► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Republican Party’ Category

More Good News From Tuesday’s Election

by Iron Fist ( 128 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Election 2014, Politics, Republican Party at November 13th, 2014 - 7:00 am

This is important:
The Election Map

Republicans had a very good Nov. 4; this much we know.

But merely looking at the GOP’s likely nine-seat gain the Senate and its double-digit gains in the House doesn’t really do its wave justice.

While the GOP is likely to control 54 percent of all Senate seats and 56 percent (or so) of the House come January, it also will now control more than two-thirds of state legislative chambers across the country — as in nearly seven in 10. And given Republicans also won at least 31 governorships, they are basically in control of the state government in 24 states. That could soon hit 25if they win the still-undetermined governor’s race in Alaska.

(Worth clarifying: These numbers include Nebraska, which technically has a nonpartisan, unicameral legislature but is, for all intents and purposes, a GOP-controlled state.)

The Democrats, meanwhile, control just six states, with a seventh likely to come when the Vermont legislature picks Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) as the winner of last week’s closer-than-expected election, in which neither candidate attained the necessary 50 percent.

That 24-6 split is actually significantly bigger than it was after 2010, when Republicans emerged from that wave election with complete control of 21 states, to Democrats’ 11 — about a two-to-one advantage, versus today’s four-to-one edge.

This is, in many ways, better news than our taking the Senate, because it is an indicator of how people want their government to be where it is closest to them. The States were intended to have more influence over your daily lives than the Federal Government. This is because those Legislatures are closer to the people they represent. Representative democracy is a wonderful thing, for all of its warts and boils. As governments go, it works better than anything else mankind has produced, if your goal is a peaceful, prosperous State. One of the reasons that Americans reject Leftism is that Leftism is not trying to produce a peaceful, prosperous State.

It gets better:

No, state legislatures aren’t the sexiest things in the world. But as a means for demonstrating a national wave, they’re about as pure an indicator as you get. That’s because they’re the lowest-profile office (i.e. people vote the party more than anything) that is pretty uniform across the country. And as of today, the GOP is dominating in an unprecedented way.

To put this in a little more perspective, I added up the number of Americans who will now be in GOP-controlled states, versus those states under complete Democratic control.

According to my numbers, across all 50 states, 49.7 47.8 percent of Americans will now be led by GOP-controlled governments with little/no ability for Democrats to thwart them. If Gov. Sean Parnell (R) pulls off his reelection run in Alaska, it will be more than 48 percent.

Not quite half of us are almost entirely free of the yoke the Democrats would put around our necks, at least as far as our State governments are concerned. Keep in mind, these numbers are for people who have utterly rejected the Leftist view of the nation. These are people in places where the Democrats have little say at all. The only yoke the Democrats can place on us is from Federal laws already passed. We have actually, to a degree, achieved the One-Party State that the Left wants for itself. This is an awesome responsibility.

We haven’t won the war with the Democrats, but we have won an important battle. Several important battles, when you look at it as a whole. Contrary to what the Democrats think, the American people aren’t stupid. We are slow to act, and slow to anger, but when we come around to it, we have a tendency to do the right thing. Now is not the time to get complacent, though. As Buzzsawmonkey points out, now is when the real work begins. We have elected Republicans. We now have to force them to govern as Republicans.

Warren G and Silent Cal and the Banker Mellon

by coldwarrior ( 216 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Election 2014, Elections 2016, government, History, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, The Political Right at October 31st, 2014 - 6:21 am

Are we ready for Old School economics? Are there any GOPsters who dare do this in DC? Does the Right have an economic spine?

Lower taxes, Less Government? OH MY!

Good ol’ Warren G. & Silent Cal: Harding & Coolidge understood basic economics

By Amity Shlaes

Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Republicans and Democrats resemble one another too closely for voter comfort these days. Whatever their own political leanings, voters would prefer more diversity in the policy spectrum.

Consider the question of whether the federal government should increase spending. Politicians’ answers come in a broad range: “yes” or “yes, a lot.” Even candidates who talk about cuts are really only speaking about reductions in increases. In fact, politicians don’t believe they really can make cuts. No modern president has, or at least no president who took office in peacetime.

Not Bill Clinton, who told the nation the welfare era was over. Not even Ronald Reagan, the great free-market president of the postwar era. Budget cutters, the assumption runs, can’t get elected. Federal austerity, the politicians often warn, might hurt the economy anyhow. Presidents just can’t say “no.”

But there have been peacetime presidents who said “no.” Two were presidents we scarcely hear about anymore, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. The 29th president died amid scandal in 1923 — but not before cutting the federal budget. Coolidge then served 512 years, to 1929, a period when the population and the economy grew. Yet when Coolidge left the White House and returned to his hometown of Northampton, Mass., the federal budget was actually lower than when he came in.

How Harding and Coolidge managed to say “no” is a good story and one that couldn’t have happened without the contribution of the nation’s greatest banker, Andrew Mellon.

The story starts in 1920 and in a fiscal landscape that would seem familiar. As today, the federal debt loomed over the future. Yet tax rates, ranging into the 70s, could hardly be pushed higher. The government had expanded, but various groups were pressing for greater federal spending. World War I veterans did not all find jobs and many were disabled — they sought a pension or a bonus.

With commodity prices bouncing up and down, farmers demanded some kind of subsidy stream as well. The presidents lacked control or even oversight of the budget: Congress called the shots. Yet Harding, an ebullient senator of Ohio, and Coolidge, a quiet governor of Massachusetts, ran and won on a ticket of “no.” They would say “no” to both high taxes and government expansion.

Harding did some of the first hard work of cutting. He shepherded through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which unified the budget process under the president and gave the White House the power to impound and sequester. Harding also cut the budget and vetoed veteran pensions and farm subsidies.

Harding appointed Mellon as Treasury secretary, and Mellon adroitly rescheduled the debt; Harding and Mellon also passed a round of tax cuts. Harding was not a “naysayer” by temperament. He disliked using the veto on his old Senate colleagues. He appointed friends, rather than professionals, to key posts. Their corruption tainted his reforms and aborted them.

Few reckoned that Coolidge could continue or complete what Harding had started. Voters figured Coolidge was a lame duck, “the accident of an accident.” The real Republican candidate would emerge in 1924. Coolidge’s colleagues in Washington didn’t expect much either: “Coolidge had little about him that was regal,” recalled George Wharton Pepper, a senator of Pennsylvania.

Still, Coolidge pushed forward where Harding had hesitated. He and Mellon sought and received several more rounds of tax cuts, bringing the top marginal income tax rate down to 25 percent, a level even lower than Reagan’s. In his years observing railroads, Mellon had noted that when you cut the toll for a rail line, you might get more business. An owner charged, as Mellon put it, “what the traffic will bear.”

Mellon thought the same principle might apply to tax rates. Perhaps lower rates would permit more business activity and therefore bring higher revenues. Today we call this philosophy “supply-side economics.”

Coolidge was not as enthusiastic. His thrifty temperament led him to obsess about the budget. In fact, the president kept twin lion cubs, which the White House named “Tax Reduction” and “Budget Bureau.” The point was that the lions were twins: Fed on steak, they weighed the same. To match Mellon’s tax cuts, Coolidge kept up with budgets. He also vowed to prevent future spending. “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Coolidge had written his father years before. As president, Coolidge “killed” 60 laws by veto, compared with Harding’s record of six.

The result of Mellon’s partnership with Harding and Coolidge pleased most Americans. Government became smaller; the number of strikes fell. Mellon had won his bet: Revenues for the government actually increased from 1924, even though tax rates were lower. The team lowered the debt by a third. Working-class families became middle-class when they found they were able to acquire new comforts such as Model Ts and Model As, electricity, and indoor plumbing. The 1920s were not the fragile illusion depicted in, say, “The Great Gatsby.” Voters knew it and rewarded the pro-austerity Coolidge in 1924 with a resounding victory.

Under Herbert Hoover, policy shifted, with the White House becoming active. This shift, indeed the whole story, is little known, in part because people blame the Great Depression of the 1930s on the 1920s. But that is misplaced. As I noted in “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” the economic crash had multiple causes. Few had much to do with policies from 1920 to 1928.

Knowing about the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon record doesn’t assure us that voters will elect to the White House a candidate who says “no.” Knowledge of that forgotten record merely broadens the range of options politicians can feel comfortable offering to voters today. That is, such knowledge makes a candidate who says “no” possible. And asked whether a wider range of policy choices represents an improvement, even those who oppose such policies will probably want to answer “yes.”

Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy Speech

by coldwarrior ( 134 Comments › )
Filed under Politics, Republican Party at October 27th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Prepared Remarks in their entirety. What do you like, what don’t you like?

It certainly is a return to realism.


Immediately before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama wrote that we are at “the end of history.”

The world, Fukuyama argued, had arrived at what he called the universal triumph of “Western liberal democracy as the final point of human government.”

Almost 25 years later, we know Fukuyama was either wrong or, at the very least, a bit optimistic.

History has not ended.

Russia slides backward vainly hoping to resurrect the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Putin justifies aggression in Ukraine as defense against decadent and hypocritical Western powers.

In East Asia, Beijing extols the remarkable rise of China as the supremacy of a one-party state capitalism.

In the Middle East, secular dictatorships have been replaced by the rise of radical jihadist movements, who in their beliefs and barbarity — represent the antithesis of liberal democracy.

These challenges are in part consequences of failing to define our national security interest in a new era.

Our allies and our enemies are unsure where America stands.

Until we develop the ability to distinguish, as George Kennan put it, between vital interests and more peripheral interests, we will continue to drift from crisis to crisis.

Today I want to share with you my views on how to address these threats and how I see America’s role in the world.

I want to spell out for you what I believe to be the principles of a national security strategy of strength and action.

Americans want strength and leadership but that doesn’t mean they see war as the only solution.

Reagan had it right when he spoke to potential adversaries: “Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.”

After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war.

America shouldn’t fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate.  America shouldn’t fight wars when there is no plan for victory.

America shouldn’t fight wars that aren’t authorized by the American people, by Congress.

America should and will fight wars when the consequences….intended and unintended….are worth the sacrifice.

The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world.

President Obama claims that al Qaeda is decimated.  But a recent report by the RAND Corporation tracked a 58 percent increase over the last three years in jihadist terror groups.

To contain and ultimately defeat radical Islam, America must have confidence in our constitutional republic, our leadership, and our values.

To defend our country we must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred, but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our country and our interests.

As Reagan said: “When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act.”

Will they hate us less if we are less present?

Perhaps….but hatred for those outside the circle of “accepted” Islam, exists above and beyond our history of intervention overseas.

​The world does not have an Islam problem.

The world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments.

Many of these same governments have been chronic recipients of our aid.

When the anger boils over as it did in Cairo, the anger is directed not only against Mubarak but also against the United States because of our support for Mubarak.

Some anger is blowback, but some anger originates in an aberrant and intolerant distortion of religion that wages war against all infidels.

We can’t be sentimental about neutralizing that threat, but we also can’t be blind to the fact that drone strikes that inadvertently kill civilians may create more jihadists than we eliminate.

The young activist Malala Yousafzai, whom the Taliban in Pakistan shot in the head at point-blank range for insisting that girls have the right to attend school, voiced this concern when she met with President Obama.

She said: “It is true that when there’s a drone attack…terrorists are killed.  But 500 and 5,000 more people rise against it and more terrorism occurs.”

The truth is, you can’t solve a dignity problem with military force. It was Secretary Gates who warned that our foreign policy has become over-militarized.

Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail.

There is a time to eliminate our enemies, but there is also a time to cultivate allies and encouragers among civilized Muslim nations.

Those of you who are familiar with me know that I deeply believe in individual liberty.

But I have learned through experience that this ideal can only be achieved by recognizing, as Bismarck said, that, policy is the art of the possible.

We need a foreign policy that recognizes our limits and preserves our might, a common-sense conservative realism of strength and action.

We can’t retreat from the world, but we can’t remake it in our own image either.

We can’t and shouldn’t engage in nation building, but we can facilitate trade and extend the blessings of freedom and free markets around the world.

Here’s how I see the most important principles that should drive America’s foreign policy.

First, the Use of Force is and always has been an indispensable part of defending our country.

War is necessary when America is attacked or threatened, when vital American interests are attacked and threatened, and when we have exhausted all other measures short of war.

While no foreign policy should preclude the use of force, Reagan understood that war should never be the first resort.

Eisenhower understood this also when he said, “Belligerence is the hallmark of insecurity.”

The war in Afghanistan is an example of a just, necessary war. I supported the decision to go into Afghanistan after 9/11.

I still do today.

America was attacked by Al Qaeda, and there was a clear initial objective: dismantle the Taliban, and deny Al Qaeda safe haven.

The invasion showcased the best of modern American military strength and ingenuity: we went in with Special Forces and heavy air power, and formed critical alliances.

The Taliban were ousted from power, and Al Qaeda fled. We kept a limited force in Afghanistan to wage counterterrorism and we understood, at first, the limits of nation building in a country decimated by over 30 years of constant war.

​Only after our initial success did the lack of a clear objective give rise to mission creep.  Today Afghanistan is more violent than when President Obama came into office.

He deployed another 50,000 troops, nearly doubling our forces in Afghanistan, and added $120 billion dollars to the deficit.

And yet, the results are discouraging. The leading cause of death among our soldiers now comes from enemies disguised in the uniforms of our allies.

1,422 troops have died since President Obama ordered the surge.

We have now spent more money in Afghanistan than we did for the Marshall Plan and yet after the killing of Bin Laden and the toppling of the Taliban, it is hard to understand our exact objective.

Stalemate and perpetual policing seem to be our mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

A precondition to the use of force must be a clear end goal. We can’t have perpetual war.

A second principle is that Congress, the people’s representative, must authorize the decision to intervene.

Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, outlined a systematic approach to sending American troops to war.

A critical component of this doctrine is support from the American public.

The Libyan war was fought without the approval of Congress or the American people.

President Obama claimed our military was “being volunteered by others to carry out missions” in Libya.  He fundamentally misunderstands our Republic.

Let me be very clear:

France doesn’t send our men and women in uniform to war, the United Nations doesn’t send our soldiers to war, Congress, and only Congress can constitutionally initiate war!

The war in Libya was not in our national interest. It had no clear goal and it led to less stability.

Today, Libya is a jihadist wonderland, a sanctuary and safe haven for terror groups across North Africa.

Our Ambassador was assassinated and our Embassy forced to flee over land to Tunisia.  Jihadists today swim in our Embassy swimming pool.

The Obama administration, urged on by Hillary Clinton, wanted to go to war but didn’t anticipate the consequences of war.

Libya is now more chaotic and America is less safe.

War should not be a unilateral decision taken in the isolation of the White House. But that is what happened.

In failing to seek Congressional authority, President Obama missed a chance to galvanize the country. He missed a chance to lead.

A President who recognizes the Constitutional limitations of power is not weakened, but actually empowered by the public debate that comes with a declaration of war.

I support a strategy of air strikes against ISIS.

Our airpower must be used to rebalance the tactical situation in favor of the Kurds and Iraqis and to defend Americans and our assets in the region.

Just as we should have defended our consulate in Benghazi, so too we must defend our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad.

I don’t support arming the so-called Sunni moderates in Syria, though.

I said a year ago and I say it again now. The ultimate sad irony is that we are forced to fight against the very weapons we send to Syrian rebels.

The weapons are either indiscriminately given to “less than moderate rebels” or simply taken from moderates by ISIS.

600 tons of weapons have been given to the Syrian rebels, inadvertently creating a safe haven for ISIS.

Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS, I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and other moderate Arab states.

In the end, only the people of the region can destroy ISIS. In the end, the long war will end only when civilized Islam steps up to defeat this barbaric aberration.

A third principle is the belief that peace and security require a commitment to diplomacy and leadership.

Around the world we see the consequences of failed diplomacy and absence of leadership after 6 years of the Obama administration.

Military force is meaningless if our leaders cannot reinforce American diplomacy through engagement and leadership.

President Obama never invested in relationships with Congress, and the same is true of his foreign policy. To have friends, you have to be a friend.

In the run up to the Gulf War in 1991, Arab nations believed that once President Bush drew a line, he wouldn’t let Iraq cross it.

And President Bush didn’t “dance on the Berlin Wall” when it crumbled; instead he worked behind the scenes to help the Cold War end calmly.

In light of the new threat posed by ISIS, I believe it is even more imperative that Tehran and Washington find an effective diplomatic solution for limiting the Iranian enrichment program. A nuclear armed Iran would only further destabilize a region in turmoil.

Another diplomatic challenge is Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. Putin’s actions not only threaten Ukraine, but represent a threat to the post-Cold War European order.

I support the sanctions that the U.S. and the European Union put in place against Russia.

I also agree with the measures taken at the NATO Summit to increase the Alliance’s military preparedness, especially increased European defense spending.

We need to use sanctions and defense spending to achieve a diplomatic settlement that takes into account Russia’s long-standing ties with Ukraine and allows Kiev to develop its relations both with Russia and the West.

As Kissinger put it: “If Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.”

Ukraine is geographically and historically bound to both regions.

