Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category
It’s political light years away from the next presidential election season but it isn’t too early to start drafting potential GOP presidential candidates. Atop my list is Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s governor. Marc Thiessen’s article sums up Gov. Walkers qualifications perfectly:
During the 2012 recall fight in Wisconsin, a group of protesters dressed as zombies disrupted Gov. Scott Walker’s speech at a ceremony for kids participating in the Special Olympics. Walker just ignored the protesters. Afterwards, talk radio host Charlie Sykes told Walker he should have “gone Chris Christie on them.” But Walker wanted to keep the focus on the Special Olympics athletes, saying “it was their day.”
The incident is revealing. Walker and Christie, the New Jersey governor, are friends, and they have both found a way to win in purple states that have not voted for a Republican president in a quarter-century. But they each did it in very different ways.
Christie is moderate in policy, but immoderate in temperament.
Walker is moderate in temperament, but immoderate in policy.
Activists are drawn to Christie’s gruff exterior because they want a fighter. There’s no questioning whether Gov. Christie is a fighter. Still, for all his combativeness, many of his policies are what I’d expect of a New England Republican. That makes Gov. Christie significantly less appealing than Gov. Walker:
Walker is a tea party hero thanks to his courageous stand against the public-sector unions in Wisconsin. Cruz may have “faux filibustered” Obamacare, but Walker faced down 100,000 protesters outside the Capitol in Madison and won. He not only passed his reforms despite unbelievable odds, he became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall election. He’s both a fighter and a winner, a compelling combination for the conservative base.
Moreover, Walker’s appeal to the right goes beyond collective bargaining. As governor, he passed a raft of other conservative reforms that went virtually unnoticed because of the collective-bargaining fight. He signed legislation enacting voter identification requirements, permitting the concealed carry of firearms, defunding Planned Parenthood, prohibiting any health exchange operating in Wisconsin from covering abortion, reducing taxes, expanding school choice and reforming entitlements. Walker is an across-the-board, unflinching, full-spectrum conservative.
But Walker also has a proven ability to win the votes of moderates and reform-minded independents. While Walker is often portrayed as a “divisive” figure, exit polls in the June 2012 gubernatorial recall election showed that about one in six Walker voters also planned to vote for Barack Obama in the November presidential election. And, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “those confounding Obama-Walker voters of 2012…[are] still with us.” Two separate 2013 polls of Wisconsin voters, the paper reported, show that “11% approve of both politicians.”
Put differently, Christie is the bully who supports many liberal policies like gun control and global warming. Gov. Walker has a mental toughness that can’t be questioned. He stared down the thugs in Wisconsin and won the fight for important reforms. Everyone knows about the collective bargaining rights fight. Few noticed that he got other reforms passed, too.
Most importantly, I won’t have to worry whether Gov. Walker will abandon conservatism’s core principles. He won’t. He’ll pick great judges. He’ll feature a positive pro-growth agenda. He’ll be an unapologetic conservative with a lengthy history of conservative accomplishments.
George Will noted another appealing part of Gov. Walker’s in this column:
To fight the recall, during which opponents disrupted Walker’s appearance at a Special Olympics event and squeezed Super Glue into the locks of a school he was to visit, Walker raised more than $30?million, assembling a nationwide network of conservative donors that could come in handy if he is reelected next year.
It’s great that Gov. Walker is a proven fundraiser. He’d need it if he runs against Hillary in 2016. More importantly, though, he understands the value of a strong organization.
In other words, Gov. Walker a) is an unapologetic conservative, b) has a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments, c) can rally the conservative base while still appealing to independents and d) is a prolific fundraiser. That’s quite the trifecta heading into 2016.
