Friday Must Reads

27 Feb

feb2009teapartyMichelle Malkin has the latest information on Friday’s Nationwide Tea Party.

The Cal Ripken President
Ann Coulter, Town Hall

Are we going to have to hear about this for the next four years? Obama is becoming the Cal Ripken Jr. of presidents, making history every time he suits up for a game. Recently, Obama also became the first African-American president to order a ham sandwich late at night from the White House kitchen! That’s going to get old pretty quick.
Read more.

The 2% Illusion: Take everything they earn, and it still won’t be enough.
The Wall Street Journal, H/T George Allen

Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions.
Read more.

New Column: It Just Keeps Getting Worse
David Limbaugh

President Obama is engaged in what seems to be a deliberate effort to talk down the economy for the presumed purpose of ensuring our panic mode represses a stock market recovery long enough to fuel his frantic agenda.
Read more.

The Joe-the-Plumberization of the GOP
Patrick Ruffini, The Next Right

If you want to get a sense of how unserious and ungrounded most Americans think the Republican Party is, look no further than how conservatives elevate Joe the Plumber as a spokesman. The movement has become so gimmick-driven that Wurzelbacher will be a conservative hero long after people have forgotten what his legitimate policy beef with Obama was.
Read more.

Cantor Emerges as GOP Voice
ABC News

In a deft piece of political positioning, Cantor and his allies are arguing that if Obama intends to keep his word on bringing a new tone to governing, he’s going to have to make that clear to his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Read more.


7 Responses to “Friday Must Reads”

  1. Kyle February 27, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    RE: National Tea Party

    I know that you and other conservatives have been complaining about spending for a while, but where was the wide spread public out cry from conservatives when Pres. Bush was digging us into the deepest federal deficit in history while allowing the economy to fester unattended?

    Right or wrong, the protests appear to be motivated by politics instead of conviction. Yes, Obama is going to spend more money than any prior President, but Bush did not have an economically conservative bone in his body.

    How do you reconcile the public role that “Joe” the “Plumber” has taken in the Tea Party with Ruffini’s criticism of the GOP’s infatuation with him?

    Ruffini says “In these serious times, conservatives need to get serious and ditch the gimmicks and the self-referential credentializing and talk to the entire country. If the average apolitical American walked into CPAC or any movement conservative gathering would they feel like they learned something new or that we presented a vision compelling to them in their daily lives? Or would it all be talk of a President from 25 years ago and Adam Smith lapel pins?”

    Isn’t the Tea Party just a gimmick?

  2. Michael February 27, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    Kyle, if you didn’t see the conservatives railing against President Bush on numerous occasions, then you really weren’t paying attention. But the answer to that is NOT more spending. Obama has been in office a month and has tripled the national debt. Tripled. It’s numerically impossible to pay that back. It’s not right to give Obama a pass because Bush was also wrong.

    As for Joe the Plumber, I agree that he’s been overused and overrated.

    As for the Tea Party being a gimmick, I don’t think so. There’s a growing movement, a growing sense of frustration among the American people. The more the President and Congress screw up our economy, the louder the cries will be. Forty substantial rallies organized nationwide in less than two weeks is pretty significant.

  3. Kyle March 1, 2009 at 1:27 am #

    First lets get the numbers right. I’m not an accountant and often it seems like the numbers thrown around on TV are not comparing apples to apples. I would like to talk about the National Debt and forget about the Budget Deficit for a moment. While researching this post I came across an interesting webpage that you might have some fun with. The Treasury Department has a daily record of the National Debt that reaches back to 1993. You can find it at . Here are some of the interesting things I found.

    On the day Bush was inaugurated the National Debt was $5.7 Trillion. In Clinton’s last calendar year of office the National Debt decreased by $113 Billion (a surplus). On the day Bush left office the National Debt was $10.6 Trillion. In the 2008 calendar year of his presidency the National Debt increased $1.4 Trillion (a deficit). In the 2007 calendar year the National Debt increased $548 Billion. Thus, the additional debt (the deficit) in 2008 was nearly three times the amount of additional debt in 2007. (if you don’t believe me do the math for yourself, it is quite the eye opener)

    Bush and the Republicans that controlled Congress for SIX YEARS of his presidency took a shrinking National Debt and doubled it. Over the last two years of his presidency the amount of new debt tripled.

    Considering this knowledge, why do Republican politicians think they have any authority or moral standing to object to Obama’s spending when they let Bush spend what ever he wanted? Bush and the Republicans got us to where we are today. Why should we want to consider any of their ideas? Yes, there was some opposition to Bush’s spending from some conservative Republicans, but not from the Republican leadership in Congress, not from the Republican talking heads, and there was never a nation wide effort to stage protests of Bush’s spending policies. From the outside looking in, it seems like a rather convenient time to find religion.

