Thursday, May 31, 2012

Planned Parenthood Promotes War On Women Theme in Iowa

Iowa may only represent six electoral votes, but it is clear that it's swing status and those six votes are important to Barack Obama's re-election (just as that one in Nebraska could very well be).   The president seems to have taken up residence in the state recently and you can bet that he will be back many, many more times.

With that said Planned Parenthood, your government financed women's health care organization, has started a $1.4 MILLION media campaign in three major Iowa media markets.

Lots more money will be spent in Iowa which has swung back and forth the last three elections, supporting Gore, than Bush, then Obama.  It's political background has changed again since it voted for Obama in 2008 when the governor's mansion was controlled by Democrats and when the Democrat Party held a registration advantatage of more than 100,000.

Today, the Governor's mansion is controlled by a Republican and the registration advantage has been totally erased, actually shifted to a nearly 10,000 advantage to the GOP--something that must be pretty scary to Obama and associates.  And recent polling shows that Romney and Obama are virtually tied at 44%.

One can see why Planned Parenthood is spending big bucks in Iowa in hope of preserving itself with continued congressional largess ($500,000,000!) and in hopes that Obama will get to replace one of those conservative scoundrels on the Supreme Court with another abortion-loving liberal.

Will the U.S. Be the New World's Greece?

Walter Williams has a good editorial that we thought we'd share with you.   It's probably old news, but if something isn't done by our congress and president, this country will simply become the New World version of Greece.

Our Nation's Future
Walter E.Williams

"Our nation is rapidly approaching a point from which there's little chance to avoid a financial collapse. The heart of our problem can be seen as a tragedy of the commons. That's a set of circumstances when something is commonly owned and individuals acting rationally in their own self-interest produce a set of results that's inimical to everyone's long-term interest. Let's look at an example of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon and then apply it to our national problem.

Imagine there are 100 cattlemen all having an equal right to graze their herds on 1,000 acres of commonly owned grassland. The rational self-interested response of each cattleman is to have the largest herd that he can afford. Each cattleman pursing similar self-interests will produce results not in any of the cattlemen's long-term interest -- overgrazing, soil erosion and destruction of the land's usefulness. Even if they all recognize the dangers, does it pay for any one cattleman to cut the size of his herd? The short answer is no because he would bear the cost of having a smaller herd while the other cattlemen gain at his expense. In the long term, they all lose because the land will be overgrazed and made useless.

We can think of the federal budget as a commons to which each of our 535 congressmen and the president have access. Like the cattlemen, each congressman and the president want to get as much out of the federal budget as possible for their constituents. Political success depends upon "bringing home the bacon." Spending is popular, but taxes to finance the spending are not. The tendency is for spending to rise and its financing to be concealed through borrowing and inflation.

Does it pay for an individual congressman to say, "This spending is unconstitutional and ruining our nation, and I'll have no part of it; I will refuse a $500 million federal grant to my congressional district"? The answer is no because he would gain little or nothing, plus the federal budget wouldn't be reduced by $500 million. Other congressmen would benefit by having $500 million more for their districts.

What about the constituents of a principled congressman? If their congressman refuses unconstitutional spending, it doesn't mean that they pay lower federal income taxes. All that it means is constituents of some other congressmen get the money while the nation spirals toward financial ruin, and they wouldn't be spared from that ruin because their congressman refused to participate in unconstitutional spending.

What we're witnessing in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and other parts of Europe is a direct result of their massive spending to accommodate the welfare state. A greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes. Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product. The other percentages of GDP are 120 in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal. As a result of this debt and the improbability of their ever paying it, their credit ratings either have reached or are close to reaching junk bond status.

Here's the question for us: Is the U.S. moving in a direction toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt, which was 35 percent of GDP during the 1970s, is now 106 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II's 122 percent. That debt, plus our more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, has led Standard & Poor's to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+, and the agency is keeping the outlook at "negative" as a result of its having little confidence that Congress will take on the politically sensitive job of tackling the same type of entitlement that has turned Europe into a basket case.

I am all too afraid that Benjamin Franklin correctly saw our nation's destiny when he said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

SHE PAC Involved in Wisconsin Recall

You may have recalled that an organization, known as SHE PAC came out and endorsed Nebraska's Next United States Senator Deb Fischer in the week before the May 15 primary. Now the group is involved in the Wisconsin recall effort against Governor Walker and his Lt. Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch.

More and more it looks like a selfish Barack Obama and National Democratic Party, as well as the unions that brought about the recall while creating havoc in the state have abandoned the effort. That's good, but the final results won't be decided until next week and its great to have other organizations step up to the plate.

Dear Bill:

ShePAC is grateful and honored to have stood alongside such rising political stars as
Mia Love and Deb Fischer as they staged come from behind victories to become
nominees for the U.S. House and Senate, respectively. You and I know that
conservative women bring a unique dynamic to the political dialogue, and we must
do everything we can to support their efforts to make a stand for conservative

We now turn our attention to Wisconsin, where Democrats and their union
cronies look to recall conservatives who have courageously acted in favor of
fiscal sanity. Governor Scott Walker has stood strong in this fight, and he has
a great ally in his lieutenant governor, Rebecca Kleefisch.

Lt. Gov. Kleefisch was elected alongside Gov. Walker in 2010, both running on
pro-growth, pro-business platforms. Since being elected, they have lived up
to their word, applying commonsense solutions during a time of economic
uncertainty. Most famously, Gov. Walker took on public sector unions in
Wisconsin that were demanding more government subsidies. Lt. Gov.
Kleefisch joined the governor as a valuable ally in the stand against unions
and their cronies in the Democrat party.

As a result, both Walker and Kleefisch are now facing recall elections on June
5th. And if that weren’t enough, the lieutenant governor is also being
subjected to vile harassment from liberals, an all-too-common occurrence for
conservative women these days.
Because she has stood strong for liberty and weathered attacks from liberal
smear merchants with dignity, ShePAC is delighted to endorse Lt. Gov.
Rebecca Kleefisch in her recall election. Hers is the kind of principled
leadership that we need fighting for our side in Wisconsin.

Rebecca Kleefisch is not a career politician beholden to special interests,
she is a wife and mother who did not like what she saw happening to her
state and decided to do something about it. She is an outstanding role model
for women who are thinking of running for office.

(tweet about her by using the hashtag #RallyForRebecca), watching her
latest videos on Youtube and visiting her website today!

