Gay Patriot Header Image

Further Attempts to Discredit Tea Party Protests

As the tea party movement gains momentum, many supports of the President (and opponents of free markets) are becoming increasingly agitated, eager to smear, slander and otherwise discredit the movement.

Through e-mail (and in the comments), readers have suggested that the anti-gay AFA’s (American Family Association) backing of some of the protests somehow discredits them.  Well, International Answer, a Communist front organizations spearheaded many of the rallies protesting the Iraq War, that is, it it had greater involvement in those protests than does the AFA in the tea parties.

So by the standards of those faulting gay people for joining in protests sponsored by an anti-gay groups, all those protesting the Iraq War were Communist sympathizers (or closet Commies themselves).  I don’t recall reading about any non-Communist opponents of the Iraq War (and they probably constituted the overwhelming majority of the protesters) refusing to participate because a Communist group sponsored the rallies.

Yeah, I’d rather the AFA not be involved any of the protests.  But, they are one of many sponsoring these rallies against bigger government and higher taxes and for a less intrusive state and more personal freedom. There’s nothing on the sites for the tea parties which even remotely suggests an anti-gay agenda.  I mean, what is anti-gay about protesting “against out of control government spending“?

This is about freedom.  We believe that an ever-increasing federal government means ever greater encroachments on our liberty.

Their attempt to the discredit the movement because of some of its unsavory associations is really just a refusal to acknowledge the growing grassroots movement against the president’s spendthrift policies.  What is it about these partisans that they refuse to take seriously the ideas and motivations of their ideological adversaries?

Why can’t they recognize the sincerity of opponents of big government and the appeal of our ideas?  (Heck, they even tapped into one of our ideas (that of the burdens of deficit spending) when it was a Republican President who was overspending.)

Why would do they attempt to discredit us rather than engage us?

I have asked similar questions before.  And it seems the answer relates to the central narrative of the educated leftist–that his ideological adversaries are nothing more than hateful troglodytes eager to trample upon the rights of women, ethnic minorities and gays in their zeal to create a white Christianist (whatever that is) state.

Share

84 Comments

  1. You’ve got questions, I’ve got answers.

    What is it about these partisans that they refuse to take seriously the ideas and motivations of their ideological adversaries?

    We don’t take you seriously because the last three Presidents to carry the conservative flag expanded the size of government drastically and created soaring deficits every year that they were in office. We don’t take you seriously because you’re hypocrites that excuse big government and big spending when your party is in power, but jump all over the other guys when its their turn. George Bush inherited a budget surplus and ended his Presidency having doubled the deficit — why were there no tea parties then?

    Why can’t they recognize the sincerity of opponents of big government and the appeal of our ideas? (Heck, they even tapped into one of our ideas (that of the burdens of deficit spending) when it was a Republican President who was overspending.)

    Again, no one believes in your sincerity because the conservative movement has given us no reason to. Practicing what you preach is the only way to build real credibility, and you guys have passed on that at every opportunity. It’s exceedingly easy to be out of power and make lofty statements about what you’d be doing and how you’d be doing it, but the real test is when you’re calling the shots. And when the American people gave the conservative movement their opportunity to do that, they set aside pretty much everything they said they would do, and I certainly don’t remember this much protest (or any protest at all – you did re-elect the guy.)

    On top of that, you guys are pretty big jerks.

    Why would do they attempt to discredit us rather than engage us?

    You’ve discredited yourselves.

    Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - April 11, 2009

  2. “Practicing what you preach is the only way to build real credibility, and you guys have passed on that at every opportunity.”

    Now THIS is amusing coming from somebody who I assume voted for Obama… a man who, so far in his presidency, has proved to be literally incapable of practicing even a smidgen of his extensive, bombastic preaching.

    And if we’ve discredited ourselves with the Tea Party protests, your ilk wouldn’t need to be tripping all over themselves, slathering at the mouth trying to spread lies and misinformation about the movement.

    Comment by CH — April 11, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - April 11, 2009

  3. Well Levi, let’s see if we can unpack something real quick.

    You say, “We don’t take you seriously because the last three Presidents to carry the conservative flag expanded the size of government drastically and created soaring deficits every year that they were in office. We don’t take you seriously because you’re hypocrites that excuse big government and big spending when your party is in power, but jump all over the other guys when its their turn.”

    If you were right about conservatives’ lack of a rebuff over this big spending and big gov’t expansion, you’d be right that we’re too hypocritical to require your time. But you’ve conveniently left out the outrage, across the political spectrum, at the crazy spending and expansion of government since the waning months of the Bush Administration. You must remember that being a member of the GOP and being a conservative aren’t necessarily one-and-the-same, and the Republicans saw a great exodus of conservatives during Bush’s years. If someone calls himself a conservative but behaves in a way entirely contradictory to conservatism, he is simply not a conservative.

    If the GOP wants to shape up and actually match the principles and values of the Tea Party movement, they’re more than welcome to join the rallies and LISTEN to us. Otherwise, they can just wait until we vote them out of office in 2010.

    Comment by Kev — April 11, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - April 11, 2009

  4. By “Re-elect” the guy, I’m assuming you mean W. He probably wouldn’t have been re-elected if the democrats ran someone that wasn’t so quick to insult our military during war-time. Oh, and Rathergate! That was good stuff.

    And we’re the only hypocrites around, right? Maybe we should dig up Moveon.org ads that were critical of Bush’s deficit spending! Here’s some facts for you: Bush had a budget surplus in 2001. Only problem: 9/11! His deficit spending was on the decline, returning us to a potential surplus until our current recession, with the bailouts. Which, I might add, the democrats were all too eager to craft.

    Now we’re going further into the hole faster than ever, and you wonder why conservatives are rallying since we’ve been ‘discredited.’ Here’s why:

    1: Our elected officials are NOT us.
    2: Deficit spending, during war, is acceptable to us, as long as an end is in sight. Obama definitely gives no end to the deficit: His major talking point is ‘cutting the budget deficit in half” which, when the time comes, he will not do. And, if he DOES stick to his guns (unlikely) and cut spending? IT STARTS GROWING AGAIN.
    3: He takes a stance on terrorism that is dangerous in our eyes. The people that he wants to reach out are NOT compassionate to non-believers. If they had their way, they would rule the world. The biggest obstacle is the USA.
    4: We see HUGE problems when government runs things. The last thing we want is our health to be in their hands. PERIOD. If you thought the bungling of Katrina was bad, wait till you have to see a doctor under Universal health care!

    I could go on, but I’m not going to write a book on a comment section. 😀

    Comment by Cheesecake — April 11, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - April 11, 2009

  5. Kev said –
    “You must remember that being a member of the GOP and being a conservative aren’t necessarily one-and-the-same, and the Republicans saw a great exodus of conservatives during Bush’s years.”

    This is exactly right and in my opinion why Obama won the election. The perfect storm ensued with some Repubs, ALL liberals and minorities and other voting for Obama, also I agree with the point of the article in that we need to support the cause of liberty, not bicker over social-issue organizations that happen to tag along!

    Comment by Left Coast Rebel — April 11, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - April 11, 2009

  6. Levi,

    Your comment is simply ignorant ranting that is contradicted by the facts.