    I agree that we shouldn’t give Obama a pass because Bush was wrong. But we should acknowledge that a good deal of Bush’s economic policies didn’t work and that we need to try something new. More importantly we should not reject without consideration the plans that Obama is proposing simply because they follow Democratic ideals. No Democrat is wrong about everything and no Republican is right about everything. We need to find the best ideas from both sides and put them to work. And the Republican Leadership needs to learn that “no” is not an idea.

    As for you comment about Obama tripling the National Debt, he would have to spend $20 Trillion dollars to triple it (it currently stands at $10.8 Trillion). What you meant to say is that he is going to triple the Budget Deficit. Truthfully I don’t know if anyone can prove or disprove this statement. Officially, the budget deficit for the fiscal year 2008 was $455 Billion (, but the National Debt increased by nearly $1.1 Trillion in fiscal 2008. To much of the statement is based on speculation and it is very easy to move the measuring stick. Either way the amount of debt our nation has and will have in the future is frightening and we will need to deal with it sooner rather than later.

    One last thing, Republicans might want to be a little more careful when trying to assign all of the blame for the economy on Obama and the Democrats. What’s going to happen if his plan works? The Democrats will rightfully be able to take all of the credit for the solution and the Republicans will suffer for it. Just a thought.

  4. Kyle March 1, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    I found this article that explains why there is a difference between Bush’s budget deficit and the increase in the national debt. It also makes you take a different look at Obama’s proposed deficit.,0,6930525.story

    Take a look.

  5. Michael March 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    Let’s continue to get the facts straight Kyle. Clinton ended with a surplus after 6 years of Republican control of Congress. Let’s keep that in mind. George Bush also, rightly or wrongly, was President while we were waging two wars. But considering all of that, the answer to the economic problems is not, cannot be MORE spending. It’s just that simple.

    The Heritage Foundation estimate of the lifetime cost of Porkulus was in excess of THREE trillion. And NOBODY that voted for it read it first.

    NOBODY. That’s just irresponsible. Even if (and it’s not) it was the right thing to do. That was the wrong way to go about it.

    I’m not defending George Bush or the Republicans, I’m thoroughly disgusted with them as well. I’d like to see politicians remember who sent them to DC. We don’t have that in either party.

    And hey, if Obama’s plan actually DOES work, I’ll applaud him. But I don’t think that’s going to be the case.

  6. Kyle March 2, 2009 at 11:45 pm #

    I don’t think that Republicans can take any credit for Clinton’s surplus or even claim to be fiscally conservative. Since 1970 there has been a budget surplus in just two years, both under Clinton. EVERY OTHER YEAR has had a deficit.

    You say that Bush has an excuse for his fiscal irresponsibility because he was fighting two wars. Justification for the wars aside, never in the history of the entire world has a country gone to war and CUT TAXES. If you want to fight a war, make sure you can pay for it, don’t get the Chinese to underwrite your follies.

    The point is that the Republicans have no moral authority when it comes to fiscal policy because they have mortgaged our children’s future as much as the Democrats. At least the Democrats are honest about it.

    It’s time to quit harping about no one reading the stimulus bill. I know you are not naive Michael. There is not a single bill that passes Congress that any member has read in its entirety. That is just how the system works and how it has worked for a long long time. It may not be right that they don’t read the bills, but find something else to complain about.

    I’m going to hold you to those applause.

  7. Michael March 3, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    No, Kyle, it’s time you stopped putting words in my mouth and actually read what I said. Only part of the spending from Bush was related to the war. And yes, we railed against his domestic spending. Look it up. But don’t blame it on the tax cuts. Historically, and you can also look that up as I’ve tried to tell you on multiple occasions, when taxes go down, revenues go up. It’s a simple equation, people have more to spend, businesses have more to invest.

    And really, you need to stop telling me how bad the Republicans have been. I know that. I’ve been screaming at them for years to get their act together.

    But what you’ve never seemed to be able to grasp is that principles matter. Values matter. And when those principles and values are betrayed, regardless of the party, we all suffer.

    Yes, the Republicans have failed in holding up the principles of conservatism and the principles on which the party was founded. That does not by default make the Democrats right.

    The “majority” can be, and often is, wrong.

    And I’m sorry, I’m not going to stop “harping” about no one reading the stimulus bill. It’s a national disgrace that they don’t read EVERY bill, and I’m going to hold them to it. If you want to blindly follow the bread and circuses go right ahead. I’d rather think that the concept of a representative republic actually means something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: