AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Continual Vigilance Against Ignorance

Great post, and comments in response to it, at This Ain’t Hell regarding the Democrats’ election strategy: Still running against Bush

Now, most people note that the Democrats are “running against Bush”. I tend to look at it a different way. They are not necessarily running against President Bush, so much as they are running a campaign based on the ignorance they assume the American electorate still suffers with regards to economic policy.

It worked for them in 2006, when our economy was humming along during one of our nation’s most prosperous times in history: low unemployment (~5%), great GDP growth and record highs on WallStreet (which helped every American’s retirement account). Despite these obvious facts, the Democrat Party and their propaganda machine in the MF-ing media worked together to sell the LIE to the American public that the economy was a disaster. They sold the lie that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in no need of regulation when President Bush, Senator McCain and the GOP worked to prevent the housing collapse that eventually occurred. DEMOCRATS Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Maxine Water were key to stopping anyone from regulating Fannie/Freddie. Yet, despite the fact that THEIR policies caused the housing crisis, they turn around and blame… President Bush and the GOP. Pathetic.

It also obviously worked for them in 2008 when they swept to HUGE majorities in both Houses of Congres and took the White House by… blaming President Bush and the GOP for “the failed policies of the last 8 years!” Um, those “failed policies” were not conservative nor capitalist policies, but socialist policies that failed. So it was not a GOP vs Democrat policy issue, but a conservative vs socialist/progressive/liberal policy issue. The dirty little secret is that there are socialists and liberals within the GOP who worked with Democrats to either enact socialist policies or give Democrats cover for their socialist policies by voting with them to make the bills seem “bipartisan”.

But, if you look back to the policies which caused our current recession/depression — see HERE, HERE & HERE — you’ll see that it was the Democrat Party’s liberal policies which caused them. Not conservative policies, not tax cuts and not capitalism failing. That last one is important to note, because the current Democrat Party — and especially Barack Obama and his cabinet and czars — is made up of anti-capitalists, socialists and Marxists. So it was key to them to sell the American electorate on the failure of capitalism, hide the fact that it was the failure of socialism and then gain power so as to enact their Marxist policies… which they knew would make things worse. But, making things better was never their intention. As Barack Obama famously said during the campaign, he was not interested in bringing in more tax revenue, he was more interested in “fairness” and “spreading the wealth around”. In other words, he was not interested in capitalism, but socialism and Marxism.

So, since this strategy worked to perfection on an ignorant, apathetic and dumbed down American electorate in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats and MF-ing media are simply sticking to the same game plan until we prove to them that we are not the apathetic, dumbed down ignoramuses they believe us to be.

On that note, it is good to see the military commenters at This Ain’t Hell take to task a currently still ignorant commenter. I hope conversations like these are happening all across the nation and people are finally getting educated and informed… and energized to vote out the socialists and Marxists in NOV 2010 and NOV 2012.

The Hill reports that Democrats have released a video in which they’re still blaming GWB for the economic problems we’re experiencing almost two years after he left office…

Despite the fact that Bush and McCain both tried to rein in FannieMae and FreddieMac, the triggers for for the housing bubble, for years before the economic crisis struck.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Democrats should run against Bush, but only because it’s losing strategy. …

Yeah, so keep it up, Democrats – it gives us a more frequent opportunity to mention whose policies were really behind current economic conditions.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:49 am

So let me get this straight – on the one hand you give credit to Bush for getting us out of Iraq even though he’s been out of office for what, 19 months, but no blame for driving the country into a ditch, as the saying goes. Kind of selective memory.

You can’t turn the USS Enterprise on a dime, and you can’t turn around a totally screwed up economy that quickly either. Has Obama made mistakes – you betcha. But nothing compared to his predecessor.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:53 am

But nothing compared to his predecessor.

So let me get this straight, Bush told Fannie and Freddie to lend money to people that couldn’t pay it back? Franklin Raines is laughing all the way to the bank…

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am

Where to start? Bush promoted “the ownership society” which promoted and enabled the real estate crisis. He also promoted deregulation so unscrupulous mortgage brokers could put green pea home owners into mortgages they could neither afford nor understand, without fear of getting caught. In fact one of his biggest screw ups was creating an environment where honest brokers had to face a devil’s choice – play by the rules and lose out, or bend the rules (like your competitors) and reap illicit profits. Cronyism, lack of oversight and regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, CEO’s earning 400 times what their workers earn, a growing divide between the haves and have nots – opps, gotta run! Later

nhsparky Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Joe – was Bush responsible for the CRA? Was he responsible for ACORN and other groups suing banks for creating so-called “redline” loans? Did he sit in front of Congress and tell the American people that Freddie and Fannie are “basically sound”? …

Jonn Lilyea Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

“Unscrupulous mortgage brokers” couldn’t loan to prospective homeowners without FanM/FredM backing loans with taxpayer dollars to people with a history of bailing on their obligations. Deregulation and “the ownership society” aren’t the problem here. Do you own your house, Joe? Why do you get to own your house and others don’t?