    Presidents CANNOT expand the size of government other than their own White House Staff. Congress determines the size of the federal government. A president can only approve or veto what Congress passes as law.

    Democrats controlled congress throughout both Reagan and Bush Sr.’s terms and the growth in government, outside the military, was ALWAYS instigated by them.

    Growth in government under George W Bush came in the form of:

    1. the prescription drug benefit, which has from the beginning been a Democrat proposal, which they had managed to convince the American people to support, and which George Bush supported because the American people overwhelmingly supported it. Democrats complained that Bush wasnt spending enough, and their proposal would have spent billions more

    2. The Department of Homeland Security. This was a Democrat proposal that President Bush and the majority of Republicans OPPOSED. But Democrats, their special interests, used the harpy liberal widows to whip up public support in the panic stricken period immediately after the attacks until they were able to pressure a minority of Republicans and Bush into supporting it.

    They STILL complained that the final bill didn’t spend enough, and they wanted to spend tens of billions more searching cargo containers that were already HERE.

    That’s not making excuses, that’s acknowledging reality.

    There are some basic facts, which your simple-minded argument ignores:

    1. No matter WHAT Republicans did from 2000-2006, from prescription drugs to No Child Left Behind, to the Dept of Homeland Security, to wasteful Katrina spending — no matter what it was Democrats ALWAYS complained that Republicans werent spending enough and proposed spending billions upon billions more. They even complained Bush wasnt spending enough on the War before they treacherously decided to start opposing the war they voted for for their own political gain.

    2. The surplus we had was BECAUSE Republicans controlled congress and forced Clinton into it, even over his veto and his shutting down the government. Democrats Had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with balancing the budget or the surplus it created.

    3. When Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, they were on track to balance the budget again by 2010.

    but DEMOCRATS took control of congress in January 2007 and immediately TRIPLED the deficit in their first budget! (FY 2008)

    The truth is that not all Republicans have credibility on fiscal responsibility — namely the RINOs who joined with Democrats to approve massive new entitlements and bad policy.

    But the fact also remains that NO Democrats have ANY credibility whatsoever when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

    Democrats ran for election promising fiscal responsibility and “pay as you go” and the second they got power they tripled the deficit that WAS on track to be gone by 2010.

    Now that they have won the presidency, again, promising fiscal responsibility, they have in two and half months spent more than President Bush in his entire 8 years, and every other president in American history combined…in just two and half MONTHS!

    When Republicans, Bush, and Alan Greenspan warned over 25 times, over a period of 6 years of the coming financial disaster if we did not reform Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, Democrats lied and said there was no problem in order to protect their socialist lending programs and their corrupt campaign contributions.

    In total, Barack Obama and Democrats have spent, and committed to spend over 12 TRILLION DOLLARS.

    Seriously, you have absolutely NO f*cking credibility WHATSOEVER.

    Consider yourself schooled.

    Comment by American Elephant — April 11, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - April 11, 2009

  7. GPW,.

    I’m not familiar with the AFA. How are they “anti-gay”?

    Comment by American Elephant — April 11, 2009 @ 9:17 pm - April 11, 2009

  8. In the spirit of engagement lets look at the 12 points of the tea party:
    1) tax cuts, 2) tax cuts, 3) tax cuts 4) tax credit insentives 5)control gov’t spending, meaning, no earmarks (good luck even getting elected republicans on board) 6) No money for states without fraud protection. How about Fraud of companies like halliburton in Iraq? 7) More American Energy. (Drill here, drill now, but no mention of solar or wind power? What could be more American that producing your own power? oh, thats right, a big energy company selling it to me) 8)Tax elimination on capitol gains. 9) Protect the rights of American workers. (by not making it any easier to unionize and not a peep about keeping jobs in America for said workers?)10) Replace Sarbanes Oxley (WITH WHAT, EXACTLY?) 11) Eliminate the Death Tax (Another tax cut/elimination. And 12) this is where it gets funny:

    12) Invest in energy and transportation infrastructure? (Tax cut and spend? Just like Bush 43. Aside from the socialism involved in transportation and energy grid spending. You have to SPEND to do it. I guess this happens after we cut all the taxes, balance the budget and harness the energy of magical unicorns.)

    So there you have it. Most, if not all, are republican talking points. Good luck growing this movement, when it was voted down in earnest last November.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - April 11, 2009

  9. Oh… the big Clinton Surplus story, once again. Typical of the libs, they like to throw around lies, that if they repeat enough… it will become the ironclad truth.

    Do a simple Google search on Clinton and the lie of surplus. Check the National Debt over the years he was in office. Look up public debt and intergovernmental debt (big hint there, lib).

    Smoke and mirrors, is all the Clinton left surplus load of manure, is built on. Put that in your pipe, Levi.

    Comment by BDJ — April 11, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - April 11, 2009

  10. The attempts to smear and discredit the Tea Parties just shows how nervous they make the left.

    Chuck in Delaware is plainly horrified at the thought of American energy independence, workers retaining the right to vote via secret ballot, ending earmarks, reducing government fraud, and giving people more economic freedom. Obviously, the organizers are doing something right to get the left this agitated.

    Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 9:43 pm - April 11, 2009

  11. Tax cuts are government spending, Chuck; they simply involve leaving money in the hands of the people who earn it, rather than taking it away and giving it to those who don’t.

    Meanwhile, if you want solar and wind energy, knock yourself out. Build all the solar panels and wind farms you want. After all, since you and your fellow Obama Party members insist that it’s cheaper and more efficient, you should be able to do so and put the big energy companies out of business.

    Furthermore, you confuse intelligent investment with socialism. In your Obama utopia, you hand out welfare checks. In our intelligent investment system, you build roads and electrical grids and let businesses exploit those to produce new products and create new jobs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - April 11, 2009

  12. True conservatives do indeed oppose out-of-control government spending and it was the GOP’s refusal to adhere to that principle that caused many conservatives to stay home in the last congressional elections. We often vote for Republicans because they are the only alternative to the even worse Democrats. The fact that Bush was not a fiscal conservative doesn’t mean, Levi, that we are now going to support and out-and-out socialist or refrain from opposing him or criticizing him.

    And who the “jerks” are is a matter of opinion.

    Comment by Stogie — April 11, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - April 11, 2009

  13. If you were right about conservatives’ lack of a rebuff over this big spending and big gov’t expansion, you’d be right that we’re too hypocritical to require your time. But you’ve conveniently left out the outrage, across the political spectrum, at the crazy spending and expansion of government since the waning months of the Bush Administration. You must remember that being a member of the GOP and being a conservative aren’t necessarily one-and-the-same, and the Republicans saw a great exodus of conservatives during Bush’s years. If someone calls himself a conservative but behaves in a way entirely contradictory to conservatism, he is simply not a conservative.

    If the GOP wants to shape up and actually match the principles and values of the Tea Party movement, they’re more than welcome to join the rallies and LISTEN to us. Otherwise, they can just wait until we vote them out of office in 2010.

    I know, I know. The common refrain you hear around places like this is that from the get-go, small government, fiscally responsible conservatives were very critical of the Bush administration. That’s just not how I remember it. What I remember was a movement-wide effort to lionize George Bush as some extraordinary military leader, an economic genius, the next Reagan, etc. Five years ago, I was arguing that George Bush wasn’t a conservative to conservatives, and they’d vigorously defend him. A movement genuinely critical of President Bush wouldn’t have shouted ‘BDS! BDS!’ at every opportunity.