We will need to understand that even with our help, Ukraine will not be able to stand up to Russian pressure unless it undertakes some fundamental reforms, such as stamping out corruption and restructuring its energy sector.

This brings me to the last principle I’d like to discuss today: we are only as strong as our economy.

Admiral Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it succinctly:  the biggest threat to our national security is our debt.

A bankrupt nation doesn’t project power but rather weakness.

Our national power is a function of the national economy. During the Reagan renaissance, our strength in the world reflected our successful economy.

Low growth, high unemployment, and big deficits have undercut our influence in the world. Americans have suffered real consequences from a weak economy.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture.  His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office.  Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

Free trade and technology should be the greatest carrot of our statecraft.

Trade is a critical element of building a productive relationship with other nations, including China.

While our relations with China are complicated, trade has drawn us together and mutual investment can also play a constructive role. In an era in which geopolitics could drive us apart, we need to look for new areas for US-Chinese cooperation.

Promoting free markets should be a priority.

The only long-term strategy that will change the world is fostering successful capitalist economies that increase living standards and connect people through trade.

From Kiev to Cairo to Tunis, we are witnessing a historic time of protest against the injustice of overbearing, corrupt governments.

If the long war is ever to end, we must understand the frustrations of the street.

It isn’t always abject poverty or religion that motivates recruits or sets off conflict.

Often it is the despair and humiliation that comes from overbearing government.

Twenty-six year old Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street merchant who set himself afire and began the Arab Spring, was an aspiring entrepreneur foiled by a corrupt government.

Bouazizi had a dream: he’d save for a pick-up truck. But cronyism and an overbearing government stifled his dream.

Constantly harassed for money he didn’t have, Bouazizi doused himself in kerosene and lit a match.

My great-grandfather came to America with a dream not unlike Bouazizi’s. He peddled vegetables until he saved enough to purchase a truck, elevating him to what they called then a “truck farmer,” a level that allowed him to purchase a home and small bit of land.

The difference between America in the late nineteenth century and places in the Middle East…South Asia..Africa…and South America…today is that bribes and cronyism were not necessary to get a license to purchase a truck or sell vegetables.

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto spoke to Bouazizi’s brother and asked if he left a legacy. Bouazizi’s brother responded: “Of course, he believed the poor had the right to buy and sell.”

Tonight I have outlined the principles we must remember if we are to advance security, peace, and human dignity.

These principles of conservative realism are a return to traditional Republican values that recognize our limits and realize our might.

Americans yearn for leadership and for strength, but they don’t yearn for war.

Our enemies should bear witness to the unmatched and unstoppable American force that was justifiably unleashed after 9/11 and know that terrorism will never defeat America, that terrorism will only awaken and embolden our resolve.

But the world should also know that America aspires to peace, trade, and commerce with all.

That though we will not abide injustice we will not instigate war.

That our noblest intentions are sincere and war will always be our last resort, and that “our reluctance for war must not be mistaken for lack of resolve” …

That the exceptional ideas that formed our republic unify us in the defense of freedom, and we will never back down in the defense of our naturally derived, inalienable rights.

Congressional Democrats’ disapproval hits a 20-year high

by Iron Fist ( 50 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party at October 27th, 2014 - 7:00 am

This is your good news for the day:

A new poll shows Americans’ disdain for Congress is weaker than it has been in more than three years, but neither party has much to brag about.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll shows 50 percent of Americans say they “strongly” disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. The good news: That’s the lowest that number has been since March 2011. The bad news: It’s still half the country really disliking Congress.

And when it comes to the two major parties, the improvement doesn’t really show.

In fact, congressional Democrats are facing their highest disapproval rating in at least the last 20 years, at 67 percent. Meanwhile, 30 percent approve of the job congressional Democrats are doing.

This is good news indeed. The last time the Democrats clocked this low, we swept both the House and Senate (in 1994). We don’t need to rest on our laurals, though:

Democrats, though, still remain more popular than the GOP. Just 25 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Republicans in Congress are doing, while 72 percent disapprove.

The difference between the two parties, though, is smaller than it has usually been.

You have to remember that this is the Washington Post, no bastion of “Fair and Balanced Coverage”, and that the media in general is extremely supportive of the Democrats. If they weren’t, the Democrats would be in the cellar. Also, you have to remember that the Democrats benefit from the welfare suck vote and the government worker vote. Both trend strongly Democrat, for obvious reasons, and they are thirty percent or so of the vote now.

The Stupid Party Strikes Yet Again.

by coldwarrior ( 125 Comments › )
Filed under Open thread, Politics, Republican Party at October 21st, 2014 - 8:00 am

It is infuriating and it happens every cycle. It’s no different than the leaves changing in the fall or Tony Romo collapsing later in the season. What is it? It is the predictable and inevitable stupid comment of the MORON GOP candidate for high office. In recent memory we’ve had people have to defend themselves that they aren’t witches,  candidates who believe in legitimate rape, and now we have this:

Georgia Republican Senate candidate David Perdue’s admission that he is “proud” that he spent most of his career outsourcing the work of several businesses to Asian companies is giving Democrats new hope in a state where he had led polls since winning his July runoff election.

“The race has tightened,” Republican strategist Joel McElhannon told The Hill.  “Dave has taken a few hits here over the last week or two from a very well-coordinated, aggressive campaign.”

According to polls released this week, the businessman leads Democratic challenger Michelle Nunn by just one point in a Survey USA poll announced on Wednesday, and by two points in a Democratic Public Policy Polling survey published on Tuesday.

Overall, according to RealClearPolitics, Perdue still maintains a 3.2 point lead.

But that margin could narrow even more, with millions of dollars in advertising coming out that slam Perdue for his outsourcing comments, reports The Hill.

Perdue’s ratings are dropping after reports that he had revealed in a legal deposition in 2005 that he spent “most of his career” outsourcing businesses.