I own my house… I bought it when I could afford to pay for it. That’s not a new concept. For years I resisted the peer pressure to buy a house in favor of common sense. And there were no mortgage brokers or banks involved in my purchase… and certainly no FannieMae or FreddieMac. I don’t need the government to help me buy my chunk of America.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Deregulation of mortgage lenders? That was CRA started by Jimmeh Carter and expanded by Bill Clinton. Franklin Raines (Clinton Appointee) who headed Fannie at the time predicted all of this and advised Clinton not to. Clinton did it anyway and told Raines to get in line and shut up. Raines made over 90 million from Fannie… How did Bush have anyhting to do with that? When the Federal Regulator for Fannie testified before congress as John McCain was pushing for legislation to reign Fannie and Freddie in both “Coutrywide” Chris Dodd and Barney “Banking Queen” Frank said there’s nothing wrong here, everything is hunky dory. You can throw Maxine “Bailout my husbands bank” Waters in there as well…

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Blaming Bush for everything you mentioned in #7 is pure bilge my friend, and shows a remarkable lack of education on the history of American economics.

It also displays a large degree of contempt for your fellow Americans. What you have so patronizingly laid out is the idea that every ‘common man’ is capable of being coerced into debilitating debt. Simple, Unadulterated, Crap. The public largely has no one to blame but themselves.

Who is responsible for the “ownership society”? How about we start with Henry Ford in the 1920s, and the introduction of CREDIT. Either way, it’s not the Fed’s job to dictate to the “people” how they will or won’t hurt themselves. Self defense in all things begins with the SELF.

Good grief, what are the colleges teaching today anyway?

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

A lot of naive, less affluent people (but many of them working stiffs nonetheless) bought into the “ownership society” hoopla. Some overreached and made mistakes. But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.

I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity. And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

PS – Canada has much stricter oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry, and they have not suffered nearly as badly as we have.

PintoNag Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Joe, you say ‘ownership’ like it’s a bad thing. Why the devil do you think I get up five days a week and go to work? I have bills, that’s true enough, but I also like to own things… most of which no one has ever offered to give me for free. And wouldn’t.

This country is an experiment, and was meant to be. It is an experiment in SELF-GOVERNMENT. You take responsibility for your actions or you suffer the consequences. By definition, if you attempt to protect something, you must remove its ability to self-govern. Protection is nothing more than a form of control.

The government must exercise control to a point, to help maintain order in society. The argument we have always had, are having now, and will have in the future, is this: how far can, should, and must that control go? When does maintaining good order become an exercise in negating self-government?

I submit that it has already gone too far.

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Did you just cut and paste that trash? It sounds like it was lifted whole cloth from some Lib talking points website.

Try again Joe, I was a 30k a year warehousing stiff for over a decade before shipping to Iraq, lost my job while I was gone because the owner of the company retired, and I started a new 30k a year career as a municipal employee after returning home in 2004. I’m still in that category. I directly benefited from the Bush tax cuts, and so did most of the middle class folks I know. I am going to be directly hurt not only by their demise, but also by all the other crap the current admin is trying to push through. Try and peddle that clap else ware.

I notice how you conveniently sidestep the fact that the play now pay later mentality began decades and decades before Bush. Nice. For the record, I’m no fan of a lot of his domestic economic policies, but that doesn’t remove the responsibility for anyone’s situation from their own shoulders. And replacing crappy policy with crappier policy as Obama is attempting, is not the way to solve the nation’s ills.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

The mortgage industry was NOT deregulated by Bush or anyone else. It was FORCED by the GOVERNMENT to make bad loans with a wink and a nod that Fannie and Freddie would have their backs. There was a Federal Regulator screaming from the rooftops about what was happening back in ‘06. Bush attempted to place more regulation on the mortgage industry and Democrats said NO and ignored the regulator. ACORN threatened to sue any lender that wasn’t making the required amount of bad loans. Your willful blindness to history is monumental…

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

First, note how government revenues and disposable income were increasing in 2003-2006, and that we were headed back towards a balanced budget.

There’s your “Bush economy” … even while a war was going on and with the tech bubble in our rear-view mirror. BTW, about that time he was advocating changes to tighten up the mortgage market … and was pooh-poohed by Frank, Dodd, et. al. who still had the fillibuster on their side.

Then note when employment growth flattens … around January 2007.

Could it be that, once the Dim Congress became reality, businesses woke up, realized their future was to become cash cows/social-services surrogates/scapegoats for their new Re-, er, Progressive overlords … and acted in preparation for that future by scaling back their activity, including hiring and expansion?