    Funny how leading your party into a meatgrinder at the polls changes things. The conservative movement of the past decade has placed winning above all else, especially the party platform. The second the current crop of guys stops winning and the disastrous consequences of their boneheaded policies start to manifest, you guys cut them loose. It’s reactionary political survival and it’s understandable, but most people can see right through it.

    Even with Bush gone, him and some of his least conservative policies (war in Iraq, torture, warrantless wiretapping) are still actively defended in conservative circles. Ron Paul couldn’t even get out of the starting gate because of the positions, truly conservative ones, on those issues. If the tea party movement doesn’t evolve past shouting into the street about taxes and spending, you’re still just a bunch of Republicans with sour grapes about having all of your power stripped away.

    Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - April 11, 2009

  14. building roads and electrical grids for the good of the “commons” is socialist. From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

    Socialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods.

    A road is a method of distribution of goods, built and managed by the governement.

    And no, I am not horrified at American energy independence. I am a supporter of the Pickens Plan. I just found it puzzling that it was omitted (solar and wind). The Pickens Plan has both drill here, drill now, and solar and wind, among others. With him its ALL on the table for discussion. Nor am I agitated, I appreciate the debate.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - April 11, 2009

  15. HALLIBURTON!!!!

    /rolleyes

    1. Government is probably the only thing with the resources to build roads for general transit.
    2. People know far better how to use their money efficiently. Even the ones that are awful with money do better than our government. This is why we favor tax cuts.
    3. I, for one, would MUCH rather have the energy resources we have be available, without governmental road blocks. Oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Get government out of the way already!
    4. Solar and Wind are inefficient. By the time the fuels we currently use are running out, these techs will have been refined to a point where we can transition easily. Forcing the transition early is only going to hamstring us.
    5. If the people wanted to unionize, then they would EASILY be able to do it under the current system with the secret ballot. Problem is…. they don’t want to! Card check would just allow union people to harass workers until they signed a card stating they want a union, whether they do or not. Is this really free choice? No. Grow some common sense. A secret ballot IS FREE CHOICE.

    I have a question: What is wrong with people keeping their money? They earned it.

    Comment by Cheesecake — April 11, 2009 @ 10:04 pm - April 11, 2009

  16. The attempts to smear and discredit the Tea Parties just shows how nervous they make the left.

    Has a liberal ever told you that they were nervous about your tea parties? You guys have been swept in the past two election cycles, we have incredibly comfortable leads in the House and Senate, the nation’s demographics are trending away from the Republican party, you have no apparent national leader nor viable Presidential candidate to run in 2012, and polling shows that Democrats are incredibly more popular than Republicans across the party. And you think we’re nervous about your little tea parties?

    Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 10:06 pm - April 11, 2009

  17. Uhm, there are privatized roads here already. Ever heard of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel? Paid for, owned and maintained by a private company. It costs 12.00 to drive on it, each way. There is also talk of private companies leasing public roads. They will maintain them, and you have to pay to drive on them.

    I am ambivilant about the card check secret ballot thing.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - April 11, 2009

  18. Levi-

    I prefer that you be overconfident but I must remind you that things change. If not nervous why all the attempts to diminish the tea parties?

    Comment by j — April 11, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - April 11, 2009

  19. Yup, Levi, because you didn’t expect people to react so negatively to your plans to take away the money they earned and hand it over to welfare recipients who refuse to work.

    Add to that the fact that the Obama Party demands that others pay taxes but insists that its leaders like Obama, Rangel, Daschle, Stark, Solis, Sebelius, Geithner, and others don’t have to pay taxes exposes you as the complete and total hypocrites you are.

    How do you think your support of these tax cheats is going to play when your Obama raises taxes, as he has openly stated he plans to do?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 10:16 pm - April 11, 2009

  20. RE: I am ambivilant about the card check secret ballot thing.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 10:11 pm – April 11, 2009

    Pretty easy. The unions want to know who they can lean on in an election. They will spin it but there is no reason to know a workers vote just as their is no reason for you or anyone else to know my vote for President, Mayor or whatever.

    Comment by j — April 11, 2009 @ 10:16 pm - April 11, 2009

  21. How ironic to say, get government out of the way and nuclear. The Federal gov’t insures ALL nuclear reactors starting in 1957. Why? Because nuclear power companies could not find anyone else to write a policy to cover them.

    Socialism strikes again.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - April 11, 2009

  22. For goodness sake, can government…….Federal, State and Local….control their spending, their payrolls? Government that promises to provide us with all that we need to sustain ourselves, provides only with a false promise.

    Comment by Swampfox — April 11, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - April 11, 2009

  23. 4. Solar and Wind are inefficient. By the time the fuels we currently use are running out, these techs will have been refined to a point where we can transition easily. Forcing the transition early is only going to hamstring us.

    I’d like to know more about this, if you’re still around. Everything I’ve ever been taught was that if you’re dealing with a finite amount of resources, like time for a homework assignment, that you’re better off if you prepare, and plan ahead, and are forward-thinking. But for oil and an oil-based economy, you’re saying the opposite is true? It’s better to wait until the very last minute to start thinking about what to do next? That doesn’t make sense to me.

    If we had started doing something about energy the last time we got hit by an oil crisis in the 1970s, you don’t think we’d be in a lot better shape today? Isn’t it intuitive that the longer you wait to take action on a pressing issue, the more difficult finding a solution becomes? The more expensive it becomes? What’s the point of having a government at all if we’re just going to ignore the big-picture problems that government was designed to address in the first place? To save some oil companies a couple of bucks? So our environment can continue to degrade? So Middle Easterners can get money to funnel to terrorists?

    Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 10:19 pm - April 11, 2009

  24. Chuck

    interesting that you failed to mention that the first 10 billion of liability protection is actually funded by the nuclear industry and not by the govt. the govt picks up after that.

    Comment by j — April 11, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - April 11, 2009

  25. Yup, Levi, because you didn’t expect people to react so negatively to your plans to take away the money they earned and hand it over to welfare recipients who refuse to work.

    You’re wrong about that. I expected some form of ridiculous, over-the-top, pointless Republican fury, that’s kind of what you guys are good at. I didn’t know it would be this ridiculous, of course, so thanks for bringing the craziness to new heights.

    Add to that the fact that the Obama Party demands that others pay taxes but insists that its leaders like Obama, Rangel, Daschle, Stark, Solis, Sebelius, Geithner, and others don’t have to pay taxes exposes you as the complete and total hypocrites you are.

    How do you think your support of these tax cheats is going to play when your Obama raises taxes, as he has openly stated he plans to do?

    I voted for Obama, but I can hardly say that I support much of what he’s been doing in office, including appointing an obvious tax cheat like Tim Geithner to the Treasury Department. As for your tax question, mine are being lowered, as are yours, unless you’re pulling in a quarter million a year. Are you making that much?

    Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - April 11, 2009

  26. Heritage.org:

    “Consider what happened the three times this country enjoyed significant tax rate reductions:

    * 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928.3
    * 1960s: President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In the ensuing three years, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise by 57 percent, and their share of the tax burden climbed from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.4
    * 1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988.5 “

    Comment by j — April 11, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - April 11, 2009

  27. I have a question: What is wrong with people keeping their money? They earned it.

    People like Chuck and Levi think the government can always spend people’s money in better way then they would.

    Never mind that recently, in Hawaii, a group of volunteers fixed a road in eight days at negligible cost… a road the state said would take two years and $4 million to fix.

    And yet Chuck and Levi state, with apparently straight faces, that only the state is capable of handling the building of infrastructure. And that the state uses money more wisely and responsibly than we poor stupid peasants would.

    Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 10:47 pm - April 11, 2009

  28. Actually, Levi, your taxes haven’t gone down at all. What’s happening is that the government is taking less out of your paycheck now and simply adding it to your bill at the end of the year. You could have accomplished the same thing by changing your deductions — a fact which the Obama Party regularly lies about.

    Furthermore, if you’re a tobacco user, Obama has already nearly tripled your taxes. Interestingly enough, Obama Party members used to complain that taxes on tobacco were regressive and harmful to the poor and minorities; I guess they don’t care about that now.

    In addition, my taxes have gone up because the Obama Party, in its attempt to undo the damage it’s done to this state, have already increased our sales tax a penny per dollar, and are adding a surcharge to our income tax. And I’m sure when Obama comes along with his gasoline tax, you and your fellow Obama Party shills will still whine that he’s cutting taxes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - April 11, 2009

  29. Apparently, Sully is not on board. Even though I’m a bit ambivalent that any good will come from this, me and the Sonic-Mate will be at the Fresno TP on the 15th.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — April 11, 2009 @ 10:50 pm - April 11, 2009

  30. I voted for Obama, but I can hardly say that I support much of what he’s been doing in office, including appointing an obvious tax cheat like Tim Geithner to the Treasury Department.

    Of course you do. If you didn’t, you would be criticizing him for doing it. But as we’ve already seen, you aren’t capable of criticizing Obama or saying that anything he does is wrong, just as you proved when you babbled and whined and insisted that Obama keeping Bush’s “torture”, “extraordinary rendition”, and “state secrets” policies were OK.

    Poor little shill. Maybe we’ll give you an out and let you insist that Obama lied to you, even though we’re quite aware of the fact that Obama said he would do all of these things you’re now backpedaling about during the campaign.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 10:51 pm - April 11, 2009

  31. Good luck growing this movement, when it was voted down in earnest last November.

    Oh, I didn’t realize the American people voted for a $2 TRILLION deficit.

    And Levi shows us exactly what makes him the laughable buffoon that he is and why nobody takes him seriously. To whit:

    We don’t take you seriously because the last three Presidents to carry the conservative flag expanded the size of government drastically and created soaring deficits every year that they were in office.

    And Reagan put the largest economic boom in American history into motion. That’s why we weren’t ruined with the the hillbilly’s massive tax increases making ignorant wretch liberals believe that robbing people of their money is the way to go.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 11, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - April 11, 2009

  32. But as we’ve already seen, you aren’t capable of criticizing Obama or saying that anything he does is wrong, just as you proved when you babbled and whined and insisted that Obama keeping Bush’s “torture”, “extraordinary rendition”, and “state secrets” policies were OK.

    You’re just not worth responding to until you show me where I said that it was OK for Obama to keep doing those things. I specifically believe that it is not OK, I don’t want him to do those things, and I feel totally betrayed and let down that he is, not to say that it wasn’t expected.

    So pony up. Where did I say what you’re saying I said?

    Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 11:03 pm - April 11, 2009

  33. Furthermore, when Levi screams about “soaring” deficits, but babbles that Obama’s deficits that are five times the size are good, what should be obvious to anyone is that Levi is little more than a hypocritical shill who supports and endorses everything that Obama does.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 11:03 pm - April 11, 2009

  34. I specifically believe that it is not OK, I don’t want him to do those things, and I feel totally betrayed and let down that he is, not to say that it wasn’t expected.

    Liar. If you honestly believed that, you’d be calling for Obama to be impeached and tried for war crimes. But instead, you sit here blabbering about how Obama is good, how everything he does is good, and how anyone who opposes him is just a bitter, clingy racist.

    Put your money where your mouth is, shill, and demand Obama be impeached and tried for war crimes — especially since you ADMIT that Obama is doing exactly what you criticized Bush for doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 11:05 pm - April 11, 2009

  35. And this, THIS is even better.

    not to say that it wasn’t expected.

    Oh really? So all of you who were screaming about how Obama would be “different” and all that “hope and change” crap were just lying through your teeth — and you were lying to the American voter?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - April 11, 2009

  36. “And yet Chuck and Levi state, with apparently straight faces, that only the state is capable of handling the building of infrastructure. And that the state uses money more wisely and responsibly than we poor stupid peasants would.”

    I said nothing of the sort. I posted on #14 about the private Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel. If you think roads are expensive and inefficent, try adding 6% profit on top of the raw costs of labor, materials and equipment. And Toll booths every few miles. Railroad tracks for example are owned and maintained by RR companies and charge other frieght haulers to use their tracks. But even they get gauranteed loans from the Fed gov’t under the guise of infrastructure.

    As for the “4 million dollar road repar” It was actually 200k worth of work for the road, the rest was for other park improvements. 20 companies, 40 volunteers (including a few parasitic state workers) to repair an access road and bridge to that evil socialist thing called Polihale State Park. As per the KGBM9 website.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 11:13 pm - April 11, 2009

  37. If you think roads are expensive and inefficent, try adding 6% profit on top of the raw costs of labor, materials and equipment. And Toll booths every few miles.

    Or you could simply hide that cost like the government does — in the tax on gasoline.

    What you’re doing is a typical Obama Party maneuver; you leave out all sorts of expenses and fees that the government charges to argue that privatization is a bad idea.

    The simple fact of the matter is that government has zero incentive to do things right, because it will never lose money; instead, it just uses its power to take more of it from the taxpayer. Private companies don’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 11:22 pm - April 11, 2009

  38. “Good luck growing this movement, when it was voted down in earnest last November.”

    Sure dude which means technically this TEA party movement could have 48 million followers! OBTW the movement is NOT just Republicans/Conservatives it is also Democrats this PARTY is about the government bailing out businesses that should have just FAILED. I know you little leftist’s want to make this a right or left thing BUT WE WON’T LET YOU…..this is an American thing!

    Comment by Jaded — April 11, 2009 @ 11:38 pm - April 11, 2009

  39. I am not arguing that privatization is a bad idea. I happen to like the chesapeake bay bridge tunnel. I use it a couple of times a year.

    How would private roads be paid for? Toll booths? Sections of roads going up for sale, people would own these sections and could charge whatever they wanted? What about rural areas? I am not being snarky, I am interested to know how this model works. I am speaking about large scale. We already have private roads in subdivisions, paid for by a association fee (tax).

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 11:48 pm - April 11, 2009

  40. Ok, so Levi’s gone from ‘giving President Obama a chance’ to ‘Horrified’. Is that like being ‘Shocked’ in Cassablanca?