Democrats have demagogued TEA Party forever, characterizing them as far-outside-the-mainstream. Thanks to the TEA Party movement, a new generation of potential conservative superstars is rising up that will change the face of the GOP. One of those potential conservative superstars is Erika Harold. Reading Ms. Harold’s Issues Page is a breath of fresh air. On taxes and regulation:
In an effort to stem the rise of burdensome regulations, I will support efforts to narrow the scope of the powers delegated to administrative agencies. Additionally, I will support tax reform policies aimed at simplifying the tax code.
On the Constitution:
One of the hallmarks of our democratic system of governance is the respect for individual liberties and the understanding that these enshrined freedoms serve as proper limits on governmental power. Accordingly, I will oppose efforts to abridge the rights enumerated in our Constitution. Drawing upon my experience as a lawyer advising faith-based institutions, I will champion the First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and the freedom of association. I also will support the law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment right to bear arms and will oppose efforts to encroach upon that right.
Sign me up. I’m a fan. In addition to being a Constitution-loving lawyer who loves low taxes and sensible levels of regulation, Ms. Harold once was crowned Miss America in the fall of 2002. In June, Ms. Harold announced that she’s “mounting a Republican primary challenge to Rep. Rodney Davis in Illinois.”
Another potential rising star for the GOP is Mia Love. Conservatives are sure to love Ms. Love’s education agenda:
As a mother with three children enrolled in public schools, education is extremely important to me. We need a strong educational system that will allow America to continue in its role as the world’s premier leader in scientific research and technological development. American families want better quality education, lower education costs, and more local control over decisions related to education. In recent years the U.S. Department of Education has expanded the federal role in education to unprecedented levels to the detriment of our children and college students. Utah – not the federal government – knows what is best for Utah’s student. I trust Utah teachers and Utah parents over Washington bureaucrats.
These are my proposals to address the problems surrounding education:
- Return control of schools to local levels
- Support Utah’s teachers by opposing one-size-fits-all federal programs that take flexibility away from innovative teachers
- Eliminate the disparity between Department of Education bureaucrats’ salaries and local teachers’ salaries
- Bring down the cost of college tuition by allowing schools to compete for students and not allowing a federal government takeover of higher education
- Support the right of parents, local school districts, and the state of Utah to develop curriculum and set testing standards
Another potential rising conservative star is Katrina Pierson.
Ms. Pierson isn’t afraid to identify herself as a TEA Party conservative:
Katrina Pierson is a candidate for the United States Congress in the 32nd District in Texas.
She is best known across Texas and the nation as a passionate advocate for freedom. For five years, she has served as a Steering Committee member for the Dallas Tea Party. She is also the Founder of the Garland Tea Party and a member of the Texas Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee. Her primary goal as an activist has been to provide citizens with the knowledge and skills they need to protect and advance liberty.
It didn’t take long for me to realize that Ms. Pierson is a passionate, articulate opponent of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare:
There is perhaps no single government program that poses a greater threat to our life, liberty and prosperity than the “Affordable Care Act,” generally referred to as “ObamaCare.” The more the American people learn about ObamaCare, the less they like it—and with good reason. According to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare is expected to cost our economy upwards of 800,000 jobs. A recent survey of business executives revealed that 71 percent said that ObamaCare is making it harder to hire workers. Every day brings new stories about companies laying off workers or cutting back hours. ObamaCare is the very last thing our struggling economy needs.
If you’re noticing a theme here, it’s that these ladies are a) unapologetic conservatives, b) TEA Party activists and c) minorities. The last I looked at Republicans in Washington, DC, they needed more people who fit these characteristics. Hopefully, that’ll change next November. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if all three of these ladies are sworn in in January, 2015.
Another Fortune 500 company announced it’s leaving Minnesota. It’s explanation is starting to sound familiar:
“SpartanNash chose Western Michigan as its headquarters due to it being centrally located to the merged entities operations, the positive business climate taking hold in Michigan, including a more favorable tax environment, and the quality of life Michigan provides for its associates,” the company said in a statement.
That sounds familiar. Here’s what Cargill said when it moved:
Dan Dye, Horizon’s president and Ardent’s CEO-to-be, said in a statement that the decision “will allow us to offer great quality of life for employees, provide excellent service to our customers and position the business for long-term growth.”
