Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

As I’ve already said the idea of extending the Bush Tax cuts rates on a temporary basis is a trap. By doing it in a temporary way the democrats are given a stark choice on raising taxes again in two years.

There is only one thing they could do that would be worse politically; and by golly they’ve managed to do it!

Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

“This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It’s as simple as that,” said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

Well done democrats, now after Jan 3 when the republicans pass the tax rates without your help, they will get sole credit and if it can’t get passed due to senate intransigence or a filibuster by democrats then we have the president ON THE RECORD saying bluntly that a double dip recession is their fault:

President Obama warned his fellow Democrats on Wednesday that they risk plunging the country into a double-dip recession if they reject his tax-cut deal with Republicans.

Absolutely amazing! Totally tone-deaf! If you think 2010 was bad for the left watch what happens now. 2012 is going to be the sinking of the Titanic!

Update: Stacy has more, what fools!

Looking at the list of more than 50 House Democrats who signed the Welch letter, I see several names — including Paul Kanjorski, Jim Oberstar and Alan Grayson — of Democrats who got beat in the mid-term election.

Their careers are over and so they’ve got a political free-pass for these lame ducks to take a stand on “principle,” possibly resulting in a no-deal meltdown that results in Americans paying higher taxes next year. And maybe, as Larry Summer warns, pushing the economy into a double-dip recession.

Hey lets follow the losers off the cliff, unbelievable!

Gateway Pundit is amazed too:

Yesterday the Obama Administration warned Wednesday that if Congress rejected a compromise tax deal they risk plunging the US economy back into recession.Today the Pelosi democrats rejected the deal. They don’t trust his economic judgment, either.

This is like watching a horror movie you’ve seen before, you know the killer is behind the door and you’re shouting at the set. Don’t open it!

When I left this morning the MSM media was groaning and complaining about the president’s compromise of taxes but Wall Street was delighted and stock shares were going up.

By the time I got home, unbelievably the president managed to groan and complain about the deal he himself had cut to the point where he managed to reverse the optimism that the deal managed to achieve.

Pundit and Pundette notes the shock of people who saw the press conference, but it is her own quote that is worth repeating:

His fifth-rate temperament was on full display today.

Nice Deb points out the 180 that he had done here, but it is her link to Ace of Spades who pulls comments from Huffpo that is really something.

Talking points memo declares Obama a Pragmatist.

Today, he very clearly and loudly said: that savior persona is not me. I am the pragmatist. And you know what, I don’t have a whole lot of patience for the idealists. I share their ideals, but I don’t share their approach and I’m not going to get bogged down in recriminations over not living up to some abstract ideal.

Meanwhile in an e-mail sent out by Move On that a friend was kind enough to forward to me they had this to say:

The “deal” he’s proposing is an “absolute disaster,” as Senator Bernie Sanders said.

But it’s not a done deal. Leading Democrat Chris Van Hollen said yesterday that “House Democrats have not signed off on any deal,” and last night Senator Sanders vowed to “do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”

Senator Sanders and other progressives in the Senate are our best hope to stop this terrible deal. But Bernie can’t do it alone.

So moveon’s hero is the one avowed socialist in the congress yet nowhere do they point out what York pointed out nor do they have a word about the AMT that has still not been addressed . Update: I stand corrected, Rachel Maddow reports they DID address this Yet here comes the new filibuster calls:

The clock’s ticking. Can you sign a petition today to leading progressives in the Senate—Sens. Feingold, Franken, Brown (OH), Boxer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Durbin, Harkin, and Schumer—urging them to stand up and use the filibuster to block this awful “deal”?

But William Jacobson says that no matter how angry progressives get they aren’t going anywhere, Stacy McCain agrees.

Now as Byron York reports; for all the screaming of the left on this deal apparently it was congress that put him in this spot in terms of blame:

To pass a measure by reconciliation, the Senate must pass a budget that contains what are called reconciliation instructions. But this year, as they faced an angry electorate and grim prospects in the midterm elections, the Democratic leadership made the specific decision not to pass a budget. Revealing their spending priorities to voters already unhappy with out-of-control federal expenditures was just too risky, so Sen. Harry Reid and party leaders punted, even though passing a budget is one of Congress’ core constitutional responsibilities.emphasis mine

A lot of people on the right were shocked the not passing of a budget (including me), but the MSM didn’t think it was newsworthy for some reason. Perhaps we on the right wouldn’t have been as upset if we knew the consequences, to wit:

With no budget, there could be no reconciliation. And no possibility of using reconciliation to extend the Bush tax cuts — which were originally passed with bipartisan support — on the Democrats’ terms. Shirking your constitutional responsibilities can have consequences.

Thus the dems were hoisted on their own petard. They held off on the budget to avoid huge losses, well that worked out didn’t it.

You might recall two years ago, when republicans met with the president objections were answered with two words “I won”.

Right back at ya.

The next two years are certainly not going to be boring.

Tom Harkin on 2012:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) tells NRO that if President Obama caves on tax cuts, and agrees to extend the Bush-era tax rates for those making over $250,000, then he “better hope and pray that Sarah Palin runs” in 2012.

Mike Murphy would agree with this and said that if Palin is nominated Republicans will get destroyed.

Meanwhile Bobby Jindal said this to Politico:

Palin is “absolutely” electable, Jindal said in a weekend interview with Bloomberg Television responding to Joe Scarborough’s call in POLITICO for the GOP to stand up to Palin and tell her to get out of the race.

Politico being politico they of course lead this quote by saying:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is one Republican who isn’t going to “man up” and tell Sarah Palin not to run for president.

So Politico immediately paints Jindal as unmanly for not hitting Palin, a cheap shop from a suppository “non-partisan” site.

Ok we’ve heard from pols, and we’ve heard from possible candidates, and from political insiders but it takes Mike Potema to find a piece of reality

I am convinced that the question is not, “How can she win the GOP nomination?” but “How can she not win it?” When you have anywhere between five and fifteen GOP candidates, all expressing basically the same conservative views, how can anyone other than the only one with the passionate fan base possibly win?

And as for the Pols who are terrified of both hitting her and her winning the nomination he educates them thus:

The most basic underpinning for this view is the notion that she can’t beat Obama, and I think this is a profoundly mistaken assumption. It is based on a too-abstract understanding of the qualifications for the presidency: It holds Palin up against an ideal presidential résumé, and finds her inadequate — which is true enough, but neither fair nor quite relevant. It’s important to remember that in a 2012 general election, she would be confronting not an ideal presidential profile, but an all-too-human flesh-and-blood opponent. The choice between Palin and Obama, phrased in the least flattering (to Palin) possible way, is a choice between a woman who may turn out to be seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, become a failed president; and a man who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, already is a failed president. This rather changes the “electability” issue, doesn’t it?

And remember that is the least flattering interpretation.

This is plain as day yet nobody is seeing it, nobody is talking about it, why? Because the media wants her to lose, the GOP establishment want her to lose, the feminist establishment want her to lose and the various groups sucking at the government teat REALLY wants her to lose.

Keep those facts in mind when you see the media talk about Sarah Palin and you will get it. Remember the left will tell you who they fear.

and want more information here is a more detailed presentation:

Part two:

It is criminal that it has reached this point.