    Surely Levi is just waiting for the courts to declare the tea parties a threat, after all he’s said that ‘some parts of the constitution are more important than others’ so what’s banning a little assembly and free speech?

    Then again, for all of President Bush’s faults, and idealism, he did keep us safe from threats, foreign and domestic. President Obama can’t even claim that.

    Unlike Levi’s Iraq conspiracy theories, President Obama’s associations with terrorists is well known and documented.

    I read that one of the reasons the left is so scared of the tea parties, is that they’re spontanious (something the left’s not good with) they’re grass roots (ditto) and they’re co-opting the left’s protest schtick. It’s new and uncontrolled, and, like most top down facist groups, they belive what is uncontrolled is to be destroyed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2009 @ 12:17 am - April 12, 2009

  41. I like how the comment thread *almost* dealt with the lie that the left is somehow “afraid” of the tea parties and then quickly ran away from it. It’s right up there with the left being “afraid” of Sarah Palin, the left being “afraid” of conservative ideas, and the left being “afraid ” of democracy (watching the GOP challenge as many ballots as possible in NY-20 shows who hates democracy). The left is laughing at the tea parties (since all Obama has done is lower taxes on the middle class) but the only thing the left is afraid of is getting milk up their nose during the laughing, I think.
    I can’t wait until the tea parties get more non-Fox time. “Stop Obama from raising taxes on the 250k set! We demand it!” That should go over well. Can you all keep repeating that in 2010? It ought to help lock up the midterms. Or, and keep listing out the GOP prescription for how to handle a recession: cut the estate tax for millionaires, lower capital gains taxes, and lower taxes on the wealthy. Keep reciting that, and the Ds can cut their campaign budget even more.

    Comment by torrentprime — April 12, 2009 @ 12:52 am - April 12, 2009

  42. Then again, for all of President Bush’s faults, and idealism, he did keep us safe from threats, foreign and domestic.
    Which president did 9/11 happen under, again?

    I read that one of the reasons the left is so scared of the tea parties, is that they’re spontanious (something the left’s not good with) they’re grass roots (ditto) and they’re co-opting the left’s protest schtick.
    Yes, the Obama for America team that put Indiana in the blue column clearly has no idea about grass roots activism. /eyeroll
    Were you even watching the last election? Ever read 538.com? The coverage of the ground-up, yes spontaneous, yes grass-roots, yes protest organizations that took Obama to the White House was exactly what you described.

    Comment by torrentprime — April 12, 2009 @ 12:56 am - April 12, 2009

  43. Torrentprime: exactly how do u arrive at this conclusion where you say “…..since all Obama has done is lower taxes on the middle class”?

    Do tell.

    Comment by bear1909 — April 12, 2009 @ 1:19 am - April 12, 2009

  44. Hey Levi,

    Still waiting for you to respond to having your ridiculous Clinton Surplus spin.

    Comment by BDJ — April 12, 2009 @ 2:20 am - April 12, 2009

  45. Levi, since you’ve commented to my blog, please identify where I’ve, to borrow your expression, excused “big government and big spending” when my party was in power. Go read a few conservative blogs, check their archives, see how upset we are with the GOP for not holding the line on spending.

    And go back and look what Reagan did in the White House. He held the line on spending, but had to contend with a Democratic Congress. Recall the House was controlled by Democrats for all eight years he was in power.

    And what party controlled Congress when we finally mustered a surplus? I’ll give you a clue, it’s not the party that controls Congress today.

    Oh, and this, that you call us “pretty big jerks.” Your name-calling really becomes you. Are you trying to prove my point? ‘Cause you just did. You guys aren’t interested in engaging us, but antagonizing us.

    Chuck in Del in #8, was this movement voted down in earnest last November. Please remind me which candidate promised a “net spending cut”? That’s what we who will be rallying favor, a “net spending cut,” same thing that last fall’s electoral winner campaigned on. (Just google the expression; I’m tired of providing the link.)

    And Levi, if you’re so nervous about the tea parties, why do they get you so upset? Why are you so eager to discredit them?

    Chuck, as to infrastructure, fine, let’s spend on infrastructure, but not on the various payoffs to Democratic interest groups. And let’s repair our electric grids, but let’s make sure environmental groups don’t try to block those upgrades. Will the president stand up to their demands?

    (After posting these two last posts, I did not check the web for several hours. I made a private prediction that the Obamania one would draw more comments. I was wrong. So, I guess there in more energy right now in the tea party movement, defending them on the right and discrediting them on the left.)

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 12, 2009 @ 2:42 am - April 12, 2009

  46. […] It seems that some defenders of the president seem to think he won a mandate to increase domestic spending at an exorbitant pace. So much so that one of our readers contended that the tea party movement “was voted down in earnest last November.“ […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » In Campaign, Obama Promised “Net Spending Cut” — April 12, 2009 @ 3:27 am - April 12, 2009

  47. Levi, since you’ve commented to my blog, please identify where I’ve, to borrow your expression, excused “big government and big spending” when my party was in power. Go read a few conservative blogs, check their archives, see how upset we are with the GOP for not holding the line on spending.

    I’ve been reading conservative blogs for years, thanks. Collectively, you only mustered up the courage to mildly disagree with Bush towards the very end, after it became apparent that he had ruined your party for the next couple of election cycles at least.I’m sure you can find some scattered grumbling out there somewhere, but that’s the extreme exception.

    And besides, Bush betrayed a number of other conservative principles by invading Iraq, authorizing torture, and instituting a broad, warrant-less domestic spying program, each of which was greeted by his base with increasingly fevered enthusiasm. You would have thought those items had been in the platform for years the way you guys gobbled it up. There’s more to being a conservative than yelling about spending, don’t ya know.

    And go back and look what Reagan did in the White House. He held the line on spending, but had to contend with a Democratic Congress. Recall the House was controlled by Democrats for all eight years he was in power.

    Before my time. Both parties have changed a lot since then, anyway.

    And what party controlled Congress when we finally mustered a surplus? I’ll give you a clue, it’s not the party that controls Congress today.

    And as soon as they got a President of their own party – all that fiscal discipline went out the window, didn’t it?

    Oh, and this, that you call us “pretty big jerks.” Your name-calling really becomes you. Are you trying to prove my point? ‘Cause you just did. You guys aren’t interested in engaging us, but antagonizing us.

    I engaged you just fine, it’s happening again right now. Don’t get hung up on a little grammar school taunt, you guys are way too predictably defensive.

    And Levi, if you’re so nervous about the tea parties, why do they get you so upset? Why are you so eager to discredit them?

    I assume you meant to say ‘if you’re not nervous about the tea parties?’ Anyway, I don’t get upset, I think it’s hilarious — I really do. I could watch conservatives screaming into the street all day.

    I don’t need to discredit you or the tea parties, you guys have done that already. You’re starting at a credibility deficit, that’s what happens when you’re swept out of power. You guys need to earn back your credibility, and let me clue you in – it’s going to take more than some coordinated protesting.

    Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 3:39 am - April 12, 2009

  48. Wrong, Levi, I started reading conservative blogs in 2003. And as far back as then, they were criticizing W for his spending habits. I recall numerous editorials to that end in the Wall Street Journal.