Could it be that it is that pullback, that started our downward slide … a pullback triggered by the mere presence of a Re-, er, Progressive-controlled Congress? Keep in mind that it is Congress, way more than the White House, who can have a profound effect upon our economy.

So the classic question is, after FOUR YEARS of Dimocrat control of Congress …

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

That … not some half-baked with half-truth ad … will determine the outcome of this election.

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:50 pm

“But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.”

Mr. Bush was working to restore some of that oversight … whose restoration was needed primarily because Progressive efforts to make home ownership universal distorted the market to the point that banks could consider it financially viable to fund the irresponsible.

Let me tell you the “mantra” that REALLY caused the problem …

All you need to do is show up for work; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.

This is the implicit message from our government since FDR. I call it The Biggest Lie of All … and it has done far more damage than any “mantra” coming from Mr. Bush or his Administration.

“I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity.”

Problem is, the producers in the middle class who create those jobs are either considered “rich”, or increased success on their part would push them into the “rich” category … and therefore become worthy of being milked as cash cows, by our government.

And in my own case, when the taxes of the rich guy who employs me and about 200 other people go up, my income goes down … for he shares a large portion of his profit with us, and the more he’s taxed, the less profit he has.

Your “progressive” taxation doesn’t differentiate between someone productive like him and a parasite like, say, Enron in their heyday … it still treats both as cash cows. regardless of the value of what each does to our society.

“And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.”

Perhaps if they weren’t being taxed so highly at all levels of government … and they hadn’t been misled into letting the government provide “solutions” and “guarantees” FOR them … they would have weathered the storm.

You’re mired in mindless class envy … or is it that you believe you must fling anything you’ve got to smear conservatives at them, in the hopes that it will stick, discredit that worldview, and pave the way for you to practice your pet vice without risk of having your mellow harshed? You wouldn’t be the first Re-, er, Progressive I’ve found with that motive, once the rhetorical boilerplate was peeled away.

defendUSA Says:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:54 am


Spot on about Joe… Class envy. We bought our first house with our VA benefits. We were making 29K in 1992. The mortgage was for 95K. We had to make sacrifices in order to make that happen. 18 years later, and having priced out of what the VA benefits gave we own a house that may soon be underwater, even though we have never missed a payment and made 60K of improvements because of that bubble created by the regs.

But I don’t blame Bush like Joe. No. I take full responsibility for not understanding some things financial and being naive that my better half would always be making the money we made. He isn’t now, but, we have still made the sacrifices necessary to be on time with the payments and eat. This is what Joe misses every time he brings up blaming Bush.

And Joe, Joe, Joe. I am hardworking, self-employed currently and I benefited from the tax cuts, too. Because I *paid* taxes!! These were not only for the “rich” as you appear to believe. Those people got caught in a storm because the lenders preyed and they bit. They bought houses that were not in any way going to be affordable and then they got what they deserved. A person making 60k shouldn’t be owning a house with a mortgage for 300k – it makes zero sense.

But what lending practices did was not verify income and ability to pay. Do you have that straight? And, now, we have people who have defaulted not once, but twice with gov’t bailouts, er, my taxpayer dollars.

And you know what is really funny, Joe? We have been unemployed 3 times in 4 years taking unemployment 1 time for 6 months, and we never missed any payments for anything. Yes. We used up every ounce of savings, and the deferred income that was for the kids college, and the retirement fund. All taxed again. Yep. And when all that was gone, well, we couldn’t get help. Because the gov’t wants me to be in default of everything before I get help. I ask you, what is rational about that?

So when I needed a student loan for the kid, I got denied because I wasn’t delinquent!! Yes that FAFSA formula doesn’t work the way it should… IMO. But I fought the basturds and won. So, at least my kid gets to make her dreams come true.

Get the fuck over yourself and your pretentious “I care for the little guy” bullshit. You’re just a whiner who doesn’t get what economics is about and you have no clue how the gov’t is working to destroy The American dream by making others dependent and helping them to forget how to dream, hope and live. Just exist. Put “Defying Hitler” on your reading list, maybe you can learn something.

UPDATE 23 AUG 2010: The military commenters at This Ain’t Hell are still combating ignorance in the comments at this post as well: Obama as Reagan. Keep up the great work, gentlemen.

The Washington Post tries to draw parallels between Reagan and Obama: [ … ]

Yeah, tax cuts and massive spending are exactly the same – especially in the effect they’ll have on the economy. Reagan let us spend our own money, Obama takes our money and directs how it’s spent. That’s the same, right?

Paul Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 am

Yes, it’s sad when our politicians have obviously never taken an econ class. One thing both Reagan and Obama have in common though is they both like huge deficit spending.

