Palin: "The Tea Party Movement is the Future of Our Country"

In a rambling, often incoherent 40 minute speech, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin addressed the faithful at the Tea Party National Convention in Nashville. She covered topics from national security to health care to budget deficits often deriding and mocking the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party though she took a moment to praise Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak for his anti-abortion stance.

In her speech she praised Ronald Reagan effusively on the day that would have been his 99th birthday. Oddly enough, she didn't mention his role his tripling the national debt nor did she acknowledge the erosion of the middle class that began under the 40th President. Somewhat surprisingly, she said her now trademarked "commonsense conservatism" stock phrase a mere seven times.

Still other empty stock phrases peppered her speech. “This is about the people, and it’s bigger than any one king or queen of a tea party, and it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter,” she said.

As the New York Times noted, Sarah Palin gave the lily-white Tea Party Nation exactly what they wanted to hear, declaring the primacy of the Tenth Amendment in limiting government powers, complaining about the bailouts and the “generational theft” of rising deficits, and urging the audience to back conservative challengers in contested primaries. “America is ready for another revolution!” she belted. 

Apparently, America is also ready for a martyr. "I will live, I will die for the people of America," she cried as if she were some American Jeanne d'Arc ready to be burned at the stake.

More interesting to watch was the 20 minute question and answer session with Judson Phillips, the founder of a group called Tea Party Nation. There she informed us that the Tea Party Movement was the future of the country. She encouraged people to run for office but I'm sure the irony was lost on her when the "I quit halfway into my term" former Governor noted that Americans have to do more than just "talk the talk but walk the walk." Again clichés aplenty but complete sentences seemed as endangered as polar bears in Alaska.

Asked her three top legislative priorities when the conservatives regain the House and Senate - that's the modest plan in 2010 - she offered reining in spending and then looked at her left hand to read the cheat notes (at the 46:30 minute mark) to offer up the other two ideas: jumpstarting energy projects and "allowing America's spirit to rise again" by which she means that it "would be wise to start seeking divine intervention again in this country so that we can again be safe, secure and prosperous." I must say that's going to be one hell of a bill.

The "renowned Marxist" Dave Weigel of the "socialist" Washington Independent has several more reports. His Twitter feed provides additional hilarities. Dave, I have to say, what ever they pay you, it's not enough.

Tags: Sarah Palin, Tea Party Movement, conservative movement (all tags)

Comments

42 Comments

The tragedy of the tea-baggers.

Yes, to much of the still clear-thinking rest of the world, the tea-baggers are freaks, and rightfully so.  Yet these are the most easily manipulated of the American electorate, and naturally they are the reactionary heirs of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan.

When Reagan came to power in 1980, the United States was still fiscally sound and had a Democratic Congress to counter his more loony ideas, from the overhaul (read gutting) of Social Security and Medicaire to his lofty "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative.  Of course Gingrich's "Contract with (read on) America" thought to finish the Reagan plan in 1994.  But of course over-reach and a Democratic President in Bill Clinton (whom the GOP then spent taxpayer megamillions to remove from office) again foiled the full reactionary plan.

Of course, the reactionaries ultimately had their way.  Having complete power over the Presidency, the Congress, and the Courts from 2001 through January 2007, with less than 50% of the electorate behind them (and a highly dubious 2000 election which was then, and still is, very much in play), by virtue of the fear machine instituted by the 9/11 mnemonic trumpeters, the Reagan Revolution came to full fruition.

The result was a multi-trillion dollar deficit spent on unnecessary tax cuts for the super wealthy, an unregulated banking system that permitted usurious credit card interest rates (but then denied fresh start bankruptcy to millions who desperately needed to file; thus ensuring a permanently indentured working class like the worst days of feudal feifdoms), an unchecked military squandering trllions on unknown enemies in never winnable wars, and an infrastructure and health care system long neglected and all but in tatters.

Thus, the return to power of a Democratic Congress in 2007, and the mandated, sweeping victory of now President Obama in the general election of 2008 meant the clear refutation of Reaganomics.  It meant that the country had clearly had enough of the reactionaries.

But that would also have necessitated that both the Democratic President and Congress act quickly, steam-rolling through legislation to counter and indeed crush Reagonomics so that it could not destroy the Ship of State, as close to imment collapse as was the Soviet Union twenty years earlier. 

It would have required the long-overdue villification of Reaganomics and that actor-clown character once at its helm.  It would have required a ceaseless drum-beat from the newly empowered Democrats of just how bad things become when the nation follows the Reagan/Gingrich/Dubya-Cheney plan.

And it would have required that our newly-empowered and reinvigorated Democrats define the nation's dormant but still lethal enemies before permitting them to newly define the Democrats. 

Using the bully pulpit, President Obama might have daily revealed just how horrible Reaganomics and Gingrich's "Contract on America" were.  President Obama should have, by virtue of his brilliant rhetoric and profound effect particularly on newly enfranchised young voters, persistently pushed through radical FDR and LBJ style legislation--even, if necessary, going himself to House and Senate chambers on a weekly basis.

At best, Democratic initiatives, whether on jobs creation, infrastructure, health care or banking reform, the reigning in of the foreign war machine, and various long neglected social issues, would have had only six months before the Right Wing propaganda machine could newly attack and awaken the slumbering reactionaries.

