Hot Post: The Left is Stunned Obama Failed to Change America as Promised

Nov 28 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Originally published on November 25, 2010 Obama promised leftists he would “fundamentally change the face of the nation.”  He did, just not the way leftists hoped. Obama pledged redistribution of wealth and he delivered, distributing bailouts to failing banks and car companies. But leftists envisioned ending capitalism as we know it, creating a glorified state of Utopian collectivism. Obama swore an end to war, not escalation.  And ridding America of SUVs and oil hasn’t happened.  The Messiah of “Hope and Change” did not keep his promises.  He turned out to be another politician! Did the well-educated left-wing truly believe one of their own would never deceive them?  Leftists constantly commit perjury, why wouldn’t Obama behave in the same fashion as all radical Alinskyites ? (While playing golf and eating shrimp of course.) The Left simply can’t understand how the glorified One could possibly break promises and behave like a politician, so they’ve turned to their experts in order to understand why he turned out to be such a failure. Author Ari Berman says he keeps asking where Obama went wrong. After all, Obama’s election was “historical.” But suddenly the Tea Party emerged and everything the Annointed One promised collapsed, fallen by the wayside, forgotten.  Berman wants to know what happened to Obama; why has he failed? Harvard University Public Policy lecturer and Obama political organizer Marshall Ganz answers this question in the  LA Times : President Obama entered office wrapped in a mantle of moral leadership.  His call for change was rooted in values that had long been eclipsed in our public life: a sense of mutual responsibility, commitment to equality and belief in inclusive diversity. Those values inspired a new generation of voters, restored faith to the cynical and created a national movement. Now, 18 months and an ‘enthusiasm gap’ later, the nation’s major challenges remain largely unmet, and a discredited conservative movement has reinvented itself in a more virulent form.  This dramatic reversal is not the result of bad policy as such; the president made some real policy gains.  It is not a consequence of a president who is too liberal, too conservative or too centrist.  And it is not the doing of an administration ignorant of Washington’s ways.  Nor can we honestly blame the system, the media or the public — the ground on which presidential politics is always played.  It is the result, ironically, of poor leadership choices. Touching Obama’s “moral mantle” hasn’t healed the economy or raised dead industry. Ganz told The Nation’s Ari Melber Obama’s presidency problem is Saul Alinsky amnesia:

Read more here:
Hot Post: The Left is Stunned Obama Failed to Change America as Promised

No responses yet

Don’t give in, Nancy

Nov 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

Them internets are crawling with stories that Democrats in Congress are wanting Nancy Pelosi to step aside as that party’s leader in the House of Representatives. I think she should stay on the job. Not that you could say “ job well done ” about her. On the contrary, she’s led this country down the road to hell. But, that’s exactly why she should stay on the job. With Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, she’s a reminder of what happens when you put a bunch of socialists in charge of important things. And everyone knows that socialists should be in charge of getting their dirt out of Boss Kean’s ditch … and nothing more. If the Democrats replace Nancy Pelosi, they might pick someone who doesn’t remind Americans that Democrats are idiots who shouldn’t be trusted. So, I really really want her to stay in charge of the House Democrats. They deserve each other.