If Gov. Dayton and the DFL are given 4 more years to implement their leftist vision for the state, Minnesota will be in worse shape than California and Illinois are in right now. Cargill cited their desire to “position the business for long-term growth.” Nash Finch, aka SpartanNash, talkd about “a more favorable tax environment.”
Implicit in both statements is their belief that the Dayton administration’s and the DFL’s anti-prosperity policies would hurt their companies’ ability to make profits and continue employing people. The leftists’ belief that profits are despicable is utterly wrong-headed.
I cited a single-payer health activist’s quote in this post:
There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
This isn’t just a glimpse into the mind of hardline leftists. It’s who they are. That statement explicitly says that they think things would improve if profit-motives were removed from health care. The opposite is actually true.
Companies pursuing their own self interests are what make the economy stronger. The great inventions of the last 150 years came when there was an incentive, aka profit, to create and innovate. Milton Friedman once told Phil Donahue that the only economic system where “the masses escaped the grinding poverty you talked about” were in societies that appreciated capitalism and “largely free trade.”
SpartanNash and Cargill are exercising their right to enhance their profits by moving their operations. They’re moving their operations because Gov. Dayton and the DFL drove up the cost of doing business in Minnesota this last session. If Minnesota doesn’t reverse Gov. Dayton’s and the DFL’s policies, Minnesota will soon look like a ghost town.
Cargill and SpartanNash just implicitly said that Minnesota is that special that they wouldn’t leave. Will it be that much longer before other companies leave?
George Will nails the Obama administration with this devastating broadside:
Here’s what Will said:
GEORGE WILL: Subtract six from seven million. That’s number they expect to have or need to have signed up by March and it will only decline. There’s an old axiom in Washington, if you don’t like news, make some of you own. So, the president went to Boston, and with utter predictability, turned this into an attack on insurance companies, bad apple insurers whose sins was selling customers policies the customers wanted but that the administration thinks they shouldn’t want.
Now, this is the most transparent administration in history, by its own description, is complaining today about leaks from itself from documents that leaked numbers it claims it doesn’t have. It’s not a pretty picture.
The administration is stumbling all over itself. Kathleen Sebelius testified this week that the administration wouldn’t release the numbers of people who’ve enrolled for insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges because the numbers are unreliable.
Hours later, the document Mr. Will referenced found its way into the right hands. What it shows is that a) HealthCare.gov isn’t consistently functional and b) when HealthCare.gov is working, people are saying no in historic numbers. The administration is acting predictably. It’s embarassed by the enrollment figures. That’s why Jay Carney lashed out at FNC’s Ed Henry for pressing him on the enrollment numbers.
The administration knows that its credibility is shrinking significantly. Further, they know that further erosion of its credibility will cripple the President’s ability to push his agenda on Capitol Hill. The theory there is that a president can’t push people around if he isn’t popular and his credibility is diminished.
Mostly, though, the American people, at least the ones paying attention, are figuring it out that President Obama isn’t trustworthy. They’re starting to question whether his policy perscriptions are right for America, too.
This week’s biggest loser is President Obama. he got pounded for knowingly lying about “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” He knew in July, 2010 that people’s grandfathered in plans soon wouldn’t have grandfathered protection. He knew it because of the regulation that was implemented. It predicted that tens of millions of people would be forced on to the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges “by the end of 2013.”
That certainly isn’t what people expected when they heard President Obama say that they could keep their plans if they liked their plans. Finally, Mr. Carney said that “it was always understood” that significant changes would happen if the Affordable Care Act passed. If that’s true, why did President Obama frequently tell people that they’d be able to keep their plans if they liked their plans? If it’s understood, shouldn’t Presidetn Obama have told people that?