    And no, Bush did not betray conservatives principles by protecting our nation’s security and helping enforce international agreements.

    I agree with you that in the 2000s, fiscal discipline went out the window for the GOP (as you put it). And as I’ve said as far back as 2006, that’s why we’re not faring so well with the voters.

    My grammar school taunt? Who’s calling whom a “pretty big jerk.” Ain’t me.

    Credibility deficit? Um, Levi, these parties aren’t being organized by the GOP. They’re being organized by people across the country. Many of these people had been faulting the GOP for its spending habits for at least the last five years. And wouldn’t you say that a candidate who campaigned on a “net spending cut,” but delivered a “severe spending explosion” has a credibility problem of his own?

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 12, 2009 @ 3:52 am - April 12, 2009

  49. Give it a rest, Levi. You’re a fraud. Nobody’s impressed by the “warrantless domestic spying”, “torture” etc. liberal lying points anymore. You only gave a damn about it because Bush used it. You don’t give a damn about it now that your dear Il Douche is at the wheel. If you did care, you’d be calling for his impeachment just like you did for Bush. Just STFU already. You’re a fraud.

    As per the KGBM9 website.

    I believe that’s KGMB. Freudian slip?

    (watching the GOP challenge as many ballots as possible in NY-20 shows who hates democracy).

    Watching the liberals demand throwing out the military votes here as they did in 2000 shows who hates democracy. Watching the liberals resurrect thei necro-proxies shows who hates democracy. Watching the liberals amzingly find ballots conveniently hidden in the trunk of a car shows who hates democracy. Liberals displaying their contempt for election laws (Florida 2000, NJ 2002 etc.) shows who hates democracy. Watching the liberals putsch to do away with secret ballots shows who hates democracy.

    Or, and keep listing out the GOP prescription for how to handle a recession: cut the estate tax for millionaires, lower capital gains taxes, and lower taxes on the wealthy.

    Can you name one poor person who has employed you? Wouldn’t you rather that money go towards hiring people or being spent in our economy rather than going into the pockets of those who spent millions getting Il Douche elected?

    Remember all those stories, liberals love to hate, about the Goldman Sachs holiday bonuses? Those bonuses were always spent on investments, cars, houses etc. (economic stimulus). Where’s the stimulus of paying off Chairman Obama’s cronies?

    Money flows like water, toward the path of least resistence. Why would you want to throw dams up in it’s path? If you put more taxes on corporations, they’re just going to move to countries where there’s less taxes and take their jobs with them. Do you support shifting more jobs to Dubai, Mumbai, Bangkok, etc.? Where’s the incentive for companies to stay?

    Where’s the incentive for foreign companies to open up shop here and provide more jobs?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2009 @ 6:44 am - April 12, 2009

  50. The left is laughing at the tea parties (since all Obama has done is lower taxes on the middle class)

    Oooh! An extra $8/wk on my paycheck for a few months. “I can finally build that lake house and I’ll run around naked all day! HAHA! Dangly parts.”

    http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=d1d3004186a364b003f020a1801b8307

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2009 @ 6:55 am - April 12, 2009

  51. GPW, perhaps its time to revisit the Washington Post charts comparing W’s deficits to the deficits of Chairman Zero and the Obamacrat Congress. Deficits had been declining rapidly in Bush’s second term, only to spike as soon as the Obamacrats took over Congress (quadrupling the first year), then sky-rocketing as soon as Dear Teleprompter was inaugurated.

    Now, that’s an Inconvenient Truth

    Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 8:16 am - April 12, 2009

  52. Oh, and also, the Teleprompter-in-Chief’s Tax-Cheat Treasury Secretary now wants to regulate the risk out of the venture capital industry, what a great way to strangle economic growth in the cradle, eh? Or, are Geither and the jug-eared Marxist Messiah too stupid to realize that risk is inherent in venture capital?

    Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 8:25 am - April 12, 2009

  53. Wrong, Levi, I started reading conservative blogs in 2003. And as far back as then, they were criticizing W for his spending habits. I recall numerous editorials to that end in the Wall Street Journal.

    Like I said, I’m sure you can find a few token examples if you look hard enough. But to say that conservative criticism of Bush was everywhere, for his spending or anything else, is about as revisionist as it gets.

    And no, Bush did not betray conservatives principles by protecting our nation’s security and helping enforce international agreements.

    See, that’s what I’m talking about right there. You guys can yell at your tea parties until you’re blue in the face, it’s not going to do you any good until you start honestly re-evaluating the positions you’ve been defending for the past 8 years. That you’re still applauding Bush for ‘protecting our nation’s security’ when it’s been repeatedly verified that Iraq posed absolutely no threat says a lot about how much work you need to do before you’re coherent and credible again. And when you’re devoting entire blog posts to blaming President Obama for a hostage situation but refuse to even process the idea that Bush failed to ‘protect our nation’s security’ on 9-11, you’re kind of just a parody of an ideology.

    I agree with you that in the 2000s, fiscal discipline went out the window for the GOP (as you put it). And as I’ve said as far back as 2006, that’s why we’re not faring so well with the voters.

    That might have dampened enthusiasm on your side, but people didn’t vote for you because they didn’t like your policies or politics.

    My grammar school taunt? Who’s calling whom a “pretty big jerk.” Ain’t me.

    I never said you taunted me. Just let it slide man, like I do.

    Credibility deficit? Um, Levi, these parties aren’t being organized by the GOP. They’re being organized by people across the country. Many of these people had been faulting the GOP for its spending habits for at least the last five years. And wouldn’t you say that a candidate who campaigned on a “net spending cut,” but delivered a “severe spending explosion” has a credibility problem of his own?

    You say tomato, I say tomato. It’s all the same – their eroded credibility is your eroded credibility. I didn’t see enough internal dissent, I still don’t, to warrant making distinctions between the conservative movement and the Republican party.

    As for Obama’s campaign promises on spending, well I guess I missed that one. I wouldn’t want to hold him to that anyway, the idea that a new President should inherit all of the problems that he inherited and freeze spending is utterly ridiculous. Bush and the Republicans spent enormous amounts of money creating these problems, and you expect the guy that’s coming in to clean up after them to do be able to do that on a shoestring budget?

    Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 9:26 am - April 12, 2009

  54. And there you have it. Levi won’t condemn Obama’s continuation of the same (correct) policies of the Bush admin on non-state actors. He won’t explain why Sarah Palin is ‘an idiot’ but President Obama isn’t. And now he won’t condemn deficits skyrocketing under President Obama, but going down under President Bush.

    Must be sad, to blindly defend a party like that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2009 @ 9:58 am - April 12, 2009

  55. And there you have it. Levi won’t condemn Obama’s continuation of the same (correct) policies of the Bush admin on non-state actors. He won’t explain why Sarah Palin is ‘an idiot’ but President Obama isn’t. And now he won’t condemn deficits skyrocketing under President Obama, but going down under President Bush.

    Must be sad, to blindly defend a party like that.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

    I’ve repeatedly condemned Obama for his power grabs.

    I’ve explained why Sarah Palin is an idiot.

    I actually want Obama to be spending money.

    What are you not getting here?

    Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 10:10 am - April 12, 2009

  56. Some of the comments imply a confusion of the deficit with the national debt. Just a reminder.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 12, 2009 @ 10:31 am - April 12, 2009

  57. Yes, the Obama for America team that put Indiana in the blue column clearly has no idea about grass roots activism. /eyeroll

    No, just about voter fraud.

    This isn’t atypical, though; leftists like torrentprime see nothing wrong with the fact that Obama Party strongholds have more voters registered than they have people actually eligible to vote there.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 11:33 am - April 12, 2009

  58. I’ve repeatedly condemned Obama for his power grabs.

    Liar. Since you demanded Bush be impeached and tried for war crimes, you should demand the same for Obama for doing what you yourself admit is the same as Bush.

    Furthermore, given how you shrieked about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and how that proved he was an ignorant idiot, you should admit publicly that Obama is an ignorant fool and idiot for appointing and endorsing the tax cheats Geithner, Solis, Sebelius, Daschle, Rangel, Stark, and others.

    Put your money where your mouth is, levi. Or admit that you’re a racist because you let a black leftist get away with tricks that you screamed bloody murder over white people doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 11:38 am - April 12, 2009

  59. Liar. Since you demanded Bush be impeached and tried for war crimes, you should demand the same for Obama for doing what you yourself admit is the same as Bush.

    The thing is, it’s not exactly the same. Obama took office with these policies already in place. His administration has claimed they’ve stopped doing some things, but maintain Bush’s policy of refusing to disclose to the public what’s been going on. I believe all of that to be inexcusable, but I’m hardly going to start demanding impeachment at the three month mark. I gave George Bush more leeway than that.

    Furthermore, given how you shrieked about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and how that proved he was an ignorant idiot, you should admit publicly that Obama is an ignorant fool and idiot for appointing and endorsing the tax cheats Geithner, Solis, Sebelius, Daschle, Rangel, Stark, and others.

    I’m really not that concerned with how I appear to you, so you can stop setting up little trials for me where I have to answer for things I never said. I do think Obama’s made some terrible appointments, and I do think there are a lot of terrible Democrats in the Congress. I’d vote for George Bush or Rush Limbaugh if they’d run against Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid in their districts. I’d vote for you over either of them.

    Put your money where your mouth is, levi. Or admit that you’re a racist because you let a black leftist get away with tricks that you screamed bloody murder over white people doing.

    How would that work? I’m a racist against whom, exactly? White people?

    Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 11:53 am - April 12, 2009

  60. Dance Levi dance.

    Even with confronted with more stunning, frequent and recent examples of the activity he accuses Sarah Palin of, he still ignores it to defend President Obama.

    He shrieks for President Bush’s head for his conspiracy theories about Iraq, but is just ‘disappointed’ in President Obama continuing the same policies.

    Sad, really. The blind defense of a man.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2009 @ 11:59 am - April 12, 2009

  61. Under Reagan the federal deficit went from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 5% in 1986. The debt went from 700 billion to 2.8-3 trillion. He also raised payroll taxes in 1983. He took us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation and gave us the alternative minimum tax.

    Unemployment under Reagen averaged 6.5% during his 8 years. peaking at 10% in 1982 (?).

    Reagan considered the debt he created to be the “biggest disapointment of his political career.”

    But then again, Cheney told us deficits don’t matter, so its all good. Reagan may have held the line on domestic spending, but he mortgaged the farm on military spending.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 12:01 pm - April 12, 2009

  62. LOL…Levi, if Obama’s actions are “inexcusable”, why are you making excuses for them and saying that you’ll give him “leeway”?

    Meanwhile, yes, you are a racist against white people. This is not unusual in the Obama Party, though:

    Convinced that all whites were born tainted with the original sin of “skin privilege,” the fighting brigade of the New Left internalized racialist thinking as hatred of their own whiteness. “All white babies are pigs,” declared one Weatherman. On one occasion the feminist poet Robin Morgan was breast-feeding her son at the offices of the radical journal Rat. A Weatherwoman saw this and told her, “You have no right to have that pig male baby.” “How can you say that?” Morgan asked. “What should I do?” “Put it in the garbage,” the Weatherwoman answered.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - April 12, 2009

  63. In addition here is a list of changes in government spending per capita by president:

    Carter: + 2.28%
    Reagan:+2.33%
    Bush 1 : +1.15%
    Clinton: +0.81%
    Bush 2: +3.23%

    Gee, who knew Clinton held the line better than Reagan?

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - April 12, 2009

  64. Under Reagan the federal deficit went from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 5% in 1986. The debt went from 700 billion to 2.8-3 trillion.

    Then one would think you would be incensed about Barack Obama managing that much of an in barely one year and setting it up to repeat for the indefinite future — on such important things as paying for his illegal-immigrant aunt’s subsidized housing, free healthcare, welfare checks, and no-show government job.

    If the deficit were your concern, that is. But it’s not; you’re simply trying to deflect from what Obama is doing by blaming other people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - April 12, 2009

  65. Dance Levi dance.

    Even with confronted with more stunning, frequent and recent examples of the activity he accuses Sarah Palin of, he still ignores it to defend President Obama.

    You’re not confronting me with anything. I’ve already forgotten your amazing little list you’re so proud of, that’s how impressed I was. I’ll never forget Sarah Palin talking about how Putin rearing his head and invading Alaskan airspace counts as foreign policy experience.

    He shrieks for President Bush’s head for his conspiracy theories about Iraq, but is just ‘disappointed’ in President Obama continuing the same policies.

    Sad, really. The blind defense of a man.

    It’s not blind defense, it’s vocal criticism. The President I voted for is doing something wrong, it’s up to people who consider these issues important to convince him to change his mind. It has been three months. If calling for his impeachment is what it would take, I would do it, but that’s never going to happen with a Democratic Congress. You have to play the cards you’re dealt, and even though Obama’s betrayed the liberal base that got him where he is, he’s still our best chance to right these wrongs.

    Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 12:37 pm - April 12, 2009

  66. Once again NDT, stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I posted my thoughts on the Obama defict.

    I was supplying evidence regarding a previous post about Reagan holding the line on spending. Draw you own conclusions, but don’t attack the messenger for supplying facts that disprove an assertion.

    Under Reagan we ballooned the debt and deficit and the tax cut revenue increases, small though they were, NEVER caught up to the spending. levels.

    And if deficits, debt, spending, government growth, were a big concerns of conservatives, then Bush2 should have never gotten as far as he did on spending. And he had control of congress.

    The point is, when it comes to debts and deficits, both parties seem confortable with them for some baffling reason.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - April 12, 2009

  67. Nowhere have I posted my thoughts on the Obama defict.

    True, you only slam Republicans for running deficits. Your silence on the Telemprompter-in-Chief’s deficits speaks vulones.

    Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 1:08 pm - April 12, 2009

  68. Chuck…..

    Speaking of “spending per capita” is meaningless without a breakout of what the spending was on.

    The so-called “arms race” had to be part of that per capita spending. And with Clinton de-balling the military during his tenure, i think we can probably guess what you mean by “holding the line”.

    Keep picking those cherries.

    Bear1909

    Comment by bear1909 — April 12, 2009 @ 1:47 pm - April 12, 2009

  69. Not slamming republicans, just pointing out the comical righteous indignation about Obama deficits while willfully ignoring recent history. History that shows when republicans controlled the white house and congress, they ust plain blew it. This isn’t just “Bush blew it”, the whole “team republican” blew it.