UpNorth Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 am

And, one important difference, Paul. Reagan’s economy created jobs, O’s has lost jobs. And will continue to lose jobs, until he’s gone.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:29 pm

Democrats over rode Reagan’s vetoes to force deficit spending after the Dems PROMISED him they would cut spending… Slight difference. I also believe this is when they introduced the concept of baseline budgeting. If an agency was expected to have a baseline increase of 7% and their budget only got increased by 6% it was called a “budget cut”

NHSparky Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm

And Paul, FWIW, had Congress (and guess which party was cutting the checks back then?) simply passed Reagan’s proposed budgets without adding a whole shitload of items to it, the federal government would have been running a SURPLUS by FY1990. Look it up. And when Reagan tried to veto the spending inserted in appropriations bills, the Supremes determined a line-item veto was unconstitutional.

Context FAIL, Paul. Back to your hole.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Hell Sparky, the Republicans even gave Bill Clinton a line item veto only to have the Supreme court overturn it…

USMC Steve Says:
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:22 am

Yeah, let us compare the two.

Reagan loved his country, Nobama hates it particularly the white part.

Reagan put together an excellent and intelligent, well versed cabinet, Nobama grabbed up a bunch of yes-man kowtowing leftists who wouldn’t know reality if it bit them on the ass.

Reagan included in his achievements the destruction of the Soviet Union and the opening up of eastern Europe, Nobama can claim socialized health care and forcing the spending of almost a trillion dollars AFTER over 70 percent of the people in this country voiced their strident opposition to it.

Reagan had a great deal of unified support in America, but Nobama has basically set race relations back 40 years, and has people at each other’s throats, no doubt in order to help fulfill his socialist agenda. You can’t force through marxism if the country isn’t totally fucked up you know.

The list could go on and on and on. Yep, lots of similarities.

August 21, 2010 , 5:15PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Bush Admnistration, Democrats, Economy, Liberalism, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Socialism | Comments Off on Continual Vigilance Against Ignorance

The GOP is Jittery, Shifty, Cowardly, Obscurely Motivated, Untrustworthy, Weak, Asking-for-It

Sad, but true:

“Anger may be an energy, as John Lydon said, but anger is not an argument.”

And argument is even less persuasive than being a total [@sshole] is. Lydon is exemplary. He’s securely an immovable, shouting douche. That’s its own appeal, and it’s pre-rational. Pro- or con-Lydon arguments that follow it are rationalizations of a first-look emotional attachment (or revulsion).

The Dems are similarly in-your-face — proud liars, panderers, crooks, favor-sellers, etc. Their core voters love them, and are eternally devoted to them, because they’re that. The GOP is jittery, shifty, cowardly, obscurely motivated, untrustworthy, weak, asking-for-it. That’s why even its supposed ideological base’s support is unreliable.

Republicans can’t win anyone over, except as an “oh well” second choice when the Ds are [f#cking] up — unless and until the Party decides what it is and proclaims it unapologetically. In our lifetimes, there have been two R landslides: Reagan and ’94. Those wins came from “We’re this. Get in the damn car.” campaigns. “Hey lady, you need a ride somewhere? I’m not gonna hurt ya” doesn’t work.

Confident aloofness — “This is what we’re about. Join us or don’t. It’s all on you” — is the only potentially winning posture the GOP can adopt toward groups whose first-look emotional attachment strongly points them elsewhere. Anything else comes off dishonest, clumsy, creepy, etc.

Analogy: The GOP is a “beta.” No woman wants him until a long list of bad boys have already given her nine overlapping cases of herpes — and she’ll go back and bang any of the herpes guys behind GOP’s back anytime they booty-call. Everything GOP does to be “nice” makes her despise him even more. What should he do? Not calling her is step one.

Posted by: oblig. at August 13, 2010 02:24 PM

August 13, 2010 , 1:42PM Posted by | Democrats, Racism, Republicans | Comments Off on The GOP is Jittery, Shifty, Cowardly, Obscurely Motivated, Untrustworthy, Weak, Asking-for-It

I Wouldn’t Mind Going Back to the Year 1985

That would mean we had a real President in Ronald Reagan, instead of the Joker we have now.

So the Court Jester-in-Chief recently joked “when you want to go forward you put it in (D), when you want to go backward, you put it in (R)”. Har-de-har-har. Hey, dipstick, when you’re driving the car off a freaking cliff, it’s a good freaking idea to put the car in (R).

Ever see Back to the Future III? The horses carrying Clara Clayton over the cliff are Obama and Co. Clara Clayton is America. Doc Brown is the Tea Party.

The other obvious analogy is Obama as the Captain of the Titanic, pushing us full speed ahead into the iceberg and sinking the entire nation.  Heck, someone should put Obama on the deck of the Titanic with a banner behind him that states “SUMMER OF RECOVERY!”, a la the infamous picture of President Bush on the aircraft carrier with the “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner, that the Left used to get their jollies for 7 years.  The Left liked to taunt President Bush with “mission accomplished” for 7 years?  Fine, we can taunt Obama and his sycophantic fellators with “summer of recovery”.

UPDATE 19 AUG 2010: Apparently, the Court Jester-in-Chief thinks this metaphor is so good, that he’s expanding on it. Sad. And we can now move from calling him President Wee-Wee to President Slurpee.

On a serious note, I tire of Obama’s constant blame of the GOP for the “mess” he and his Administration “inherited”.  Senator Obama was involved in almost every disastrous policy which led to our current economic situation.  He was very much involved in pushing the disastrous Fannie/Freddie policies which led to the housing market collapse.  He also voted for all the spending, bailouts and “stimulus” packages.  For 2 years — from 2004-2006 — he was a part of the Democrat minority in the Senate which blasted the GOP majority over the economy — an economy, which was humming along with sub-5% unemployment, record highs on WallStreet, great GDP growth and, at the time, rising home values.  Yet, from 2004-2006, the Democrat Party — including Senator Obama — with the aid of the MF-ing propaganda media, did nothing but talk down and lie about the economy.  They complained about high gas prices, the deficit and even the unemployment rate, even though the rate was around 5%, which is usually considered close to full employment.  Of course, an ignorant, tantrum-throwing electorate believed the lies of the Democrats and the MF-ing media and the rest is history… Democrats took over in JAN 2007 and the economy has tanked ever since.

So Obama has no one to blame other than himself and his fellow Democrats for what he ‘inherited’.

Another metaphor that may work here involves sports.  Imagine Obama was part of a baseball team’s scouting team.  He scouted players and suggested to the team general manager which players to draft and for which players to trade.   These players turn out to be complete busts and the team ends up struggling and mired in last place.  As a result, the organization fires the general manager.  However, for some reason, the organization then hires talent scout Obama as their new general manager.  Upon taking the job, new GM Obama does nothing but blame the previous GM for putting together such a horrible team and states that he can’t be blamed for the current team’s continued struggles under GM Obama, because he had nothing to do with it.  But, of course, he did… he had everything to do with it, since the team is made up of players that he scouted and suggested the team acquire.

That is exactly what Obama has been doing as President since he took office.  His team is mired in last place (economy is in recession/depression) thanks to players he scouted and suggested (policies he supported and for which he voted while Senator).  Yet, he is taking absolutely no responsibility for any of this.

To use another sports analogy, Obama is basically the Matt Millen of Presidents.  Let’s hope the American electorate does not make the same mistake as the Ford family and sign him to an extension.  I would hate to find out what “unprecedented” situation we would have in America that would be akin to the Lions’ 0-16 season…

August 12, 2010 , 11:50AM Posted by | Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Republicans | Comments Off on I Wouldn’t Mind Going Back to the Year 1985

Why Do People Continue to Consider Tim “Global Warming” Pawlenty a Viable 2012 GOP Candidate?

I really can’t figure out how people who write a right-leaning political blog — which I assume means they keep up with politics and right-leaning politicians — continue to support GOP politicians who have exposed themselves as being anything but right-leaning. But here we have it at AoSHQ:

Just noting — he’s got a rap as a RINO but he seems okay to me.

I will note again I do not believe the Republican nominee will be any of the people that the media always talks about, Palin, Huck, Romney, Gingrich. I think it will be a first-timer with less baggage, namely, either Pence, Thune, or Pawlenty.

And there are even a bunch of commenters there who also are okay with Pawlenty. What the hell? At least one of the commenters hasn’t let their valu-rite and bacon intake destroy their memory of Pawlenty’s political ri-TARD-ation:

Every time this putz’s name comes up I am reminded of the fact that he happily jumped on board with the global warming scam, called the skeptics ignorant, and said they should be ignored. One of two things are possible:

a) He believed or still believes that manmade global warming was real and that government must curtail our liberty, our economy, and our standard of living in order to save the world.

b) He tried to coopt an issue from the left and was willing to curtail our liberty, our economy, and our standard of living in order to gain political advantage.

My opinion of him could be encapsulated by a good Mel Gibson rant. He is either a statist or a statist enabler and has no business being anywhere near the White House.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at July 16, 2010 02:39 PM

Here you go Vic, from an opinion piece, WSJ, 2.23.08:

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. “It looks like we should have listened to President Carter,” he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. “He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real.”