The simple fact is that President Obama got caught lying. Now Mr. Carney is getting hit with questions questioning the administration’s integrity. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Charles Krauthammer’s latest column offers this advice:
It’s Halloween. There is a knock at your door. You hear: “We’re the government and we’re here to help.”
With the Affordable Care Act failing beyond even the most pessimistic Republican’s worst nightmare, that’s sage advice. This, though, is the most disturbing information in Dr. Krauthammer’s column:
So that your president can promise to cover 30 million uninsured without costing the government a dime. Which from the beginning was the biggest falsehood of them all. And yet the free lunch is the essence of modern liberalism. Free mammograms, free preventative care, free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Come and get it.
And then when you find your policy canceled, your premium raised and your deductible outrageously increased, you’ve learned the real meaning of “free” in the liberal lexicon: something paid for by your neighbor best, by subterfuge.
That last clause in the last sentence reminded me of this famous quote:
As soon as A observes something which seems to him wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or, in better case, what A, B, and C shall do for X… What I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. he is the man who never is thought of…. I call him the forgotten man.
There’s a poem that goes with that famous quote. It says “If you promise to not tax me, I promise not to tax thee. Instead, let’s tax that fellow behind the tree.” That’s the essence of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, it can’t survive without the “forgotten man” subsidizing someone else’s health insurance.
In this instance, the forgotten man are really forgotten people. Specifically, they’re called “young healthies” by the pundits. They’re being counted on to buy health insurance they don’t need. If they don’t buy insurance in significant numbers, there isn’t a way for the government or the insurance companies to pay for health care of older people and/or people with pre-existing conditions.
Another forgotten man in this are middle class families who make too much to qualify for premium support but who’ve been getting squeezed with higher taxes and higher costs of goods. They’re getting hit with higher premiums, thanks to A and B conspiring to force the forgotten man, aka middle class families, into buying health care coverages they don’t want or might never need.
That’s why it’s wise to be suspicious of politicians promising free lunches.
Technorati: Free Lunches, Individual Mandate, Health Insurance Exchanges, Sandra Fluke, President Obama, Affordable Care Act, Free Lunches, Government Bureaucrat, Democrats, Liberalism, William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man, Charles Krauthammer, Conservatism, Free Markets
This week, Charles Krauthammer’s book debuted at #1 for Amazon. Meanwhile, Kathleen Sebelius initially insisted that she didn’t work for the American people. Additionally, she got dumped from leading the team who put HealthCare.gov together. If that isn’t enough, most of the people signing up for health care are signing up for Medicaid:
CBS’s Jan Crawford reported on what’s happening. Here’s the key part of Ms. Crawford’s reporting:
JAN CRAWFORD: A CBS analysis shows that in many of the 15 states that have their own health insurance exchanges, more people are enrolling in Medicaid than are enrolling in private health insurance and there is concern that if that trend continues, there won’t be enough healthy people buying insurance for the system to work.
George Will explained this disaster-in-the-making in this video:
Here’s Mr. Will’s explanation of the disaster waiting to happen:
CHRIS WALLACE: George, is this just a contractor problem?
GEORGE WILL: No. It goes all the way to the top because it threatens the health care law itself and I’ll tell you why. First, this has produced some unintentional amusing moments. There was a headline I think we have that was in the New York Times this morning that contained a wonderful word.
WALLACE: “Republicans, Sensing Weakness in Health Law Rollout, Switch Tactics.”
WILL: Sensing weakness. That’s like saying the people of San Francisco sensed there had been an earthquake in 1906. And this is calamitous. Usually when we have a Washington debacle we recycle some form of the old Watergate question. What did the president know and when did he know it? The question here is what didn’t they know and why didn’t they know it? And the answer is almost everything because, in fact, they were not prepared for a massive social experiment. They don’t understand the complexity of what they’re doing.
The reason all this poses a mortal threat to the law itself is the problem of adverse selection, that is suppose too many signing up are sick. Now, young people, and they’re counting on 2.7 million healthy young people to sign up to have a good risk pool. Young people, who are technologically savvy, are going to go to the site and say this is disgusting, turn away and get a latte. Who’s apt to persist in this enterprise?
