them talking about how elections have consequences now.

Instead, the Dems walked out of their legislature as a stunt to prevent a quorum and hold up the vote. They’ve all moved onto Illinois, out of the reach of the Wisconsin State Police who are at the border ready to bring them back to the Capitol to do their elected duty.

The duty that their constituents elected them to do, by the way.

In any other industry, if you walked off the job, you risk termination. However, these Dems are being allowed to hold up the Democratic process in an way that is not in keeping with the spirit and traditions of the United States as well as the Wisconsin Constitution.

Personally, they should forfeit all pay for joining the unions and going on strike until they return to Wisconsin and report for work. They should get no benefit from their positions as elected senators, since they aren’t willing to do their jobs. And when they get back, they should be publically censured for their unprofessional behavior.

The Founders would be mortified at their conduct.

And as I heard, Nancy Pelosi is out of a job…

When I started TRC in a big way, it was a November night like this one and Barack Obama had just won the presidency on his silly “hope and change” referendum.  So here I am, two years later, and after a general hiatus for about six months (no questions, please), and watching the news again, seeing the Dems lose the House after vehemently taking it away from the GOP in 2006.

But what is tonight really about?  I’ve heard the conservative pundits out there say it’s a “rejection of Obamacare” or “rejection of liberalism”, or “rejection of Democrats.  But while these reasons are partially true, what is also true is that tonight’s stunning GOP win was that it’s about Americans in droves, coming out to say that they are tired of not being heard by Washington and they want a different direction for the economy and the Country in general.

Americans have spoken, but the message isn’t, “Dems are out; we like elephants.”  No, tonight’s message is, “you better start listening to us or we WILL fire you.”

Right now, most Americans are incensed towards both parties because both parties have demonstrated their real constituency are their special interest groups, and none of those groups are “The People of the United States”.

The Dems have five weeks left to call the shots and try to railroad their crazy policies through the system.  But come January, it will be on the GOP to govern as they campaign.  More than likely, the GOP will try to get some things done – passing a conservative budget, repealing ObamaCare, or some other thing.  It will slide through the House, get caught up in a hung Senate, only to get vetoed by President Obama.  That’s what we have for the next two years…and it’s just alright.  I think people are tired of having their country fundamentally changed.

Obama said today, “"Are we taking the steps now to move us in the right direction, or are going to go back to the policies that got us into that mess in the first place?”.   Hopefully neither.  Every conservative knows that George Bush was not a fiscal conservative and the GOP congress of the time got drunk off their own spending.  The Dems played that counter card against spending in 2006, but never delivered on their promise.  So, a new class of congressional leaders are on their way in.  Folks, keep them accountable.

As for Pelosi, the word on the street is that her Queen-Bee-ness is going to take her pantsuits and leave the Capitol, heading back for the Napa Valley to grow grapes and drown out her sorrow in a glass of red wine.  Break out the good stuff, Nancy-kins.  It tastes better going down.

Speaking of going down, that’s what the Dems are doing right now.  As Obama said a couple years ago, “change is on the way.”

Well, it was only inevitable – the so-called 2006 mandate that ushered the Democrats into power and culminated to the 2008 win of Barack Obama has now shown that it was dismally unable to deliver on any of its misguided promises

In 2006, the GOP lost the farm, not because of a rejection of conservative ideas, but because of the liberals and moderates that have infiltrated the Republican party.   The GOP showed itself not much different than the Democratic party, not because of the failure of the parties, but because both have been swayed by stupid progressive values and programs that seek to rob power from the people and give it to the all-powerful state.

Since the GOP lost its distinction as being the “party of Reagan”, the “conservative choice”, and basically reneging on the Contract With America that hoisted the GOP into power in 1994, they have recently showed that they are just as willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on entitlements and earmark projects and do very little to protect the traditional family.  They have sought to sit in the middle and try to appeal to the more moderate people in the country  (which I defy anyone to show me a true moderate without showing me someone who is conflicted in their beliefs)

Well, today we’ve been informed by Rasumussen that Congress’ approval rating is about ready to fall into the single digits.   More and more Americans, Democrats and Republicans are showing staunch disapproval for the job that Congress is doing.  Perhaps it’s for different reasons, such as the libs railing that they couldn’t get health care passed while the conservatives look at the Congress as a cesspool for progressivism.  Either way, more people are unhappy than happy these days.

I get the feeling the hammer is about to fall on Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats that remain in Congress after November 2010.  Harry Reid is doomed, three others (Dodd, Bayh, and Dorgan) are jumping ship, and the Dems are looking worse and worse everyday for their respective elections.

The tide is about to change…

Obama has no intention of actually listening to what the GOP is saying because the GOP has already been saying it – and he’s been ignoring it.

I’ve been listening to this debate regarding the re-address of the health care reform effort and I can’t really say that I’m surprised by the whole thing.  It’s really a big partisan fight, when you get down to the brass tacks.  And despite Obama’s efforts to demonstrate a change to the way things are done in Washington, he’s only showing that nothing ever changes.  This is the latest example.