Teri Christoph, Co-Chair
Suzanne Haik Terrell, Co-Chair
Tim Crawford, Treasurer

His Last Campaign: Let Us Pray

In today's 'we get e-mail' category we have one from the current and failed occupant of the White House.    Yes, preying on our love for him and the sad thought that this will be our last chance to vote for him, he asks us for just $3 to help make his last one successful.

We certainly hope he is a man of his words and this is his last campaign since he's going to get his butt kicked in the tradition of another failed Democrat president, Jimmy Carter.  Of course, after his failed attempt at a 'last campaign' Carter went home to Plains, GA which unfortunately he has used as a home base for his liberal interfering world missions.   Still, we'd rather have the current president back in Chicago with the likes of Rev. Wright for the balance of his life rather than completing his mission of driving the country toward ruination over four more years.

From Barack:


I have to tell you -- the next few months will be a little bittersweet for Michelle and me.

It's our last campaign, and that means it's one of our last chances to do something we both love. Connecting with folks and hearing their stories and what they're fighting for is one of the best parts of this job.

So before we head back out there, I wanted to ask you to help make this summer the best we can, by making this campaign as strong as possible right now.

Can you pitch in $3 or more before midnight?

Thank you, as always, for stepping up and making this happen. We'll see you out there.

- Barack"

Ron Paul Still Seeking Nebraska Convention Delegates

You won't learn this from the local daily or the Nebraska Watch Dog or the the local electronic media, but Ron Paul hasn't given up on an attempt to hijack the Nebraska Republican National Delegates, a result that would be embarrassing to our governor and those supporting Mitt Romney.   

We received the e-mail below a little while ago and it explains the Paul strategy.   Get delegates to the county conventions, elect them as delegates to the state convention, and hopefully, elect them to be delegates to the national convention.  While the March 15 date mentioned in the e-mail is inaccurate, it should be March 1, the plans is the same.

We can also tell you that approximately 310 Nebraskans have signed 'notices of intent' to be national delegates.   In past presidential election years that number has generally been around 80, so the Paul supporters are actively working at it.

Perhaps some of these supporters think or perhaps thought there was still a chance for Paul to prevent Romney's nomination.    That chance ended last night in Texas.    We also suspect lots of those folks don't understand that THEY PAY THEIR WAY TO THE CONVENTION, HOTEL COSTS, etc., which probably will take $2,000 out of each of their pockets to make a statement on behalf of Paul should they be elected delegates at the state convention.

The bottom line is that, as you will note from the Paul e-mail, Ron Paul is still trying to gather delegates and doing so regardless of Romney's certain nomination.

Here is the e-mail:

Dear James,
Nebraska’s Republican County Conventions start this Friday!And if you pre-registered for your County Convention by the March 15 deadline, it’s absolutely CRUCIAL you attend.
But even if you didn’t pre-register, I still hope you’ll make it a point to attend your County Convention.
You see, many counties seat voters that show up regardless of whether or not they pre-registered.
That means if you didn’t pre-register, there’s still a good chance you can participate in your County Convention - as long as you're a registered Republican.
To find out the date, time, and location of your County Convention, just CLICK HERE and select your county from the drop-down box.
As you know, from the get-go, Ron Paul’s campaign has been about picking up as many delegates as possible.
With recent victories in Nevada, Maine, and Minnesota - along with a large number of delegates in other states where Ron Paul supporters have been able to gain key party positions - this plan is paying huge dividends.
Your upcoming County Convention is your opportunity to help Ron Paul supporters begin making an impact in Nebraska.
So please, find out when your County Convention is taking place by CLICKING HERE - and make sure you’re there to vote for Ron Paul supporters who are running as State Convention delegates!
Together, you and I can – and will – Restore America NOW!For Liberty,
John Tate
Campaign Manager
P.S. It’s absolutely vital you attend your upcoming County Convention, even if you weren’t able to file as a County Convention delegate by the March 15 deadline.
Many County Conventions will seat registered Republicans who show up on convention day.
County Conventions will take place June 1 – June 10.To find out the date, time, and location of your County Convention, just CLICK HERE and choose your county from the drop-down box.

Paid for by Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Democrat/Obama Gay Marriage Stance Fallout

The Daily Caller's Social Reader had an interesting article on a Pennsylvania Democrat committee woman that has left her party and become a Republican as a result of the president's stand on gay marriage and Catholic issues.    We're sure this is one that you won't see nationally and certainly not in the Omaha daily as it reflects negatively on the chosen political affiliation of those media.

Penn. Democratic leader defects to GOP, cites Catholic faith as reason
"The defection of a prominent Pennsylvania Democrat to the Republican Party is raising some eyebrows.

Jo Ann Nardelli, a state committeewoman and founding president of the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women, has switched her political affiliation to the GOP, citing her Catholic faith and President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage as reasons.
During a press conference last week, Nardelli cited President Obama’s recent announcement in support of gay marriage as a central reason for her defection, endorsed Mitt Romney for president and changed her party registration to Republican, The Altoona Mirror reported.

“As the Democratic Party has taken the stand for same-sex marriage, then I must make a stand on my faith that marriage is between a man and a woman. God’s principles for life never change. His guidelines, given in Scripture, produce fruitful lives when you follow them,” Nardelli, a pro-life Democrat for more than 40 years, said at the Blair County Courthouse.

According to Politics PA, Nardelli continued to point to her Catholic faith as a major motivator in her letter of resignation to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

“I respect all of you and all that I have achieved in the past. Due to personal matters and faith beliefs at this time, it is only fair to resign,” she wrote. “I will miss you all very much as you are all a part of my family; however, it is time to move forward with my life in a direction that is more in line with my faith.”

The Mirror added that Blair County Republican Party Chairman A.C. Stickel welcomed Nardelli. Stickel emphasized Obama’s, and the Democratic Party’s, disconnect with blue collar values as a big part of the story."

Read more:

Johanns Favoring Tax Increases?

We got this from Politico's Pulse this morning.   Apparently, Senator Johanns may be distancing himself further from those tea party types as he appears to be wavering on tax increases:

REPUBLICANS SOFTENING ON TAXES? Ahead of the looming budget showdown, there are cracks emerging in the GOP's hardline stance against boosting tax revenues to cut the deficit. Interviews with more than a dozen Senate Republicans show them warming to higher tax revenues to reach a "grand bargain" that overhauls Medicare and other safety net programs. "My impression is if you brought rates down, did real meaningful tax reform, the additional revenue would not be a deal-killer for many," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). Thing is, that's setting up a stark contrast with Mitt Romney, who pledged during the primaries that he'll oppose new taxes as part of a debt deal. The Romney campaign is still sticking to this message."