WALLACE: Sick people.
WILL: The sick people.
WALLACE: People who need it.
WILL: Exactly right. So this does pose an absolutely mortal threat of adverse selection.
Later, Will posed the cruelest of questions for Ms. Sebelius, asking “Who believes that this is going to be fine in the middle of March?” I certainly don’t think HealthCare.gov’s problems will be fixed by mid-March. The portal is still sending incorrect data to insurance companies. It isn’t accurately recording when people have successfully purchased health insurance.
That’s before talking about whether the software will accurately calculate whether a person/family is eligible for premium support and, if they’re eligible, how much premium support are they eligible for, then applying that to the actual price of the health insurance policy.
This thing is, at minimum, at least 6 months from being fully operational. Charles had a better week this week than Ms. Sebelius. It’s quite possible that she’ll be a former employee of the US government before Charles’ book isn’t part of Amazon’s best seller list.
Technorati: Kathleen Sebelius, Medicaid Expansion, Health Insurance Exchanges, Adverse Selection, Death Spiral, Affordable Care Act, Democrats, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Premium Support, Jan Crawford, Investigative Reporting
People say it’s a challenge to get a message through via Twitter. As people know, Twitter affords people 140 characters to make a point. Despite the limits of Twitter, people still get their message across. Apparently, Joan Vincent won’t master Twitter anytime soon:
What should Minnesota voters do next in the wake of the deal to end the federal shutdown and raise the debt ceiling?
Minnesota voters should not elect a tea party member to Congress.
We’ve had experience with one, and it hasn’t been good.
It’s predictable that a DFL activist like Vincent couldn’t resist taking another shot at Michele Bachmann before she retires from Congress. Still, I’m betting Ms. Vincent doesn’t know a thing about the TEA Party. I’m betting she only knows what Democrats and the media (pardon the repetition) tell her the TEA Party is about.
First, the TEA Party insists on not spending money foolishly and in such gigantic amounts. Originally, that meant the TEA Party opposed the UAW bailouts. The bailouts saved union pensions at a time when legacy costs (pension payments) exceeded GM’s and Plymouth’s monthly payroll. In other words, the companies overpromised, the taxpayers funded the bailout and the UAW enjoyed the benefits.
Other than UAW members, who thinks that’s a great idea?
Later, foolish spending was defined as guaranteeing loans to dying companies like Solyndra. Other than the people on Solyndra’s board of directors, who thought that was smart?
TEA Party activists believe that the Founding Fathers got it right when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Likewise, they’re certain that the Constitution isn’t a living, breathing document. As KrisAnne Hall points out in her presentation on the geneology of the Constitution, the Constitution started as a compact between the states. They were the sovereign governments that birthed the federal government. That means the states dictated the terms under which the federal government was authoriized to operate because the sovereign states were essentially the federal government’s employer.
Ms. Hall rightly notes that a compact is just a contract between states. When was the last time that a judge ruled that the terms of a contract were living, breathing suggestions subject to change?
Had the Supreme Court been faithful to the Constitution, we wouldn’t be dealing with the Affordable Care Act.
In other words, TEA Party activists think that the Founding Fathers were especially wise in setting up a government that limited the federal government’s authority, influence and scope. The Founding Fathers were wise in establishing that type of government because they didn’t want the federal government to become the oppressive leviathan it currently is.
Each Sunday morning, I can’t wait to get to the computer in anticipation of reading George Will’s column and Salena Zito’s columnn. There are other columnists I enjoy reading, of course. It’s just that Mr. Will and Ms. Zito are especially skilled at their craft. They’re both skilled at not losing track of Main Street. Ms. Zito’s column today is especially thought-provoking. The premise of the article is that the Affordable Care Act isn’t doing what it promised to do, much like Prohibition didn’t live up to its promises:
In 1923, five years after the implementation of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that effectively banned alcohol, Americans felt disillusioned with Prohibition. None of the grand promises of what would follow its passage had come to pass – not even close.
