Here’s a very worthwhile video of Dennis Prager speaking at the Reagan Forum on May 1 this year:
Posts Tagged ‘democrat’
Turning “Follow the Money” into Heroic Leadership. Obama on Gay Marriage.
10
May
How is Time considered credible to anyone with garbage like this?
They say the arc of history bends toward justice.
Who says it? Who are you quoting, or rather, misquoting? It was the Republican Baptist Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. who made this quote by Theodore Parker famous. Parker, it seems, was referring to the end of slavery, a world wide immorality that characterized the entire world until movements of Christians in England and Republicans in the US changed everything. King would respond to the question of how long it would be until equal rights with “Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
So “Toure” starts by framing the argument on MLK’s belief that denial of people’s Declaration rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) would end, but misquotes King to remove the absolute morality (inserted “history” and removed “moral universe”), which was the basis of King’s statement.
If that’s true then as a nation we’re having a hard time bending on the issue of gay rights.
Ok… If the arc of history bends toward justice, we’re having a hard time bending on one issue. So if the arc of history doesn’t bend toward justice, then we’re not having a hard time bending on this issue? We’re only at sentence 2 and the writer’s ability to construct sentences is already in question.
“gay rights.”
This is a curious phrase to apply to a discussion of marriage. My marriage is a marriage and would be regardless of whether the state recognized it. People were married before the government granted marriage licenses, thus it doesn’t seem that the government’s distribution of certificates actually affects marriage.
What are rights, anyway? Looking back to the founding documents, we see rights to life and liberty, to speech, gun ownership, the press, etc.
- The Right fights for the right to life, even for unborn humans and people in comas. The Left seeks death in both cases.
- The Right fights for the right to liberty (to do what one wishes with one’s self and the product of one’s labor without infringing on these same rights of others) by pushing for less regulation and lower taxation. The Left believes the government can decide what to do with you (Obamacare) and your stuff (taxation and redistribution of wealth) better than you.
- The Right fights for the right to the pursuit of happiness through pushing for private property ownership and less regulation. The left fights against this, believing you are too dumb to pursue happiness and can’t be trusted with tough choices such as what food to eat and what snacks your kids can buy.
- The Right fights for the right to free speech and press by pushing back against Leftist policies like the fairness doctrine.
- The Right fights for the right to bear arms. The Left consistently seeks to limit this right.
- The Right fights for the free exercise of religion by working to preserve people’s ability to live out their religious beliefs. The Left has made it illegal to do so in many situations and with Obamacare are working to force religious hospitals and other businesses to either cease exercising their religion or cease providing health care.
Rights are consistently defended by conservatives, and consistently assaulted by progressives. Apparently they’re just seeking progress in taking away your rights.
But this week will be remembered as an historic turning point because President Obama threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics in announcing his support for marriage equality. “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Robin Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.
After Joe Biden came out of the closet as a gay marriage supporter, news broke that several big dollar donors would stop supporting Obama unless he changed his position to support the same. That’s what the article’s author means when he “threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics” : He did what would get him more money. Wow. Caution to the wind, principle over politics. Reversing positions to get more money. That’s inspiring! It’s heroic!
With Obama’s declaration that he “personally” thinks one thing, and publicly thinks the opposite, believing the federal government should stay out of it, we have clarity: instead of still trying to hold both sides on the issue, he’s… trying to hold both sides on the issue. So, with his public policy as the president remaining exactly the same, what’s changed?
- Obama’s earliest record on the issue was in 1996, when he answered questions, in writing declaring “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages” as he ran for Illinois Senate.
- In 2008 he spoke on stage with Rick Warren, saying “For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union… God’s in the mix”
The only change here is that Obama’s temporary pro-traditional-marriage position was picked up when it would benefit his running for office to claim Christian values, and dropped when politically expedient as a fundraising effort for re-election.
The “Toure” article goes on to get facts wrong, contradict itself, and commit most logical fallacies you could name. If you enjoy pain, you can read the entire article. It’s disappointing that this type of poorly written inflammation of an article is considered reputable and worthwhile, but I’m not a leftist, so I’m not calling on people to destroy him and his employment as he has done with Rush Limbaugh.
Tax Cuts for the Rich
10
Sep
Cutting taxes for the richest citizens is only a bad thing if you believe it is the government’s job to punish people for being successful.