Obama decides to call both parties into the room in a make-shift summit to discuss the health care reform – which is admirable.  But then, today, he announces the Obama plan, which is really nothing more than the Senate’s plan with a few tweaks here and there. In a sense, it’s "more of the same", the very thing that got the Dems into the pot of water that continues to get hotter and hotter.

So rather than actually starting a meaningful round-table about how to make health care even better in this country, Obama and the Dems want to dictate to the GOP members in the room what the plan will be.  Obama has no intention of actually listening to what the GOP is saying because the GOP has already been saying it – and he’s been ignoring it.  The whole point here is to break the partisan bloc and gain some sort of validation for the plan that more than half of Americans simply don’t want.

If there is to be any real reform, it should be started by thoroughly going over what the problems really are.  After the problems have been identified, then we look at ways of solving each problem, piece by piece.  Both the House and Senate, and now Obama’s plans have been a solution in search of a matching problem.  This is not an over-simplification of the matter – it’s the common sense answer to the solution to any problem.

And as conservatives have noted before, the problem that the Dems are attempting to solve isn’t about ensuring that all Americans get health care, since not all of them do under either the Senate or House plans, but rather, the problem is how to push the country to Single Payer coverage.  Progressives are all about growing government and using that power to influence people to the progressive will.  A government run single-payer system forces the people to comply with the government’s mandate, which would be, optimally, pushed by the progressive agenda, rather than allowing people to make their own decisions about their source of health insurance.

If I was the chair of the GOP, I’d tell President Obama that no GOP member is going to this summit until there is a solid promise of starting over, from scratch, with an assessment of what the problems are.

Oh, and make sure all of that is televised on C-SPAN – like Obama promised.

Amidst all the hubbub regarding the special election tomorrow up in Massachusetts, the one trend that seems to be bugging me as of late is the fact that people keep bringing up Ted Kennedy throughout all of this.  Yes, I know this is an election to fill the chair in the Senate that was occupied by his corpulent and often inebriated posterior for years on end.  But I read this article and at least twice, the author of the article called the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy as “Kennedy’s Seat”.  I really wish they would stop making this about what Kennedy would have wanted, etc etc and make it more about what the people of Massachusetts want.

GOP candidate Scott Brown, who is now showing a good possibility of claiming the win in Massachusetts, rightfully corrected moderator David Gergen in saying that the seat belonged, not to Ted Kennedy, not to the Democrat party, but to the people.

But liberals throughout the blogosphere have complained that Brown’s comment was petty, citing that health care was Kennedy’s signature issue while avoiding the irony that the death blow for the legislation could come from the very seat that was a strong advocate of it before. 

Of course, this is forcing the Democrats, who are noticeably fearful of coming so close to passing this, only to have it snatched out in the 11th hour to resort to other political maneuverings to ramrod this bill through.

1. There has been discussion about preventing Scott Brown’s certification until long after the bill is decided.  Of course, the Dems in the Senate would not have a 60 vote majority because according to Massachusetts law, Paul Kirk, the current occupant of the seat, appointed by the Governor (outside of state law, but at the behest of Ted Kennedy) would no longer be Senator.  Turns out, after the election and qualification of Brown, the seat would effectively be vacant until certification.
2. Another tactic, just released today, the Senate could require the House to pass the Senate bill as written rather than a joint bill that would require another vote in the Senate – one that would fail due to Republican filibuster.  House liberals are not at all pleased about being dictated to, particularly when many of them have stated no support for the bill without a public option, changes in abortion language, or unfair quid pro quos for Louisiana and Nebraska.
3. Discussion has also been entertained about whether to allow the bill to pass through the reconciliation process, which would require just 51 yea votes.

But regardless of what tactics that the Democrats decide to try, the seat does not belong to Ted Kennedy anymore, and tomorrow, it won’t belong to the Democrats either, unless by some unforeseen surge, Martha Coakley manages to pull out a win.  But with Brown currently leading the polls by 9%, that doesn’t seem too likely.

So it came about when some junior staffer on the House of Representatives Committee on Official Standards and Conduct – the House committee on ethics – had official House documents regarding the investigations of ethics violations on his/her personal computer.  The file was lifted from a directory, shared out using P2P software and leaked online – picked up by the Washington Post and reported to the masses.

So, aside from the ethics investigations of Charlie Rangel D-NY, John Murtha D-PA, Jim Moran D-VA, and Peter Viclosky D-IN, more names were added to the list.  At the risk of sounding overly partisan, let me name C.W. Bill Young R-FL, Todd Tiahrt R-KS, and Devin Nunes R-CA first, before naming Norm Dicks D-WA, and Marcy Kaptur D-OH.  Oh, and there is Alan Mollohan D-WV, Jane Harman D-CA, Maxine “Take Over All Your Oil Companies” Waters D-CA, and Laura Richardson D-CA.

