GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Despite 2008 Election, Americans Still Moving Right

by

As hundreds of thousands of Americans (including my co-blogger) rallied across the country in Tea Parties, protesting larger, more intrusive government and higher taxes, it seems that a growing number of their fellow citizens share their sentiments.

Michelle linked a new Gallup survey confirming something which polling data over the past few months has been making manifest, Americans are moving to the right:

Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven’t changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

Guess people needed to see liberalism in action.  Or maybe now that there is no longer an ostensibly conservative party in power not adhering to conservative ideals, it becomes easier for the Americans to reassert their natural conservative instincts.

So, once again in an era of big government, conservative ideas are becoming ascendant.    Thus, it behooves the GOP to reassert Reaganite ideas and stand true to our core principles.

Should we do that, we may well win back our majorities in Congress — and state legislatures.

UPDATE:  Commenting on this poll, John Hinderaker offers:

. . . .voters tend to turn to the “outs” when they become fed up with the “ins.” It appears that not too many voters were fed up with the Republicans because the party was too conservative. Nevertheless, there was enough dissatisfaction with Republican governance that the other guys got a shot. It seems reasonable to expect that the Democrats might wear out their welcome sooner than the Republicans did, since, in addition to the usual grievances that accumulate and erode support for the party in power, the Democrats are taking the country in a direction where the voters don’t particularly want it to go.

Emphasis added. Read the whole thing!

Comments

  2. I wanted to attend our local tea party, but then the American Family Association became one of the main sponsors, and I refused – not only refused but boycotted.

    They continue to lobby against gay families. They show their true socialistic views when their platform is to have the government to control and define American families thereby expanding government – that is NOT a conservative value.

    I think it is complete hypocrisy that they were a sponsor of a tea-party. Unbelievable.

  4. Guess people needed to see liberalism in action.

    I think if you go back to my 2008 comments, you’ll find I frequently commented that Obama voters were too young or too stupid to remember Jimmy Carter. A new generation is in the process of being taught why left-liberalism fails. It’s certain a message they won’t get from the pubic schools.

  5. I hope it’s true cuz I’ve lost a lot of faith in humanity/Americans due to the behavior of people surrounding the 2008 election and post-election. I still read/hear people saying that Obama’s not acting progressive enough-they actually want even more government intervention in their lives! Stupefying! I’m afraid we’ve become a nation of marshmallows, but I hope it can be turned around.

  6. Obama made the election about Bush, not about political philosophy. Now he has no more Bush. He and the Dems will have to find a new strategy. But don’t count them out.For them, winning is everything.
    I agree with a post on another blog . . . what counts most now is the congressional election next year. Obama knows it and he’ll do everything in his power to keep the supermajority.

  7. BTW, the state legislature races are critical. Republicans have to protect themselves from being gerrymandered out of existence when congresional districts are redrawn after the 2010 census.

  9. I am not too excited. The definition of ‘conservative’ is now much more liberal of where it used to be.

    I fear that America may devolve into a place where anyone who is not on the bandwagon for polygamy, incest, forced abortion/euthanasia and the enhanced interrogation techniques for criminals, will be deemed a Puritanical, right winged, arch-conservative who wants to enforce Sharia Laws on us.

    Today’s liberal is tomorrow’s conservative.

  10. Agreed, VK. Also governors.And precint chairs. But we must also know which Republicans may be statists. I’ve decided the terms conservative and liberal may have lost much of their meaning. We discovered Mr. Bush was in fact a statist, and gave us with a compliant congress, more government.

  11. LOL…yeah, keep telling yourself that. Then, when the dems sweep in 2010 and 2012, you can keep telling yourself that.

    But, until you come up with some new ideas (tax cuts and abortion just don’t cut it), you’ll be in the minority. The GOP is seen as obstructionist and the party of NO.

    So, while people may identify with ‘conservative’ they simply don’t identify with the GOP; now at 20% and shrinking fast.

  12. Let’s see 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, 18% as liberals. I agree with those above who stress today’s younger people have no clue who Democrat Jimmy Carter was and God knows the public school system hasn’t informed them either. Now that those 40 and younger are getting a taste of Democrat liberalism, in the Presidency and the Congress things are looking up for a conservative Republican. I like BNL who is predicting another Democrat sweep in 2010 and 2012…..why so the government can spend another $4Trillion or so Obama and the Democrat Congress can wipe out another 4 million jobs? Or so they can mimick the UK and Canadian health systems?
    Read these 8 horror stories from the UK National Health Service.
    http://nationaldeathservice.blogspot.com/
    Liberals don’t care if it’s bad, just that everyone has the same thing. Spread the misery. Liberal Democrats NICE!

  13. Oh oh, liberals in the drive by media starting to question whether the Obama Biden strategy of the $800 Billion pork bill was the right way to jump start the economy. The alternative…..a Republican TAX CUT! Wow how innovative! Getting money in the peoples hands, their own money, would have jump started the economy faster plus would have improved the consumers mind set towards and improving economy. Dummies, morons and boobs. Nice job Mr President!
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/07/06/second-guessed-cnbcs-harwood-suggests-tax-cuts-may-have-been-more-stimula

  14. But, until you come up with some new ideas (tax cuts and abortion just don’t cut it)

    Which is why Obama campaigned on cutting taxes and limiting abortions.

    Why didn’t Obama campaign on increasing abortions and raising taxes, which is obviously what he’s doing?

    Answer: He lied to get elected.

  15. No matter how bad the polls get, the Obamacrats have a powerful and not-so-secret weapon: ACORN. You don’t think they gave ACORN $5 Billion in the Spendulus for nothing, do you? And Obama’s Census Bureau just arbitrarily increased Detroit’s population by an imaginary 81,000 people. That gives ACORN a potential 81,000 fraudulent votes in one city alone.

    Obama is also hiring ACORN workers to perform the census count.

    Do the math. There’s a reason Obama knows he can get away with destroying the economy. He’s focused on the means of institutionalizing his power, like his Marxist mentors would say, “By any means necessary.”

  17. GayPat: “… now that there is no longer an ostensibly conservative party in power not adhering to conservative ideals, it becomes easier for the Americans to reassert their natural conservative instincts.

    SG: Great argument for the for the elimination of the GOP … However, if that were to happen, what would happen to ‘Family Valuez’?

    Snerd

  19. Dan: I’m still pessimistic about the GOP’s chances in 2012, not to mention next year’s mid-terms. Oh I think the Repubs will gain some seats but not near enough to wrest control of either House. Perhaps in 2012, though right now I still think Obama will be re-elected. Eh, who knows? I don’t see any strong GOP candidates for 2012 but Bush 43 took me by surprise when he announced in 2000…

    Jazzy: Agreed and that’s why I didn’t go either.

  20. Jazzy: “… I think it is complete hypocrisy that they [the anti-gay American Family Association] were a sponsor of a tea-party. Unbelievable.”

    SG: Believe it! Of the two main parties the (R)z are the ones most against homosexuality. It seems bizarre that gays would belong to a party that thinks they are an abomination.

    Many of your (R)z think, ‘If’n y’all let gays marry, then what’s stoppin’ beastiality marragez …’

    Y’all are going to have to get conservatives to stop bein’ Republicans if there is any possibility for Gay Rights … no matter how many Log-in-the-Cabin y’all get in the GOP.

    I just don’t see (R)ed necks and Gays marchin’ together, hand-in-hand, in a Ronnie-Pride Parade …

    Snerd

  21. Gene: “… I agree with those above who stress today’s younger people have no clue who Democrat Jimmy Carter was and God knows the public school system hasn’t informed them either. Now that those 40 and younger are getting a taste of Democrat liberalism, in the Presidency and the Congress things are looking up for a conservative Republican.”

    SG: In the ’08 general election I found it ‘interesting’ that the (R)z whined Obama’s running against Bush and not McAge, while at the same time (R)z were trying to run against Carter as opposed to Obama. However, the (R) brain truly seems to be ‘Bi’ … Bicameral – one idae for one side of the brain, one idea for the other side of the brain, and ne’ery the two shall meet

    Snerd

  22. But, until you come up with some new ideas (tax cuts and abortion just don’t cut it), you’ll be in the minority. The GOP is seen as obstructionist and the party of NO.

    Here’s a wacky idea. Why not tell the people what’s so great about his policies and why we should support it instead of attacking the opposition? Folks aren’t that stupid. Calling Republicans obstructionist doesn’t make the shit stink less.

    Yeah, I know. It’s revenge for Tom Daschle’s obstruction.

  23. GayPat: “… more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.”

    SG: As a liberal, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to hear conservatives argue for their current and increasing relevance, and to argue this as a means of returning to Reaganism, symbolized by a B-movie actor with dementia, who consorted with radical Islamist in Tehran to NOT set the hostages free, in order to win power.

    But then … y’all seem to handle ‘Contra-Dick-shuns’ better than me …

    Snerd

  24. Of the two main parties the (R)z are the ones most against homosexuality. It seems bizarre that gays would belong to a party that thinks they are an abomination.

    Of the two main parties, the liberals are the ones clearly most against homosexuality, but they deflect attention from their own bigotry by pointing at Republicans. Even more bizarre that gays would belong to a party who routinely legislates against them after they’ve gotten the votes and cash in their pocket.

    In the ‘08 general election I found it ‘interesting’ that the (R)z whined Obama’s running against Bush and not McAge,

    In the ’08 general election, I found it interesting that the “compassionate” and “tolerant” liberals thought it was funny to joke about Alzheimer’s disease and a man’s age. They mocked the Seasoned Citizens and those with a horrible disease and thought nothing of it.

    But then that’s the sort of sick bastards the left consists of. They have no concept of shame.

  25. GayPat: “… it behooves the GOP to reassert Reaganite ideas and stand true to our core principles. “

    SG: Well them ‘co(R)e valuez’ seem to be conservatism over human rights … the sound of which just doesn’t ‘fall well’ on the ear, as it were …

    Snerd

  26. Uh, yes, Jody… he did. The billions in the Spendulus for community organizations may not have named ACORN specifically, but it was for all intents and purposes like setting them up a no bid contract since only ACORN is resourced to bid for the funds. And ACORN is one of the groups hired to secure temporary workers for the census, which not even the Soros-funded “factcheck” denies. By the way, factcheck is relying on denials from Obama crony Gary Locke … who has something of a history of corruption… to “debunk” that ACORN will be working on the census.

  27. GayCon: “… I found it interesting that the “compassionate” and “tolerant” liberals thought it was funny to joke about Alzheimer’s disease and a man’s age. They mocked the Seasoned Citizens and those with a horrible disease and thought nothing of it.”

    SG: Not at all … that wasn’t the Byrd we were having, as it were. What we were mocking was puttin’ up McSell-My-Soul-to-the-(R)adical-Base-Jerry-Falwell’s-my-friend, as an agent of Change. Similarly we are mocking Sarah ‘I’m-a-strong-Leader-Waaaa-the-press-is-callin’-me-names-so-I-quit-again’ Palin as someone capable of stringin’ a coherent thought together.

    It is not their deficits we are mocking … it’s that the (R)ight doesn’t see them as an impairment in the office aspired to.

    I mean, where do you find the (whatever it is), to say, ‘These is my people’? ‘Their ideas represent me’. Dosen’t it sometimes feel like joinin’ the Taliban to promote human rights …

    Snerd

  28. Correction: Factcheck is funded by the left-leaning Annenberg Foundation (the same entity that gave Barack Obama and Bill Ayers $50 Million to “reform” the Chicago Public Schools). It’s MediaMatters that are funded by Soros.

  29. GayCon: …” the liberals are the ones clearly most against homosexuality”

    SG: Gees GayCon … Don’t go blabbin’ THAT all over the place like a Sanfo(R)d, or your party will never get into power.

    After all, it was convincin’ all them (R)ed Necks that the (R)z is a Family Valuez party against Gayz that got out as much of the vote as the (R)z did in the last election. Loose the (R)ed Neck and (R)eligious (R)ight vote, and where would the GOP be …?

    Snerd

  30. The question really is what will conservatives do once they regain legislative power? Will they stick to core conservative governmental ideals, or will they kow-tow to the extreme right “base” that demands more government intervention in the private lives of people, in order to force their misguided interpretation of “christian” (quote marks and lower case used purposely, since this label applies to a limited subset of Christians) values on everyone?

    I certainly hope it is the former. We could use that kind of good fiscal leadership. I find it tough to have faith that we’ll get it with the current crop of ne’er-do-wells on both sides of the aisle in DC.

  31. Nept: “…The question really is what will conservatives do once they regain legislative power? Will they stick to core conservative governmental ideals, or will they kow-tow to the extreme right “base””

    SG: See .. Fir me, the question comes before that: “Can the (R)z get elected without their Smear-Fear-Queers campaign that kow-towz to the (R)adical (R)eligious (R)ight?” … In the end, McCain clearly thought not and had to change his mind and do the ‘Kow-Tow-to-Falwell-Intolerance’ waltz.

    As I see it, y’all got your Cheney-Co(R)po(R)tist tryin’ to hold hands with c(R)acker-(R)ed-Necks and not look disgusted, the Log-in-the-Cabin boyz is trying to hold hands with “christianz” while the (R)(R)(R) is tryin to burn ’em at the stake, and y’all are sayin’ y’all are tryin’ to sing Cum-Bi-Yah and say were all Ronnie Reagan conservatives.

    Meanwhile your (R)z is conductin’ a Gong Show … Your social conservatives are alienating minorities with the anti-Sotomayor ‘rationalizations’, Sanford has abandon his post for his own personal Love-Story, Palin (who (R)z were satisfied having a heartbeat away from the presidency), has abandon her post because they were mean to her, demonstrating she’s nowhere never as tough as Clinton and therefore less qualified for any position of leadership …

    The GOP is one tough ‘Hoe to (R)ow’ these dayz … So your question about what’ll happen to the influence of the anti-Queer base, once in power, seems to overlook the lille gettin’ in power hurdle.

    Maybe I don’t understand the mystic Con-Bond, ’cause I can not understand how Gays can support a party that ‘base’-ically so hates Gay. Maybe if I could understand that, I could understand how the GOP isn’t headin’ into extinction …

    Snerd

  32. Snerd,

    It is clear just from your asinine premise that Republicans hate gays, let alone your ignorant rant, that you are in no danger of understanding anything anytime soon. perhaps you should give up while you are behind.

  33. What kind of intrusions are you citing Neptune? just curious.

    Snerd, first welcome to the site

    Now that that’s out of the way…

    symbolized by a B-movie actor with dementia, who consorted with radical Islamist in Tehran to NOT set the hostages free, in order to win power.

    To quote said ‘b movie actor’ there you go again…
    Pretty clear he was more alert and awake than you. After all, I can’t believe anyone in good mental health belieives the ‘George Bush in a Blackbird theory’

    And yes, I understand your opposition to a party who’s most prominant gay member supports a position comparing SSM to incest and pedophelia.

    Oh wait, that’s the current administration…

    *yawn* new name same old misinformed talking points.

