Showing posts with label Debbie W. Schultz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debbie W. Schultz. Show all posts

Monday, August 13, 2012

The Paul Ryan Pick

Let’s talk about the Paul Ryan pick. I would have preferred Rubio because I think the GOP needs to romance Hispanics, but putting that aside, the Ryan Pick is excellent. And indeed, we’re seeing that already both in the glee on the conservative side and the fear on the Democratic side.

Why This Pick Was Great: The Ryan pick was great on many levels. For one thing, Ryan is one of the few politicians people trust. He’s unassuming and he’s wonkish, so he doesn’t appear prone to exaggeration or lying. He’s also willing to tell people the truth rather than trying to give people a false sense of happiness, which allows him to get things done. And he’s not someone who scares people. That will make it difficult for Obama to use Ryan to agitate his own base or upset independents.

Ryan also excites the base of the party. He is seen as the “intellectual leader” of the party these days, especially by fiscal conservatives, because of his efforts at fixing the budget and entitlement reform. His ideas have become those of the party. He’s also very much liked by the Religious Right, who remain queasy about Romney because of his religion -- and this is despite Ryan’s support for extending employment protections to gays. Ryan also is very much liked by the establishment wing who see him as a steady hand.

In effect, Ryan unites the various wings of the party and brings tremendous energy to the base. He guarantees GOP and Tea Party turn out, without scaring the moderates and without increasing Democratic turn out. Moreover, he will prove invaluable in reforming and reshaping the government toward a more conservative, more sane and more sustainable structure once Romney/Ryan are elected. That makes him a great pick.

The Democratic Response: Naturally, the Democratic response has been shameless. It has also been instructive for how disorganized and how ineffective it has been. Basically, they are attacking Ryan along all the standard hypocritical and propaganda grounds whether they fit or not:
● “Journalist” Andrea Mitchell said Ryan was “not a pick for suburban moms, not a pick for women.” This is the standard “war on women” meme which assumes that women only care about birth control and which ridiculously contends that Republicans want to drive women from the workforce. Only idiots believe this.

● Some Democrats and The New Yorker said Ryan was a bad pick because he lacks private sector experience! Seriously! Think about that. Obama and Biden together spent 0.0 minutes of their lives in the private sector yet somehow this is only a problem for Ryan, who did work in the private sector. Not to mention that the left has been telling us that Romney’s private sector experience makes him unacceptable for the job.

● Many Democrats, and again The New Yorker, are calling him “risky” and “totally a Palin-redo” because he lacks experience. Yeah, right. Palin was a first time governor of a small state that is entirely dependent on federal money. She had about a year of political experience and none of it at the national level. Ryan has been in Congress since 1999, he’s risen to become budget committee chairman, and he’s gone toe-to-toe with Obama on ObamaCare and took him down handily. Ryan is media savvy, policy wise, and a seasoned and skilled political operator. Palin was none of those things. This is the standard Democratic “he’s stupid” attack they always use and it won’t work here because Ryan’s intelligence is obvious. And let’s not forget that these are the same people who thought Obama was qualified because he knew how to read from a teleprompter and cast a handful of votes in the Senate. The “lack of experience” charge is wishful thinking on the left.

The New Yorker also laughably thinks Biden will rip Ryan apart in their debate because of his votes for the Iraq War, TARP and Medicare Part D. Of course, they conveniently forget that Biden voted for all of those things too -- and more. Plus, Obama/Biden can add bailouts, stimulus packages, ObamaCare and financial regulation to that their list of failures, not to mention 9% unemployment and trillions in debt.

● They’re working hard to demonize Ryan on his Medicare reform proposal as well, which is rich coming from a party that plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. CNN’s Candy Crowley was the first to use the old tactic of pretending that anonymous Republicans are nervous about this, stating that she has spoken with “Republicans” who claim this pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Yeah, right, find me an actually Republican who said that you hack.

Running with this, the AP is turning out articles how this pick will likely cost Romney Florida. Once-relevant liberal Michael Kinsley refers to Ryan’s proposals as “Ryan’s slasher novels” and the blogosphere is full of leftists whining about Ryan trying to kill old people and poor people. Too bad for them, nobody will listen.

● Following Crowley’s lead, Politico tells us that unnamed Republican strategists have “misgivings” about the pick because Ryan is little more than a “random Heritage Foundation analyst,” and someone “close to the campaign” supposedly “grumbled” that Ryan would now be dictating policy for the campaign. This is standard leftist prattle as well. When they can’t find a reason to attack a conservative, they invent unnamed sources supposedly on the conservative side who are despondent or outraged or just generally upset by the candidate or policy. It’s bull.

