tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60698672152264783402024-03-05T18:55:41.205-06:00Point of OrderObjections to the American leftRuss Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-8659632925073314802012-05-24T20:29:00.002-05:002012-05-24T20:32:08.727-05:00How the Evolution of Barack Obama Hurt HomosexualsThe recent change in his public stance on gay marriage has earned the president the unwarranted praise of many in the gay community lately. After months of campaigning as a candidate who believed marriage was strictly reserved to one man and one woman, the newly elected president immediately began his peculiar "evolution" on the issue. No one believed he didn't support gay marriage. Everyone assumed, however, he would endorse the political hot potatoe after the November elections. That is, until Vice President Biden forced his hand.<br />
<br />
In the wake of the president's (very odd) announcement, gay rights groups and gay marriage advocates rallied around the newly annointed leader of the movement. This included the HRC, who endorsed Mr. Obama's reelection <a href="http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/05/hrc-endorses-obama-re-election.html" target="_blank">one year ago</a> while he was still an opponent of gay marriage and was vigorously defending DOMA and DADT in federal court. What virtually no one has bothered to mention is that Mr. Obama's political maneuvering on this issue has hurt the homosexual community's efforts for equal protection at least as much as and arguably more than any anti-gay campaign. <br />
<br />
North Carolina offers good evidence of the damage done by Mr. Obama's opportunism. On May 8, 2012, North Carolinians <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html" target="_blank">voted to ban gay marriage</a> in that state. The <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-supports-gay-marriage_644293.html" target="_blank">very next day</a> President Obama announced his support. Since that announcement, opposition to gay marriage in the black community has seen a sharp decline. After months of supporting gay marriage at a rate of only about 41%, the black community now supports it <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/23/poll-opposition-to-gay-marriage-drops-to-new-low-after-obamas-announcement/" target="_blank">by nearly 60%.</a> And nationwide the trend has been the same since his announcement according to the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-president-obamas-announcement-opposition-to-gay-marriage-hits-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html" target="_blank"><em>Washington Post</em></a>. Is the black community turning into an important ally of gay rights after years of voting in opposition? You tell me. But all signs point to yes as, like night turns into day, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-naacp-gay-marriage-20120519,0,2217856.story" target="_blank">NAACP endorsed gay marriage</a> just ten days after Obama's policy shift, calling it a "civil right" issue.<br />
<br />
Here's the million dollar question: Would 29 states have banned gay marriage by now if President Obama had had the courage to tell the American people the truth more than two weeks ago? Would states like California, North Carolina and Maryland have banned gay marriage if the president weren't a weak, opportunistic grand stander who preferred to use gay Americans as pawns instead of standing by them as fellow citizens and decent human beings?<br />
<br />
The answer is increasingly apparent. No, they wouldn't have. President Obama does not deserve our praise. As in every other instance of his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to lead on an important and divisive issue. And, as usual, the cost was paid by those Americans who trusted him to bring about hope and change.<br />
<br />Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-75697221384406059162012-05-23T14:19:00.000-05:002012-05-24T00:03:42.103-05:00Obama Gets Only 60% of Vote Against...NobodyIt must have been a cold night last night at the White House as the president and his campaign bosses watched polls roll in from the Arkansas and Kentucky Democrat primaries. My post <a href="http://russhargraves.blogspot.com/2012/05/stay-course-mitt.html" target="_blank">yesterday</a> detailed my advice to the Romney campaign and called for optimism among the Republican party faithful. The results of yesterday's two primaries are good evidence that there is great reason for optimism.<br />
<br />
Just weeks ago, the president was able to scrape together 60 percent of the vote against a <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/felon-beats-obama-in-several-west-virginia-counties-122863.html" target="_blank">convicted felon</a> currently serving a prison sentence in Texas. Embarrassing, sure. But at least until yesterday this strange event might have been written off as an anomoly by the campaign's talking heads. Unfortunately for President Barry, red flags are popping up all over the south. In a two way race in Arkansas the president was still only able to earn 60 percent of the vote against his obscure opponent. For perspective, Mitt Romney won his four-way race in that primary with nearly 70 percent of the vote against three well known opponents. <br />
<br />
But none of that is as pleasing than the results of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-challenged-in-arkansas-primary/2012/05/22/gIQAJzmLjU_story.html" target="_blank">Kentucky primary</a> where Mr. Obama again clawed his way to 60 percent of the vote, losing 4 in 10 voters to<em>...nobody</em>. In the blue grass state, Democrat primary voters preferred "uncommitted" 4 out of 10 times. Does the fact that these are southern states that would probably vote Republican in November anyway make the outcome any more comforting? They certainly shouldn't. While each of these three states did, in fact, vote Republican in 2008, there are three other southern states that Obama won in 2008 (Florida, Virginia and North Carolina) that could be in play if yeterday's primaries are signs of growing unrest among southern Democrats. <br />
<br />
In Florida, where the president won by just 3 points in 2008, the latest poll now shows Mitt Romney <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-romney-now-leads-obama-florida-125757880.html" target="_blank">leading by six points</a>, due in no small part to the president's recent "evolution" on gay marriage. And in North Carolina, where Mr. Obama won with only 50 percent of the vote four years ago and the DNC plans to hold its nominating convention this year, the state party has been plagued by recent scandal, casting doubt on the president's hopes of building on his 2008 lead.<br />
<br />
All of this should give hope to conservative voters who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama isn't beatable this year. The rumors are false. Mitt Romney can win. Indeed, in this political and economic environment, he has no excuse for losing.<br />
<br />
<br />Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-7764240513706191962012-05-23T00:50:00.000-05:002012-05-23T13:30:15.965-05:00Stay the Course, MittDespite the worried grumblings of some dissatisied Republican primary voters, Mitt Romney's chances of winning the general election this November should give GOPers plenty of optimism. It is, after all, hard to imagine a better scenario to take on an incumbent president. The economy is lagging, unemployment is high, the president's approval numbers are low and the deficit and our national debt is astronomical. The only concern the party faithful should now have in its presumptive nominee is his proven ability to agitate the left and their allies in the media with his occassional offhanded and completely unconscious references to his wealth. This election should be an easy win. However, a victory in November will require a great deal of discipline on the part of Governor Romney and his campaign. <br />
<br />
The message this election cycle is simple, and it's borrowed from the left's very own Ragin' Cajun, James Carville: "It's the economy, stupid". Of course, it is. And with little hope that President Obama and his henchmen in the Democrat led Senate will do anything to improve the economy, there can be found little reason for Mr. Romney to talk about much of anything else. <br />
<br />
Do not expect that to deter the talking heads from the other side of the aisle or their cheerleaders on the network evening news. Since the beginning of the primary season viewers have been subjected to stories on Mitt Romney's travel habits with his pets, his friends in Nascar, his work as a successful businessman, a mass murder committed 150 years ago and, most recently, his wife's hobby of riding horses. The media found the expenses incurred by that last bit to be newsworthy. Go figure. These, of course, are distractions meant to knock the governor off message. If they succeed, the president will ride the wave of these meaningless stories into a second term. <br />
<br />
But that depends on the good governor, who, thus far has managed a campaign focused squarely on the economy and job creation. But one issue has resurfaced that may cause Romney to stumble. When the gaffe prone Vice President forced President Obama to admit he supports gay marriage, a contentios and contemporary issue was resurrected in the American electoral consciousness. Mr. Romney was thus forced to restate his position on gay marriage; a position growing less and less popular as the months and years roll by. And, as required, he restated his position and left it at that. <br />
<br />