  34. LiveWire, the Federal Marriage Amendment is one that springs to mind, as would a legislative overturn of Lawrence v. Texas (though I’m not sure how such a bill would be worded). A continuance of DOMA (which I hope is on it’s way to repeal, not that I’m holding my breath with Obama’s kind of “change” lol) might be another example. I think we’d be more likely to see the kind of things I’m thinking about at the state level. And we certainly have plenty of states that could stand an awful lot more fiscal discipline and less cronyism (my own NJ comes to mind!)

  36. The billions in the Spendulus for community organizations may not have named ACORN specifically…

    V, like I’ve pointed out to Dan, that’s special pleading. You are arguing that the money set aside was really for ACORN even though on the face of it simply wasn’t and that ACORN is really being tasked with hiring workers, when it’s plain that census workers are hired through the Census Bureau itself.

    Provide something that shows the money went directly to Acorn, especially in light of them not receiving NSP money in 2008, their statements that they weren’t applying for it in 2009 and that they’ve never done home renovation before.

    Same holds for your assertion regarding Factcheck. Yes, sure, where someone gets their money from can determine their outlook. But you’ve stated that Factcheck is in error on this subject and has made that error because of where they get their money. You need to at least provide a modicum of support for that ascertain.

    Lastly, you’ve said that Locke lied to Factcheck, when they were quoting his testimony before Congress. Do you have some source that he lied to Congress?

  37. Hypothetically, if one were to say the following states support Gay Marriage:
    o Connecticut
    o District of Columbia
    o New Hampshire
    o New Jersey
    o New York
    o Maine
    o Massachusetts
    o Vermont
    o Iowa
    o Oregon
    o Washington
    o California
    Would one be more likely to find a (R) or a (D) beside them states …?

    I mean, is your ‘(R)-Goo-ment’ really that Gay rights more advanced by the (R)z …?

  39. Wire: “… After all, I can’t believe anyone in good mental health belieives the ‘George Bush in a Blackbird theory’”

    SG: No … I want to maintain some ‘Plausible Deniability’, so that would be ‘Contra’ indicated …

    Oh, and thanks for the greeting
    Snerd

  40. Locke has a history of unethical behavior, and this administration has a regular pattern of lying, (e.g. We won’t hire lobbyists, we won’t pass earmarks, we’ll have a net reduction in Federal spending, we don’t want to run General Motors, we won’t raise taxes except for the top 5%) and of firing certain Inspectors General who threatened to expose their corruption.

    ACORN also denies registering fraudulent voters, so, their denials mean nothing either. Not to mention, it’s a fact that Obama’s Census Bureau, under Gary Locke, has boosted Detroit’s population by 81,000 phantom residents. Isn’t that a little fishy?

  41. Isn’t it also a little fishy that before Chairman Zero installed a corrupt crony at the Commerce Department, the plan was to run the census out of Rahm “Dead Fish” Emmanuel’s office?

  42. #38, I was confused, I thought you were listing the states with the highest taxes and worst unemployment under the Obama administration.

  43. I spoke to three unemployed Democrats today. One of them has 4 kids. I asked them what they thought of our young President Obama being in Russia today. Asked if they were concerned that Obama signed a treaty to talk about limiting nukes in the distant future. Asked them if they knew Obama was then traveling to Ghana in Africa afterwards. I can’t repeat what these Democrats said about Obama. But I’m smiling. hehe

  44. Gene: “… #38, I was confused, I thought you were listing the states with the highest taxes and worst unemployment under the Obama administration.”

    SG: ‘Con-Fused’!? Not at all … You are a c(R)acke(R)-jack human rights observer …

    Snerd

  48. In the end, McCain clearly thought not and had to change his mind and do the ‘Kow-Tow-to-Falwell-Intolerance’ waltz.

    See, in the real world, McCain was interviewed by the gay media while Chairman Obama refused. And what do you suppose his campaigning with McClurkin and other assorted homophobes was about?

    Speaking about human rights, your beloved messiah can’t be bothered with the Iranian people. See, liberals stick up for Hispanics and blacks because those folks cut their grass and clean their mansions. They like to show they care™. Liberals can’t identify with Iranians, so they won’t “meddle”. Same reason the alleged “Human Rights” Campaign won’t hold a gala to fund Solmonese’s (sp?) retirement fund in the name of the Iranians. They know nobody will show up.

  49. What if, hypothetically, supporting any side and/or action would have given the hard liners in Iran all the political justification they needed for more ruthlessness.

    What if American support would be the kiss of death for those wanting fair elections, causing most Iranians to turn away from them and their cause, so reviled is American ‘support’ seen in Iran? … Eh!? You must remember American ‘support’ for Iran’s freely elected democratic leader in 1953 … No!? You never ‘shah’ a documentary or anything …?

    Apparently for you, as with NeoConz, empirical reality is fir wimps, and considering the implication of ones action for the wimper wimps … Lucky fir you there are adults in the room to clean up your messes and prevent further ones.

    Snerd

  50. ThatGuy: “… See, liberals stick up for Hispanics and blacks because those folks cut their grass and clean their mansions.”

    SG: See … You make stereotypical, racially profiled statements like that, demeaning the contribution of whole, richly varied communities, and y’all just don’t get why all them ‘gardeners’ and ‘cleaners’ don’t vote fir the geriatric-white-guy party …

    Clearly from your reasoning, it’s ’cause they are too stupid to realize they are being duped … Very respectful!