● Dumbass Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to link Ryan to the “failed policies of the past” and for wanting “tax breaks for the rich.” Neither line will work with Ryan as he was never the face of the Bush years and because their class warfare attacks haven’t worked yet even against Romney. As an aside, Politico also points out that Ryan is rich. . . something they never seem to mention about all those rich Democrats.

Politico also worried that the Ryan pick was a desperation pick for Romney, which will force him to change his entire campaign strategy in ways which Politico doesn’t actually explain. They also had a couple articles on how Romney “lost control” of the picking process and was thus forced to pick Ryan because the public forced Ryan on Romney -- which contradicts the polls which show Rubio was the more popular choice and which flies in the face of the argument that Ryan is unpopular.
Conclusion

All in all, Ryan is an excellent pick. He’s a solid fiscal conservative with solid social conservative credential, though he doesn’t display the hate of someone like Rick Santorum. He’s got the backing of every Republican who has spoken. His budgetary brilliance is unmatched. He’s not Tea Party, but his views align with them very closely and he should excite them. And as you can see from the above, the Democrats can’t find anything to attack him with except his entitlement reform proposals, and I don’t see those as a problem. For one thing, they make Ryan the one guy in Washington who isn’t afraid to try to save the current system. For another, the party which plans to rob Medicare of $500 billion is hardly in a position to criticize, and Ryan is smart enough to point that out.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Allen West’s “Gaffes”

Having failed to make Santorum the nominee (and with Ricky now dropping out of the race), the MSM is now trying to destroy various Republican VP candidates before Romney makes his choice. Last weekend, Politico took a shot at Rep. Allen West by listing his ten biggest “gaffes.” Of course, these were not gaffes, they were just things liberal do not want to hear. Let’s look at some of West’s finest moments:

1. The Right Principles: Allen West espouses all the right principles. West summarizes these nicely in several of his supposed gaffes.
● Here is West describing the economic foundations of America while attacking the Democrats for undermining them. To Obama, Reid and Pelosi, he says: “Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

● West has also made the same point more positively: “This is what America is about when it comes to understanding that it is equal opportunity versus equal achievement. Each and every one of us has the opportunity for greatness in this country.”

● And here is West explaining why he supports the Tea Party. Notice the reference to limited, constitutional government: “I think that if we get back to some basic fundamental principles, we can make sure that we resolve the issues. And I think that that's what the Tea Party was all about. It's getting back to a constitutional conservative government. And that is limited, but it's also effective and efficient. I think that that's what we'll be able to do.”
2. A Fighter Not A Lover: West also has a strong track record of fighting back against the Democratic smear/propaganda machine. Here are a few more of his “gaffes.”
● First, West is clear that the Democratic party is bad for blacks and others who get trapped in the dependence the Democrats hope to engender: “So I’m here as the modern day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the Underground Railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.”

● He also makes no bones about the Democrats' willingness to lie and cheat and use any means to smear and destroy those with whom they disagree: “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the [Democratic] Party because they have an incredible propaganda machine.” This one really got the left upset, but if the jackboot fits....

● He has fought back against that vile Gollum-like create Debbie Wasserman Shits. . . er, Schultz, whose hateful public pronouncement would actually have made Goebbels blush. Indeed, he called her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable” member of the House. Then he added, “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, and therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!”

● And when he was later asked what he thinks whenever Shultz’s name is mentioned, he said this: “I need a bucket.”

● Lastly, he gave us this one which I think of as “speaking truth to the power-mad”: “I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.”
What’s more, Allen hasn’t been blinded by the mob over the past two years like so many others. He’s recognized that you can’t play “take it or leave” in our form of government, and he’s recognized that you can’t build anything by destroying the Republican Party. He has proven to be a savvy operator and yet has maintained his principles. We need more Republicans like this.

BONUS ROUND: Here are some of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s recent quotes:

● On Paul Ryan’s budget: “As a result, many seniors in America will be forced into poverty, and worse. Some seniors will end up dying because they are forced to put off getting that pain checked out due to huge out-of-pocket costs that will skyrocket for them. This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.”

● Calling ObamaCare “ObamaCare” is “a disparaging reference to the President of the United States.”

● Schultz said it would “belittle” minorities to extend hate crimes laws to veterans: “It really is belittling of the respect that we should have for [minorities] to suggest that members of the armed services have somehow systematically been the victims of hate crimes.”

● She held a rally to attack Allen West (before his election). At the time, she explained the difference between her crowd and the Tea Party thusly: “I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I’ve seen Tea Party extremists—Republican Tea Party extremists—express their right is dramatically different.” So the “difference is different?” Bright.

● Then she despicably tried to latch onto the Giffords shooting by dragging her own daughter into it, and by trying to define the Giffords shooting as a result of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: “After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, ‘Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean you're going to get shot? But Mommy, Florida's going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.’”

She’s a real piece of shitzu poo.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

[+] Read More...