Those who want to raise taxes on some and lower them for others do so because they believe it’s the government’s job to use the power of the federal government to pick winners and losers – to punish people arbitrarily for what they like and don’t like.
My kids get paid for doing chores. If son 1 does more work more efficiently and earns $4 but son 2 only earns $2, is it my job to forcibly take away money from the one who earned more and give it to the one who earned less?
No. It’s immoral.
On the other hand, those who want to lower taxes do so because they believe that money in the private sector is more productive for the economy and freedom than government confiscation, waste, and redistribution
The private citizen has no vested interest in wasting money. The citizen (and corporations run by citizens) are interested in investing the money to get something of greater value, whether that’s goods or more money. So if the rich keep more of their own money, they invest more in the market – that’s putting money into businesses, who add value to the economy and create jobs.
This pursuit to get more value drives the market and also drives corruption, where someone will want to use their ability to impede the ability of others’ liberty for their own gain. This is where the government steps in, protecting the citizens’ liberty from being infringed on by others.
These two views are diametrically opposed on what the purpose of the government is. The first “liberal” view is that the government’s job is to solve all of society’s problems and through arbitrarily deciding what is “fair,” pick winners and losers by force (like taxing some at different rates than others). In this view, government is the solution to everything and should be always getting bigger and more invasive in citizen’s lives.
The second “conservative” view is that government’s role is ONLY to do things that the market cannot practically do – protect people’s inalienable right to liberty from being invaded by others in or outside of the country, and a few other things that private citizens or corporations can’t do. In this view, government intervention into people’s lives is a problem, and government should be strictly limited with enumerated powers.
The second view is how the founders set up America, and is the view that lead to America’s greatness from the start.
You’ve bought the political lies.
23
Jul
How much of what you buy politically is totally disconnected from reality?
Today ends a week where the Democrats voted No on the second budget proposal put forth by the Republicans, which the President promised to veto anyway. The Democrats have had zero proposals so far. Today Obama gave a speech saying that the Republican party needs to decide if they can say Yes to anything. His speech is totally disconnected from reality, as he is now part of the Party of No.
Do you buy it?
It’s not just the President.There’s lots of lies we believe about politics:
- All politicians are the same – corrupt liars
- I can’t change anything
- It’s acceptable to be uninformed and uninvolved
- Republicans have no heart
- Democrats are the party of equal rights
- We can trust the Republican Party
- We can trust the Democrat Party
- If the media presents someone negatively, they’re unqualified for office.
- The pursuit of profits is evil
- Corporate Jets always are a waste of money
- The New Deal helped the economy and Americans
- Higher tax rates always means more revenue
- When the country is in financial trouble the solution is to go further into debt.
Have you bought into any of these? What other lies about politics do we tend to believe?
Keep the Democrats in my uterus?
13
Apr
Protest Sign: Keep your Boehner out of my uterus!
The signs are back. Boehner, speaker of the house, wanted to remove federal funding of abortion from the budget as one of the cuts. The thinking goes something like this:
If someone wants to stop spending tax-payer dollars on killing an unborn yet scientifically distinct human life, it’s an invasion of someone else’s rights. They should not only have the right to take this human life, but you should pay for it through your taxes.
Where was the outburst of anger when Obama, Pelosi, and Reid rammed through the Obama health care mandate? This gave more government control over every aspect of health, where was the liberal outcry that government should stay out of our bodies?
Evidently, these protesters want Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi in their uterus and John Boehner out. They want legislation out of their uterus, but they want government-paid medical equipment in there scrubbing it. The signs seem like it’s a charge against big government intervention but the argument is the opposite. The sign would more accurately read: “Big government needs to be encouraging and funding abortion.” Statistically Planned Parenthood targets the poor, and a higher percentage of minorities are persuaded to abortion than whites. If the goal was to rid America of poor an brown folks, abortion would be the way to go. In fact, that’s why Planned Parenthood was started – to “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by rectifying “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit.’” Perhaps the sign should more accurately read:
Big government needs to be encouraging and funding abortion for the lower class and people with brown skin.