The deposition was ordered over a dispute about money he had made at a North Carolina textile company, Pillowtex, which shut its doors and laid off thousands of workers after Purdue left as its CEO in 2003.

He also told attorneys during the deposition that he had helped companies increase production in Asia, and said he moved production at Pillowtex overseas to try to save it, but the company closed before that happened.

He added fuel to the fire on Monday, when he told a local reporter that he not only would defend his career on outsourcing, but he’s “proud of it,” The Hill reports.

“This is a part of American business, part of any business,” Perdue said. “Outsourcing is the procurement of products and services to help your business run. People do that all day.”

He then went on to blame government policies, not outsourcing, for killing Americans’ jobs.

The last sentence about government is pretty irrelevant at this point, it got drowned out by the all of theair being sucked out of the room. The voters in GA heard:

“I happily got paid a lot of money to send jobs overseas and put Americans out of work becasue I am a heartless and uncaring bastard”.

For Christ’s Sake GOPSTERS!!!! Is it too hard not to be a MORON? This same idea of gutting American jobs hurt Romney as well.

Moron then jammed the rest of his bilateral lower appendages into his eat-hole by doubling down on ‘teh stupid’:

“Yeah,  I spent most of my career [outsourcing jobs to China.]“

“Defend it? I’m proud of it. This is a part of American business, part of any business. Outsourcing is the procurement of products and services to help your business run. People do that all day.”

You’re PROUD of putting Americans out of work and shipping jobs to China??? You tone deaf tool. Georgia has one of the highest unemployment rates in America and you brag about getting paid a lot of money to ship American jobs out. What the hell were you thinking???? WHO is advising you? Georgia should be a SLAM DUNK for the GOP! But no, the GOP has to double dip in the salsa, puke on the host, knock over the punch table, and make an embarrassing and irritating fool out of itself at what should be their victory party.

Is it so hard to answer the question this way:

“Yeah, *pause, lower head* I was involved with outsourcing and I am not proud of my role in it. It’s how things were done a decade ago. And you know what *raise head up, regain the floor* , man, were we wrong. We blew it! And now we should work hard at getting those jobs back. And here is how we WILL get those jobs back. I will lead the way in getting government out of the way so that jobs come back home and are Made In America Again!”

See that? I got  the core of a great campaign stump speech, a killer slogan, and destroyed one ‘gotcha’ question all in one paragraph that only took me 2 minutes to put together. Believe me, it isn’t rocket science, especially if I can do it!

When the press hands you a hanging curve ball…hit the cover off of it. When the press tries a gotcha question…point that out to the reporter and chide him for it asthe school master would to a wayward pupil. When they ask you a question about rape…RAPE IS BAD! When they ask you about sending jobs overseas…show remorse and talk about how you will bet them back. When they ask you whether or not you are a witch…invite them to build a bridge out of you! :lol:

Jack Kemp Returns

by coldwarrior ( 119 Comments › )
Filed under Libertarianism, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party, Tea Parties at October 20th, 2014 - 8:00 am

The GOP might, just might, be getting smart. The article below is the Jack Kemp strategy for urban areas.  GO into the urban areas, explain to the people why they don’t need to be slaves to the government, why they don’t need o be on the Democrat Plantation.

Recently, the GOP wrote off the urban areas and lost a few states that would have prevented 0Bama from having a second term. The GOP does not need to win in the cities, it needs to compete though.. Some moron advisers can’t seem to get that into their heads. I can’t wait to see who in the GOP leadership shows up against this. Rand Paul is on this path and he gets beat up by his own side for it. The Chamber of Commerce Commies isn’t going to like it for starters, most of the GOP leadership won’t like it.

Get 25%-30% of the urban vote and guess what? PA goes dark Red, MI and OH become GOP states in the Presidential Election. Their might even be inroads elsewhere and the GOP can be ascendent gain on the national scale as it is in some disparate regions.

You can’t win if you don’t show up.

“I don’t say it as a way of demonizing the president or casting an aspersion on him – but the data is going to indicate that black people lost ground in every single leading economic category during the Obama years.”

- Black Liberal PBS host Tavis Smiley

The field is ready…The right will never again get a chance like this to change some minds and make permanent inroads into the minority communities. Again, the GOP does not have to win in the cities, just get 25-30% and the game is over for the Democrats.


There is a “moral bankruptcy” that’s settled into leadership of America in the White House and throughout Washington, D.C., Dr. Alveda King—the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.—said in an interview Friday morning.

“All of our leaders—or many of our leaders—are just morally bankrupt right now,” King said when asked if President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have helped or hurt the black community in America. “They’re not calling on God. We still stay ‘In God We Trust’ and ‘One Nation Under God’ but we’re not practicing that. We need to call on God. There’s a moral bankruptcy in this country and we really need to come back to God.”

Dr. King is part of an effort that will be announced publicly early next week by various conservative black, Hispanic and Tea Party leaders to reach out to the black community and get them engaged in an effort to help urban centers reject big government in favor of smaller, limited government. The project, called “Restore The Dream 2014,” includes other black leaders like TheTeaParty.net’s Niger Innis, FreedomWorks’ the Rev. C.L. Bryant, radio host Wayne Dupree, Conservative Campaign Committee chairman Lloyd Marcus, Conservative Review president Deneen Borelli, columnist Star Parker, former U.N. Commission on Civil Rights ambassador Ken Blackwell, and others.

In an interview, Innis—whose father Roy Innis has led the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the major organizations behind the Civil Rights movement, since 1968—said that progressive and big government policies have created a “welfare state that has largely not only destroyed the black and increasingly so Latino—and American family generally—they have killed the types of incentives that had led people to achieve and build a better life for themselves.”

