Sniff Test Politics

Red Herring, Thy Name Is Limbaugh – Part II

Your Host — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:37:23 +0000

Have you ever been to see a magician where they do the whole slight-of-hand thing? Where they make something disappear and then “magically” make it reappear someplace else? If you could watch that trick in slow motion you’d see the magician distract you off in one direction with a lot of motion and superfluous BS while they set up the trick in another.

Enter James Carville and James Greenberg, the Siegfried and Roy of Democratic strategy. Along with support from their lovely and able assistants CNN talking head Paul Begala and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Carville and Greenberg are making a concerted effort to pull a white tiger out of their collective asses.

And as far as I can tell, they’ve done a reasonable job. It may not be a full grown Bengal mind you, but maybe a large house cat.

Last week while the economy was tanking, while Congress was throwing money around like a lottery winner at a topless bar, while Hillary was making an ass of herself in front of the Russians, what was the lead story? That’s right. Rush Freakin’ Limbaugh.

In the Politico “story” (read Press Release) that broke this shrewd strategy, the Democrats stated goal was to associate Limbaugh with Republican leadership; to create the perception that Limbaugh was somehow running the Republican party. I think that’s BS. I think the real reason was to distract us from the train wreck that has been the Obama Presidency thus far. And while it may only work for a few weeks, it gives Obama time to take a breath while everyone is distracted.

I have this image of Carville being mauled by Begala. It makes me smile.

As an aside I think it’s funny that Democrats got all pissy when Rush said he wanted Obama to fail. That’s like wanting the other team’s field goal kicker to miss the game winning kick. Duh! Plus according to a poll done in ’06, 51% of Democrats wanted Bush to fail. People who live in glass White Houses…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/flashback-poll-showed-democrats-wanted-bush-fail/

Baghdad Bob Rides Again

Your Host — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:27:34 +0000

The similarities are striking although one is just doing his job and the other is full of shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfQgGvUzGso&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-4qEz1vea0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7E_tzxdNs

Red Herring, Thy Name Is Limbaugh – Part I

Your Host — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:14:52 +0000

Last week liberal talking heads, in conjunction with the White House, launched an attack on Rush Limbaugh. According to Politico, the goal was to paint Limbaugh as the face of the Republican Party. Apparently poll numbers suggest that everyone hates Rush so the thinking is that associating Limbaugh with all things Republican will create a negative impression of the party. Who knew?

Time to for the Republicans to get tough. Time to associate Keith Olberman with the Democrats.

Wait…No one watches enough MSNBC for that to work. Maybe Bill Maher?

Granted political parties trying to negatively define the other by who was a member have been going on for years. Democrats define Republicans by Wall Street types (greedy) and televangelists (extremist) while Republicans define Democrats by the Hollywood elite (snobby) and anyone who works at MSNBC (extremist).

Am I the only one who thinks this strategy is asinine? Seriously, Rush is a freakin’ radio personality for crying out loud. He is as relevant to defining Republicans in the same way that Chris Mathews is just irrelevant. I’m not buying this. I don’t think it passes the sniff test at all.

So You Want To Know What Taxes Are Coming?

Your Host — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:09:19 +0000

Here is an interesting analysis from Americans for Prosperity, a grassroots tax policy advocacy organization, on the similarities between The New Deal and The Raw Deal.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/02/kerpen_obama_hoover/

This paragraph caught my eye…

“Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.”

So much for changing the way things work in Washington. I wonder at what point moderates who gave Obama a chance are going to feel duped.

I’ve added the site to the Blogroll for your reference.

A Quick Word About the Reagan Prosperity

Your Host — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:27:52 +0000

The left has wrongly propagated the idea that only the wealthy benefitted from the Reagan prosperity. And while the whole “trickledown economics is pissing on the middle class” thing is catchy, it is factually inaccurate. According to US Census data, middle class income rose 11 percent during the 80’s while 20 million new jobs were created. Yes the number of middle class households decreased in the ‘80’s, but that was because of upward mobility, not the other way around. The facts show that the percentage of households with incomes over $50K rose 6% from ’82 to ’89, while the number of low income households decreased by 3% during the same period. In other words, all classes benefited, not just the wealthy.

I’ll take Reagan over FDR, thank you very much.

Why I’m In a Bad Mood – Volume I

Your Host — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:11:47 +0000

One of the things about the Raw Deal that really bothers me is Obama’s disregard for the private sector and the businesses and families that rely on it. You want unemployment? We haven’t seen unemployment. Wait until private sector businesses and their consumers have to start footing the bill for that $4 trillion budget. I better start saving my $13/week.

Larry Kudlow over at CNBC wrote a good piece today that I recommend… http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104.

So how about that “change”? Are you feeling it?