I’ve likely severely offended many readers, particularly if they found this article from a web search. Abortion is a highly charged issue for a few reasons:
- For lack of measurable results, the feminist movement pinned their success to the legalization and subsequently federal funding of abortion. The entire feminist push in our culture became focused not on celebrating and valuing what women do, but in promoting abortion because it was a situation unique to women (making it a woman’s issue) and along with more freely available contraceptives, claimed to free up women to have consequence-free sex just like men.
- Abortion is highly personal and highly emotional. Women who find themselves considering the option are in a huge crisis where the options seem like death of the child or suicide of self. If they keep the child their life feels like it will be destroyed, and they may not feel much more hope for the baby. With the political and cultural push for and funding of abortion, it’s not surprising that women make this choice. We’re paying their doctors to do it!
Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote an article about pregnancy centers a few years ago. Most disturbing to me are the statistics that it’s overwhelmingly those with wealth that want funding for Planned Parenthood to be used for providing abortions for poorer Americans. The rich are paying for abortion to be promoted for the poor who don’t want it. Here’s an exerpt:
Those who provide alternatives to abortion believe that pregnancy is just one facet of the woman’s larger and more complex life. They believe she is not best served by treating her as merely a polluted uterus in need of a good scrubbing. Her life is tangled with the life of her child growing within, woven with the lives of the child’s father, with her own parents, friends and co-workers in a tapestry of lives. To remove the child is to cut a hole in the tapestry, by literally cutting into human flesh, tearing the child apart and tearing the mother’s heart. Unplanned pregnancy is not one problem, but a host of problems, great and small; pregnancy care providers try to solve them, one at a time.
Problem pregnancy is associated frequently with poverty, and Planned Parenthood selects the poorer neighborhoods; it is popularly believed that abortion is the best solution for the poor. At any rate, this belief is popular with those who are not poor. Polls regularly show that those with higher income levels are the most likely to endorse public funding of abortion, a gift that the recipients are not eager to accept. David Gergen, in an editorial written before he joined the Clinton administration, pointed out that a 1992 Reader’s Digest poll discovered “poorer Americans are the most opposed to federal funding [for abortion]. Among those earning less than $15,000 per year, opposition ran 63 to 32 percent against funding, while those making over $60,000 favored it by 57 to 41 percent.” Gergen asks, “Is Clinton listening to the people he wants to help?”
When people offer to help you by giving you money to eliminate your children, there’s an implied message that’s hard to miss. A friend who worked in an abortion referral center stocked a flier which explained how we could reduce our tax burden by helping poor women have abortions; one day a Hispanic client came in, slapped the flier on the counter, and hissed, “This is what you really think of us.” Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic eugenicist who wanted “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by rectifying “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit.’” Planned Parenthood still has great admiration for Sanger, and president Faye Wattleton said a few years ago that the organization is “just following in the footsteps” of its founder.
Two brands of compassion, each offering what they think is best, but one gets the lion’s share of funding. While pregnancy care centers are a woman-to-woman operation, with funds raised in batches through bake sales and small grants, abortion is more lavishly supported from above. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the recipient of impressive grants from a long list of foundations and corporations, from Helena Rubenstein to the Pew Charitable Trusts to the New York Times Company. In a typical year, $125 million was received via Government grants and contracts. Planned Parenthood has fought for federal funding of abortion, and with the expanded provisions of the Hyde Amendment will now be able to charge more abortions to the public purse. Some states, as well, use taxpayer funds to underwrite abortions: in Maryland the bill totals $3 million per year. There is plenty of money from above to eliminate the children of the poor, and little need for bake-sale fundraising from below. The director of Planned Parenthood in Maryland is a well-mannered, sober Bostonian in a dark suit; it is hard to imagine him raising funds by poking his head in an office door, like Gloria’s volunteers, and asking how many want a pastrami sub.
TSA Procedures are not about safety (Part 1)
01
Dec
(I’ve thought about blogging on the Transportation Security Administration’s new procedures, but every time I start another news story hits. At this point, there’s too much for one post, so I figured I’d get started.)
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented new procedures which include a special type of full-body X-Ray whose radiation is absorbed into your skin and the tissue just under the skin, to produce a naked image of the passenger, and/or the passenger must be patted-down including the passengers sexual organs.
One basic question about this is:
What’s the point of these new procedures?
Napalitano and the TSA says its necessary for safety.