    Keep up the good wo(R)k … And if you can, get Sarah to run in 2012.

    Snerd

  51. What if, hypothetically, supporting any side and/or action would have given the hard liners in Iran all the political justification they needed for more ruthlessness.

    However, in reality, the hardliners blamed the US anyway.

    So the choice was really this: say nothing and get blamed, or stand up for human rights, freedom, and fair elections, and get blamed.

    It’s funny how puppets like Snerd Gronk can “stand up” for gays and mouth platitudes about how “when one is diminished, all is diminished”, but then make up excuses for why they have no problem with hundreds of thousands of people being more than “diminished” when their Obama says it’s a good thing.

    Little babies like Snerd and his infantile Obama do need adults around. Pity there’s none in the White House.

  52. You make stereotypical, racially profiled statements like that, demeaning the contribution of whole, richly varied communities,

    Actually, according to liberals, blacks and Hispanics are too dumb to compete fairly and need special points and privileges given for skin color.

    And also racist liberals like Snerd praise black candidates for being “clean and well-spoken”, as if most blacks weren’t.

  53. North: “… However, in reality, the hardliners blamed the US anyway. So the choice was really this: say nothing and get blamed, or stand up for human rights, freedom, and fair elections, and get blamed.”

    SG: Well there North-of-History, they weren’t trying to avoid blame, they were trying to avoid “1953”, but then you’d have to know Iranian history (and in this case American history) to understand that.

    Snerd

  54. North: “… Actually, according to liberals, blacks and Hispanics are too dumb to compete fairly and need special points and privileges given for skin color. And also racist liberals like Snerd praise black candidates for being “clean and well-spoken”, as if most blacks weren’t”

    SG: See … When you start the straw man stuff, setting up your own wild stereotypes and projections, and then shootin’ them down, I know I’ve won … Which is really too bad, ’cause all I was tryin’ to do was play.

  55. Dan, why do you let Snerd take up so much space? His arguments are the most stupid that I have tried to read in my 87 years. Send him back to Huff and Puff or where ever he came from.
    John

  56. John W, let his argument take up so much space. For he just shows that for all the words he uses, he can’t even get at the substance of the posts to which he attaches his comments–or to the other comments in the thread.

  57. John: “… Dan, why do you let Snerd take up so much space? His arguments are the most stupid that I have tried to read in my 87 years. Send him back to Huff and Puff or where ever he came from.”

    SG: Hey there John, you know this is the typical response from the right … It’s different – so kill it.

    About the ‘taking up space’, thing. You know the ‘space here’ expands with the content, so ‘Snerd’ isn’t taking up a limited resource. In fact, since it expands with ‘Snerd’s posts’, he could be said to be creating more space as he posts … 😉

    Snerd

  58. SG: Well there North-of-History, they weren’t trying to avoid blame, they were trying to avoid “1953″, but then you’d have to know Iranian history (and in this case American history) to understand that.

    Actually, what they were trying to avoid was having to admit that the Iranian government that they praised and supported was a bunch of thugs.

    Again, your hypocrisy becomes hilarious when you blabber about “diminishing people” while saying nothing about Iran’s thugocracy and its behavior.

    When you start the straw man stuff, setting up your own wild stereotypes and projections

    What, that liberals like yourself and Obama support racial quotas in hiring and education and that skin color should substitute for competence?

    Or are you trying to claim that your leader Joe Biden didn’t say this?

    Joe Biden is set to launch his second run for the presidency today but it will likely be overshadowed by some candid comments made in an interview with Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer.

    Most noteworthy is what he says about Barack Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”

  59. Sorry there North, when you wanta talk 1953 in conjunction with Iran and the Obama response, to say nothing of the Iran-Iraq war, I’d be willing to discuss things with you more.

    Until then, I guess you’ll just have to hurdle your invectives, as a stand in for discussion …

    Snerd

  60. Locke has… ACORN also…

    V, none of that supports the assertions that you made, that the NSP money “really” went to the Acorn despite the plain record that it hasn’t, that Acorn has been hired by the Census Bureau to conduct the census, despite the plain fact that they haven’t, that Locke lied to Congress about the funding, that Factcheck was wrong on the facts and wrong because it is being influenced so by Annenberg.

    Do you have a cite or an argument for your statements? It’s okay if you don’t.

  61. Jody, you may have complete trust in the total honesty and utter incorruptibility of Saint Obama, Saint Locke, and Saint Geithner. I don’t. Separation of powers was created for a reason… part of that reason being not have a charismatic demagogue appoint a bunch of “czars” to run the country without any legislative oversight.

  62. V, you simply aren’t answering the question.

    You asserted that every source I provided to show you were in error were in fact in error themselves, but did so without providing any citation or source for such statements.

    I get that you feel you are living in time of doom and destruction, assailed on all sides by powers and principalities that make even the Tarmigans weep with fear; that the Republic is imperiled and that Palin is the last, best hope for a better America. Cthulhu, I get it.

    None of that, though, supports your assertions. If you can’t support them, fine. Say so. Man up. Be what you are constantly saying Democrats aren’t: honest.

    But these conspiracy-laden, “Only I know the truth” responses to every question? They aren’t just tiresome, they’re boring.

  63. The truth is, your sources rely on the non-existent honesty and integrity of ACORN and Gary Locke. ACORN claims they won’t apply for Spendulus money, and as a national organization they may not. But a large pot of money in the Spendulus was set aside for precisely the activities ACORN and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and associates specialize in. Will anyone be auditing their books to see that money wasn’t channeled to them? No. Will there be any oversight on money set aside for “neighborhood stabilization?” No. We have only the assurances of professional shakedown artists and street hustlers that they won’t misuse these funds.

    Meanwhile, it is a fact that Obama’s census bureau has artificially inflated the population of Detroit by 81,000. It is a fact that Obama’s Justice Department has allowed the Black Panthers to get away scot-free with blantant voter intimidation. It is a fact that the Obama Administration tried to put control of the census under direct White House control, and when that failed, installed an ethically-challenged crony at Commerce to oversee it. It is a fact that the Obama administration fired an Inspector General who was investigating the corruption of one of his cronies.

    You may live in a fantasyland where the Obama Administration is the epitome of honest transparent government. I choose to deal in reality.

  64. Jody,

    My digging at work is hindered by firewalls (both hotair and Michelle Malkin are behind firewalls) but I did find some of the following.

    January: Porkulus opens funds to possible payoff for ACORN

    March: ACORN to help recruit workers

    March: Congressional Testimony shows ACORN’s corruption sidelined because we don’t want the One to look bad.

    April: Hot air reports ACORN story spiked during election to avoid making Obama look bad

    May: ACORN eligibile for up to 8b in funds

    Hope those help. I tried to cull a variety of news sources.

  65. Jody,

    Also wanted to add, I’m not assuming you’re drinking the Obama kool-aid. It is possible to support a candidate w/o blindly supporting them. I invested a lot of hope in the 2000 election in W, and, while I wasn’t as enamoured come 04, he was a hell of a lot better than John “Admitted War Criminal” Kerry.

  69. Some of the lefitst in here don’t like anecdotal stories describing how Obamateleprompter’s support is falling as our taxes and debt rise.
    Well here’s the respected pollster who was most accurate in the recent election. Rasmussen. Today Obama’s STRONG DISAPPROVAL hits a record high! 36% of free thinking Americans now strongly disapprove of the job Obama is doing. His poll numbers are now worse than Bush 43 at the same time in his Presidency. All this dispite the fawning main stream media. Come home Mr President, come home. There are a record 7 million unemployed now in the Obama recession. Come home Mr President.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

  70. But a large pot of money in the Spendulus was set aside for precisely the activities ACORN and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and associates specialize in.

    V, that’s a hell of a lot different of a statement than “….the billions in the Spendulus for community organizations may not have named ACORN specifically, but it was for all intents and purposes like setting them up a no bid contract since only ACORN is resourced to bid for the funds…” but it still doesn’t prove any of your points.

    From the Factcheck link, in 2008, the money was passed to the states, then to 308 CBOS — who won competitions and reviews from 50 state administering agencies There’s no evidence from the link, and you’ve provided no source otherwise, that shows any of those 308 were subsidiaries of ACORN, or that the Obama administration is in control of the various state agencies responsible for distributing the funds. In 2008. Before they were elected. Never mind 2009.

    Yes, like many CBOs, ACORN could apply for part of the money, but they never have, have stated they have no plans to, and are at a competitive disadvantage should they, since these aren’t no-bid contracts.

    “Would” “could” and “might” is a far cry from “did.”

    Meanwhile…

    Which again is rant, without a lick of evidence to support that the testimony before Congress was wrong, that the hiring practices of the Census Bureau are anything other than what they are, that Factcheck was wrong and that Factcheck was wrong, in whole or in part, because they were being funded by Annenberg.

    V, you simply haven’t made your case. Paranoid non-sequitur after non-sequitur isn’t conversation, discussion, or debate. It’s nonsense. And as I pointed out, boring non-sense at that.

  71. Also wanted to add, I’m not assuming you’re drinking the Obama kool-aid….

    Livewire, non of the links you posted support VtK’s statments.

    Yes, ACORN is eligible for funds… alongside hundreds of other agencies nation wide, funds that weren’t directed specifically to them, that aren’t distributable by a no-bid process and that ACORN would seem to be at a disadvantage to bid for considering they have no history in the specific area the money is available for.

    Further, again, in terms of the ACORN recruiting workers, the testimony of the Census head before congress and the hiring practices of the Federal government show that the reporting on the matter is in error.

    Yes, the CB has enlisted ACORN, along side a host of other agencies and groups, conservative, liberal and everything in between, in getting the word out that the CB is hiring workers.

    But none of those groups, including ACORN, is doing the hiring, is even able to do the hiring under the law. Hiring is fully in the purvue of the CB and the Feds, and involve many things, including a background check by the FBI.

    All of that was summarized in the Factcheck links I posted.

    V was simply wrong in his statements. None of the sources you have provided do anything to contradict what Factcheck, which was another part of Vs initial criticisms, already reported. There’s no cool-aid involved in noting any of that.

    The spiking of a story critical to Obama is a different issue. As are the census figures in Detroit. I will say, reading the one news story everyone seems to be citing I don’t see anything in the text that says the numbers were altered at the request of the Obama administration or on the command of the agencies current head. I do see a disagreement between the CB and the MCG, with everyone arguing over why their numbers are better than the other guys.

    What are offering in proof of deliberate malfeasance on the part of Obama other than a proximate cause for the discrepancy in the counts?

  72. Jody,

    I don’t think you and I are reading the same articles.

    From the Examiner Link:

    Scott Levenson, ACORN’s national spokesman, said “we have received no significant federal funding.” When asked by The Examiner about the $53 million, Levenson said: “If you listen to some of the Republicans who are going to get a billion dollars from the stimulus package, I’m still waiting for my share. Their claims are overinflated, this is a gimmick and an attempt to demonize ACORN.”

    So their answer to “What about -this- 53m” the reply was “Lets change the subject.”

    The problem is, ACORN’s pattern of systemic abuse should disqualify them from getting anything, but the dems are defending them.

  73. Lime, I’ve never said that they haven’t received Federal funds. The plainly have. The linked article from Factcheck says they have received Federal funds. $1 million over 4 years in CDBG funds — a different pool of money than the 2009 $4.2 NSP funding, a different appropriations bill and a different president.

    V… and now you… have said those 2009 NSP funds are set aside for them, a “payoff” in Vitter’s words.

    How $4.2 billion in 2009 monies ACORN has never received, never applied for, have no plans to apply for, are at a competitive disadvantage in receiving should they try, and that would still need to be approved and disbursed by state agencies other the Obama administration, is any kind of bribe, remuneration, payolla, or evidence of corruption, is beyond me.

    Further, how any of that supports a claim that Factcheck is both wrong and crooked, that ACORN has been hired to conduct the census, and that the head of the CB has lied to Congress about this, is both baffling and ridiculous.

    As far as the $53 million in total monies Acorn has received since 1994, again, they plainly have, despite the spokesperson changing the subject. I’d consider that “significant” and at odds with his statement.

    But receiving $53 million over 15 years from an assortment of state agencies, multiple billion-dollar appropriation bills and two national administrations is still not a support for the assertion that the 2009 NSP funds were a payoff to Acorn by the Obama administration.

    You spoke before of cool-aid. What are you drinking, Lime?

  75. How $4.2 billion in 2009 monies ACORN has never received, never applied for, have no plans to apply for, are at a competitive disadvantage in receiving should they try, and that would still need to be approved and disbursed by state agencies other the Obama administration, is any kind of bribe, remuneration, payolla, or evidence of corruption, is beyond me.

    From Jody’s own FactCheck link:

    Boehner and Vitter claimed to smell a rat in the stimulus package’s language that allows nonprofit entities to compete directly for NSP funds. When the NSP was created last year, only state and local governments were eligible to participate in the program.

    In short, those funds USED to be disbursed by state agencies. Now they can be handed out DIRECTLY by the Federal government to “nonprofits”.

    Meanwhile, there’s a small problem; when you talk about ACORN, which group do you mean?

    An internal report by a lawyer for the community organizing group Acorn raises questions about whether the web of relationships among its 174 affiliates may have led to violations of federal laws………

    But Ms. Kingsley found that the tight relationship between Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner. Until the embezzlement scandal broke last summer, Project Vote’s board was made up entirely of Acorn staff members and Acorn members.

    In short, merely looking up “ACORN” gives you only a partial picture. ACORN has created literally hundreds of shell organizations, owned and controlled by the central one, for the express purpose of making multiple applications and receiving monies from multiple sources. As the article I linked previously talked about, they shift money constantly between affiliates to cover debts at the other ones. They are so interwoven that it’s impossible for them to demonstrate any separation whatsoever – except when providing cover to the Obama Party and Barack Obama, who himself paid them to do his bidding last year and lied about it.

  76. Again, from Factcheck

    But Boehner and Vitter compound their error by treating different terms as if they had the same meaning. ACORN does indeed work in redeveloping neighborhoods, but the work that it does is not the same sort of work for which NSP provides funding. By pretending as if the two are the same, Boehner and Vitter commit the fallacy of equivocation.

    Project Vote? Not NSP monies.

    “Could be” given to is not the same thing as “was.”

    “Multiple shell groups that could” is not the same as “multiple shell groups that did.”

    None of the above is the same thing as “$5 billion in NSP funds was handed out to Acorn as a payoff by the Obama administration.”

    It’s really not that hard.

  77. Jody,

    (aside: What is it with ‘Lime’ I see people do it all the time, is the L key really that close to the M key? :P)

    You seem to settle on proof being defined as a large neon sign flashing pointing to “Corruption going on over here!” In ACORN’s case they’re playing a shell game, much like the guy on the street corner. The facts remain that the rules have been changed to benefit an organization that has a history of being, shall we say, fast and loose with the law? It will take some untangling, but it’s safe to say that you will see money ending up in ACORNs hands after it’s been through several shell companies.

    (Persoanlly I think we should subcontract the census to the LDS church. Hells they’re always out going door to door anyway 😉

  79. You seem to settle on proof being defined as a large neon sign flashing pointing to “Corruption going on over here!”

    There already is such a sign to anyone willing to look; Jody’s position is that no corruption exists unless ACORN confesses to it; all denials have to be taken at face value and can not be questioned.

  81. Jody’s position is that no corruption exists unless ACORN confesses to it..

    That’s simply not what I’ve said. There could be corruption going on with Acorn; there are investigations on a variety of fronts over many issues by lots of organizations. It will turn up or not as a result of those investigations. But corruption over voter fraud still doesn’t mean payoffs of blockfunds.

    V made two very simple statements, that $5 billion… billion… dollars in stimulus funds had been given directly to Acorn by the Obama administration as a payoff and that the administration had hired Acorn to conduct the census.

    $5 billion is a lot of money, more than Acorn has ever operated with to date. That should be fairly easy to document; especially by the person who publicly made that allegation — presumably Boehner and Vitter.

    Yet nothing has turned up.

    Further, the hiring of Acorn for the Census is another fairly easy thing to document. Contracts… Acorn offices assigned districts to tally… Acorn hiring it’s members to walk those districts. Something. Especially in light of Congressional inquiries. Easy.

    But again, nothing.

    All that anyone here has been able to do is to say in regards to the monies is: “Well, they’re being investigated for voter fraud AND they received $53 million in government originated funds since 1994. Therefore that proves they’ve received a $5b payout from the Obama administration!”

    For the Census bit, the head of the Agency was asked directly by Congress if he’d hired Acorn and was told no, they hadn’t. He told Congress in fact couldn’t, because Census workers are Federal employees, requiring a raft of procedures to follow, not the least of which is an FBI background check. No subcontracting possible.

    Acorn had been asked to get the word out that the CB was hiring, as had a large number of other organizations. But everyone still had to be hired by the Census Bureau, following the existing Federal procedures. So the story that Acorn was doing the census, for multiple reasons, is wrong.

    I pointed all of this out with three cites from Factcheck, showing both bits were rumors and quarter truths that had taken on a life of their own when set loose in the wild of culture. Nothing new, though. Happens all the time.

    Response? Everyone is lying…. It’s all a conspiracy…. Obama is bad… This unrelated article, my beliefs and conjecture prove it. Your are blindly partisan if you can’t see it….

    And that’s nothing new either. Happens all the time. On the Left and on the Right. And, most especially, right here.

    ps. Live, “Limewire” might keep coming up because of the P2P software program Limewire. Our brains can be funny and substitute similar sounding words.

  82. This unrelated article

    And therein lies the problem, V and Livewire; we can provide all the facts we wish from multiple outside sources, but not a single one of them in any way relates to Jody’s talking points. Therefore, they must be wrong.

    What makes it really funny is when Jody’s own talking points prove him wrong. Example:

    How $4.2 billion in 2009 monies ACORN has never received, never applied for, have no plans to apply for, are at a competitive disadvantage in receiving should they try, and that would still need to be approved and disbursed by state agencies other the Obama administration, is any kind of bribe, remuneration, payolla, or evidence of corruption, is beyond me.

    But his own source clearly states:

    Boehner and Vitter claimed to smell a rat in the stimulus package’s language that allows nonprofit entities to compete directly for NSP funds. When the NSP was created last year, only state and local governments were eligible to participate in the program.

    When caught, he cites one ACORN affiliate and claims that that proves that ACORN won’t get this money — while ignoring 173 others who are more than capable of doing so, in line with ACORN’s past history of taking money from one spot and using bookkeeping swaps among its affiliates to move it to something else.

  83. When caught, he cites one ACORN affiliate and claims that that proves that ACORN won’t get this money

    Simply not what I said.

    I pointed out, and so did Factcheck, that they are eligible to compete at the state level for funds. Your cite says they are now eligible to compete at the Federal level. Great. But they still have to compete for those funds — along side many others. They haven’t been given those funds. They haven’t been given $5 billion dollars by the Obama administration.

    Your source doesn’t list a single ACORN group that has ever received NSP funds. Your source doesn’t list a single ACORN group that is currently competing to receive those funds. — Vitter hasn’t even done so. No one is disputing that the could; they haven’t yet and there’s no evidence that any element plans to.

    To review, “can compete for”, “might compete for”, “is eligible to compete for” is not the same thing as has received. It is definitely not the same thing as has received as a payoff — what V, Lime, and now you, ND30, has said has happened.

  84. And as I said initially, these are practically no-bid contracts for ACORN because there are few organizations that are both eligible and resourced to “compete” for them; and the word “compete” doesn’t even apply because it’s more of an application process than a competition.

  85. And as I said initially…

    ACORN has never done NSP work, V. They would be competing against groups that have. Doesn’t mean they can’t try.

    It also doesn’t mean that because ACORN is eligible to compete for $4.2b that they have received $5b in funds as a payout by the Obama administration. The latter was your initial claim. (i.e. “…You don’t think they gave ACORN $5 Billion in the Spendulus for nothing, do you?”.)

  89. Still haven’t shown that the Obama administration gave $5b to ACORN, V. That you can imagine a scenario for it happening is not the same thing as it actually occurring.

    It’s not that hard to understand the difference.