Any Republican who says we should have listened to Jimmy Carter about anything should be considered a non-starter.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at July 16, 2010 02:48 PM

Seriously, if people who claim to be highly informed regarding politics are forgetting something blatantly statist like this from Tim Pawlenty, how do we expect people who are not at all informed to pay attention and to vote accordingly?

If this is an example of how informed is the electorate, I’m not very confident about 2010 and 2012 at all…

I have saved links and research in folders on my computer for the past 4-5 years. I keep them for reference to refresh my memory of issues and politicians, especially when debating people on the issues or certain policitians. Here are a few of the links I have kept on Tim Pawlenty. To read that people think he “seems okay” when we have known about his statist pro-global warming and big government record since 2008 is immensely disheartening:

WallStreet Journal: Pawlenty’s Record

“The era of small government is over . . . government has to be more proactive, more aggressive.”
— Tim Pawlenty, 2006.

So here we are in JULY of 2010 and what is the #1 issue? Small government. Yet people who claim to be informed about politics and about small government are actually saying that a guy “seems okay” who said “the era of small government is over”? Are you kidding me?

Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days — although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.

In 2006, liberal Democrats (there is no other kind here) proposed a universal health-care behemoth to cover all residents. Mr. Pawlenty responded with a more limited proposal to expand the state’s child health-care program, Minnesota Care, to cover all children. More recently, the governor’s Health Care Transformation Task Force recommended imposing a mandate — à la Massachusetts — on residents to buy health insurance. [ … ]

Nevertheless, Mr. Pawlenty has presided over back-to-back biennial budget increases of 12.4% and 9.8% respectively. Last year the governor’s proposed budget survived essentially intact but still spent the state’s $2 billion surplus, with half the general fund increase going to education. Minnesota, with five million people, now has a biennial budget of nearly $35 billion.

Mr. Pawlenty’s proactive government stance extends to support for mass transit and sport stadium subsidies, as well as for hiking the state’s minimum wage, which is now $6.15 an hour for large employers (the federal minimum wage is $5.85). But it is education and the environment where Mr. Pawlenty hopes to establish his progressive bona fides.

He calls for accountability in education, but does little to buck the most powerful lobby in state politics, Education Minnesota. Indeed, Mr. Pawlenty has courted the unions, telling the Minnesota Business Partnership that “I can’t have the Republican governor talk about changing the school system without having the support and help of the teachers’ union and my friends on the other side of the aisle. It just won’t work.”

On the environment, Mr. Pawlenty imposed some of the most aggressive renewable energy mandates in the country. Other states will be requiring, in coming years, that energy producers get 20% of their electricity from “renewable” sources such as wind, solar or animal manure. In Mr. Pawlenty’s Minnesota, the state’s largest utility will be required to generate 30% of its power from renewable sources by 2020.

Mr. Pawlenty is using his influence through the National Governor’s Association to export his ideas across state lines. The NGA meets in Washington, D.C. next week. Look for Mr. Pawlenty to be on hand and stumping for renewable mandates.

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. “It looks like we should have listened to President Carter,” he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. “He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real.”

At times it seems that Mr. Pawlenty’s first political instinct is to placate liberal critics, …

Oh yeah, this sounds like just the guy we need to stop this rampant Marxism. NOT. He “can’t have the Republican Governor talk about changing the school system without” befriending the unions? Wrong. Take a look at the job that Governor Chris Christie is doing in New Jersey.

The following is from a liberal, pro-global warming fraud website, but they lay out Pawlenty’s obvious politically-motivated flip flopping on the issue:

Pawlenty completes climate science flip flop, after flip flopping on support for bipartisan climate action

Over the course of the last three years, Pawlenty has gone from an outspoken proponent of clean energy to a Glenn Beck pandering climate change denier:

Dec. 2006: Pawlenty lays out an ambitious clean energy program for Minnesotans to reduce their use of fossil fuels 15 percent by 2015. Cutting greenhouse gases, Pawlenty said, would “be good for the environment, good for rural economies, good for national security and good for consumers.” He also calls for a regional cap and trade program.

May 2007: Pawlenty signs the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring the state to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent in 2050. At the signing ceremony, Pawlenty said Minnesota was “kicking-starting the future” by “tackling greenhouse gas emissions.”

Oct. 2007: Pawlenty declares that the climate change issue is “one of the most important of our time.” He also brushes off “some flak” from right-wingers who doubt climate change science.

Sept. 2008: During the election, Pawlenty backs away from his own cap and trade program, says such a system would “wreck the economy.” He then tells hate radio personality Glenn Beck (a climate change denier) that human activity only contributes “half a percent” to climate change.

Nov. 2009: Pawlenty backs away from acknowledging that any human activity is the cause of climate change.

Oh yeah, that sounds like someone I can trust. NOT.

Pawlenty, Steger make bond to slow changes to climate

One of the biggest issues, global climate change, is what motivated the pair to join forces — warning of what they say will be grave consequences if individuals, businesses and governments don’t act to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

“It is an important issue — I think one of the most important of our time,” Pawlenty told the 400 researchers, resource managers and educators gathered in Duluth this week.

Steger praised Pawlenty for having “the guts to take on bold initiatives” to reduce greenhouse gases and for his leadership on that issue in his capacity as chair of the National Governors Association. [ … ]

Pawlenty, who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state 80 percent by the year 2050, expressed disappointment that more steps aren’t being taken on the national level, and he challenged individuals, communities, and states to show the way.

“Maybe we can lead them [the federal government] or even shame them into action,” Pawlenty said. “It’ll become de facto national policy.”

Oh yeah, that’s the kind of GOP Presidential nominee we need. Another statist who wants to shame us into action with bullsh!t ‘science’.

But hey, he “seems okay”.


Oh geez, first Ace of Spades HQ and now we have a bunch of ignoramuses at HotAir singing the praises of Tim Pawlenty. Geez, from the comments on this post at HotAir, I have to believe that HotAir commenters are either complete political ignoramuses to not know about Pawlenty’s big government background or are liberals themselves like Tim Pawlenty. One would think that people who read and comment on a political blog would be, you know, politically informed. Apparently not. Oy…

July 17, 2010 , 6:03PM Posted by | Global Warming, Tim Pawlenty | 2 Comments

What Do You Do When You Have a Populace that Does not Want Freedom?

I don’t have an answer to that question. Very sobering thoughts from Entropy:

“There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things,” the Texas Republican said. “Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction.”

What the GOP will work to repeal, Cornyn explained, are provisions that result in “tax increases on middle class families,” language that forced “an increase in the premium costs for people who have insurance now” and the “cuts to Medicare” included in the legislation…

If they run on that…

Fuck em.

No use. What you’re doing politically is no different then what we’ve all done fiscally. Borrowing against the future. ‘Just give me 6 more years of only mildly debilitating socialism before you crush me outright’.

The whole damn government is insolvent and they’re just gonna repeal the part that made spending cuts to medicare.

Fucking goobers are less realistic and more Unicorn then Obama.

They’re going to repeal the tax increases, repeal the spending cuts, repeal the premium increases, and keep the mandated extra costs coverage.


Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 06:17 PM


Get the Presidency and Congress(es) first.

Then use the Democrat-pioneered winner take all strong-arm tactics to not only force repeal, to roll back major elements of the welfare state.

That requires a political party to do it.

One we do not have.

We might as well plan on using the Omega-9 Neutron Starburster to terraform Iraq. Perhaps we’d advise George Washington he should have just sent 43 million infantry to invade Essex.

Oh, but there’s Republicans. They’re not “as bad”.

Yes yes. Let us seceed from Britain by declaring allegiance to the Crown of Louis XVI.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 06:27 PM


If you don’t have a political party to do that, then you certainly don’t have a sufficient cadre to successfully rebel against the United States government, even if and when it has (or has already) slipped in to tyranny.

The colonists had no political party in Britain.

We have no whole party in the 2-party-only system of DC.

And armed revolution is not the only course available.

India kicked them out as well, through non-violent civil disobediance.

And the kooky Russian Rand had some ideas of her own, ones that have not yet in history been tried, the willfull acceleration of phenomena and natural causes that in their own way, did more then Reagan to bring down the Soviet Union.

You could attempt to create a 3rd party.

Humanity is full of innovation.

But if Cornyn’s plan is the best we can do in Washington, even now, then he is not even an option.

If democrats get elected once every 10 years and serve only 1 term by ruthlessly expanding the welfare state into as much of the US economy and our lives as is humanly possible for them to accomplish, and Republicans roll back ‘parts’ while leaving the precedent of government jurisdiction and control, and half the parts that are ‘too popular’ with the very people who cheered and enabled the democrats to sieze it without any legitimate right in the first place, WE LOSE.

Statists win.

It is a cultural civil war.

You can ignore it if you please — it will not go away. By not making any choice, you’ll have made a choice anyway.

A weaponized political party to match them, or do not bother me with political parties at all. Reform from within is then impossible, the whole edifice must be toppled, or else we bicker over the date but accept an inevitable subjugation.

If it can not work, if it can not win, it does not matter. We fight or we do not. If we do not fight to win, there is no purpose in struggling at all.

A cultural change is needed. This system was founded by men who said you may kill them, but whether in life or in death, they would not comply at any price. For too long we’ve accepted too much. From the Federal leviathan right down to the state and local level, we’ve shown them we have been unwilling to pay the price of discomfort they’d be sure to exact should we disentrench them.

McCain? To delay it? Save yourselves 5 more years of good times? A tolerable 15? To croak before being called due and pass the burden to your children? If you will not fight for your liberty, you do not deserve 5 more years of it. You are not entitled to it.

You’ve spent the inheritance of your grandfathers past and borrowed against the future of your grandchildren. Not just fiscally, but morally, we have bankrupted not only ourselves but 3 generations.

If you’ll accept any form of tyranny, accept it now. In full. Maneuver for your position in the new pecking order. Fight over the handle of the whip.

One way or another.


Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 07:13 PM


I still say winning elections is the first step. If you can’t win elections, then, well, you’ve lost the people and if you believe in democracy, they get to choose.

Democracy is mob rule.

If 4 of my 5 neighbors say they wish me to wash their floors and cook their dinners I will tell them to fuck off.

Had they held a popular vote, the revolution which created this country would not have proceeded, and the men who started it knew as much.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 07:20 PM


That’s the reality.

It’s bad enough. Get a grip.

I agree….

What bothers me is they’re less vehement about opposition than I am.

And yet their impression of the situation they’re in is a thousand fold more dire.


I do not think there is a limit to what most people will put up with.

Personally… I’ve recently converted and become a dove on military issues. We needn’t so much. In fact, I’ve been wrong – it was never wise.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 08:15 PM


Elections and the power that flows from them is part of the structure of your Republic.

Elections were part of a structure of a republic that was created 300 years ago and long since became, in all likelyhood, FUBAR.

And for that matter – elections as they are today is not what those men necessarily thought of as even workable. You had to own land.

Such elections today may be very different in outcome.

I have no opposition to representative democracy within a constitutional republic to elect the arbiters and stewards of the law. So long as the law is in stone.

In fact, it is probably the least of all evils. The fairest and most stable and lasting way to determine it.

But I have come to realize (and it is a realization I have come to with a bit of shock, as I was taught the same meme’s as anyone else) it is not necessary. So long as those who arbitrate the finitely limited law faithfully arbitrate the finitely limited law, it does not much matter whether they are men elected representative by plebicite, or nepots in the lineage of the toughest thug, or the most diabolical aristoi.

Liberty and freedom are not about democracy. They aren’t about the masses getting what they want.

In fact, it’s the exact opposite. They’re about the masses not getting what they want. It’s about all getting only what he entitled, and all that he’s entitled whether he wants it or not.

When you add the people who’d sell themselves for profit to the people who’d buy them, they quite outnumber the number left, and always have.

That is the neocon dilemna. What do you do when you have a populace that does not want freedom? Can you ‘force democracy’? It’s an arrogant assumption to think they’d all vote for such a thing if they only understood, while WE OURSELF piss it away and vote it out. They want our prosperty, sure. They don’t understand the slightest what it’s cause are. Many of WE do not understand. They want the power of self determination, sure. They do not restrict themselves. They want power of any and all determination. WE know them well.

So what do you do if you give everyone liberty and a vote, and they use it to vote for depency and slavery? For thugs and thieves who’ll take away the vote with the power of the vote?

Well – all populaces are such populaces. Even Colonial America in the 18th century too, was such.

They (the people) may not vote so. Can you force democracy? Yes. You MUST force democracy.

Our founding fathers were very much warmongers. Such a conflict was not desired at large, and certainly not necessary at all. But they instigated and agitated for it, for years, because it was desired by them. They propogandized, hyperbolized the policies of the British, obsfuscated and sabotaged. They said war was necessary, but they lied because war was desirable. The early adopters were at it for years, to sow tension and dissent, to bring it to a boil.

On account of Natural Right, not plebicite.

They called the upper house the Senate. They called the lower house the people’s house, and they set the houses in opposition.

The people voted for Gaius Julius. The Senate killed Julius Caesar. The people marched with Marcus and Octavius and killed the Senate.

The upside is, everywhere liberty has been had, it has not taken a majority to demand it. Just enough of those extreme enough to accept nothing less. Any single man can have it, if he takes nothing less. If he’s icognito, he’s free. If he is an outlaw, he is a free outlaw. If he’s dead, he died free. No one can take it without your consent, when you realise that acquiescence is consent to acquiesce.

If we are a 1/3rd, there’s another 1/3rd who’ll back out of any conflict in cowardice, and they will side with whomever wins, or whomever seems most dangerous and aggressive. Pacifists always aid the aggressor. These people will sell themselves to anyone at all for a moments security.

So by all means, we must maintain decorum and apologize for calling those Marxist fucks the babykillers that they are. For 1/3rd will not rest until we are dead, and another will not love us until all are resting.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 09:11 PM

March 24, 2010 , 1:36AM Posted by | American History, Democrats, Economy, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Populism, Republicans, Socialism | Comments Off on What Do You Do When You Have a Populace that Does not Want Freedom?