For safety? Airport security was dramatically changed after 9/11. In the last 9 years, how many commercial plans have been successfully used in terrorism? 0. That means whatever’s been going on has had a 100% success rate.
“BUT THERE’S BEEN ATTEMPTS!” Certainly, there was the shoe bomber (Episcopal, right?), and now we take off our shoes to go through airport security. There was also the failed underwear bomber (Presbyterian I think?). There’s real questions about whether the new procedures would have even detected the underwear bomber’s device.
Further, these devices and pat-down-feel-ups will not detect anything hidden inside of one’s body.
So, as far as any information the public has, these new techniques will not improve on the 100% success rate we’ve had for 9 years without them.
Perhaps the government has other information that hasn’t yet been published on wikileaks. Perhaps we are under imminent threat by terrorists who will use on-the-skin devices to try to commit terror. Perhaps the only way we will be safe from known threats is to hit the terrorists with these new procedures. These new procedures were in place just in time for the busiest travel day of the year. If there’s ever times to use heightened security, it’s when there’s evidence of a threat at a specific time, or the busiest travel days of the year.
What better time to want to blow up a plane than when more people are flying, lines are backed up, everyone is stressed out and in a rush. It’s then that one would most easily slip through undetected.
And it was on the busiest travel days of the year that the TSA played a very sly hand and didn’t enforce the new procedures to deflate the threat of “Opt-Out Day” when many people were going to refuse the scan. When the threat was greatest, they stopped the procedures they said would keep us safe.
And no planes were used to crash into buildings. The standard procedures continued to be 100% effective.
I’ve heard Michael Medved and others write off concerns about this – it’s not that invasive, it’s not that embarrassing. But those aren’t the point. The point isn’t that you or I feel embarrassed, the point is that there’s constitutional issues here about unlawful search. The point is that the government is lying and in the name of security they’re testing to see how much freedom we’re willing to give up when promised safety.
Are you willing to take off your belt and your shoes? Yes.
Are you willing to have your bags x-rayed? Yes.
Are you willing to go through a metal detector? Yes.
Are you willing to be splashed with radiation that will increase your rates of infertility and cancer and/or be subjected to sexual assault by government employees?
Are you willing for your children to be splashed with radiation that will increase their rates of infertility and cancer and/or for your children to be subjected to sexual assault by government employees?
We do not forfeit our rights when we fly on a plane. The purchase of a product or service from a private company does not cause your civil rights to be terminated or suspended.
Clearly the issue is not about security. The TSA was very clever in playing up the concerns and then yanking out the rug from under”Opt-Out Day” so now everyone believes this was just media hype. In the process, the American people have agreed to submit themselves to sexual abuse by the government.
I thought we were supposed to be proud of the call “Give me liberty or give me death,” but instead we together chant “Give me liberty or take it away but tell me it’s for my own good.”
Bad, bad, US Health Care
30
Nov
Proving the recent studies that say Cuba and other countries have better health care than the US, another international leader, the Saudi King, has traveled internationally for health care.
To Cuba? To the UK? France? Canada? Netherlands?
No. To the United States.
The problems with health care isn’t the treatment – we’ve got the best treatment in the world. Otherwise, perhaps the Saudi King, Canadian officials, and others, would perhaps stay in their own countries or head to Cuba.
The problems have been cost and an entitlement attitude of a large group of citizens.
Cost is high because of a few factors:
- Cost of compliance with government regulation.
- Cost of excess treatment to attempt to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed.
- Cost of malpractice insurance and/or legal expenses to fight frivolous lawsuits that have been filed and which benefit trial lawyers (aka Democrat congressmen) more than anyone.
The entitlement attitude is not just among those on government healthcare. If the middle class didn’t feel entitled, we wouldn’t all be in so much debt, having “bought” things we cannot afford. What many Americans expect:
- Someone else should pay for the health consequences of my behavior.
- Someone else should pay for the elective treatments I receive.
- Someone else should take financial care of my family and parents.
- I deserve to keep the money I make for my work. Doctors that provide treatment and insurance employees that ensure it’s as affordable as possible do not deserve to be paid for their work.
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid health plan does a few things to ensure all the problems get worse:
- Dramatic increases in government regulation are raising the cost of health care.