Drunkenness and spousal abuse had increased, as had crime in general; the cost of federal and state government had grown at a pace no one foresaw, and respect for the law at all levels had largely evaporated.
Those and other effects of Prohibition contradicted every reason given for enacting the constitutional amendment.
The economic impact on Main Street was strikingly harmful as well: Breweries, distilleries, hotels, restaurants and pubs closed, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs. Those losses were compounded by cutbacks in industries that supported those businesses, such as truck drivers and skilled tradesmen.
While Ted Cruz, Mike Lee or Michele Bachmann insist that this was the last, best opportunity to stop the Affordable Care Act, I’ve respectfully disagreed. The Affordable Care Act is riddled with difficulties that won’t be fixed anytime soon.
Back during my poker- and cribbage-playing days, I got some hands that were terrible. That’s why I coined this phrase:
The only right way to throw this hand is away.
It’s amazing that that saying fits the Affordable Care Act perfectly. President Obama and his allies point to a few provisions that people like, like dealing with insuring people with pre-existing conditions. Other parts of the Affordable Care Act hurts the economy, hurts families and doesn’t improve people’s lives. For every person the ACA helps, families get hurt.
This isn’t a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s a case of robbing Peter, Pamela, Joanie and Johnny, aka the PPJJ familiy, to pay Paul. To pay for Paul’s insurance, insurance premiums for the PPJJ family must necessarily skyrocket. They have to make money from someone and they can’t make it off of Paul.
This section of Ms. Zito’s article is the literary equivalent to a punch in the gut:
Just like Prohibition, ObamaCare promised from its onset to change the world: It would provide universal health-insurance coverage at a lower cost without any reduction in coverage choices or quality care, and all of it easily accessed through a government website.
So far it has been nothing short of a disaster.
It is not lower in cost (premiums for many middle-class purchasers are double those of their current plans, with deductibles tripling), nor is it easily accessed. It has been riddled with exceptions and loopholes benefiting federal employees, labor unions and big businesses.
It also has chipped away at our economy: Many companies are reducing full-time staff to part-time hours, in order to skirt ObamaCare’s mandate that employers must provide health-insurance coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours per week.
Those 4 paragraphs encapsulate what’s wrong with the Affordable Care Act. It isn’t just that the exchanges aren’t operating properly. It’s that insurance is significantly more expensive than it was before. It’s that people’s policies are getting dropped, then replaced with more expensive policies. It’s that people are starting to trust government less as a direct result of the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges.
Those facts don’t guarantee the Affordable Care Act going the way of Prohibition. They just strengthen the case that it should.
Technorati: Affordable Care Act, Prohibition, Health Insurance Exchanges, Part-Time Nation, Insurance Premiums, Health Care Costs, Deductibles, President Obama, Democrats, George Will, Salena Zito, Columnists
When MSNBC’s Chuck Todd mocked President Obama for his latest pivot to jobs, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent took umbrage via Twitter:
Genuinely sad to see supposedly neutral news orgs mocking the idea of a “pivot” to jobs.
First, was MSNBC ever a “neutral news org?” Apparently, it is in Greg Sargent’s opinion. That should tell us everything we need to know about Sargent’s opinions. Thankfully, others pounced on Sargent’s tweets. Here’s one from DCDude1776:
LOL! You haven’t noticed the pattern? Poll #s sink—> pivots to economy E-V-E-R-Y T-I-M-E
Here’s something more from Richard Grenell:
It’s just that he’s pivoted all the way around
Is it just me or does it seem like President Obama has pivoted to jobs more often Anthony Weiner holds press conferences admitting he’s been sexting again? The thing about pivoting is that it causes people to go in circles, which is what the economy is doing. Growing at 1% (roughly) per year isn’t how to build the middle class.
Let’s focus on some economic realities. First, it’s impossible to strengthen the middle class when we’re turning into a part-time nation. Last month’s job report said businesses created 195,000 job. Then it said that 240,000 full-time jobs were lost and that 360,000 part-time jobs were created.
Economists attributed this to President Obama’s ACA. Employers aren’t hiring full-time workers because of the PPACA. Increasingly, they’re hiring part-time employees instead. If the PPACA continues to be the law of the land, we’ll continue to turn into a part-time nation.
President Obama can’t point to an impressive growth spurt on his watch. That’s because his economic plan isn’t geared toward growth. It’s geared towards creating a European stagnation economy.
In the 1992 debates, Bill Clinton said, rightly, that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. With a stagnant economy, lackluster job growth and an obvious culprit to blame for all this, you’d think President Obama would quit insisting that his plan is working. Unfortunately, he’s so arrogant that he won’t accept reality.
The nation is a mess. His policies have failed repeatedly. Part-time employment is increasing. Full-time employment is either shrinking or stagnating. That isn’t the recipe for success. It’s the pathway to failure. For altogether too many Americans, Obamanomics has led to chronic failure.
I’ll summarize things by citing Sen. Ted Cruz’s tweet comparing Reaganomics with Obamanomics:
Reaganomics: Start a business in your parents’ garage.
Obamanomics: Move into your parents’ garage.
Republicans, it’s time to tell this president that his economic policies are a total disaster and that it’s time to start with new, pro-growth policies before it’s too late.
A number of years back, I heard a joke, part of which I can’t remember. Still, I can remember enough of it to make a point. Historic military figures were looking at the Soviet Union’s military hardware. When the tanks rolled through Red Square, Alexander the Great replied, “If I had had these chariots, I would’ve ruled the entire world.” On his left stood Napoleon Bonaparte. After Napoleon read the current copy of Pravda, he replied “If I had this as the official newspaper, nobody would’ve heard of Waterloo.”
The point of the joke isn’t to get people laughing. It’s to make the point that there’s a more insidious type of Pravda operating inside the United States. For the last 5+ years, I’ve called that operation the Agenda Media. The Agenda Media doesn’t think it’s their responsibility to get people important facts. In their minds, their responsibility is to push their politicial agenda. If that means omitting important facts, that’s what they’re willing to do. This video is a perfect illustration of the Agenda Media’s selective editing:
Thankfully, citizen journalists with cell phones are recording things as they happened. Thankfully, citizen journalists with video cameras are informing people by filming protests like this, then posting the video to Youtube, then reposting the videos to their Facebook page, then posting the links to their videos to Twitter.
There’s a more important point to this. OFA isn’t just about protesting against constitutional conservatives. They’re identifying people in communities who might vote for progressives. Conservatives will show up to counterprotest against OFA. The big question is whether they’ll get into the neighborhoods and identify people that might appreciate the conservative/capitalist message.
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul should be the blueprint for Republicans for 2014. They’re picking fights with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, which is essential to winning elections. They’re framing debates. For instance, Sen. Coburn is highlighting tens of billions of dollars of duplicative spending that should be eliminated in this budget. Sen. Johnson is highlighting how government is used as a weapon against the citizenry. Paul Ryan is fighting for a pro-growth budget that will eventually balance within a decade.
It’s despicable that the Agenda Media would distort what happened at a protest. As despicable as that is, that’s only part of this story. OFA is already identifying potential Democrat voters. Republicans need to start this week at identifying potential conservative voters.
Tags: Organizing for Action, Gun Control, Protests, Agenda Media, Censorship, Voter ID, Democrats, Tom Coburn, Sequester This, Ron Johnson, Victims of Government Project, Mike Lee, Cut This, Not That, Ted Cruz, Second Amendment, Paul Ryan, Balanced Budget, Rand Paul, TEA Party Conservatives, Election 2014