(btw – none of these people have been actually found guilty of anything…yet. They have been investigated for misconduct, some a couple more times than one)

Now, I’m not about to make this another Democrat witch hunt (I’d be satisfied if we just excoriated Rangel and Murtha for the ethical reprobates that they are), but I am wondering why there is a higher degree of ethics violations regarding Democrat members of Congress from a Congress that is overwhelmingly Democrat. 

Is it just a matter that the Democrats are more sloppy in their abilities to keep their backyard clean, given that this staffer was probably a Democrat him/herself?  Perhaps it’s because in order to create this sense of “transparency”, the Dems are outing their own people as sacrificial lambs to pushing the leadership closer to sainthood.  Or maybe it’s because FOXNews is only reporting on all the unethical Democrats (while the mainstream media seems to be coming up short on Republicans that they can tie to the whipping post).

Whatever the reason, the scorecard shows that the Dems outnumber the GOP 3-1 for ethical investigations.  Another overwhelming Democratic majority in the House, right?  Perhaps I’m off my hinges, but if the Dems don’t want to get buried under a political landslide, they better stop with the sloppiness.

BTW – The staffer was added to the 9.8% unemployment rate, a rate that wasn’t supposed to go above 8% with all that stimulus money.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/corruption-in-congress-dozens-investigated-for-ethics-violations-2009-10

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BLKSFO0&show_article=1

[T]he inconvenient truth is that majorities of Democratic voters are opposed to the Obama-Pelosi agenda on many issues. – Brad O’Leary, American Thinker, 8/9/2009

The Democrat Party appears to be losing its appeal rather quickly.

Latest poll numbers from Pew, Gallup, and Rasumssen are showing Presidential approval in steady decline with the 50% approval marker within striking distance within the next month or so. 

And not just the president, but the ruling party right now is falling from the highest approval rating it had in nearly four years, now settling back to the 30% mark. Perhaps it’s expected that as time goes on, popularity and job satisfaction numbers are generally entropic, that is, they are always in a general state of decline.  But one would wonder if this decline is not also getting a great big push from the people who are the very ones falling from grace – that is, they’re doing it to themselves.  After all, the spring approval surge occurred as a result of the Obama Immaculation. But the seven point drop off in the last three months is showing that the kool-aid may not be having its intended effect anymore.

By the way, note that the 14% record low occurred with the Dems at the helm, as they were voted into power in November 2006 and have been on the downward trek all the way until ObamAd, Inc took the reins.

Now, I’ve never really been big on polls, since polls are only really for Democrats and strippers, but when you have three polling organizations showing a marked drop in approval, there’s something to be said.

The ongoing health care debate is certainly a problem for the Sinister* Wing.  They had hoped to push this thing through the Congress and get it to the President’s desk before the August recess, because of having to face angry voters in town hall meetings.  Of course, that didn’t work and now town hall meetings where legislators could see maybe 20 people show up now see 2,000, filled with angry people who are tired of the elites in Washington ignoring them.

Kinda like how Obama snubbed the protesters and the Central High Marching Band in Grand Junction, Colorado because he only wanted to hear the bussed-in supporters (ACORNies) from Denver, not the locals who showed up in opposition.

And today, the New York Post reported a double flip-flop regarding whether the White House would be ready to surrender the public option, which I mentioned that’s a position from which the Dems would not so quickly back down.  ObamAd, Inc made the slight whiff of backing off the public option and the liberals started dropping the F-bomb all over the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground websites, their words dripping with vitriol and hatred as they continuously chant “single-payer, single-payer” with their mantras.  But then, when Robert Gibbs comes out with his manufactured smile and says that “nothing has changed”, we see the cracks begin to show – a political party that cannot even get its story straight from one day to the next.  And the most difficult thing is that the people that the Dems need to push their agendas forward, the independents, are beginning to file away.

I can’t say this bugs me much, in fact, I hope the infighting continues within the Democrat party and the liberal movement for the next year.  Not only will it make for an amusing Christmas holiday when more town halls occur, but it’s my prediction that the Dems will lose their filibuster-proofness in the Senate in 2010.  But I’m also expecting to see the House swing back in a big way to the right as we watch legislators get tarred and feathered in their districts for disobeying the will of the people.

I end with these comments from Brad O’Leary, writing for American Thinker who comments:

President Obama and Speaker Pelosi may find it convenient, not to mention politically expedient, to blame Republicans every time they fail to get one of their Big Government agenda items through the Democrat-led House and the Democrat-led Senate. However, the inconvenient truth is that majorities of Democratic voters are opposed to the Obama-Pelosi agenda on many issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of all Americans consider themselves "conservative," and only 21 percent call themselves "liberal" (35 percent say "moderate"). The same poll found that 62 percent of self-identified Democrats consider themselves either conservative or moderate.

Try as they might, Obama and Pelosi should eventually find these numbers hard to ignore. In the meantime, they seem content to not only buck mainstream America, but also buck the mainstream within their own Party.

Anyone wanna take a bet on how low it will be by Christmas, or perhaps this time next year?

*Sinister, in the Latin, means “left”. The more I see the actions of the left, the more I see them as sinister.