- Purposeful ignorance of the frivolous lawsuits has empowered trial lawyers (Democrat congressmen) to continue to file even more frivolous lawsuits which is raising the cost of health care.
- Adults up to 26 years old have been told that legally they are not needing to be responsible for their own health care.
- Everyone has been told that pre-existing conditions, often the result of behavioral choices are not their responsibility and someone else will pay for them.
The costs continue to rise, and the entitlement attitude is being encouraged.
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid health care plan has successfully made the two main aspects of the problem worse.
Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo
30
Sep
Here in Colorado, our Governor’s race is a mess for conservatives.
A short history:
The three candidates for Colorado's Governor: John Hickenlooper, Dan Maes, Tom Tancredo.
John Hickenlooper, Denver’s mayor, had no competition for the Democrat nomination. McIinnis and Maes were the top two Republicans, both had issues. Maes appeared to have credibility issues and McGinnis was being accused of plagiarism. Tom Tancredo pulled his endorsement of McGinnis before the Republican primary, and said that if McIinnis and Maes didn’t drop out, he would enter the race independently.
With Tom joining the attacks on McInnis, he lost the primary to Maes. Maes won on the benefit of not being accused of plagiarism.
Tom Tancredo switched political party affiliation and is now on the ballot as the Constitution Party candidate. The conservative vote has split. It seemed that in the year of the conservative, we were handing the Governor’s office to the most liberal candidate.
The policies of Tancredo and Maes would be very similar, focusing on a constitutional perspective validating the primacy of the individual, instead of the primacy of the government. While Hickenlooper would raise taxes, Tancredo and Maes are expected to maintain or cut taxes. Across the board, the principles and policies of the conservatives are similar.
What’s happened to date:
When Tancredo entered the race, he had only support of 9% of Colorado’s voters. Maes could conceivably compete with Hickenlooper, but only if Tancredo dropped out.
Tancredo has consistently gained support while Maes has lost support. During the month of September, Tancredo moved up to 34% support of Colorado voters, only 10 points behind Hickenlooper. Maes has dropped to only 15% support. Tancredo’s support has come from those who were formerly supporters of Maes, Hickenlooper, and undecided voters.
Arguments that used to be against Tancredo are now against Maes:
Arguments from local Maes supporters as well as national figures like Michael Medved have essentially been the following:
Politicians with the winning touch almost always shun fringe parties because chances of success are so small. The most admired American leaders take their place in an honorable pragmatic tradition, counting practical results as more important than showy gestures.
The basic idea is that running would only ever accrue him a few percent vote that would take away votes only from the Republican with an impractical bid that could never compete with the liberal Democrat. Tancredo staying in the race could only ever defeat Maes and ensure a Hickenlooper victory.
BUT today, Tancredo is within 10 points of Hickenlooper, and has more than double the support Maes has. These very arguments that used to be against Tancredo are now arguments against Maes.
It is Maes who can only muster a small percentage of support.
He has become the incredible shrinking candidate while Tancredo is building support at an extremely rapid pace.
It is Maes whose only effect now can be electing the Democrat by taking away support from the 2nd most popular candidate.
Tancredo needs about 10% of Coloradans to change to vote for him for the win. Maes would need about 30% of Coloradans to change their support for him to win.
It is Maes who is staying n when the chances of success are so small.
The trends show that Maes will continue to lose support and will enter election day with under 10% of votes from Coloradans.
What this means for you, me, and Maes.
I recognize that some people will vote for Maes because he’s got an R behind his name. If this is you, you are simply not a conservative, but a member of a political party, who will do what you’re told. These sorts of people are called RINOs, “Republican in Name Only,” who will vote for Republicans no matter what.
Others will vote for Maes because they’re mad at Tancredo for messing up the Republican primary. I don’t like what he did either. But we aren’t voting on what Tancredo did, we are voting for what direction the Colorado Governor’s office moves in.
Unless there’s a tremendous upset and Maes is neck-and-neck with Hickenlooper by voting day, any votes for Maes will have the effect of voting for Hickenlooper.
As a conservative, I want my vote to be effective for bringing about change in the right direction – constitutional values, individual rights, smaller government. Your vote for a candidate who cannot win is a vote against all of these conservative values.
Whatever your personal feelings, whatever your party affiliation, a vote for Dan Maes isn’t a vote against Hickenlooper or a vote against Tancredo. A vote for Dan Maes is a vote against conservative values in the governor’s office. The only way we have to pursue conservative values in the governor’s office this term is to value conservatism over Republicanism, over our annoyance with Tom messing up our primary, over our desire to hold a grudge.
The only way we have available to us to pursue conservative values in the office of the Colorado Governor this year is to vote Tancredo.
Nancy Pelosi, Wicked Witch of the West: Why Party Trumps Person in Politics
13
Sep
We’ve often voted just for the individual politician that we like or agree with the most in elections. It’s usually a Republican because there’s some core issues of the Democrat party that are immoral (such as oppressing the poor through entitlement programs that keep them poor and oppressed, abortion, devaluing individuals by lessening individual rights) and Libertarians tend to be unqualified and silly ( with bios that sound like “I’m a kindergarten volunteer, I like the color pink, and I want to be governor and legalize pot!”)
But – at least in the legislative branch, and in a year like 2010, party trumps politics. Here’s the most creative ad campaign I’ve seen in a very long time:
John Dennis is taking on Nancy Pelosi with this ad, and throughout his website. Americans aren’t too happy with Congress right now. With good reason. The parties switched control of the legislative branch in 2006, and everything went wrong. Unemployment increased, repeated bailouts and stimulus packages were written into law, anyone who dares disagree is slandered and maligned. The economy took a downturn when Pelosi took leadership of the legislative branch, and things continue to move the wrong direction now, 4 years later.
But John Dennis isn’t the only one taking on Pelosi. Every Republican congressman is. Pelosi is in control of every committee and the agenda of what comes to the floor for a vote and when – because the Democrat party has the majority. The same is true with Harry Reid in the Senate. If you vote for a moderate Democrat, it’s a vote for the extreme left-wing ideologues like Pelosi who will both control the legislative branch and ignore the moderate Democrat you vote for.
Isn’t the same true of Republicans? While the Democrats say they want to expand government and do so, the Republicans say they want a smaller government, but during Bush’s presidency, they grew government just like Democrats.
The difference is that Democrats screwed things up right away. The Republicans took a long time to ignore their own platform and increase government intrusion into your life. We need a new change – different from the Democrat ‘echo Obama’ strategy. We the voters need to get rid of the Democrat control of the legislature, and we then need to force the Republicans to stick to conservative principles, or vote them out in the primaries when they’re up for re-election.
A vote for any Democrat, moderate or not is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid control of every law written in Washington.
Miss Bush Yet?
02
Sep
For almost 10 years, the DNC and their cronies in the leftist mainstream media have been villainizing George W. Bush.s
No doubt this has influenced people’s political perceptions – I once had someone tell me they blamed Bush for trouble they had finding a parking space. This also likely helped give Obama the presidency as he and others cast his opponent, John McCain as a 3rd term of Bush.
That Obama and the democrat’s politics of personal destruction have a strong influence on how the citizens of America and the wold perceive American politics. It’s nothing new – every strong opponent of the Democrats since Ronald Regan has been attacked as stupid and incompetent. Think about it – what comes to mind as the attacks on Bush, Gingrich, Quayle, Palin?
Obama and the DNC recognize the effectiveness. Two years into his presidency, Obama continues to blame every problem on his Republican predecessor. However, the excuse seems to be getting worn out.
Ohio went for Obama in 2008. A survey by liberal polling agency PPP was just released shows that now, as Obama is less of a mystery and we all know more about him, 52% of Ohioans wish that Bush was still in office, verses 40% who prefer Obama.
While Bush can’t run again for presidency, the poll is relevant because Obama’s incessant finger-pointing at Bush in his ongoing blame game that he plays with the rest of his party that leads both houses and the majority of media outlets.
The personal attacks, name-calling, and finger-pointing works for the Democrats. If they weren’t doing this, the numbers would be dramatically more in favor of Republicans. As it is, Republicans have a 10 point lead on a generic ballot per Gallup, another polling agency that leans left.
Is this an indication that the finger-pointing and personal attacks have stopped working? That’s now how the democrats will see things. They’ll believe that they aren’t blaming and attacking people enough. Expect the name-calling and “politics of personal destruction,” as the Clintons used to say, to escalate as we approach November and future elections.