More:
Don’t give in, Nancy

No responses yet

Bad News for Liberals Leftists May Be Good News for a Liberal Leftist Magazine

Nov 09 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Senate

Cross-posted from American Power . ***** I’m bothered, increasingly, by the overwhelming tendency of the major actors and institutions of the political regime to treat those on the far left of the ideological spectrum as “liberals.” Leftists are not liberal . They’re anti-liberal . But one of the great achievements of radical left-wing politics in the second half of the Twentieth Century was to successfully label the massive Democrat Party interventions in the economy and bureaucracy as “liberal.” This is no secret, by any means. The late historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., is widely credited with the claim that “There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.” But thoughout history, the country’s manichean and existential struggle against Soviet Communism made it taboo to formally (and accurately) recognize leftist ideology in America as socialist. As conservatives continue to sort out the lessons from the 2010 elections, one enduring ideological challenge remains clear: the need to appropriately and consistently identify so-called liberals for what the are, radical left-wing ideologues and statists. We can see just large how the challenge remains at today’s New York Times , “ Bad News for Liberals May Be Good News for a Liberal Magazine .” I’ve obviously altered the title of this blog entry to better reflect what the Times is attempting to say. Basically, and fair enough, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of The Nation , sees the current resurgence of right-wing politics as providing a burst of life-saving blood to her far left-wing organ: No weekly magazine tracked by the Media Industry Newsletter has lost more pages of advertising this year than The Nation. As of Nov. 8, ad pages were down 30 percent compared with last year’s figures, remarkable even though advertising accounts for only a 10th of the revenue. Traffic to TheNation.com has also declined recently. And since 2008, the magazine has run an operating deficit of about $500,000 a year. Despite all the gloom, could last week’s Democratic pummeling actually have a silver lining for The Nation, once home to writers like Henry James, Ezra Pound, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and even Yeats? Katrina vanden Heuvel, the magazine’s editor and publisher, did not have to think long about that question. “If you can’t expose the hypocrisy of this new group of Republicans, then we’re not doing our job. And I mean that,” she said in an interview from her office on election night as she sipped a glass of Champagne, defiant as Democratic losses piled up and the mood around her darkened. “I mean you’ve got a lot to work with,” she said. “You’ve got a Tea Party caucus in the Senate, a Tea Party caucus in the House. So I think you have a lot of rich material.” If history is any guide, Ms. vanden Heuvel could be proved right. The Bush years were good — very good — to The Nation. After operating in the red almost every year since it was founded by abolitionists in 1865, the magazine turned a profit in 2003. More at the link . Interestingly, The Nation ‘s main competitors are blogs like Daily Kos and online news aggregators like Huffington Post . And like The Nation , both of these are neo-socialist outlets, but with more modern technological coolness. And also like The Nation , both Kos and Puff Ho are treated as respectable media organs while effectively functioning as neo-socialist appendages to the Democrat Party in Washington. All of these folks are on the extreme left of the spectrum, and, along with the New York Times itself, they all advance a progressive and statist agenda that reaches from the tops of the elite media shops in Manhattan to the lowest elementary school classrooms in the inner cities. We’ve seen it over and over. And conservatives need to keep pushing back : Say no to the media lies of neo-socialist press organs as mainstream “liberal” institutions. ***** More at American Power.

Go here to see the original:
Bad News for Liberals Leftists May Be Good News for a Liberal Leftist Magazine

No responses yet

Job well done

Nov 04 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

Nancy Pelosi summed up her term as Speaker of the House: “Job well done.” No, really. She actually said that : “We believe we did the right thing, and we worked very hard in our campaigns to convey that to the American people,” she said. “Nine and a half percent unemployment is a very eclipsing event. If people don’t have a job, they’re not too interested in how you intend for them to have a job. They want to see results.” Asked to assess her tenure, Pelosi quickly answered, “Job well done.” See? You thought I made that up. But I didn’t. She actually said that. But, you know, thinking about it … she may be right. Depending on what she thought her job was. If you thought your job was to bring America to the brink of financial ruin, then job well done. If you thought your job was to make Americans miss having Republicans in charge, then job well done. If you thought your job was to ram through ill-conceived, unwanted legislation, then job well done. If you thought your job was to stand there and look stupid, then job well done. If you thought your job was to bring Congress’ approval rating down to all-time lows, then job well done. If you thought your job was to help Americans understand that voters in your district are stark raving mad, then job well done. If you thought your job was to be the punchline of a joke, then job well done. How would you assess Nancy Pelosi’s job?

Visit link:
Job well done

No responses yet

The Dragon Is Out of the Hat: Moderate Democrats Waste No Time Before Rebelling

Nov 03 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

Moderate Democrats Paul Begala and Evan Bayh wasted no time after the election before rebelling against the true losers of yesterday’s elections: the left-wing of the Democratic Party, led by President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Here’s Begala: Yes, President Obama and the Democrats need to move to the center. Fortunately, that does not mean slow-walking gay rights or repealing the 14th Amendment. Rather, it means a strong, centrist jobs program and a clear, centrist commitment to limiting the power of corporate special interests. If they have the skill and adaptability to reclaim the center, the Democratic comeback won’t be far behind. And Bayh : It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a “political realignment” and a “new progressive era” proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left. Expect more moderate Democrats to start spewing fire at their party’s leaders in the coming two years. Especially senators up for reelection in 2012 will do everything in their power to either push their party to the center or to distance themselves from Obama and his radically progressive friends. The only question is whether they’ll succeed or not: the answer will likely determine the outcome of the next elections (for Congress, the Senate and the White House).