    Two wrongs do not make a right to be sure, but really, Obama getting elected may be the conservative “come to Jesus” moment on deficits. But coming right on the heels of a republican spendthrift administration is just silliness. Its like a bizarro chicken little. The sky is falling NOW, but not when I was running things.

    I think deficits and debt are bad no matter who creates them.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 1:57 pm - April 12, 2009

  70. Point taken Bear1909.

    Deficit and debt are ok for military spending. Got it.

    Thats ok if its your position, but doesnt that have to be paid eventually as well?

    And the “deballing” as you so eloquently put it, started under Bush1 and Rumsfeld.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - April 12, 2009

  71. Look at the record, Chuck. Deficits were on a downward path in the Bush Administration until the Democrats took over Congress, at which point they spiked. And under the Teleprompter and his Obamacrat Congress, the smallest Obama deficit is larger than even the largest Bush deficit.

    Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - April 12, 2009

  72. Keep dancing Levi,

    You just admitted you don’t want to confront how many goofs President Obama has made, since it would force you to admit just how screwed we are.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - April 12, 2009

  73. interesting record v the k. It was going down in 05 06 and 07, but then shot back up in 08? I think Bush was still president in 08. Leadership anyone?

    And do these numbers include the Iraq and Afgahnistan war? I can’t seem to find an actual description of the graph. Is this raw spending? budget?

    And in 00 to 04 Republicans spent spent spent. a 600 billion dollar swing acceptable to you?

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 2:35 pm - April 12, 2009

  74. Chuck’s “logic”, apparently, is that it is wrong to be opposed to trillion-dollar deficits if you didn’t complain enough about billion-dollar ones.

    Or, in personal-finance terms, you have no right to criticize people taking out amortgage they can’t afford if you didn’t criticize them ever using credit. All or nothing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - April 12, 2009

  75. I think Bush was still president in 08.

    The Democrats took over Congress in 2007, and the deficit shot up immediately upon their arrival.

    I think it makes sense that if Bush ran a $400B deficit, it makes sense to criticize Chairman Zero five times as much for a $2 Trillion deficit.

    I guess Chuck just finds it easier to attack Chairman Zero’s critics with the lame “you didn’t criticize Bush enough” attack than it is for him to actually try and defend the reckless, irresponsible spending of his Obamacrat party.

    Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 3:31 pm - April 12, 2009

  76. Levi spins:

    You have to play the cards you’re dealt, and even though Obama’s betrayed the liberal base that got him where he is, he’s still our best chance to right these wrongs.

    But up above, Levi says this:

    I specifically believe that it is not OK, I don’t want him to do those things, and I feel totally betrayed and let down that he is, not to say that it wasn’t expected.

    So Levi and his leftist ilk KNEW Obama was lying, KNEW that Obama was planning ridiculous spending, KNEW that Obama was going to continue the policies that they demanded Bush be impeached and tried for war crimes over…..but are now trying to claim that Obama “betrayed them”.

    Wrong. Levi and his ilk lied to the American people about what Obama was going to do, aided and abetted by the Katie Courics of the world who couldn’t investigate Obama’s background, but could make front-page claims that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - April 12, 2009

  77. NDT: “Actually, Levi, your taxes haven’t gone down at all. What’s happening is that the government is taking less out of your paycheck now and simply adding it to your bill at the end of the year.”

    Exactly! It’s a shell game. If you don’t want more tax money coming out of your pocket next year, you better increase your withholding now.

    Comment by windybon — April 12, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - April 12, 2009

  78. And the “deballing” as you so eloquently put it, started under Bush1 and Rumsfeld.

    But it was inflated under the hillbilly. Bush41 & Rumsfeld were all about streamlining the military to make it more efficient, not gutting it to the point they couldn’t afford bullets for training.

    And do these numbers include the Iraq and Afgahnistan war? I can’t seem to find an actual description of the graph.

    Yes it does include Iraq & Afghanistan. Try Heritage.org for a description.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - April 12, 2009

  79. And don’t forget it’s a WaPo graph.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2009 @ 9:50 pm - April 12, 2009

  80. So Levi and his leftist ilk KNEW Obama was lying, KNEW that Obama was planning ridiculous spending, KNEW that Obama was going to continue the policies that they demanded Bush be impeached and tried for war crimes over…..but are now trying to claim that Obama “betrayed them”.

    Wrong. Levi and his ilk lied to the American people about what Obama was going to do, aided and abetted by the Katie Courics of the world who couldn’t investigate Obama’s background, but could make front-page claims that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy.

    I think you’re suggesting that I’m contradicting myself by saying that I feel betrayed by the Obama administration but that I also expected it. I don’t speak for the rest of the ‘leftists’ and was never one of those guys handing out bumper stickers or wearing t-shirts. President Obama sounds a lot different than general election candidate Obama, who sounds a lot different than late primary candidate Obama, who sounds a lot different than early primary candidate Obama, who sounds a lot different than Senator Obama. He was much more solidly progressive a few years ago, and it hasn’t been difficult to track his evolution (devolution?).

    I mean, I guess I appreciate that you think I’m in on the Big Obama Conspiracy, but I’m not. I wanted to give the guy a chance, but if we were to hold a recall election today, I’d stay home. He’s got some time before I write him off completely, sorry I can’t give you a timetable.

    Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 11:13 pm - April 12, 2009

  81. But it was inflated under the hillbilly. Bush41 & Rumsfeld were all about streamlining the military to make it more efficient, not gutting it to the point they couldn’t afford bullets for training.

    What you would call streamlining, I would call war-profiteering. A majority of our presence in Iraq is a for-profit endeavor of the private sector, and if the past six years of the war are any indication, it’s made things less efficient, not more. Rumsfeld tried to shoehorn our military into a scenario that obviously required a different kind of solution (containment, anyone?), and it’s gotten a lot of people killed and wasted a lot of resources with no apparent benefit to anyone — except, of course, the companies that got big, fat contracts to do things the military used to do.

    Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 11:29 pm - April 12, 2009

  82. Levi, you’ve also called it a conspiracy, so I don’t think you have much credibility. Especially when you choose to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit your narritive

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 13, 2009 @ 6:35 am - April 13, 2009

  83. Damn…it must be tiring to be so wrong so often. You and your fellow “patriots” are nothing but a bunch of crybabies who have no ideas and who are so full of sh*t it’s amazing you’re able to walk upright. Get over yourselves and take your false indignation and shove it. You conveniently forget who put us in this mess, ignorantly foist the blame on an administration which, while definitely not perfect, is at least trying to do something. I don’t understand why you morons have so much trouble grasping the concept of actually investing in the future…instead of spending all your time trying to make as much money as fast as you can, irregardless of how it affects others and the environment, or your children’s future. Your myopic vision is the root cause of this mess. Well…f*ck each and every one of you miserable douchebags. Your pitiful.

    Comment by Jeebus — April 13, 2009 @ 11:47 pm - April 13, 2009

  84. #83 – Back at you. And you are an awful speller and a potty-mouth to boot.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 14, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - April 14, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.