Wrong answer, Mr. Romney. Nevermind the conservative principles underlying anyone's support of gay marriage. The correct answer to that question was, "I still support marriage between one man and one woman. But the fact is gay people are living in this economy too. Gay people are standing in unemployment lines right next to straight people. I want to put all Americans back to work. That is my focus as president." Instead of making his economic message resonate with gay and lesbian Americans, Mr. Romney allowed himself to be dragged into a hotly debated social issue. While he cannot afford to not comment on the president's "evolution" on the issue, he also cannot afford to allow himself to be blown off message because of the Vice President's big mouth. <br />
<br />
You're doing fine, Mitt. Just stay the course.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-40737836624369278562012-02-15T16:17:00.006-06:002012-02-15T17:28:16.361-06:00Rick Santorum: The GOP's Surest Path to DefeatPurity. The word takes on a double meaning in the world of electoral politics. Within the Republican Party especially, the struggle between those searching for ideological purity and those carving out more practical, nuanced positions can be both entertaining and horrifying to watch. For the typical Evangelical/Tea-party activist, the word takes on a a very positive tone; such as "purified drinking water". On the other hand is the establishment who, when faced with the word, hears something far closer to the "race purification" doctrine espoused by the Fuhrer. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the former is winning out in our party. Practicality and electability have taken a back seat to an ideological predictability that is so bold and disconnected with the American people as to virtually guarantee electoral defeat in November. In their one way tunnel of thought, the answers of our party brethren are always the same and never vary: Abortion? It's always wrong and never ok in any circumstance. Ever. At all. Gay marriage? It's destroying the country and threatening our children. Defense spending? No cuts, for any reason, at any time. Ever. Taxes? Get rid of 'em. The poor? Lazy. Women? Home makers. The courts? A beacon of truth and reason when we agree, activist and overreaching when we do not.<br /><br />The purists can come no closer to a perfect candidate than Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania, who today is threatening the once seemingly inevitable nomination of Mitt Romney. And, of course, the problems with his candidacy are as predictable as his socially conservative, devoutly Catholic politics. He has compared homosexuality to polygamy and incest. He has said that women being allowed in combat rolls raises certain "emotional concerns". He has said that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve openly in the military. He has said contraception is dangerous to women. He has raised questions regarding the moral integrity of mothers who choose to have careers rather than be career mothers.<br /><br />Regardless of how one actually feels about these issues, there is a skill in politics that good politicians learn, and learn fast. The art of learning when to shut one's mouth can be a very helpful skill. Only ideologues possess the kind of self righteous chutzpah required to actually say they believe homosexuals are as dangerous as men who have sex with their daughters or that working mothers are, somehow, subpar.<br /><br />Needless to say, these issues would be unimportant if Americans at large actually agreed with Rick Santorum. The problem, of course, is that they do not. If the GOP is willing to nominate a man so comfortably out of the mainstream on these very sensitive issues then it is prepared to lose one of the most consequential elections in a generation. In the pursuit of everything these purists will gain nothing and insure the president's reelection. <br /><br />It has been said, often grudgingly, that the establishment always wins in the nominating process. Let's hope that it does this time, at least.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-80032051700478824142012-02-08T22:21:00.007-06:002012-02-08T23:09:14.901-06:00Hook, Line and We're Sinking<div align="justify">Point of Order No. 4,321,458:</div><br /><br /><br /><div align="justify">A recent study released by the Heritage Foundation states that the depedency index under President Obama has grown an astounding 23% during his reign er I mean presidency.<br /><br />In just a mere two years 67 million (yes that's MILLION) people are now relying on federal aid in one form or another.<br /><br /><a href="http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm">Investors.com explains</a> "In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income."<br /><br />The Left would have you believe that the reason behind this spike is mainly the crap economy, but WE'RE NOT BUYING IT.<br /><br />In true Demo fashion BO has to create a dependency among the voting base so he'll have something "positive" to discuss on the campaign trail & like a broken record we'll hear it over and over and over again...<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="justify">We'll hear such great hits as: <em>" I belong to the party of social equality, the party that keeps you fed, in a warm home and at the doctors office if need be..."</em> and the classic <em>"A vote for me is a vote for <strong>your</strong> security, the Republicans can't WAIT to take these programs away!"</em> You'll be sure to hear these aforementioned tunes on his next LP <strong>ScareTactics 2012 </strong>out this November. The CD will feature a duet with Joe Biden and Kanye West entitled<em> "George W. Bush Still Hates Black People". </em><br /><br /></div><br /><p>By creating this base of individuals who are largely dependent on the government Obama is attempting to solidify his next term. A few problems here 1) we're on to you 2) we're paying for it 3) we're sick of it.</p><br /><p>Investors.com continues: <em>"The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs."</em></p><br /><div align="justify">If these numbers are not making you feel very angry inside YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Start, because we are paying for this. You. Me. & Everyone else we work with because those receiving these benefits sure as hell aren't pitching in.... <em>"fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden."</em> </div><br /><br /><div align="justify">Wake up America. November can not possibly get here fast enough. It's time to send a message to Washington & that message is Mr. President<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/president-obama-sings-soul-in-harlem-27938648.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fpolitics-15749652%252Fpresident-obama-sings-soul-in-harlem-27938648.html"> it's not karaoke night,</a> it's election night. Pack your bags & give us back our country.<br /><em></em><br /><br /></div></strike>Katy Loraleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05817248319843133696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-23483784680415478792012-02-05T14:04:00.003-06:002012-02-05T14:46:57.190-06:00The Implosion of Newt GingrichI can think of several reasons to oppose the candidacy of Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination. From the mismanagement of his campaign thus far to his lack of any real organization on the ground and no money to speak of to his questionable ethics both in his professional and private life, there are numerous red flags being raised warning us of what a Gingrich presidency might look like. Exhibit A, however, is his arrogance and the anger management issues that come with it.<br /><br />Last night, after <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57371641-503544/mitt-romney-wins-big-in-nevada/">losing to Mitt Romney in Nevada</a>, the former Speaker of the House decided not to host a party and give a speech, as is traditional in these cases. Instead, the Speaker chose to hold a press conference in which he attempted to do what he does best; chastise the media and blame his campaign's failure on Mitt Romney's "dishonesty", calling him a "Soros candidate". The episode quickly disintegrated into an episode of a man desperate for any explanation of his poor performance other than his own inability to raise money, earn support and organize a GOTV campaign. Former GOP House leader Dick Armey, now Chairman of Freedome Works, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/208719-dick-armey-gingrich-campaign-a-first-rate-vendetta">has pity</a> for Newt, but still calls Newt what he is, namely, a sore loser:<blockquote>Armey said that Gingrich’s criticisms of Romney were not helpful for either the GOP in November or Gingrich’s own campaign during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. <strong>“I feel bad for him. I think he’s digressed into a state of taking a second-rate campaign and turning it into a first-rate vendetta,”</strong> said Armey</blockquote><br /><br />Of course, Newt's problem is not that he's incapable of being president. It's not that he is a poor debater. Nor is his problem that he is not intelligent or an important conservative thinker. Newt's problem is that he's not as smart or effective as he thinks he is, and after two subpar debate performances in Florida people are beginning to figure that out. If Newt Gingrich wants to have any chance of being competitive in this race again, he'd better figure that out for himself, and soon. Politics requires a certain arrogance if you are going to survive in the mine field of elected public life. But it also requires more humility, or at least feigned humility. Newt has neither feigned nor actual humility (which one might find odd for a man on his third wife).<br /><br />The simple truth is that arrogance, not a determined desire to be president, is what is driving Newt's campaign. His over the top rhetoric as he grapples to explain to himself why he is losing is only making it worse. More from Mr. Armey:<blockquote>“I thought that last night was really sad for him,” said Armey about Gingrich’s Saturday speech. “Quite frankly again so much of Newt’s whole life is overstated, he overstates the case in such a hyperbolic fashion, it just looks vindictive.”</blockquote>And that's what it is.<br /><br />It's time for Mr. Gingrich to take a page out of Mr. Romney's 2008 play book and step aside and make way for the GOP nominee.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-15571253843823415382010-06-20T08:13:00.003-05:002010-06-20T08:48:23.935-05:00Lifting The Veil: America Finally Meets Barack ObamaTo those of us who are in full control of our mental capacities, this was a no brainer. We warned them, didn't we? But, late as it is, the America that elected Barack "Hope-n-Change" Obama to the presidency without knowing not a fleeting fact about him is finally awakening to a very dire fact: the Barry they created in their heads does not exist.<br /><br />Exhibit A comes from one of my favorite websites, <a href="http://realclearpolitics.com/">RealClearPolitics</a>. Obama's average approval rating fell below the 50% threshold months ago, but has always been at least a couple of points above his disapproval rating. But now, for the first time in his presidency, Mr. O's <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html">average approval</a> number is now tied with his disapproval rating at 47.9%. It's all down hill from here, ladies and gentlemen. My favorite pollster, <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history">Scott Rasmussen</a> has his disapproval number at 57%!<br /><br />Exhibit B comes in the form of the latest <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/140810/Voters-Split-Obama-Election-2012.aspx">Gallup</a> poll showing that 51% do not want Barry to be reelected. Poor, Barry.<br /><br />So why has the public soured so badly on the president. The simple answer is that everything I said would happen has happened. He has betrayed the public trust with incalculable lies and a budget deficit larger than the budgets of small nations. He managed to do most of this with the passage of a single bill we all call "Obamacare". To uncover the lies told to get that 2,000 page clusterfark through Congress, we turn to the <a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_686730.html">Pittsburgh Tribune Review</a> in a piece titled "ObamaCare: The Ruse Exposed":<blockquote>Enacting a law is one thing; implementing it is another. And early indications about ObamaCare's implementation via new regulations suggest this law <strong>will validate its critics' dire predictions</strong>.<br /><br />The president repeatedly promised Americans that they'd be able to keep their existing health coverage under ObamaCare. Yet an early regulatory draft -- of his administration's own making -- predicts that in just three years, changes that employers will have to make <strong>will put 51 percent of workers into plans subject to new federal requirements.</strong><br /><br />Those changes <strong>will raise -- not rein in -- costs.</strong> And employers will have to keep modifications to deductibles, co-payments and benefits within a narrow range -- defined by unelected bureaucrats -- or lose their "grandfathered" plans' exemptions from those otherwise mandatory changes.</blockquote>We already discussed his lies about the federal insurance mandate not being a <a href="http://russhargraves.blogspot.com/2010/06/you-lie-episode-19435.html">tax</a> a few days ago. Heck, we even had video to prove that one. The genius is not only terrible at leadership but he totally sucks at lying, too.<br /><br />Beyond healthcare, Americans have watched for over 60 days now as oil spews into the Gulf of Mexico with absolutely zero direction coming from the White House. In his now infamous "Awful Office Address" a few days ago, Barry promised to address this problem the way he has addressed every single other problem he has faced in his presidency. He appointed a "czar" and formed a commission. And apprently, its <a href="http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jun/19/obama_spill_panel_big_on_policy__not_engineering.html">not a very good commission</a> either. Click the link to read about what a travesty this thing is. <br /><br />Of course, we should have seen that coming, too, I suppose. His commissions' track records are spectacularly awful. The commission that Mr. Obama appointed to come up with a solution to our expanding budget deficit has...are you ready...this is really gonna throw you for a loop...<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/07/deficit-commission-out-of-money/">run out of money!!!!</a> That's right. The commission appointed by our fearless leader to propose solutions to lower the deficit is now running its own deficit. Who knew you couldn't spell "irony" without O-B-A-M-A?<br /><br />It comes down to one word. Incompetence. Period.<br /><br />I've said it once, twice, a million times and I'll say it again. Just elect conservatives and everything will be ok. I promise.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-59331883002956382972010-06-18T20:27:00.002-05:002010-06-18T20:52:14.257-05:00You Lie! Episode 19,435First of all, an admission on my part. I do not, in point of fact, know that this is actually Barry O's 19,435th lie. In all fairness, the number is probably much, much higher than that. But I mean, c'mon, I can't be expected to document <em>every</em> lie he tells at a time when he's averaging 5-8 per day. <em>I'm only one man!</em><br /><br />Anyway, h/t to <a href="www.hotair.com">Hot Air</a> for moving this to the forefront. It appears that the Obama Administration is preparing a defense against the various states suing the feds over Obamacare that flies directly in the face of a promise our fearless leader made during his push for nationalized medicine. During the campaign to turn American into Europe, Barry made a big spectacle of himself on national television promising that the individual mandate (the part of Obamacare that forces everyone to buy health insurance) is not a de facto tax. But, as with all of his promises, this one, too, has an expiration date.<br /><br />First, the evidence. Here's Barry on ABC with George Stephanopolous <em>insisting</em> that the mandate does not equal a tax:<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7UcxU8PtzRs&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7UcxU8PtzRs&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><blockquote>OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.<br />People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.<br /><br />STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…<br /><br />OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…<br /><br />STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…<br /><br />OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…<br /><br />STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”<br /><br />OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.</blockquote>So, there's Mr. O arguing with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopolous about rather or not the mandate equals a tax increase. Obviously, Mr. O says, "No, absolutely not a tax increase." So, what has changed since that interview took place? Obamacare is not the law of the land, so now he doesn't have to lie about it anymore. American Spectator has the story in a piece titled <a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/17/obama-admin-argues-in-court-th">Obama Admin. Argues In Court That Individual Mandate Is A Tax</a>:<blockquote>Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes. <br /><br />The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed." The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a "tax" or "penalty," because either way, it's "assessed and collected in the same manner" by the Internal Revenue Service.</blockquote>So basically since he can't win a straight up constitutional challenge to Obamacare, he will now call the mandate a "tax" in order to get around it. This is the pennacle of arrogance, ladies and gentleman. He should be impeached or impaled. You decide.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-15755841884428787762010-06-16T20:47:00.003-05:002010-06-17T22:09:37.668-05:00AccountabilityNot long after the healthcare bill passed the Senate and was signed into law by our fearless leader, Barry O, I was told the true story of a woman's disenchantment with Mr. Obama. Her sentiments seem to me to be a problem with no solution. Let me explain.<br /><br />The afore mentioned woman is black, voted for Obama, but has found herself completely outraged (outraged!) that Mr. O could do something like nationalize the healthcare industry. You see, this woman works in a very particular sect of the insurance industry which stands to be shoved out of existence by ObamaCare if it actually gets carried out in its entirety. I found her disenchantment difficult to understand. Indeed, Barry had made a nationalized healthcare system a cornerstone of his campaign. Had this hapless woman simply not believed him?<br /><br />No, she just wasn't listening. And it's high time people like her were called out on it. The time for subtlety with these people is over. They blindly voted for someone because he was handsome (gag me), eloquent and "fresh" (whatever the hell that means) and black. She can be proud to know she was part of a group of millions of Americans duped into voting for someone based on nothing short of a gut feeling and now the country is paying for their gross negligence, willful ignorance and racial bloc voting. She wanted to be a part of history, damn the consequences.<br /><br />And that's about what it boils down to. Accountability. I was listening to some talking heads on one of the cable news channels. They were having a round table discussion on who should be held acccountable in the government for the oil spill disaster and the government's poor response. Not one of them had the correct answer. Because if you're a conservative like me, and you believe that ours is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" then it's quite simple to determine who is responsible. Who put this man into office? Who, despite all of our most dire warnings about his inexperience and opportunism (to say nothing of his God complex), decided they would cast caution to the wind and vote for him anyway? It is a group comprised of people like the woman mentioned above.<br /><br />They deserve our scorn and nastiness. They deserve to be cursed in public. They deserve to be reminded everyday until this national nightmare is over that they are responsible for the dismantling of our values and culture. I would love to be able to tell you that I think we should rise above that and take the moral high road. But I can say beyond doubt that when it comes to policy and preserving our most cherished values as Americans, I honestly have no use for these people.<br /><br />Do you?<br /><br />EDIT: This post has been edited from it's original publication, however no substantive changes have been made.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-86033205157286612292010-06-15T23:15:00.004-05:002010-06-15T23:52:54.417-05:00George Bush, Barack Obama and an Oil Spill walk into a bar...It's come to this folks. After 57 (or is it 58? 59? Who's keeping count anymore) days of oil spewing relentlessly into the Gulf of Mexico with absolutely no leadership from the White House, the people of Louisiana in a recent poll have declared they are much happier with the way Bush handled Katrina than the way Obama is handling the oil spill.<br /><br />The <a href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/fallout-from-spill.html">PPP poll</a> released today spells trouble for a president already knee-deep in an oil-filled ocean of incompetence. If you thought the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil that will end up in the Gulf is bad, take a look at this absolutely unmitigated disaster:<blockquote>Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.<br /><br /><strong>50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.</strong><br /><br />Overall only 32% of Louisianans approve of how Obama has handled the spill to 62% who disapprove. 34% of those polled say they approved of how Bush dealt with Katrina to 58% who disapproved.</blockquote>Straining to hit their stride and assert control over this situation, Mr. Obama did what he always does. He gave a speech. But not just any speech. This speech was so useless even the White House press room (aka, MSNBC) wasn't buying it. Seriously, folks, this stuff is <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html">too good to make up</a>. When even Chris "I've Got a Tingle Up My Leg" Matthews is saying you have "no sense of executive command" then you've really gone beyond the realm of mere incompetence. I mean, c'mon, it's Chris Matthews we're talking about here.<br /><br />Anyway, for an example of real leadership look no further than Louisiana's conservative, Republican governor, Bobby Jindal. The same poll has his approval rating at 63% (65% on his handling of the spill itself). We can probably expect that number to climb now that the good Governor has decided to stop waiting on Barry and actually <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/article/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindal-orders-national/story?id=10914348">take matters into his own hands</a>, ordering the Louisiana National Guard to begin building barrier islands to protect the state's coastline. Because, seriously, you can only holler for help for so long before your state's new motto becomes "Just do it."<br /><br />This, the healthcare debacle and his absolutely clueless foreign policy will not be forgotten by history. Barack Hussein Obama will be regarded as one of our nations worst and most ineffective presidents. Ever. I hate to say "I told you so" but...Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-60365523641297025452010-02-11T21:41:00.003-06:002010-02-11T21:51:30.635-06:00Debra Medina, 9/11 TrutherLet the audio speak for itself.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8j2Ov6u9e38&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8j2Ov6u9e38&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Debra Medina, SHAME ON YOU! This, quite frankly, is disgraceful. At the beginning of this audio clip she claims to be a "regular, everyday person." Ms. Medina, regular everyday Texans do not believe that the government was behind 9/11 and they would not pussyfoot around the question like some leftwing candyass, spewing forth the most useless trifle about "mind control" and the "thought police". Well, lemme tell you, Debra, you campaign is now about "damage control" because you just ended your political career. <br /><br />I am embarassed to have ever said a kind thing about you; I am ashamed to share citizenship with you in this most proud of states and I am insulted that you presume to be Texan enough to be my governor. You are truly a disgrace to this state.<br /><br />You are a laughing stock nation wide. Glenn Beck was right, that answer is definitely the fastest way back to 4%. And back to 4% you go. For shame, madame. For shame.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-8797768837062475922010-02-09T23:49:00.002-06:002010-02-10T00:19:01.194-06:00Governor Debra Medina?With polls showing a huge <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_TX_209.pdf">surge</a> in support for tea partier, businesswoman and Republican candidate for Texas governor Debra Medina, I get the feeling that she may be the next Scott Brown to sweep the political landscape. Not because she could very well be voted into office to fill a seat long-held by Democrats; the Texas governor's mansion has been solidly Republican for over 15 years. No, Ms. Medina will be the next Scott Brown because, like the new Massachusetts senator, she represents a huge political shift in this country made up of wave after wave of disillusioned voters looking for someone fresh. While officially running as a Republican, no one mistakes her candidacy for anything other than what it actually is. Debra Medina is a Tea Party candidate. Like Daddy always said, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."<br /><br />Beginning her campaign with as little as 3% support in the polls, Ms. Medina now enjoys 24% support among Republican primary voters after two hugely successful debate performances. Doesn't sound like much to you? Consider that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a hugely popular U.S. senator only garners 4 points more at 28% (and for that matter Governor Perry only garners 39% in the same poll) and you have the makings of a political bombshell levied by upset Texas voters. And it won't take much to shake the boat. If no candidate earns 50% of the vote in next month's primary then the election goes to a run-off to be held in April. If one of those candidates is a Tea Party candidate then the nation's waves of grassroots Tea Party activists just might see their opportunity to have their first viable Tea Party candidate for a major office.<br /><br />But unlike the huge wake up call that Scott Brown was to Democrats, Debra Medina could be a huge wake up call to elected Republicans across the country that they aren't safe, either, no matter who they are. Governor Perry, after being reelected with barely 40% of the vote four years ago, has become an immensely popular governor and a forceful voice against the intrusion of the national government into our state affairs. He is also largely responsible for the economic behemoth that Texas has become over the last three years. After all, that's why I support him in this election. If Debra Medina is able to unseat this governor, then Republicans across the country are vulnerable to a huge Tea Party insurgency that could alter the future of the party and indeed the nation. If she wins the governor's mansion, well, then God save Texas.<br /><br />Don't think it's possible? She's already <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/texas-gop-governor-rick-perry-debra-medina-kay-bailey-hutchison-1.html">beating the leading Democrat</a> candidate, former Houston Mayor Bill White by 4 points.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-30763110354590342522010-02-03T15:02:00.003-06:002010-02-03T15:30:42.493-06:00Perry Holds Commanding Lead in Texas GOP Primary and General ElectionAccording to the latest <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/texas/election_2010_texas_republican_primary_for_governor">Rasmussen Reports</a> poll, Governor Rick Perry holds a commanding lead over Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a good senator who became a bit overambitious and decided to challenge an immensely popular and successful governor. Frankly, it makes you question her intellect. But I digress.<br /><br />According to the poll, 74% of Texas GOP voters approve of the job Mr. Perry is doing (and 80% have a favorable opinion of him, personally), and that has translated into a huge lead for the governor. Perry leads Hutchison and Medina, the vote tallying up 44% to 29% to 14%, respectively. This is really devestating for the Hutchison campaign, Perry's only real threat. After leading the Governor by 20 points early last year, Hutchison now finds herself trailing Perry by 15 points. Ouch.<br /><br />But let's be honest. The real winner in this poll is Debra Medina, who has seen her poll numbers jump from just 4% when she began her campaign, to 14% now. She needs to run for Congress, and I sincerely urge her to do so.<br /><br />The big loser in Rasmussen's polling is former <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/texas/election_2010_texas_governor">Houston mayor, Democrat Bill White</a>. In general election matchups he currently trails Perry, Hutchison - and Medina! Now <em>that's</em> amazing. The GOP's weakest contender for the gubernatorial nomination is beating the Democrats' strongest contender for their nomination. White's 6 point lead over Medina just one month ago has now slid to a 3 point deficit, with Medina leading White 41 to 38 percent. The message: The Texas governor's mansion is off limits to Democrats.<br /><br />And, frankly, that's the most important thing of all, isn't it? ;)Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-18965488319280142432010-02-02T21:37:00.002-06:002010-02-02T22:04:11.426-06:00Candadian Provincial Premier To Seek Medical Care In The United Statesh/t <a href="http://www.hotair.com">Hot Air</a><br /><br />Apparently the socialized healthcare system of our neighbor to the north isn't quite good enough for one of Canada's more prominent politicians. <br /><br />Back in August, our friend Ed Morrissey reported on a program initiated by the Canadian government that made it legal for border provinces such as Ontario to <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/21/canada-sending-patients-to-us-for-treatment/">contract with American hospitals</a> to treat Canadian patients who need various treatments not readily available in Canada due to the increased demand that a nationalized healthcare system creates. The sole reason for the program is get around increased wait times for care, something the Democrats assure us exist only in the imaginations of eeeevil conservatives trying to scare people away from socialized medicine.<br /><br />But now it appears that even Canada's politicians have no faith in the system they thrusted down the throats of their citizens. At least that's true for the Provincial Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, one Mr. Danny Williams. Now, with his own life on the line, Mr. Williams is <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html">coming to America</a> for heart surgery. <br /><br />If you're not quite ready to call him a hypocrite, here's a video of him defending Canada's healthcare program.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALorLMnCR-4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALorLMnCR-4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Here is the simple truth of the matter: By seeking healthcare outside of Canada to save his own life, Premier Danny Williams has issued a de facto admission that the nationalized healthcare system is a virtual death sentence to those needing life saving treatment or surgery, treatments and surgeries made scarce by the very system he helped put in place. <br /><br />Danny Williams, repeat after me: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-73347973313860300022010-02-02T16:20:00.003-06:002010-02-02T17:57:05.779-06:00Member of British "Iraq War Panel" Accidentally Admits Legitimacy of Iraq WarWhile those of us in America have largely shifted our focus away from Iraq and onto Afghanistan in the wake of the recent surge there, the liberal establishment in Britain (often referred to as "the British") are holding hearings to review the "facts" and "circumstances" surrounding the lead up to the Iraq War. This, one would venture a guess, is to find some sort of reason to for liberals to say, "AHA! We knew this entire thing was a sham," and as Al Gore said, "You liiiiieeed to the American people! You liiiiied to us!" <br /><br />Well, it turns out that in the wake of a free Iraq a lot of information becomes available that isn't so convenient to liberals who are adament that "Bush lied, kids died!" No, instead the truth is coming to light through the work of the Iraq Survey Group, the group sent into Iraq by the U.S. Congress to gather as much data about the fallen regime as possible. What they have found is absolutely breath taking. You can read the report <a href="http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html">here</a>, but I want to focus on a major slip (or ever so subtle admission) by one of the British panel members while interrogating former Prime Minister Tony Blair. <br /><br />ABC News, as well as others, are calling it his <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/tony-blair-faces-judgment-day-iraq/story?id=9697336">judgement day</a>, as if the fate of his soul is on the....oh, who am I kidding, liberals don't believe in souls. That's just silly. Needless to say, Tony handled himself brilliantly, even while being called a <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Tony-Blair-Questioned-For-Six-Hours-By-Sir-John-Chilcots-Iraq-Inquiry/Article/201001415537721?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15537721_Tony_Blair_Questioned_For_Six_Hours_By_Sir_John_Chilcots_Iraq_Inquiry">liar and a murderer</a>. For instance, when discussing the opposition by many nations in Europe to the war, Blair responds:<blockquote>In fact, I don't think they were really disputing that Iraq was in breach of (U.N. Resolution) 1441; then we were going to be faced with a choice I never wanted to be faced with; did you go then without a second resolution? My view very strongly was <strong>if he is in breach of 1441 then we should mean what we've said. It was a final opportunity to comply and he wasn't complying</strong>.</blockquote>What a novel concept. <em>We should mean what we've said</em>. Unfortunately, the only thing liberals are interested in doing is talking. A point made accidentally by panel member, Sir Lawrence Freedman:<blockquote>Blair: It is absolutely clear from the Iraq Study Group, and indeed the Butler Report deals with this, that he was concealing material he should have delivered up to the U.N. and retained intent, not merely in theory, but he was taking acation on, for example, "dual use" facilities that were specifically in violation of United Nations Resolutions.<br /><br />Sir Lawrence: <strong> I'm not actually disagreeing that there were significant elements of material breach in Saddam's behavior.</strong> This is really as much about the diplomacy...</blockquote>Bingo! And the fact is that no one has ever made a serious argument that Saddam Hussein was <em>not</em> in material breach of U.N. Resolutions, including <a href="http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr1441.htm">Resolution 1441</a>, which gave him his final chance to comply with the will of the world. It has always been, as Sir Lawrence admits, about "diplomacy" which used in this context is just a liberal word for endless talking, back pedaling and concessions to murderous dictators.<br /><br />Tony Blair, liberal though his domestic politics may be, is a first rate statesman who, along with President Bush, made tough decisions when they were needed. It would seem now that history has finally vindicated their decision.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-23848767267335644932010-01-29T17:30:00.003-06:002010-01-29T17:46:06.612-06:00Amateur Hour at the WH<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif7vHjzNv1j6JfMkzSJwczk8USc0WdffnPEGqjfNdBMU3rxq3KbsW3QFVoKVjGdBv7VbzgQgAxmuSrUgfd7N7kHTEPiXkSNb-2P_1E6OcJb2YU-m31q3a5p-nJQEoqhywror9z4ibtJeOi/s1600-h/ksm.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif7vHjzNv1j6JfMkzSJwczk8USc0WdffnPEGqjfNdBMU3rxq3KbsW3QFVoKVjGdBv7VbzgQgAxmuSrUgfd7N7kHTEPiXkSNb-2P_1E6OcJb2YU-m31q3a5p-nJQEoqhywror9z4ibtJeOi/s400/ksm.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5432311719376885762" /></a><br />Comes news today our President is <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033000474040096.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond">backing away</a> from his plan to try al Qaeda terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. Apparently, quite a few people in NYC found the prospect of increased terrorist attacks surrounding this unnecessary show trial to be somewhat of a non-starter. Fair enough.<br /><br />But if you move the trial <span style="font-style:italic;">away</span> from NYC, you have to move it <span style="font-style:italic;">to</span> somewhere else. Something tells me that the folks in Tulsa, Fargo, DC, Portland or whatever city they park the DoJ U-Haul won't be a great deal more excited about this venture. What kind of a message does that send? We're going to protect New Yorkers from another terrorist attack by putting <span style="font-style:italic;">your</span> little city at risk. Thanks, we knew you'd understand!<br /><br />Did they think this through?<br /><br />This whole scenario is starting to get pretty ridiculous. Previously the White House went out of it's way to say that KSM would <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> be released if he was acquitted. Am I missing something? If we're going to keep him in prison for life regardless of the outcome of the trial, then is there any point?<br /><br />The ultimate problem really isn't that we'll have to deal with this kangaroo court. The problem is that it appears we might as well have a kangaroo in the Oval Office, for all the thought they put into this stuff.Aaron Schwittershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12122215047292575386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-36826991170835959062010-01-29T01:08:00.002-06:002010-01-29T01:11:26.985-06:00ICYMI: The Republican ResponseIn case you didn't stay tuned in to catch the GOP response to the State of the Union, here it is. It is given by the newly sworn in governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. It totally knocked the socks off of Obama's speech. Don't worry, its little more than 10 minutes long.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LeSLVnAQSYo&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LeSLVnAQSYo&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-74131690090373658522010-01-28T23:43:00.003-06:002010-01-29T00:34:36.908-06:00State Of The Union 2010Let's see, where does one start when disecting the grab bag of half-truths, empty promises and outright lies in last night's State of the Union address? The entire speech is what marines call a "target rich environment". I'll just talk about a few here tonight, but I think you all should watch the video posted at the end of this entry. It's long, but essential.<br /><br />First and foremost, this "spending freeze" proposed by the President is a J-O-K-E, JOKE! Let's crunch the numbers here: To start off with, the president has placed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all national security priorities off limits. In other words, just about 85% of the federal budget is off the table and will not be affected by this so-called "freeze". Problem number two: the "freeze" on funding for agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (one of the most useless agencies ever created by any government anywhere, ever. Like, totally ever) lasts only three years, this following a year in which the EPA saw it's funding vastly increased by our new "fiscally responsible" president. Problem number three: These spending freezes are strictly that - a freeze. No actual <em>cuts</em> will be allowed under this freeze because its, well, frozen. That is not fiscal responsibility, it's more of the same wasteful spending that got us into this mess in the first place.<br /><br />President Obama also promised in his speech to continue pursuing his disasterous healthcare reform bills, promising to take into account any advice or solutions offered by anyone. Nevermind that conservatives and Republicans have offered numerous suggestions, not the least of which is to break down state barriers and allow consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, thus opening the market and forcing the nation's 13,000 insurance companies to actually <em>compete</em> for our business. This would have an enormous impact on our premiums, to say nothing of the effect simple tort reform would have on our healthcare system. By insisting on continuing down the path of socialism, and not "pivoting" to the center as many pundits assumed he would, President Obama has proven once and for all his true vision for America; one in which individuals are virtually helpless without the government.<br /><br />Listening to the speech, one would think Americans are a helpless people, with no hope except that which is given to us by our benevolent leader in the White House. But what the Messiah giveth, he can taketh away, and he did just that by simultaneously lampooning Washington (of which has been a part for over 3 years now) for it's incompetence and in the same breath insisting that we "trust" him. Whatev.<br /><br />Between whining about the "tone in Washington" and lecturing the Supreme Court on how to do it's job, the rest of the speech was basically a hate-fest over the unnamed president from whom Barry supposedly "inherited" this whole mess. Let's take the deficit as an example, which the president still blames on President Bush. Ed Morrissey, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/28/aps-ten-whoppers-from-the-sotu-speech/">take it away</a>:<blockquote>Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.</blockquote>Dammit, ain't the truth refreshing?<br /><br />Lastly on my very, very short list of complaints (for the long list buy my Barack Obama biography, entitled "Bend Over, America", now available in paperback!) let us turn to an issue I care very much about. Last night President Obama promised to finally work with Congress to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy barring homosexuals from serving openly in our armed forces. So much as I would like to praise the president for this step towards equality, the fact remains that the President is as two faced as ever in regards to this issue. He did no more last night than state the same policy position he has stated throughout his campaign for president. The fact of the matter is that, so far, the only action Barack Obama has taken in regards to Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been to direct his Justice Department to <a href="http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/obama-administration.html">vigorously defend</a> it in the only standing lawsuit against the policy. And what organization is the only plaintiff in the only case to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Why, it's the Log Cabin Republicans, America's largest organization of <em>gay Republicans!</em><br /><br />Seriously, Barry, when a big group of queers is kicking your ass on any issue dealing in military matters perhaps it's time to go back to Chicago.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-52557643791782564912010-01-26T19:37:00.005-06:002010-01-26T20:18:41.659-06:00The Adventures of TOTUSAs has been well reported by now, Mr. Obama is heavily dependent on the aptly nicknamed TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States). Much as been said over the last year of the president's <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html">"safety net"</a>, but we can now say beyond doubt that the president everyone hailed as giving the most eloquent speechess since Pericles' funeral oration is totally and completely incapable of giving any public speech without his beloved TOTUS. Are you ready for this? Barack Obama has been caught giving a Teleprompter aided speech...<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/bad-visual-obama-uses-teleprompter-in-speech-to-sixth-graders/">to a sixth grade class</a>.<br /> <br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsu3TqEd0-kYn3T3iwDnfIr43ny9Hk9KlN25o19Kl_xOq8GSnfFQw0zeXoyt4U2_Fz6gGYAG3rtgoQo4-j31REFzGRQA88fhoAv7dm9nHHczwOefBx8piqpZRQPhVS03AL5k6Z-q9rzPo/s1600-h/obama-teleprompter-6th-grade.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 259px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsu3TqEd0-kYn3T3iwDnfIr43ny9Hk9KlN25o19Kl_xOq8GSnfFQw0zeXoyt4U2_Fz6gGYAG3rtgoQo4-j31REFzGRQA88fhoAv7dm9nHHczwOefBx8piqpZRQPhVS03AL5k6Z-q9rzPo/s400/obama-teleprompter-6th-grade.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5431237771121508850" /></a><br />That really happened.<br /><br />In case you're still not convinced that the president is unable to speak without a visual aide, here he is giving a speech to about a dozen people in his "middle class task force"...with a <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjUwNmUwMzBmNWQ0MmY1MWVkNzVmYmM1MDUwYzkyZWM=">teleprompter</a>.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQt8nMXok-_boxi6MjbamJ0XkjB7ocpKWxZLZRda014ntqtiTH9Wj-cpfdwHVi5Mg7fAJ-fO94EP_HVsiGtUbsR_kkvO6ljt6XGAZqyEkvmcE-d1P3GkG7D1mxBj8-YP7I0bPn9mqpIZo/s1600-h/6f95c2cba23e72dbd04623f446622add.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 262px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQt8nMXok-_boxi6MjbamJ0XkjB7ocpKWxZLZRda014ntqtiTH9Wj-cpfdwHVi5Mg7fAJ-fO94EP_HVsiGtUbsR_kkvO6ljt6XGAZqyEkvmcE-d1P3GkG7D1mxBj8-YP7I0bPn9mqpIZo/s400/6f95c2cba23e72dbd04623f446622add.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5431238059367360834" /></a><br /><br />The Onion News Service has a hillarious funny spoof on his dependence on his glass aide, too:<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXQTaWjMoFw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXQTaWjMoFw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />It's not so much that this is a devestating blow to Mr. Obama. But the fact is that his fabled eloquence is as fake and phony as the hope and change he promised us; as non-existent as the transparency and honesty we were assured.<br /><br />Exit question: What's more disturbing? The fact that Obama says such assinine and stupid things, or that all of these things are prepared far ahead of time by a team of political and policy advisers?Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-31074291383845622172010-01-26T02:45:00.004-06:002010-01-26T03:13:25.709-06:00Will The Real Ellie Light Please Stand UpAs Glenn Beck reported today, it appears that Barack Obama's popularity has fallen so terribly that he has only one supporter remaining who is willing to speak up for him within America's op-ed pages. Her name is Ellie Light from Philadelphia, PA. No wait, I'm sorry she's from Daly City, CA. Um, I mean she's from Bangor, Maine. <br /><br />Well, to tell ya truth no one really knows where Ellie Light is from, or if she even exists because editorials supporting Barack Obama have appeared in literally <em>dozens</em> of newspapers across the country and all written by her, each time claiming to hail from that city. So far, editorials by "Ellie Light" have appeared at <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/A_defense_of_Obama.html">Politico</a>; the <a href="http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20100119_Letters__U_S__woes_can_t_be_cured_overnight.html">the Philadelphia Daily News</a>; <a href="http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/82120147.html">the San Francisco Examiner</a>; <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/give-obama-a-break//print/">the Washington Times</a>; <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/01/letters-obama-warned-us-of-hard-choices-painful-steps-.html#more">USA Today</a>; and literally dozens of smaller local papers from across the country. <a href="www.hotair.com">Hot Air</a> is on it, as well:<blockquote>Ms. Light always claims to be a local in these letters. Her real estate holdings are apparently prodigious, as she has claimed residences in Philadelphia, PA; Daly City, California; Mansfield, Ohio; Waynesboro, Virginia; Algoma, Wisconsin; Bangor, Maine; and dozens of other places. Who said Obama supporters were all downtrodden?</blockquote>Our friends over at Patterico's Pontification's are keeping a <a href="http://patterico.com/2010/01/23/ellie-light-obama-astroturfer-or-very-very-very-energetic-but-independent-letter-writer/">running count</a> of how many of Ellie's editorials they can find nationwide. So far: 47 editorials in at least 23 different states. No joke.<br /><br />But, alas, my dear Tusk Readers, I must beg my fellow conservative bloggers to please, please leave poor Ms. Ellie Light alone. Should she be an actual person (as opposed to a White House troll) then I believe we should give Mr. Obama the respect and dignity of being able to enjoy the support of his last remaining devotee for as long as it lasts.<br /><br /><strong>UPDATE:</strong> Now the number is 61 papers and 31 states, as well as the District of Columbia and even <em>two foreign publications</em>. Sheesh.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cAbQWx0MIg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cAbQWx0MIg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-28102577227767191392010-01-23T10:27:00.005-06:002010-01-23T11:03:42.159-06:00Charles Blow: Ask Your Doctor if Klonopin or Xanax is Right for YouI'm normally a huge fan of deliberately inflammatory polemics. The border between what's appropriate to say and write and what's not often just begs to be crossed.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVLOY9PKVLALqEi34gfmYQbeEHmF4Fc01-PWF4OcxVE2RLmQ_YpmeTCowk1U67IcOf6OjtG5xOubxej3Yqr6ZvG0-Ic-6xgNUAhDoLPYywuPJtEntYmsoc28VLtJa1uJyndfnhHJWZbow3/s1600-h/charles+blow.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 190px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVLOY9PKVLALqEi34gfmYQbeEHmF4Fc01-PWF4OcxVE2RLmQ_YpmeTCowk1U67IcOf6OjtG5xOubxej3Yqr6ZvG0-Ic-6xgNUAhDoLPYywuPJtEntYmsoc28VLtJa1uJyndfnhHJWZbow3/s400/charles+blow.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5429979232295474818" /></a>However, I had to read this following sentence in today's New York Times a few times before I could fully digest it. It is the lede for a column by Charles Blow titled <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23blow.html"><span style="font-style:italic;">Mobs Rule</span></a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a <span style="font-weight:bold;">bloodlust</span>."</blockquote><br /><br />It's that last word that just threw me for a crazy loop. But I'll get back to that.<br /><br />Does anyone remember November of last year? Most media professionals were just in a constant state of uninterrupted euphoria over the election results, as if someone had dropped large amounts of time-release MDMA into newsroom watercoolers across America. These people wrote incessantly about how this momentous, hopeful, exciting, historic and magnificent change was all around us. And don't get them started on the voters who did it. These humble voters were also just so wonderfully hopeful, compassionate, well-informed, thoughtful people. Each one (who voted for Obama) was just an absolute saint. Democracy had been saved!<br /><br />And now, we have one special election in one state that didn't happen to go the way these journalists wished and these same voters are equated with a "mob... angry, wounded... riled... nursing a bloodlust."<br /><br />Wikipedia: "<span style="font-style:italic;">Bloodlust</span>, a desire for extreme violence and carnage, often aroused in the heat of battle and leading to uncontrolled slaughter and torture."<br /><br />Seriously. Crazy. Stuff.Aaron Schwittershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12122215047292575386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-79369234984345865452010-01-21T19:49:00.004-06:002010-01-21T20:21:37.179-06:00Does Scott Brown's Election Mark The End of Liberalism?We will begin with this video of Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly discussing the Massachusetts senate race and the implications of that election's results the day before the election took place. As we all know, Scott Brown went on to win a triumphant victory. Watch the full video, particularly what Brit Hume has to say, and then hear me out on my interpretation and the reason I chose the title I did for this entry.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EV8C82kVAUo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EV8C82kVAUo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Two cases presented here by two men whose opinion should not be taken lightly. Essentially, they argue that Scott Brown's victory is a terrible thing for Democrats because they will be utterly destroyed this November or, as Hume posits, Brown's victory is a long-term positive for Democrats because they will be able to moderate their positions and "steal Republican ideas" to earn back the trust of the people.<br /><br />Are you hearing this? The two possibilities presented by these two gentlemen are both completely possible, but they both mean essentially the same thing. Either the Democrats remain an insane assembly of assinine "progressives", becoming an inconsequential thorn in the side of Republicans or they take a sharp right turn and become...more conservative. Either way, the liberalization of the Democratic party and the far left's grip on what was once the national party is over. With the election of Barack Obama and the ascedance of ultra-liberal Congressional leaders (Reid, Pelosi, et al) the Ameican people have seen what liberalism truly is, and they don't like what they see. Or, perhaps, what they don't see.<br /><br />What they do not see is the transparency promised us by this administration and this congress. They have not been shown deatils of bills that will alter forever the future of our nation. They have not seen anyone from their side of the aisle articulate clearly the almost certain risks and consequences associated with their socialist policies. But, honestly, why would the Democrats want us to see anything? They meetings and negotiations are held behind closed doors because Democrats and their liberal overlords are keenly aware of how unAmerican their ideals and principles are. They know that if the American people catch even a whiff of their crimson commie policies they will reject it.<br /><br />Unfortunately for them and their cohorts the American people have seen for themelves the truth; the arrogance, corruption and the hubris of liberal power. And now we are seeing the results across the nation. In New Jersey and Virginia Republicans now sit in the governors' mansions. In Massachusetts Scott Brown has broken a Democrat stranglehold on that state. In California even Barbara Boxer now looks vulnerable. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas stands poised to lose her seat. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will certainly lose his seat. Senators Arlen Specter and Mary Landrieu of Pennsylvania and Louisiana, respectively, are on the verge of losing their seats, as well. <br /><br />This could very well mark the end of the Reid-Pelosi-Obama brand of liberalism that has plagued the Democratic party and America for last half century. <br /><br />Good riddance, sayeth The Tusk.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-42133934410441132502010-01-19T22:22:00.007-06:002010-01-19T23:02:05.260-06:00Scott Brown Wins! My take on tonight's election<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIX-o-LK931pFYosBR_00ZFjtHhI6-8fS9GVQq53HMnmPxSzDz6AOQb0fvqJiVTh_HGYmed_D5psSkgB2RCFAqrUHF0AfeQfZpygJoz9iz_Qxk72K8to8yChM7Y6bJzmCj3SiO09Axn24/s1600-h/3c7683_ltpbrowncover.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 315px; height: 275px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIX-o-LK931pFYosBR_00ZFjtHhI6-8fS9GVQq53HMnmPxSzDz6AOQb0fvqJiVTh_HGYmed_D5psSkgB2RCFAqrUHF0AfeQfZpygJoz9iz_Qxk72K8to8yChM7Y6bJzmCj3SiO09Axn24/s400/3c7683_ltpbrowncover.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428679816633564834" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.texasgopvote.com/blog/he-did-it-scott-brown-wins-41-01197">He did it!</a> To wild applause and chants of "Seat him now!" senator-elect Scott Brown accepted the concession of Attorney General Martha Coakley in Massachusett's special election to fill the open senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy.<br /><br />This is truly a revolutionary moment in electoral politics when even the citizens of Massachusetts are rejecting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Questions still surround the Democrats' willingness to seat him immediately, but my questions really surround what kind of senator Scott Brown will be. Frankly, most of us support him because of his staunch opposition to a healthcare bill loaded with special interest goodies. high taxes and passed with votes that were bought and paid for by Harry Reid and his Senate cronies. (re: <a href="http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/11/mary-landrieu-sells-out-to-socialism-for-300m/">Louisiana Purchase</a>, <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_blasts_kickback_health_fix_dAelgwc0jXXhMD6fwB05IK">Cornhusker Kickback</a>) We know he also opposes giving lawyers to unlawful terrorist combatants caught on the battle field and opposes giving them civilian trials. But we also know what he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in his acceptance speech: that he will be an "independent" senator for "the people of Massachusetts". He even hailed Senator Kennedy, an enemy of common American values and common sense. <br /><br />The people of Massachusetts either agreed with Senator Kennedy's far-left ideology or they turned a blind eye to his positions; positions which consistently weakened America and emboldened our enemies; positions that led to the slaughter of millions of unborn Americans; positions that all but longed for America's defeat around the world; positions that would make John Adams, John F. Kennedy and any red blooded American sick with grief that a man with such potential for greatness instead squandered it all to appeal to the "educated" and the "elite". <br /><br />This is the man "the people of Massachusetts" continued to send to the United States Senate for more than 30 years. And those are the people that Scott Brown has now sworn to represent as a Republican. The people of Massachusetts have either made a huge ideological shift, or tonight's election is a mere blip on the radar screen and they are still the raging lunatics who kept sending a sputtering loon to Washington, D.C. for three decades.<br /><br />So while I rejoice at his victory now, I am only cautiously optimistic about his addition to the Republican caucus. If "the people" of Massachusetts are the same people they have always been, then Scott Brown will be duty bound to represent them in all of their liberal lunacy. I hope that's not going to be the case.<br /><br />But fear not, Tusk Readers! There is reason to be hopeful. He will never be the liberal that Ted Kennedy was, and so we are saved from a catastrophic healthcare bill and can have at least six years of (at least) moderately conservative common sense from half the Senators within the Massachusetts congressional delegation. Here is his victory speech in which he sounded more like the Lt. Colonel he is than the senator-elect from Massachusetts. Drink it up!<br /><br /><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oDVaRNyLlNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oDVaRNyLlNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-51714055483393669202010-01-18T19:22:00.004-06:002010-01-18T19:49:48.047-06:00Scott Brown Wins! Won't He?Since <a href="http://insidemedford.com/2010/01/17/brown-has-96-lead-in-new-poll/">poll</a> after <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31621.html">poll</a> after <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/suffolk-poll-brown-50-coakley-46/">poll</a> continue to show Scott Brown ahead and even way ahead in the Massachusetts senate race against Martha Coakley I figure it's OK to go ahead and call it. This is truly a game changer. <br /><br />The GOP's recent wins in the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/03/2009.elections/index.html">New Jersey and Virginia</a> governors' races could be explained as flukes and/or inconsequential by the Democrats a few months ago. But a loss in Massachusetts, which has not elected a Republican senator in 44 years, will be truly devestating to a Democrat party hell bent on shoving a hardcore-liberal, ideological agenda down the people's throat. And rest assured, they will <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19health.html?hp">shove it down your throat</a>:<blockquote>Even as Democratic leaders pondered contingencies, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, insisted that the legislation would move forward, though she acknowledged that Tuesday’s results could force a tactical shift. <br /><br />“Certainly the dynamic will change depending on what happens in Massachusetts,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters in California on Monday. “Just the question of how we would proceed. But it doesn’t mean we won’t have a health care bill.” <br /><br />“Let’s remove all doubt,” she added. “We will have health care one way or another.” <br /></blockquote>Make no mistake about it, this is not about "changing tactics", its about thwarting the will of the people when liberals can't fool them into going along with the plan. Look forward to these sort of "tactics" in the future, at least up until November, when the midterm elections will unleash a tidal wave of brand new small-government, low-tax conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill.<br /><br />Attention America: You have only one choice this November to avoid a hugely corrupt and coervice Congress; wrest control away from the Democrats by electing competent conservatives in every race on the ballot. Period.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6069867215226478340.post-60609545711903034722010-01-14T23:47:00.006-06:002010-01-15T00:44:34.053-06:00Why Governor Perry Was The Big Loser at Tonight's Debate...And Why I Still Support HimFirst thought, Debra Medina should run for Congress, not for governor.<br /><br />Second thought, I will gladly and happily support Senator Hutchison in a general election. I trust her to make the right decisions.<br /><br />But here's what you really want to know. Why do I declare that the man I support for reelection, Governor Perry, lost the debate? For substance, charisma and stage presence, Governor Perry gets a big fat C-. <br /><br />On far too many occassions Governor Perry looked like the smiling politician he is so good at being. He seemed agitated, arrogant at times and even downright grumpy sometimes. The governor would have served himself well by acting like the successful governor he has been. His stated answer to many of the questions asked and criticisms levied are precisely the reasons I am supporting him; in essence, "Look around." It is simply a fact that Governor Perry has received virtually nothing but accolades across the country for his leadership in making Texas one of the greatest and most desirable places to live and do business in the United States. <br /><br />Ask yourself one question: Whenever you hear or read news accounts of a glimmer of hope in this nation of economic despair, what state and what governor is being interviewed or written about. Only Texas and it's chief executive are held as a model for economic recovery. Period. Here are a few examples I found in literally minutes in a simple google search.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/Texas-Job-Levels-Should-Recover-First-Report-59566262.html">"Texas Job Levels Should Recover First"</a> - NBC/DFW <br /><br /><a href="http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/09/14/daily18.html">"Austin Among Best Performing U.S. Metros"</a> - Austin Business Journal<br /><br /><a href="http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2009/09/14/daily23.html">Texas To Lead Recovery</a> - Buffalo Business First<br /><br /><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/new-economy/2009/0423/which-us-cities-will-recover-first">Lone Star Rebound</a> - Christian Science Monitor<br /><br /><a href="http://agenda.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWJjMzAxNmZlYTE5MDEwNDRlZTI0YmI5YzhhNTk3ZGU=">The Secrets of Texas's Success</a> National Review Online<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/opinion/03douthat.html?_r=1">Blue State Blues</a> - National Review Online<br /><br /><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/26/news/economy/banking_texas/index.htm">"Don't Mess With Texas Banks"</a> - CNN Money<br /><br /><a href="http://sbdcnet.org/sbdcs-in-the-news/texas-ranked-no.-3-state-for-entrepreneurs-2.php">"Texas Ranked No. 3 State For Entrepreneurs"</a> - SBDCNet<br /><br /><a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2009/12/25/shall-we-all-move-to-texas.htm">"Shall We All Move To Texas"</a> - USGovInfo.About.Com<br /><br />You know, it seems to me that if things are so bad here in Texas then someone forgot to send the memo to, well, the rest of the country who seems to be looking to us to lead us out of this recession because of our continuing economic strength. And when they can't wait for their own states to get it right, they vote with their feet and move here instead. <br /><br />One can understand why Governor Perry said tonight, "It really wears me out that we got two people on the stage here that wanna tear Texas down when the fact is everybody understand this is the state you wanna live in. This state is growing by 1,000 people a day and its not because we're over taxin' em, over regulatin' em or over litigatin' em. They're comin' here because they know this is the place to be."<br /><br />I'm getting pretty worn out over that, too, Governor. The cases made by Senator Hutchison and Ms. Medina are unbelievable unless they can explain why Texas has been held up as an economic model for the nation by virtually everyone in the nation except for, well, them and their supporters. Mr. Perry's failure was that he failed to articulate that tonight.<br /><br />Onward to Election Day.Russ Hargraveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03916832772417387661noreply@blogger.com0