See the rest here:
The Dragon Is Out of the Hat: Moderate Democrats Waste No Time Before Rebelling

No responses yet

Aqua Buddha Redux: What Conservatives Should Learn from…Rand Paul?

Oct 22 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Senate

No, you haven’t stumbled upon a different website. We here at NewsRealBlog have plenty of problems with the Kentucky Republican , but this week I have no choice but to admit that there’s one area in which he might be able to teach his fellow midterm election candidates a thing or two: dealing with demagogic Democrats . This week, he joined Sean Hannity to discuss his opponent Jack Conway’s latest attack—alleging that Paul once kidnapped a woman for a quasi-religious cult in college—and Paul’s response in their latest debate: SENATE CANDIDATE JACK CONWAY, D-KY.: When is it ever a good idea — a good idea to tie up a woman and ask for her to kneel before a false idol, your god that you call Aqua Buddha? SENATE CANDIDATE RAND PAUL, R-KY.: Jack, you know how we tell when you’re lying? It’s when your lips are moving, OK? You’re accusing me of crimes. You just — do you know nothing about the process? You’re going to stand there and accuse me of a crime for 30 years ago from some anonymous source? How ridiculous are you? Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com The Conway ad suggests Paul has a secret vendetta against traditional religion and that he once “tied a woman up” and told “her to bow down before a false idol,” tying past conduct to the present day by bringing up Paul’s desire to end federal faith-based initiatives. The attack is so sleazy that not even Chris Matthews could stomach it —we’ve known since early August that the “kidnapping victim” said she was playing along with a stupid college prank, not being coerced by sinister cultists (“I went along because they were my friends […] He did not force me physically in any way”); and Paul’s opposition to federal faith-based initiatives isn’t anti-religion, but merely a straightforward application of his strict libertarian belief in a very limited scope of things the federal government should do. Yeah, the cult stuff is weird, but absent any actual, y’know, evidence that Paul hates Christianity and worships an Aqua Buddha, there’s little reason to consider it as much more significant than an embarrassing episode of college kids trying to amuse themselves. Chalk this one up as another case of leftists suddenly jettisoning their tolerance for religious diversity when there’s an election to win. And conservative candidates would do well to pay attention to Paul’s response—directly calling Conway a liar and even refusing to shake his hand because he wasn’t an “honorable man.” One of the reasons left-wing lies persist is that most leftists know they’ll never have to suffer any consequence more severe than mild scolding over their “ unfortunate ” actions. But by bucking the expected rules of debate decorum, Paul instantly and clearly signaled—in an attention-grabbing way—that what Conway did was something outside the range of acceptable conduct for respectable politicians, shifting the narrative to his opponent’s sleaziness. There’s a lot about Rand Paul nobody should emulate , but in this case, conservatives should definitely follow his lead. _____ Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College .  He also writes for the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online .

View original post here:
Aqua Buddha Redux: What Conservatives Should Learn from…Rand Paul?

No responses yet

One of these things is not like the other … except where they are

Sep 21 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

So, Republican Christine O’Donnell is a crackpot because she said that masturbation is lust outside of marriage, and that is equivalent to adultery? What she actually said was: “Lust in your heart is committing adultery, and you can’t masturbate without lust.” Ever heard that part about lust and adultery before? Sure you have. There is this little book called The Bible. Maybe you’re familiar with it? “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” – Matthew 5:27-28 Then again, if you only know what you read in the newspapers or hear on the TV, you might have missed that. Jimmy Carter in

No responses yet

Now Democrats are saying don’t elect someone who supports Democrats

Sep 18 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Senate

In Alabama’s State Senate district 27, there’s an interesting battle going on. The Democrat Party nominee is 8-term incumbent, Ted Little. The Republican Party nominee is Tom Whatley. What makes this so interesting is that the Democrat is criticizing the Republican by saying he’s really a Democrat. [ Direct link ] Tip: Doc’s Political Parlor and Home of Lawn Mower Repair It’s not that Ted Little’s ad is making any false claims. As far as I can tell, the ad is true. But it’s funny to see a Democrat criticizing an opponent … by calling him a Democrat. Little, the Democrat, is saying don’t vote for the Republican because the Republican supports Democrats and you don’t want someone who supports Democrats winning this election! This is certainly an interesting political year.

See the rest here:
Now Democrats are saying don’t elect someone who supports Democrats

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »