Re Charlie Christ caucusing with “the people of Florida”, that’s a good answer. I like Rubio, but senators should serve, not lead.voters.
It seems that every time I read about him, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele is saying something that’s indicative of a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease, if not some worse malady. Speaking to DePaul University students in Chicago yesterday, Steele made himself look bad and his party worse by talking about the GOP’s problem attracting black voters:
Why should an African-American vote Republican?
"You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True."
True? Hardly. Black Americans have the opportunity to become very successful in this country. That sort of financial success, when obtained, will inevitably lead people of any race, creed, or color directly to the political party whose main platform plank for the last several decades has been one of lower taxes.
Yes, the GOP has an image problem. But it’s simply untrue for Steele or anyone else to say that the party of smaller government will not benefit black Americans as much as anyone else should they achieve in life.
How hard would it have been for Steele to say that rather than playing to the “Oh, woe is me, poor people don’t like us” mentality that seems to run the GOP lately?
The truth is that Democrats have the home-field advantage when it comes to courting lower-income voters simply because they are the party of big government and expanding entitlements. Their strategy is to buy votes with other people’s money.
Republicans need a leader who can credibly state the truth, which is that conservative political and economic policies will lead to the greater good in the long run by creating an environment in which more people can succeed than in liberals’ oft-envisioned nanny state.
That leader is evidently not Michael Steele.
Former President Bill Clinton was busy today, again denying that policy makers bear any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Apparently to Clinton and other liberal leaders, President Obama being one such, there is no correlation between their tax-and-redistribute agendas and resentment on the part of those burdened with the impact of the legislation they champion.
"We shouldn’t demonize the government or its public employees or its elected officials," Clinton said. "We can disagree with them, we can harshly criticize them. But when we turn them into an object of demonization, we increase the number of threats."
That’s certainly true. It is inappropriate to threaten harm to or physically act against any person in the absence of a threat or criminal activity.
However, political authorities whose public agenda is fundamentally premised on the idea that they have both the right and duty to forcibly take resources from one group of citizens to enrich another group would be wise to understand that they are in fact initiating hostile action against their own citizens and creating the conditions from which future confrontations will arise through their policies. Such confrontations are the inevitable and necessary result of government playing favorites among voters rather than performing its function in an impartial manner.
Unfortunately, this elementary fact is evidently lost, either deliberately or because of remarkable stupidity, on Democratic leaders and dignitaries like Mr. Clinton.
If President Obama wishes anti-government sentiment to decline, then perhaps he should redirect the efforts of his administration and Congress toward issues that the American people approve of rather than aggressively pursuing a left-wing agenda that is contrary to the wishes of the voting class.
Former President Bill Clinton spent his Friday trying to tar Tea Partiers with the domestic terrorism brush, saying:
Before the bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever in America
Meanwhile, the fabric of American life had been unraveling.
Meanwhile, current President Barack Obama resorted to his typical smug, above-the-fray humor by mocking Tea Partiers’ concerns over his administration’s massive spending programs:
I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you.
What’s apparent in these veiled disparagements is that neither president is capable of or willing to acknowledge the legitimate issues that are driving the Tea Party movement. That’s understandable, for to address the real issues that the Tea Parties are about would be to put a spotlight on all that is wrong with Democratic politics.
Consider the federal budget as a prime example. While it’s undeniable that the Bush 43 administration was a fiscal disaster, the Obama administration has unleashed the full spending fury of a scorned generation of radical liberal spendthrifts. The result has been a tripling of the already massive budget deficit left by President Bush. This fact cannot be spun or denied; all that Mr. Obama can do to cover his record is mock the people who point out the fact that his economic policies are nakedly political and ill-advised.
By comparing Tea Partiers to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, President Clinton is shooting the messenger. What he must know, however, is that the message they’ve delivered is real: The American people want a balanced budget, a reduced welfare state, and a sustainable, healthy economy, something that can only happen in the absence of Democratic economic and social policies.
So, no, Mr. Obama, don’t expect the people to thank you for mortgaging their children’s futures by buying votes today using government largesse. Very few Americans believe that taxes will stay low under this president and with good reason. Democrats’ spending spree must be paid for and since government neither produces nor sells any useful goods or services, taxes must inevitably be raised to cover the difference. That will be the true legacy of this administration, along with its positively frightful arrogance.
Finally, it’s obvious that neither Democratic president accepts any responsibility whatever for the waves of discontent that swept the country during each of their administrations. That’s unfortunate, because if either man were truly honest we might be able to have a meaningful national dialog about the true cause of people’s dislike, even hatred, of Washington: confiscatory liberal policies that are designed to redistribute wealth by taking from those who produce and earn and give to those who do not in exchange for their votes.
Until the Democrats confront the effects of their policies and take responsibility for the unrest that they themselves have caused, I expect that every Democratic administration will be met by the kind of organized resistance that President Obama faces now. I certainly hope so, for if left to their own devices, liberal leaders would destroy all that’s left of the individualism that built this country.
Yeah, I have a question: Is a religion that denies Jesus’ divinity able to to provide a way live his way of life?
And another: Is the murder of so-called apostates who leave Islam an honest way to gain peace?
The Texas Rainmaker calls the fact 47% of U.S. households pay NO federal income taxes at all and 40% make an April profit "Representation without taxation". That’s a nice way of calling out those who effectively sell their votes in exchange for government handouts.
47% of U.S. households pay NO federal income taxes at all and 40% make an April profit thanks to Uncle Sam. That’s why 53% of us are angry!