Fighting Obamacare

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform is doing his part to expose the 'hidden' taxes in Obamacare As Norquist notes below, one of the first things congress will vote on over the next few weeks is a 2.3% tax on medical devices.    It will be assessed on manufactures which, of course, means it will be passed on to those who require these items to live a normal life.   This is just another item among those 2,000 pages of Obamacare that no one had time to read or discuss.

 If you were an Omaha city councilman you might call this an "occupation tax" since it is hidden and still passed on to the end consumer.  We wonder what Bob Kerrey thinks of a tax that affects those who need artificial limbs?  Oh, the government already pays for his....

Anyway, here is Norquist's message along with the 'educational graphic' he sent:

"As House Republicans ramp up efforts to dismantle Obamacare over the next few weeks, Americans for Tax Reform wanted to highlight some of the more egregious portions of President Obama’s “signature issue.”

The first provision scheduled to be voted on for elimination is the medical device tax. Obamacare imposes a new tax of 2.3% on medical devices, including braces, pacemakers, wheelchairs, and other costly medical devices. While these taxes will be paid by the device manufacturer, you can bet the tax will be passed along as a higher cost of the product, ultimately forcing seniors, parents, and veterans to pay more for these life sustaining devices."

Memorial Day 2012 Was a Solemn Occasion -- Doug Patton

On Sunday morning of Memorial Day weekend, my family and I gather at a small rural cemetery on a windswept hillside, surrounded by rich Iowa farmland, as the local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars honors the men buried there who served in all of America's wars, from the War of 1812 to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

An aging VFW honor guard provides a 21-gun salute, followed by a lone bugler playing Taps. Some of the men being honored there were teenagers when they lost their lives in battle. Some came home to raise families and grow old in that community, or perhaps they settled there after their war years to start a whole new life. Still others migrated elsewhere before returning home to live out their final years and be buried in that little cemetery.

Whatever their circumstances, they are remembered each Memorial Day at this brief ceremony. Among the names of those who served in World War I is that of my maternal grandfather. He and my grandmother settled there in the 1930s and made the community their home. They are buried together in that little cemetery.

For the past 14 years, my father's name has been among those interred there who served in World War II. As a 22-year-old NCO on Eisenhower's staff during the planning for D-Day, only a freak accident resulting in a broken ankle kept him from sailing across the English Channel on June 6, 1944, with the rest of the invasion force. Like most WWII vets, he never talked much about his wartime experiences, but he did tell us about that one, and I believe it always haunted him that the young man who took his place that day was one of the first to fall on Omaha Beach.

I have always viewed this special Memorial Day ceremony as a celebration of the lives of ordinary men who rose to the occasion in the worst of times to do extraordinary things. For the last three years, I have felt a sense of sadness and resentment on behalf of those men, because their country is now led by a man who believes that America is an arrogant nation that needs to apologize to the rest of the world.

From the bloody, mustard gas-poisoned battlefields of World War I to the beaches of Normandy, from the freezing cold of Korea to the rice paddies of Vietnam, from the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, these brave men set aside their own personal hopes, dreams, goals and lives to serve us when we needed them most. They fought for an ideal this president cannot even fathom and about which he apparently cares nothing, and their country they defended owes apologies to no one.

I hear people say of Barack Obama, "He's not one of us," almost as if he's a space alien. I understand what they mean. He is not a loyal American. He is a radical ideologue whose worldview is global and whose loyalties lie somewhere other than with the nation that has given him so much.

I miss my dad. My father would have turned 90 this month. I wish he had lived far beyond the 76 years he was given. Hardly a day has passed in the last 14 years that I have not wished that I could ask him the questions I failed to ask when I thought I had another year or another month with him, or to tell him how much I appreciate the sacrifice he and his generation made to preserve my freedom.

But when I see the President of the United States travel to Europe and refuse to go to a U.S. military cemetery in France, as he did during his first year in office, I am glad my father did not live to see it. When I see this president speak before crowds of ungrateful Europeans, all of whom, without the intervention of my country — twice in one century — would be living under the jackboot of Nazi Germany today, I am ashamed for the honor of all the brave men who fought beside them.

Just as my father and grandfather stood against evil in their time, may God grant us the endurance and the fortitude to stand against the evil of this president's ideology and agenda, and the wisdom to replace him in November.
© 2012 by Doug Patton
Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

World Herald Continues Attack on Conservatives

The liberal bias of the local daily seems to grow in visibility every day.    And today, it extended to a Matson Roll Call cartoon showing one beleaguered elephant standing in a war zone of elephant skeletons.   And what is that lone living elephant wearing?   A sign reading 'Moderate Republians'.   Apparently, it is the last of the moderate elephants.

Once again, the local daily cartoon expresses the beliefs of its editorial page and its owner.   They don't believe that the Republican party (that would be the citizens who elect its candidates) is right in moving to the right.   You know, excising itself of great conservatives like Hagel and Lugar, et cetera?  

Of course, when the paper (and Hagel, etal) come out in support of Warren Buffett's fair-haired boy Bob Kerrey you can bet there will be no cartoon of a moderate donkey standing in a field of ass skeletons......No, of course, because the paper doesn't believe that Democrats who support abortion on demand, partial-birth abortion, gay marriage, cap and trade and higher taxes are liberal right wingers.   No, in the eyes of the local daily those, like Kerrey, who support such are mainstream moderates.

Maybe it's time for the local daily to rename itself, the Liberal Mouthpiece.....

Romney Finally Locks it Up: Time to Send Obama Packing

In this evening's 'we get e-mail' category, we've got one that will be shared across the nation as Mitt Romney can finally claim he has locked up the Republican nomination with his win in Texas.  It's been a long hard fight against many who also wanted the nomination but Romney displayed the tenacity to fight it out.   Yes, money helped.    And organization helped.  His organization out performed all others.

Now, whether every Republican or conservative likes it or not, it's time to realize that he is the only one that can save our country from four more years of Obama disaster and ruination.   

We're glad it's over.   It's time to finish the job and send Obama back to Chicago or where ever.

Tonight, we surpassed 1,144 delegates and secured the nomination. I am grateful and humbled by your support through this process. We did it!

This has been an extraordinary journey. And yet it's only the beginning.

Now all Republicans can move forward toward our convention in Tampa. There, we will stand united as a party with a winning ticket for America. Ours will be a campaign to unite every American who knows in his or her heart that we can do better.

There's much to be done by November 6th - but with your help, we will get it done!

Four More Years? We Hope Not

We had posted the prior entry, The President's Deficit Lies Refuted -- Let's Hope His Work Is Done before we read Pete Du Pont's commentary in the Wall Street Journal which only highlights the fiscal destruction this president has wrought in just over three years on this nation, its citizens and its economy.   With that said, we thought we'd share Du Pont's thoughts with you.

Four More Years
"Before being elected in 2008, Barack Obama said: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." That belief has turned out to be wholly accurate. America has been greatly transformed by all areas of this administration's policy goals and actions.

The most significant policy change during President Obama's first term was his health-care "reform," the movement of 17% of our economy from the marketplace of ideas and physician-patient decision-making to control and management by the federal government. The Supreme Court is now considering whether ObamaCare is constitutional, and is expected to decide by the end of June.

ObamaCare is a huge governmental mandate, the impact of which we are just beginning to feel. If the Supreme Court upholds the law, full government control of health care will start next year, with the new ObamaCare taxes on investment income. The individual mandates and other rules and regulations will begin in 2014. If the court upholds ObamaCare and Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, the scope and size of our government's control over health care will increase dramatically.

A second Obama term would guarantee no repeal or significant repair of ObamaCare for at least four more years, allowing it to push its tentacles into every aspect of our health care. It will give the health and human services secretary free rein in her decisions about new mandates and about which organizations or entities can be granted exemptions from them. This would give her and the president a new way to reward favored special interests.

The second negative policy impact of the president's first term is the large and unsustainable increase in federal spending and debt. Annual spending increased from $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2010, and the Obama plan is to grow it to $5.5 trillion a year less than a decade from now. Deficits averaging $1.3 trillion a year have been the rule so far, and that thinking—and perhaps worse—would be with us for a second Obama term.

Mr. Obama's first term commenced with an $800 billion "stimulus" giveaway to the favored constituencies of the liberal left. Then the excessive spending that created the deficits continued. The president's recent budgets have been so far from the mainstream that Congress, including Democrats, has had little interest in supporting them. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and no longer constrained in his policy proposals by the need to keep independents in his camp, there will be continued squandering of the nation's fiscal resources. All of this will lead to even more burdens on individuals, families and businesses, not to mention future generations.

Increasing entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is a huge threat to our economic future, yet any suggestion reform do gets a very healthy dose of Obama demagoguery. So these issues would no doubt go unanswered in a second term.
Tax policy is the other substantial change coming to us if there a second Obama term. The White House made one good decision in its first term by extending the Bush tax cuts for two years, an idea that came to pass after the drubbing the president's party took in the 2010 congressional elections. But the current promise that the Bush tax cuts will end two months after the coming election surely means that if the president wins, taxes for a large number of Americans will rise. That would have a negative impact not just on those individuals and families but on the economy as a whole, stifling job creation and harming people and businesses across all income levels.

The other decision the administration has made is to reduce the availability and affordability of the energy used by American businesses and individuals. The goal is to make energy scarcer, more expensive and firmly controlled by the federal government. The capturing of natural gas via fracking has been a huge success story. Yet the federal government is to embrace it and appears to want to restrict and regulate all of it. Add in the federal government's clamp-down on power production from coal, its slowness in the approval of oil- and gas-drilling permits, and its disapproval of the Keystone pipeline, and we can see what the administration will continue to do in a possible second term. All that will add to continual lower supplies and make energy more expensive for American businesses and individuals.

From ObamaCare, excessive spending, increased debt and lack of effort on reforming entitlement programs, to flawed policies on taxes and energy, this administration's efforts have hurt our economy, stifled job creation, and taken away many of the freedoms and characteristics that have made America great. It would be foolhardy to expect this administration to do a 180 if granted a second term. It would also be foolhardy to ignore the question of what eight years of such policies will do to America.

One final thought on what lies behind the very negative impact of the president's first term is the increasing jadedness on the part of Americans. The president many people felt would unite the country has instead used one wedge issue after another to divide our people along the lines of income, race, sex and class. This setting of one group against another is part of the re-election process and prospects. It may lead to a more difficult, divisive, and nastier election than we have seen in a while. And that may in turn mean an more difficult time for whoever is president in 2013."

The President's Deficit Lies Refuted -- Let's Hope His Work Is Done

We thought we'd share with you the following by Rick Manning of the American for limited government.   It does a pretty good and succinct job of using our own government's figures to offset the lies being told by the current occupant of the White House as he seeks to mislead Americans into giving yet another four years to continue his mission to destroy our country financially (as well as morally).

Obama’s Deficit Chutzpah

By Rick Manning — “I don’t know how they’ve been bamboozling folks into thinking that they are the responsible, fiscally-disciplined party. They run up these wild debts and then when we take over we have to clean it up,” Obama said. “And then they point and say, ‘Look how irresponsible they are.’ Look at facts, look at the numbers. And now I want to finish the job,” President Obama said at a fundraiser in Denver.

“Look at the facts, look at the numbers. And now I want to finish the job.”
Like failed 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart daring reporters to follow him around in response to rumors that he was having an affair, only to have his swinging ways with Donna Rice exposed in tabloids across the nation, Obama has dared people to examine the truth about his fiscal record.

So let’s take him up on it.

Incredibly, Obama has only been a federal elected official since he was sworn into the U.S. Senate on January 3, 2005.

When Obama took office in the Senate, the debt to gross domestic product ratio for the country was 62.9 percent. This means that the total U.S. debt equaled almost two-thirds of the annual economic production of the country. Institutions which decide the debt rating for countries look at this debt/GDP number to determine each country’s credit ratings. When Obama entered the U.S. Senate, the United States had the highest possible credit rating at AAA, allowing our government to borrow money at the lowest possible rates.
During Obama’s first two years in the Senate, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress and the debt to GDP ratio jumped by .6, still an indictment of the lack of fiscal restraint demonstrated by the GOP in the latter stage of their last time controlling Congress and the presidency.

At least partially due to this lack of fiscal restraint, the elections of 2006 swept the Democrats to power in Congress starting in 2007. During the next two years, the debt to GDP went up by 50 percent compared to the prior two years, but still was at a manageable 64.4 percent when Obama was elected president.

That’s when fiscal restraint was thrown out the window.

The Obama, Reid, Pelosi troika engaged in a record spending binge and the nation’s GDP did not respond robustly as the nation’s debt to GDP exploded almost 20 percent higher from a 64.4 percent ratio to an astounding 84.2 percent.

The rate of growth continued unabated in the third year of Obama’s term in office as it jumped another 9 percent to 93.2 percent as the U.S. Senate controlled by Obama’s political party, refused to pass a budget or seriously consider proposals to cut the rate of spending in the country.

Now, as Obama is running for re-election full time, the nation has crossed the Rubicon and the national debt to GDP is well above 100 percent.

Checking the numbers, since Obama became a federally elected official, the White House’s Office of Management & Budget website reveals that when Obama took office, federal government spending was below 3 trillion dollars a year. During the first three years of Obama’s term in office federal government spending jumped to 3.5 trillion in 2009, 3.4 trillion in 2010 and 3.6 trillion in 2011 with an Obama White House projected increase to just under 3.8 trillion in 2012.

By the same token, our nation’s revenues from taxes and other sources declined to 2005 levels of 2.1 trillion in 2009 due to the recession. These revenues still remain substantially below 2006 levels with 2.3 trillion received by the federal government in 2011.

These revenue differences are under essentially the same tax law for the entire period, so the lower revenues are not due to any new tax breaks or avoidance, but are a reflection of an economy that is staggering along with more than 300,000 fewer Americans employed today than were employed when Obama took office.

In fact, the federal deficit in the “wild spending days” prior to the Democratic congressional takeover of 2007 was a very manageable $161 billion. In Obama’s first year of his term in the presidency, the federal deficit was $1.4 trillion with 2010 and 2011 each logging in $1.3 trillion deficits and 2012 projected to jump above $1.3 trillion.
Looking at the numbers as candidate Obama implores makes one long for the good ole days of fiscal year 2007 before he was even considered a credible candidate for president and was still trying to find the restrooms in the Senate office buildings.

Like Gary Hart before him, perhaps Obama should not protesteth too much, because when put under the microscope, Obama’s record deficit spending makes his predecessor look like a piker.

Rick Manning is the Communications Director of Americans for Limited Government. You can follow Rick on Twitter at @RManning957.

Control by the Few or Freedom to Use our Talents? -- Ted Quick

Our country has always been made up of opposing ideologies but the power struggle between the right and the left has never been more obvious and contentious than it is in the highly politically charged environment of today.  The current President promotes his views almost daily on national television.  While the scope of his bully pulpit is much greater than all other forms of media combined, I feel compelled to address a number of topics, even in this written forum, from the perspective of those of us on the right:

Let’s begin with the idea that conservative ideology is responsible for our nation’s current recession; that is simply wrong.  Our recession was created by the ideology of the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, one of whom actually said, while discussing down payments on loan modifications, “. . . that’s not fair to those who can’t afford it”.  That attitude found welcome partners in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s leadership, whose top-level executives raked in 10’s of millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses by purposefully and intentionally pressuring their underwriters to approve loans to people “who couldn’t afford them”; those with poor credit and inadequate income to support their purchases.  Our country was nearly brought down by the complicity between that ideology and those quasi-governmental leaders, all of whom knew the bubble would eventually burst - because it had to.  There was no other possible outcome.

We are criticized for believing that totally free markets will always create the greatest good, but they always have and they always will.  While GM and Chrysler are reporting good profits, their remnants could be doing much better today if they hadn’t been bailed out.  If they had filed for bankruptcy their good assets would have been gobbled up by competent business managers.  The new streamlined companies would be much better positioned to leverage those assets into more highly productive, efficient and profitable businesses than the cumbersome operations left standing today.  They could possibly be hiring many of our unemployed neighbors resulting in employment numbers achievable only through the genius of the free-market system; our recovery could very well be much stronger than it is today and certainly our country would have less debt.

Let’s take a brief look at the Chevy Volt, a GM product.  While there is some debate on this, one report shows that it takes more energy to charge the Volt’s batteries than if it ran on gasoline alone.  And it is a sales’ failure, it simply isn’t selling but then the Volt is not a free-market product.  It is a green-energy idea foisted upon us by the government and being sold to us as a means of getting us off of foreign oil, but instead it turned out to be just another sink-hole for our tax dollars.  We fail to see where wasting our funds on government failures is any way to rebuild an economy or to develop energy independence.

It is the free-market system that is the primary driver of gas and oil prices.  We find it very irritating when the left and the President take credit for oil imports being down and oil production being up when Obama blocks nearly all requests for new oil leases.  It was President Bush’s signing of leases and oil companies increased drilling on private land which has allowed imports to drop and our own production to rise.  We are openly criticized for pushing to open more oil fields on our soil, in our gulf, on other proven reserves and for the Keystone pipeline to be built, but if those actions had been taken 10 years ago or so we would now be free from any need for foreign oil and world-wide gas and oil prices would likely have dropped precipitously as a result of supply and demand.  We are all paying dearly for Washington’s lack of foresight and leadership.

Supposedly, the Republican Party is standing in the way of recovery, but here is one simple fact; many bills have been passed by the House that would have revitalized our nation’s economy but since the proposals were not palatable to the leftist Senate, they were dead upon arrival.

Back to the idea that the recession was caused by conservative ideology: here is some history; it was conservative ideology that built our country; it was pure capitalism free from needless oversight and regulation.  The system worked because of supply and demand; if the public liked the product or service, the company succeeded, if not, it failed.  Entrepreneurs were richly rewarded for taking huge risks.  The result was explosive growth and America soon became the envy of the world.  We were the country where everyone wanted to be, so much so that millions entered illegally and continue to do so even today.

But we were also soon the most hated.  The origin of that hate is purely speculative, but it could be from jealousy, mischaracterization or a simple lack of understanding about who we are and what we stand for.  Enemies also soon developed within our own borders as many lost sight of where we had come from and how we had gotten to where we were.  As life became easier for most, those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale who were looking for excuses for their plight, found willing accomplices in many politicians and much of the media.  The castigation of our economic model and of those who are the contributors to our economy had become the platform for moving our country to the political and economic left; and therein developed the roots for the “cruel and unfair” shtick.

To right those “wrongs” and to elevate the underprivileged, the left used environmental, safety and poverty issues among others, to justify additional regulations and income redistribution.  A geometric increase in the proliferation of new laws burst forth.  This untenable growth has created an unusually oppressive, expensive, restrictive and challenging environment for all businesses, resulting in millions of Americans being hurt and millions remaining unemployed.  The collective left understands that these rules and the doling out of our tax dollars are effective ways to control the behaviors and actions of others so it is unlikely that there will be any slowdown in the creation of new laws.

Certainly some regulation is needed but a 2008 study showed that regulations that year cost businesses 1.75 trillion dollars, while corporate pre-tax dollars were only 1.463 trillion, or about one tenth of the 14 trillion dollar economy that year.  And that was even before the unprecedented flood of Obama’s run at over-reaching edicts.  If Washington were truly interested in our economic recovery as it claims, it would roll back all oversight laws to the pre-Bush era, when a good living could still be made relatively free from cost-prohibitive laws and when corporate profits still belonged to those who made them.  Any roll back is very unlikely however, as the “unfair” shtick (exemplified currently by the Wall Street One Percenters) has become an inextricable part of the left’s mantra and they’ll never give up an opportunity to control “We the People”, control being an integral part of their design.

The left also speaks of conservatives’ greed; while it was certainly greed that motivated the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and they are not alone), it is the desire for profit that motivates most owners and managers, whether politically right or left.  And profits are not greed, they are a necessity.  A form of greed that is abhorrent to those of us on the right however, is when those who produce very little or nothing at all demand more and more from those of us who produce nearly everything -- profits are earned, handouts are unearned and those demanding them are the ones who are greedy.

It is illogical to think that 535 people in Washington can compete with the combined genius of 311 million imaginative and creative people; the freer the environment, the more goods and services are produced with more businesses being the result.  Profitable businesses hire the unemployed.  Employed families spend money and economies expand.  Profits are the engine of an economy.  Without profits companies wouldn’t exist.  Without companies (and their employees) there is no source of taxation for the government.  Simply stated, the government is 100% dependent upon the very businesses that they and the left rail so loudly against.

Today we are living in the era of the haves and the have-nots.  We haves fear for what will be taken from us to be redistributed to the have-nots.  The have-nots feel it’s unfair that we producers have accumulated anything at all while they have accumulated comparatively little.  The difference is that we producers are adding to the nation’s coffers by grinding it out daily while the have-nots are standing at the trough with their hands out.  Those hands are being filled from the redistributed wealth that is being taken from us; $10 trillion since The New Deal.

So I close with some questions to those in the leftist camp; what made our country the most powerful and successful country that ever existed in the history of the world, an economy managed by a few in “government” or was it the free-market system?  The answer of course, is the free-market system and all that system has ever asked from any of us is an honest effort.  That effort and the risks attendant with that effort are from where the greatest rewards in life are realized, both financially and psychologically.  The alternative is to settle for that which you can take from others.  Where is the reward in that?

So my final question is this: do you want to be controlled by a few in Washington, or do you want the freedom to pool your talents with 311 million other people where those talents will be valued, developed and amplified, and where all who make an honest effort are rewarded?

Monday, May 28, 2012

Are Blacks Incapable of Taking Care of Themselves?

Well, sometimes you have to say what you think and sometimes you have to ask what others won't.   That's what our title today does.   So you liberals have at us if you have the guts, and provide your comments (you can do so anonymously) and call us racists.

After learning that the Learning Community Council, an organization that could best be compared to your appendix for need, voted to spend $100,000 of YOUR TAX DOLLARS to deal with 'young black mothers' in North Omaha who apparently are suffering 'toxic stress', we couldn't help but ask that question.   

Apparently, a University of Nebraska Medical Center neuroscientist has padded his research budget by convincing Learning Community board members that spending $5,000 per person for 20 'North Omaha' mothers will enhance the lives of their offspring.   Yes, these mothers suffer from 'toxic stress', resulting from chronic poverty, isolation and hopelessness and if not addressed this will affect their babies.  Well, dah.

The neuroscientist, Jack Turman, will use the money to intervene in the lives of these black mothers allowing him to deploy teams of volunteers (?)  to teach them to help stimulate and nurture their kids.     And if it works after a year (how can you decide that?), maybe more money will be forthcoming from your tax dollars.

Wow, yet another reason for a black female teenager to get 'knocked up'.   More money and attention beyond WIC, welfare, earned income credit, Head Start, et cetera, et cetera.  No wonder 70% of the births in the black community are out of wedlock.....!!!!!!

Let's face it.    This is just one more program that we need because blacks can't take care of themselves.    Black teens kill each other in the streets because government hasn't done enough for them.    They can't find their way to polling places because of voter suppression.   They can't get jobs because they can't learn, because they have inferior schools, although we're happy to spend thousands of dollars transporting them to any school they want to attend.   

Of course, this must all be the fault of the white master race.   One hundred fifty years after Emancipation, the master race's mea culpas apparently haven't allowed many blacks to assume personal responsibility for their lives.  Apparently, the only solution is to throw more tax dollars at the problem because they are incapable of taking care of themselves.   It's worked really well thus far, hasn't it?

Thank Bob Kerrey for His Service Not His 'Independence'

Since it's Memorial Day, its appropriate to thank all our veterans for their service and that certainly includes Bob Kerrey.  

With that said, some of our readers may have accidentally seen the local daily's article on Bob Kerrey prior to lining their bird cages with it, its most fitting use.

In what might have been one of the slightly more objective articles published recently about Bob Kerrey, the local daily's Robynn Tysver provided Memorial Day readers with a article titled, "For Kerrey, it's a far different campaign this time".   But let's be clear, the article did not rate a front page section A location unless you happen to have an interst in seeing Kerrey elected. 

 Of Kerrey, Tysver noted:
  • "Democrat Bob Kerrey may be a rock star in some political circles, but he's an aging one whose bid for a political comeback in Nebraska is far from guaranteed."
  • "He is not the classic underdog, but in his run against Republican State Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine, he also is no front-runner."
  • "He is running this race as an independent-minded Democrat in a Republican-dominated state."
  • "He also is running in a more polarized political environment against a woman many political observers say will be harder for Kerrey to beat than the man many expected to be his opponent — Attorney General Jon Bruning."
  • "The partisan numbers today clearly favor Fischer. About 48 percent of registered voters in the state are Republicans, compared with 32 percent who are Democrats. About 19 percent are registered as independents."
  • Kerrey's math problem is daunting: For him to win, he has to take almost all of the state's Democratic vote, a majority of the independents and about 20 percent of the Republican vote, said Paul Johnson, his campaign manager."
  • And on the campaign trail thus far, Kerrey has portrayed himself as an independent-minded politician who will go to Washington and work with people on both sides of the aisle.
Tysver got part of it  right.   She at least provided a fair representation of the numbers.   The quote by Paul Johnson, Kerrey's campaign manager, as to what Kerrey needs to do to win is right on.

However, in her comments about Kerrey portraying himself as an independent-minded politician she failed to note that this has been the Paul Johnson Nebraska campaign strategy used by Kerrey, Nelson, Fahey and Suttle in the past.   But this time it's a strategy that can't work.  

Kerrey and Johnson can point accusations at their fall opponent Deb Fischer in an effort to portray her as some raving wild ultra conservative but that dog won't hunt.    It won't hunt because Fischer has a solid record of leadership in the legislature.    It won't hunt because Kerrey has already declared himself totally out of sync with Nebraskans on cap and trade, partial birth abortion, Obamacare, gay marriage and taxes. 

Is this a different Kerrey than the one who voted "to save President Clinton's presidency" by casting the highest tax increase in American history?   We think not.  Is he an independent-minded guy that just happened to make a secret deal with Harry Reid that neither will talk about?   Lots of transparency and non-partisanship that should assure Nebraskans that Kerry will work across the aisle before voting for whatever Reid and Obama want. Right?

Nebraskans saw what their other 'independent for Nebraska' did to them in his despicable Christmas Eve vote that gave them and all Americans Obamacare.  Being an 'independent for Nebraska' won't fool anyone given Nelson's betrayal of Nebraskans and Kerrey's liberal record and recent statements on the above issues.  

Tysver, who will certainly write future articles questioning Fischer's abilities might just what to show a little more intellectual curiosity about the owner of the local daily's fair-haired (oh, it's gray now) boy...., i.e., the choice of Warren Buffett and his editorial page.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Woe is Us: Something Possitive About Bob Kerrey?

We occasionally have guilt pains as we try to be fair and conservative.   It should be no secret what we think of Bob Kerrey by now.   But with that admission, we thought we'd share something from the national media that Kerrey supporters might actually like whether we agree with the premise of the article or not.   In our mind, we don't believe that Kerrey as a senator could accomplish anything that Harry Reid didn't give his liberal backing to which is why Deb Fischer needs to be elected and why the Republicans need to take control of the senate this fall. 

Anyway, here is an article that appeared on Real Clear Politics by Michael Gerson.   Although, as noted, it shows some favoritism to Kerrey, we might also point out our highlighting:

Bob Kerrey's Entitlement Honesty

By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- By endorsing Deb Fischer -- the surprise winner of Nebraska's Republican Senate primary -- Sarah Palin let a competent candidate slip through her normal screening process. Fischer is no Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell -- tea party favorites in 2010 who seemed to view accomplishment and deliberation as pernicious establishment vices. Fischer is a tough, effective, respected state legislator -- and, in the few polls available so far, is leading her Democratic opponent, Bob Kerrey.
In electing Fischer, Nebraskans would send a staunch, predictable conservative to Washington, which has considerable merit. But Kerrey complicates the choice.

Ideological conformity is relatively common in the capital city. Independent thought is rarer. And a Democrat who is keen to confront the nation's largest challenge -- a fiscal crisis driven by entitlement costs -- is rarest of all.

Speaking by phone from the campaign trail in Nebraska, Kerrey rattles off the statistics on fewer workers supporting the benefits of a larger number of retirees as federal entitlement spending squeezes out every other public investment in the general welfare. "Our future as a great country depends on our ability to resolve this problem," he says. It has been his consistent warning since he co-chaired the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement Reform in the early 1990s. And it is the cause that has led him back into elective politics after an 11-year absence.

During past Senate service, Kerrey was known for his bluntness. (He once publicly observed, "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good.") The trait endures. The main obstacle to entitlement reform, he told me, is the "presupposition that people over 65 can't take the truth. People are afraid of them. ... We need to get people over 65 to look at people under 40, who, right now, are going to get screwed. They are going to get less than they were promised. We need to ask the grandparents, does that bother them?"

Not as much as it should. But it bothers Kerrey, 68. "If I win, I want to be specific on changes in Medicare and Social Security. I don't want to go back just to be back." By the end of the campaign, he predicts, "it will feel I'm to the right of the Republicans on this."

Kerrey's criticism of Congress on the entitlement issue has its own tea party edge. "One option is to do nothing," he explains. "That currently has 535 co-sponsors." He describes the Simpson-Bowles report on fiscal reform as "a huge lost opportunity" because "the country was ready for it" -- which seems an implicit criticism of President Obama's refusal to embrace the recommendations of his own commission. Kerrey scatters bipartisan responsibility in the failure of last year's deficit supercommittee. The problem started, he says, "when (Majority Leader Harry) Reid didn't put on (Sen. Richard) Durbin and when (Minority Leader Mitch) McConnell didn't put on (Sen. Tom) Coburn." Both Durbin and Coburn had taken the political risk of supporting Simpson-Bowles. "Had they been on the supercommittee, it might have been a different outcome."

Considering members of Congress "on an individual basis," says Kerrey, "you should presume patriotism." But he believes that congressional rules favor partisan gridlock. "I am campaigning to amend the Constitution to abolish both the Republican and Democratic caucuses. ... We should not allow Congress to organize by party. How can you work with someone who is raising money to defeat you? The rules of Congress have to change, and they can't be trusted to rewrite their own rules."

Kerrey, with plenty of people trying to defeat him, is clearly frustrated by the course of the campaign, which has focused on his extended absence from Nebraska as president of the New School in New York City. "The most important issue for me right now," he vents, "is defending that I spent 11 years in New York. We need to get to the part where we have a conversation" on entitlements. "We become Greece if we don't solve this one."

The current market for vivid ideological idiosyncrasy is weak. Conservative super PACs are already weighing in against Kerrey. Elements of the left seem no more enthusiastic. "Bob Kerrey equals Joe Lieberman in our minds," snarks one progressive activist.

It is a sign of political sickness when the name Lieberman -- which stands for independence, integrity and civility -- is employed as an epithet. Our system is incapable of significant action when every representative is ideologically typical and predictably partisan. Which is the strongest argument for Bob Kerrey.

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
Page Printed from: at May 25, 2012 - 09:01:45 AM PDT

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Iowa Congressman Latham up with new ad

With Iowa losing a house seat, it's 3rd district race between Republican Tom Latham and his liberal Democrat opponent Leonard Boswell will be important to Republicans.  Groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the race and now Latham has anted up more than six figures to run the above ad.  

This is a race that pits two incumbents against each other and at this point is rated as leaning Republican.

Wasting Billions on Green Technology

We're no fans of the Chevrolet Volt or electric cars like the Leaf.   We're no fans of the government picking winners and losers or the government trying to put lipstick on a pig thinking people won't think it's a pig.  Spending, wasting, billions of tax payer dollars on Solyndra or its government owned auto company is something that government can't afford.

With that said, we thought we'd share the following article which we found on the American Enterprise site:

Huge subsidies give American taxpayers high-voltage shocks

FLINT, Mich. -- It's tempting to call the shameful taxpayer subsidy for electric cars - vehicles that are unaffordable for all but a small number of wealthy Americans - this nation's costly little secret.

But it's no secret, and that's the real shame. It's obvious now that electric vehicles can't compete with gasoline-powered cars, even with generous government subsidies.

And for years automotive engineers have documented that the performance of electric vehicles - particularly their short range and battery uncertainty under real traffic conditions - falls short in virtually every aspect.

What's truly shameful is that such disparities have done nothing to change policy. Subsidizing electric vehicles has been a devil's bargain, making the development of other alternative technologies like conventional hybrids and advanced gasoline engines more difficult.

Since 2008, taxpayers have spent or provided loan guarantees of $6.5 billion for electric vehicles. That includes $2.4 billion for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, $3.1 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle projects, and $1 billion in tax credits for the vehicles.

The price that American taxpayers pay for commercializing electric vehicles is painfully evident in the billions spent on green projects that are driven by politics rather than performance.

Instead of letting plug-in vehicles like the Nissan Leaf, GM Volt and Ford Focus Electric compete on their own against fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars, the government has used subsidies to create an artificial market that otherwise would not exist.

Using taxpayer dollars to favor one automotive technology over another is contrary to the free-market principles that undergird our economy. Simply put, subsidizing electric vehicles doesn't make economic sense.

That's evident in the lackluster sales of the vehicles. Even with a $7,500 tax credit, GM sold a meager 7,671 electric-hybrid Volts in 2011, far fewer than its goal of 10,000. Nissan sold 9,674 all-electric Leafs.

We won't even come close to President Obama's prediction a few years ago that 1 million electric cars would be on the road by 2015.

The production costs of electric cars have not dropped to make them competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles. The average American can't afford an electric car, no matter how strongly one might feel about curbing our dependence on foreign oil and driving an emission-free vehicle.

Barring a huge run-up in gasoline prices, it would take more than a decade of driving to offset the Chevrolet Volt's $41,000 price tag or even the Nissan Leaf's still hefty window sticker of $33,000.

And the bills can pile up. Unless you're willing to wait eight hours to recharge your car, you'll want a high-speed recharger installed in your home, adding thousands of dollars to the cost. Maintaining an electric car is likely to be more expensive than a conventional car, because there are not many repair shops capable of doing the work.
And a battery that costs about $20,000 may last only eight years, leaving customers with a vehicle that has little resale value.

How does the government justify spending taxpayer money to subsidize wealthy Americans buying expensive cars? Most of the all-electric sales have been concentrated in California, where the vehicles are popularized by high-profile celebrities and driven by people who have stratospheric incomes.

Supposedly the price of electric cars will come down as volumes increase, making the vehicles more affordable. But even if the federal tax credit increases from $7,500 to $10,000, as Obama has proposed, and other states mimic California by adding an additional $1,500 tax credit, Americans may not buy electric vehicles because of their shortcomings in size, comfort and range.

The surest way to guarantee a product's failure is to subsidize it. Over time, cars that succeeded in the marketplace have been those that were developed and commercialized without government involvement.

If a technology isn't capable of succeeding on its own economic merits, there's no amount of taxpayer support that will ever make it a commercial success.

Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan in Flint, and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Omaha World-Herald Created News with Two Failed Senators

While we were taking a hiatus last week, one of the most silly, inane, vacuous articles to ever line the floor of our canary cage appeared on the front page of Warren Buffett's local daily.    It came under the headline, "Hagel, Nelson see peril in partisan rigidity--The Nebraskans rue a rise in ideological purity that leaves no place for the likes of Sen. Lugar".

The article, maybe we should say 'column' since it offered absolutely no news, was written by the local daily's Washington Bureau guy Joesph Morton.   Apparently, it reflected the paper's dismay at Senator Lugar's primary loss back in Indiana and the paper's 'Can't we all just get-along non-partisan mentality'.    Interestingly, the 'article' didn't even mention the real factors in Lugar's loss until the very end of the story where Morton opined, "It is important to note that, in Lugar's case, he had problems that stretched beyond ideology"--like the fact that he didn't even have a residence in Indiana!

Perhaps the 'article' which appeared on May 15, Nebraska Primary day, was on the front page to provide the editorial staff fodder should Jon Bruning have been nominated and provide a basis for the local daily to continue its efforts to support Bob Kerrey who they would assert would certainly continue the bi-partisan tradition of senators (failed and un-re-electable) like Nelson and Hagel.

At one point the writer noted that a New York Times blogger had analyzed Republican senators serving in the 109th Congress who had found that of 55 Republicans  27 were moderates and that only a maximum of six of them would still be in congress in 2013.  Obviously, that supports the writer and the paper's  notion that the Republican Party has been taken over by a bunch of right-wing purists.   Of course, there was no corresponding analysis of the Democrats whom some might recall have marched in unison lock-step with Harry Reid as they passed Obamacare (thanks in particular to the non-partisan Ben Nelson) and other stimulus programs.

The paper used the failed Hagel to get more quotes to tell why his party is no longer  the party he once believed in.    Hagel is quoted as saying, "I was so out of step with my own party -- I don't even know what my own party is anymore.   I don't think I changed.  I'm an Eisenhower Republican.   If Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, if they were here today they wouldn't even recognize this party."

Let's be clear:  Chuck Hagel may be an Eisenhower Republican, but he is and was never a Ronald Reagan.   In fact after a failed, egomaniacal, never-started campaign to be president in 2008, he couldn't even support the fellow war-hero nominee of his own party!  And he says the Republican Party changed? 

Of course, don't be surprised when this Eisenhower Republican comes back to Nebraska this fall to endorse a cap and trade, Obamacare, tax-increasing, gay marriage supporting, partial birth supporting Bob Kerrey over a solid Republican Deb Fischer. 

But we digress....

The fact is that the local daily tried to make a news article out of something that contained not one lick of news.   To put such a piece on the front page of the paper can only provide evidence of the paper's liberal reporter and editorial page mentality.  Warren Buffett may not be calling his reporters or editorial page staff but they sure know what to print to coincide with his liberal political views even if it involves quoting people who could no longer be elected in Nebraska given their failures to represent its citizens.