“You can have opportunity right in front of your door but you’re terrified to open it because you’re a victim,” Innis said. “So those two realities that you have now since a leviathan of the federal government that is trying to fashion itself as a cradle-to-grave big daddy government—going to take care of you from cradle to grave and give you all sorts of disincentives to climbing that economic ladder, and by the way if you do climb that economic ladder they’re going to punish you punitively with taxes that are going to undermine you.”

“If you dare want to open up a business, they’re going to cripple you with regulations and taxes and they’re going to make it easier for you to be a rational human being and just get government benefits rather than being a liberated individual who can climb that economic ladder,” he continued. “So you have that real but not concrete phenomenon of big government mentality crippling you and then you have on a parallel track victimization syndrome overriding it that says—you pick the minority—‘you are a victim and you are the underdog so you can never achieve.’ That is a dangerous recipe and it is a recipe that has dominated urban centers for more than 50 years and what we’re trying to do is liberate them.”

King said that economic indicators show that during Obama’s presidency, things have gotten dramatically worse for black Americans.

“The data is going to indicate black people lost out in every single leading economic category during the Obama years,” King told Breitbart News, noting that liberal commentator Tavis Smiley agrees with her and that they’re not trying to “demonize” or “cast aspersions” on Obama, but the truth needs to be told. “That’s terrible. There’s nothing that’s been done to enhance our lives but there’s all sorts of things that were done to [give us stuff] like free access to abortion, free birth control in a healthcare clinic. But that’s nothing that’s going to help us economically, intellectually, physically health-wise and otherwise—there’s nothing being done for us. Black home ownership is 31 percent less than the rest of the country. Poverty rates have increased from 12 percent to 16.1 percent. Income for blacks is $20,000 less than the national average. Thirty-five percent of young blacks are out of work.”

That’s just the beginning of the black community’s woes under Obama, she said. Education, immigration, and health concerns are abound too.

“I’m not so locked into a political party—Republican, Democrat, independent—it doesn’t matter to me what your party affiliation happens to be,” King said. “We just need to vote and have common sense and good morals when we elect our people. We need hope. We need for the lights to come back on. We need to shine the light of the Lord and the love of the Lord back onto the country. We need a restoration, and that’s how we can restore the dream.”

King pointed Breitbart News to her uncle’s famous “Give Us The Ballot” speech, which he delivered in May 1957 in Washington, D.C., and discussed how he the black community could effectuate change by voting. “Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights,” Martin Luther King, Jr., said in that speech. “Give us the ballot, and we will no longer plead to the federal government for passage of an anti-lynching law; we will by the power of our vote write the law on the statute books of the South and bring an end to the dastardly acts of the hooded perpetrators of violence. Give us the ballot, and we will transform the salient misdeeds of bloodthirsty mobs into the calculated good deeds of orderly citizens.”

King said that the black community needs to do the same today to use the ballot to change the liberal policies that are hurting them.

“We have to now in this century understand what my uncle and father talked about, which is that we are part of an equal community where everyone has an equal place in society,” King said. “Giving people government handouts without dignity, that’s not working. Giving people HHS mandate healthcare with free contraceptives and free abortions, that’s not going to help people. So we want to do more. We want our children better educated. We want better education, more jobs, opportunity, so people can contribute to society—so those are our goals.”

King also said she agrees with her aunt Coretta Scott King, MLK’s wife, who in 1991 wrote a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asking him to actually enforce immigration laws so that illegal aliens wouldn’t have a “devastating impact” on blacks by taking jobs away from them.

“I did go down to the border with Glenn Beck because actually I was concerned about the children,” King said. “I do not agree with open borders and you’ve got people who take these little children, cut them up and fill them with drugs then sew them back up and send them over here. I did want the children to be fed, I wanted them to have a warm meal and try to get them back home. I do not support open borders and I certainly agree with my aunt on that.”

The group plans to gather at the MLK memorial in Washington, D.C., on Monday, and then will travel to Charlotte, North Carolina, and then onto Ferguson, Missouri—the site of the shooting death of Michael Brown earlier this year, something that has sparked controversy in the black community nationwide.

Aim High OOT

by Macker ( 26 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, Military, OOT, Ronald Reagan, U.S. Air Force at October 5th, 2014 - 10:00 pm

Here’s the new US Air Force commercial….

Now, name the individual or individuals who are NOT in this ad! After completion, partake of The Overnight Open Thread!

The lies behind bombing ISIS

by Rodan ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Hezballah, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Progressives, Republican Party, Syria at October 1st, 2014 - 2:00 pm

The Progressive and Decepti-Con (alleged conservatives) media are all cheering the fallen god-king’s illegal bombing of ISIS in Syria. Obama has not asked for authorization of force and ISIS was not a threat to the US. The Jihadist/Saddam Baathist hybrid organization was only a threat to one nation Iran. Up until the Syrian revolution and the rise of ISIS, Iran through its puppet in Iraq which was installed by the US, Assad’s Syria and Hezbollah occupied Lebanon formed was called the Shiite crescent. ISIS shattered this crescent and has the Ayatollahs in Tehran quaking in their boots. In battles ranging from the Lebanese border, to eastern Syria and the gate of Baghdad, ISIS has defeated Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Syrian army, Hezbollah and the Shia Iraqi army. No Iranian allied force can stand up to ISIS in battle, but their fortune may change.

In what has to be the stupidest military act since we bombed Serbia, the United States is now bombing the one military force standing in the way of Iranian Shiite hegemony of the Middle East. Even worse, we have coordinated with Iran these bombings to help their proxies on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. told Iran of its plans to strike ISIS militants inside Syria in order to reassure them that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be targetted, a senior Iranian official has claimed.

The communication, confirmed in part by a senior U.S. State Department official, appears to signal a cooling in hostilities between the U.S. and Iran for the first time since a 1979 hostage crisis prompted Washington to sever ties with Tehran.

Iran is said to have voiced concerns for the safety of Assad, who remains the Shia Islam-dominated nation’s closest regional ally and the recipient of Iranian military support during a Syrian Civil War.


The Iranian official said Iran was informed separately in advance of the airstrikes launched by Washington and Arab allies against Islamic State positions in Syria for the first time.

That’s right, the US is giving Iran a heads up on our bombings of ISIS. Our attacks have been ineffective since the Iraqi Bathist element of  ISIS have experience fighting the US since at least the gulf war. We are just hitting empty building and grain silos, but we are doing this to help Iran.
If this is bad enough, it turns out what many Lebanese Maronites have claimed through the years is true, the US backs Hezbollah. The US tipped off Hezbollah over ISIS plots to bomb their positions in Lebanon.

BEIRUT, Lebanon — They are sworn enemies who insist they will never work together, but in practice, Hezbollah and the United States are already working — separately — on a common goal: to stop the extremist Islamic State from moving into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful military and political player and currently shares with Washington an interest in stability.

Weeks after Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group and political party, helped repel an Islamic State attack on the town of Arsal on the Syrian border, new American weapons are flowing to help the Lebanese Army — which coordinates with Hezbollah — to secure the frontier. American intelligence shared with the army, according to Lebanese experts on Hezbollah, has helped the organization stop suicide attacks on its domain in southern Beirut.

If you think this was bad, well it gets worse. The Obama Regime, Progressive media and the Decepti-Con media all claimed that there was some terror group called Khorosan ready to strike at America. This was a total lie and the presence of some al-Qaeda operatives with Nusra Front, was an excuse to bomb another enemy of Iran. Even better, the group does not exist!

Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.The who?

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.

You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian–​Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

Once again, the evil 2 party plutocracy has committed the blood and treasure of America to commit a stretgic mistake. All this is being done to distract Americans, while the 2 parasite parties keep feeding the Militray Industrial complex. The only people we should be assisting against ISIS are the Kurds and Assyrian Christians. It is in our interest for ISIS and Iran to keep fighting. But, the 2 headed demon that runs America is being a sucker for the Ayatollahs in Iran.

One if the greatest Republican Presidents, warned about what we are seeing today.
Other than Rand Paul who is one of the last true Republicans that Ike would recognize as one of his own, is there anyone else calling BS on this fake war on ISIS to help Iran and the Military Industrial Complex? Make no mistake, both Democrat and Republican parties hate constitutional America and seek to establish a Fascist Totalitarian police state. They just disagree on what kind Fascist police state America will have and who will benefit from it. Notice neither party ever presents ideas that will benefit all Americans? All they do is come up with plans that benefit their favorite groups and then they pit Americans against each other. Our founding fathers never envisioned what is going on today.
You are being lied to and deceived about what is really going on.

GOP Messes It Up Yet Again

by coldwarrior ( 242 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Election 2014, Politics, Republican Party, RINOcracy, taxation, Tea Parties, Unions at September 2nd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Kiss Pennsylvania Good Bye in November. We will have a Democrat in the Governor’s Mansion because the GOP refuses to be fiscally conservative. The following article is how not to win in PA. We want to be left alone, not to be taxed too much, we want smaller government; the establishment GOP screwed the pooch here. Gov Corbet and the party elite have angered the Fiscon base to the point that what should be an easy win for Corbet will be a loss, and a big one. They managed to beat the motivation to get out and vote out of the Republicans.

Read My Lips, No New Taxes…he said.



Anatomy of a GOP Disaster: Losing Pennsylvania

Governor Corbett has lost support by raising taxes and giving ground to public-sector unions.

All over the country Republican governors are either poised for easy reelection (such as Ohio’s John Kasich and Nevada’s Brian Sandoval) or running even or better against Democrats (Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Florida’s Rick Scott). Then there is Governor Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. The latest independent poll has him down a shocking 49 percent to 24 percent (with a quarter of voters undecided) against Democrat Tom Wolf.

How did Corbett become such an outlier? The answers show just how much trouble Republicans get into if they allow machine politics and public-sector unions to dictate their agenda.

Corbett aides quickly attacked the messenger, sending out tweets dismissing the recent poll, from Franklin & Marshall College.

“You are unfairly influencing this election with bad polls,” claimed Corbett campaign manager Mike Barley. But no such complaints came from Team Corbett when F&M showed then–attorney general Corbett winning the governor’s race easily in 2010. In addition, other polls confirm the governor’s dire political condition: The Real Clear Politics average of all recent polls in the race show Corbett down by 17 points. That’s in a state that Mitt Romney lost by only five percentage points in 2012.

Corbett has gotten himself into this fix in two ways: First, F&M pollster G. Terry Madonna noted that four years ago Corbett ran against the political culture of Harrisburg, the state’s capital, and “its cliques, obstructionist tactics, recurring corrupt behavior, and anti-reform ethos.” But he has consistently failed to get the major parts of his agenda through a legislature controlled by his fellow Republicans. Madonna pointed out that this leads to an obvious question: “Why can’t Corbett work with his own party?”

That question leads to the second reason for Corbett’s collapse. Pennsylvania is indeed an anti-reform state. Though once dominated by a GOP machine, it gave way to a Democratic-run machine with the advent of the New Deal. Now, the Keystone State is dominated by public-sector employee unions with their hooks buried deep inside both parties.

Time and time again, Corbett’s agenda was blocked by key Republicans in the legislature. His effort to pass school vouchers was whittled down to a measly $75 million increase in tax credits for private schools. His bid to finally privatize the state’s antiquated system of state liquor stores was thwarted. Ethics reform was dead on arrival. This year, Corbett lashed himself to the mast and vowed to steer public-employee pension reform to passage. “Sixty-two cents of every new dollar in revenue, goes to the pensions,” he told groups up and down the state. His proposal to change the pension plans for all new state and public-school employees ran aground when the GOP state house blocked it.