FDR vs Obama – The New Deal vs The Raw Deal

Your Host — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:49:28 +0000

I’ve seen the Obama recovery plan referred to as the “Raw Deal”. I like the sound of that so I’m going to go with it. By now most of us have heard the comparisons between the Raw Deal and the New Deal. All I can say is that I hope that the comparisons are only hyperbole because we’re screwed if Obama is as successful as FDR.

Here’s a quick history lesson for those that have long forgotten that chapter of 11^th grade history. The Great Depression started in 1929 under Herbert Hoover. During the period from 1929 to 1933, unemployment went as high as 25% and corporate profits plummeted as did investment into private companies.

And then things got bad. FDR was elected in 1932 and he did an admirable job of making a bad situation worse. Sound familiar? What is scary is how FDR made things worse. He increased entitlement programs whose costs actually added to unemployment, he empowered labor unions which stifled economic growth and opportunity for the unemployed, and he created massive public works projects that took money away from private business via taxes and redistributed that money within government programs. A good read on this is Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man. You can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0066211700.

It should be noted that under FDR unemployment averaged a mind-numbing 18%.

Fast forward to the Raw Deal and you can see the similarities not only in the economic conditions, but also in the plan of attack. Let’s see…increased entitlement programs? Check. Propped up labor unions? Check. Massive public works projects? Check. Higher taxes on business? Check. It’s textbook on what not to do.

Now I’m sure Obama apologists would argue that the New Deal helped fix the Great Depression. I would argue back that they need to read a history book. Most historians agree that the New Deal was a dramatic failure and that while WWII was partially responsible for our recovery, what really turned things around was a return to normal capitalistic business conditions post WWII within a more industrialized infrastructure.

Class dismissed.

Why Is Obama Smiling?

Your Host — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:53:58 +0000

At a parade in Germany on Monday, President Obama was all smiles as he pulled Europe along the path to global socialism. While it is unclear from the photo what exactly Europe is hanging onto, it appears that it is something other than coattails.

AP Photo/Frank Augstein - The catch phrase "Yes We Can" takes on an entirely different meaning.

Yeah…So about the Constitution…

Your Host — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:42:35 +0000

Here is a little tidbit that I found very interesting. I’m supplying a link to Politico because as of this posting, you won’t find it on CNN. Apparently there was no room for it with all the Obama dog choice and Bobby Jindal bashing stories.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.VA.) accused President Obama of trying to use internal White House “czars” to usurp the power of Congress. Politico called it a “power grab”. Go here for the full story. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

That Obama is getting called out on his efforts to consolidate power within the White House isn’t new. Newt Gingrich has already gone on record as calling Obama’s efforts to gain control over the 2010 census “Nixonian”. What is interesting is that Byrd, the longest serving Democrat in the Senate, is the one raising the red flag and is doing it so publically.

According to Politico, Byrd is a Constitutional expert. My understanding is he worked on one of the first drafts. If anyone knows about checks and balances and the ways in which Presidents try to get around them, it’s the guy who has been in the Senate since Eisenhower. That he would feel the need to publically call out the President says to me that he is truly concerned. A guy like Byrd being concerned concerns me.

Take Our Poll

“There is nothing like an odor to stir memories.” – William McFee

Your Host — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:14:21 +0000

I was in 6^th grade when Gerald Ford ran against Jimmy Carter in the ’76 election. As with most Jr. High students during an election year, we went through the exercise of holding a mock election complete with the requisite homemade campaign signs, poorly recited stump speeches and uninformed debate. It was remarkably realistic.

To make a long story short, Carter won the mock election in a landslide and with that rousing endorsement behind him, went on to become President. As I recall, I was one of five or so in the class that ended up voting for Ford. While that fact isn’t important in and of itself, what is important is that I figured out my political belief system early on in life.

In retrospect I learned two very important things about politics from the ’76 election even though it took me several years to actually “get” what I knew. The first was that many voters support candidates not because of what they are but because of what they are not. One thing I’ll always remember about the Mock Election of ’76 was the level of enthusiasm my friends had for Carter simply because he was not Nixon. It didn’t matter that Ford wasn’t Nixon. It was guilt by association.

At the time I didn’t get the reasoning. Now I get it. I don’t necessarily understand the logic but I get it.

The other thing I learned is that voters want to feel inclusion and they want to feel like they are a part of something. As a kid mired in the social quagmire that was the Mock Election of ’76, I understood that concept completely. Once certain kids got behind Carter, it wasn’t long before supporting Carter was cool.

In my mind, the debate was back and forth. I mean on one hand, cute girls liked Carter. He offered popularity and inclusion. On the other hand, he was a freakin’ peanut farmer from GA. I guess ultimately I knew I was screwed. So I sacrificed any popularity I had for Gerald Ford. Don’t laugh. It seemed somehow noble at the time to take the bullet.

In retrospect I probably should have jumped on the bandwagon and hung out with cute girls but hey, you live, you learn. Knowing that the Carter presidency was a complete train wreck is my only vindication.

With that in mind, 2008 smells like 1976.