Corbett’s conservative allies urged him to press for “paycheck protection” — blocking the state from deducting union dues from state-worker paychecks — as the key to overriding union influence in the legislature. “Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Michigan’s Rick Snyder have both demonstrated how union power can be curbed by ending the union-only deduction-for-politics privilege,” Matt Brouillette, president of the state’s conservative Commonwealth Foundation, told me.

But at a pro-reform meeting of the Associated Builders & Contractors of Pennsylvania this spring, Corbett gave “paycheck protection” only a passing reference in his speech. When pressed by a member of the audience, he mumbled, “I’ve told everyone, if you get that bill on my desk, I’ll sign it.” But he made no special lobbying effort for the measure, just as he allowed his political team to discourage primary challenges to pro-union GOP legislators in the 2012 midterm elections. Paycheck protection died this summer. “We took an internal GOP caucus vote, and we were a few votes short in the house,” atate representative Richard Saccone told me at an Independence Hall Association event in Philadelphia this July 4th. “The unions have powerful influence on a few of our members.”

Governor Corbett’s failure to either anticipate the intransigence of some of his GOP legislators or build outside pressure on them has been compounded by his retreat on the pledge he made in 2010 not to raise taxes or fees. Earlier this year, he angered conservatives when he raised a wholesale tax on gasoline as well as a bevy of motorist fees as part of a business-as-usual transportation bill. Unsurprisingly, he has declined to repeat his pledge this year. “We can imagine what that would mean in any second term under Corbett: higher taxes,” conservative activist Bob Guzzardi tells me. Guzzardi tried to run against Corbett in this year’s GOP primary, but his petitions were challenged by four Corbett supporters and he was thrown off the ballot. Despite Guzzardi’s lack of money, Corbett clearly perceived him as a threat. A Gravis Marketing poll in January of this year found that when GOP primary voters were asked if they wanted to reelect Corbett or go for a new GOP nominee, 41 percent plumped for a new candidate and only 38 percent stuck with Corbett. In a hypothetical matchup, Guzzardi trailed Corbett, 42 percent to 23 percent, with a full 35 percent undecided.

Corbett’s problems with his base have continued. Last week’s F&M poll found that he doesn’t even command majority support among Republicans, leading Democrat Wolf by just 48 percent to 24 percent. Astonishingly, while Republicans nationwide are more motivated to vote than Democrats, in Pennsylvania it’s Democrats who are four points more likely to say they are certain to vote this fall.

Pennsylvania conservatives have often shown in the past they want more principled and effective leadership. In 2012, tea-party activist Cris Dush came within 500 votes of beating house speaker Sam Smith in a GOP primary, prompting Smith to retire this year. Dush went on to win this spring’s GOP primary to replace Smith.

The challenge Pennsylvania conservatives will face after Governor Corbett’s likely loss is how to deal with an anti-reform legislature that is apt to remain under GOP control thanks to creative gerrymandering. In the past, too many conservatives have cut them slack and allowed the party to retain quiet insider control in Harrisburg. But Corbett’s loss would be a wake-up call that the status quo is dragging Pennsylvania’s economy down and alienating the Republican party’s base.

A new approach is required. Democrat Wolf, a former finance secretary under Democratic governor Ed Rendell, has publicly said he plans to circumvent the state’s constitutional requirement that its income tax be one flat rate. Wolf won’t disclose details of his plan for a “progressive” tax regime, but its implementation could include some Obama-like dubious assertions of executive power. If Pennsylvania Republicans don’t start holding their leaders accountable by demanding pension reform and preserving the state’s flat 3.07 percent income-tax rate, they could see the state going the way of bankrupt Illinois, which has become a sordid example of just how much damage political machines in both parties can do to a once-proud state.

— John Fund is national-affairs correspondent for NRO.

So, Yeah, the NRSC has made a game

by Mars ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Democratic Party, Election 2014, Entertainment, Guest Post, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Media, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at September 1st, 2014 - 8:07 pm

Guest post from Mars:


While stumbling the internet today I came across an article about how the National Republican Senatorial Campaign had made a game. So, I of course had to check it out. You can look at it here.

I went to missionmajority.com and gave it a try. While enjoyable the game will invite ridicule on several fronts. One, they attempted to jump on the current 8-bit game fad. In recent years 8-bit style games have made a huge comeback and are the favorites of indy developers. However, it’s pretty obvious from the comments I’ve seen on several sites that this is “conveniently” overlooked by our liberal friends who use the old school look of the game to show how “out of touch” the party is. Two, it’s overly simplistic. I know they want it to be quick and easy so they can get the message across in the shortest time possible, but come on, I wasn’t even really taking it seriously and only lost two lives in the whole game. Finding a balance between simple and frustrating should have been a concern. Three, the soundbites have no context whatsoever. It’s all well and good to have dozens of damning comments from libs, but many of them I was even unfamiliar with and I consider myself fairly informed from the radio shows. How is someone who is just coming in from a link on another site (probably a liberal or at least negatively slanted site) supposed to even know what the heck half of the comments are even talking about.

This was an interesting attempt by the GOP to be hip and engage people, but I think it is far more of a misfire. Something a little more polished and with actual interesting characters and information would have been a far more effective means of reaching out. People don’t mind learning things when playing games, but they want an entertaining experience, not something that would be embarrassing for me to have my youngest child play. I’d like to give them some credit, but I think it’s for the best if this experiment in gamification is quickly and totally forgotten.

I just hope this didn’t cost the donors as much as I fear it did. Right now on Indiegala.com they have the Axis Game Factory Bundle on sale for a minimum of 9.99. With that software a day to gather sound bites, and a couple hours to draw sprites and throw it together, even I could make something better than this. (Though to be fair it will cost more to get the package that lets you format it for a website.) Not sure it would be any more informative, but it would look a hell of a lot better. Maybe a popup with who made the statement, when, and what it was about would help. It also shouldn’t just repeat the same dozen comments over and over, it would be nice to have more variety.