Instead, an entire year was used up in attempting some sort of patchwork comprehensive health care reform package.  Banking institutions were again granted carte blanche discretion, freely given trillions of taxpayers dollars to forgive their debt, with no relief however for the millions of citizens they had pilified in usurious interest rate fees and abused mortgages.  The foreign war machine kept its imaginary enemies front and center, and not any of their Jingoist policies were reigned in.  And all the while, the reactionary forces, who should have been vanquished much as FDR did for at least a generation, were only growing louder and stronger.

The tragedy is that unlike 1980 and 1994, and when reactionary forces came to full power by stealth and subterfuge in 2000, the State of the Union is 2010 is in tatters.  Our nation can only survive if Radical Left Wing change buttresses the lethal effects of the Radical Right Wing programs long ago instituted and left unchecked.

The United States is on the brink of collapse and extinction.  For that, we must blame of course the reactionaries, ever and always living in denial, even though the Ship of State struck an iceberg under their watch and the USS Titanic is now steadfastly sinking. 

We must blame the media, who, while still largely enamoured of President Obama, simply adore controversy and political turbulance, and are happy, whistling past the grave while with us on this Titanic Ship of State, because, alas, they had rather have good press than make it clear to their fellow passengers that the ship is truly sinking.

We must blame our fellow Democrats, no longer the ferocious progressives of the years of FDR and LBJ, but rather themselves easily afraid of even the shadows of reactionary "tea-baggers" they had all too recently routed only fifteen months ago.  (From the current news, a visitor to this country would never know that the Democrats still control the Presidency, and with large majorities in both the House and Senate.  One would assume that the nude-posing and empty-headed Massachusetts Senator Elect Scott Brown and Tea-bagger conventioneers are fully in charge.).

And yes, we must blame our President.  President Obama was gifted with every talent a politician could hope for, with brilliance of wit, intellect and rhetoric.  And he was granted every gift a politician could hope for, from stunning and widespread victories to the imprimatur of a Nobel Peace Prize while just coming to power as Chief Executive.

But alas, one must also remember that candidate Obama often praised the "transitional figure" Ronald Reagan, and feebly attempted to show that neither the Boomer generation of Clintonites nor Dubya-ites had the correct answers.  We Clintonites repeatedly warned that this was a dangerous path to success.

There was, there always will be, a difference.  We Clintonites were moulded by the revolutionary 1960s, just as our parents were animated by the policies of FDR, whereas the Dubya-ites were moulded by their reaction to those years, and, in large measure, their own parents' reaction to FDR policies. 

It is a major, insurmountable difference in social thinking.  Candidate Obama wrongly thought to assuage both sides.  And President Obama, until it was far too late, thought to assuage both sides in the health care debate, and indeed on other pressing reform issues.

Oddly enough, the more successful the tea-baggers are, whether now with the rise of the empty-suit Senator-Elect Scott Brown, or in the fall Midterm elections, the more certain President Obama is of a second term.

After all, the reactionaries were in full power not so very long ago.  Although easily swayed, and innately dim-witted, it will not take long for American voters to learn anew just why they cast the Reagan-Gingrich-Dubya and Cheney crowd out so forcefully in November of 2008.  These masses will come to curse them all over again.

The tragedy is that the USS Ship of State cannot wait to be righted after another two years.  It is, Titanic-like, sinking badly.  The fatal iceberg has already struck, and President Obama and the newly empowered Democrats were the last hope to patch up the craft before it disappears, extinguished by foreign waters upon which China, a Communist nation (of all things!), remains fully solvent and supremely powerful.

Every empire has its historical shelf-life.  Gone are the heyday of ancient Greece and Rome, the French and British Empires, and the hegemony of the Soviet Union. 

Who would have thought that the American Republic would ultimately fail by virtue of a nude-posing Senator Elect named Scott Brown, and a scatterbrained former beauty pageant winner named Sarah Palin?  What an ignominious end to what was once a stellar nation, founded on democratic principles and nurtured upon the idealistic hopes of millions.

by lambros 2010-02-07 09:51AM | 0 recs
RE: The tragedy of the tea-baggers.

A bunch of revisionist history on Obama's first year. Come on, Obama would have looked silly if he was criticizing Reagan (a dead man) on a daily basis. I know a lot of liberal bloggers think that everything wou d have run perfectly if they were running the show, but this whole comment is melodramatic, unproveable fantasy.

by Lolis 2010-02-07 11:25AM | 0 recs
RE: The tragedy of the tea-baggers.

The country still operates under the illusion that Reagan was a great president who saved us all during the 80s recession and toppled the Soviet Union singlehandedly.

Bushshit of course, but that is what many people believe. It was smart for Obama to let illusions lie and even to praise this rotten racist bastard, who fed the wealthy while families were becoming homeless, blaming nonexistent freeloading welfare queens in Chicago for causing all of our problems.

by MainStreet 2010-02-07 12:04PM | 0 recs
Reagan was a success; deal with it.

Apparently you'd rather deal in generalities when assailing President Reagan, which is understandable---because the facts show that his was an incredibly successful Presidency. You can stick to words like "rotten" and "racist"; I'll rely on numbers.

Median household incomes grew by $4,000 between 1981 and 1989, from $37,869 to $42,049. The greatest increase came in the lowest quartile of wage earners. Moreover, unemployment declined from 7.6% when Reagan took office, to 5.5% when he left; the economy created 18 million jobs during this eight year period. AND, (yes, there's more) he tamed the runaway inflation that four of his predecessors---from LBJ to Carter---failed to control.

As the gipper used to say, facts are stubborn things. But go ahead and stick to your name-calling, because that's all you've got.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-07 02:45PM | 0 recs
Unemployment was in double digits

in 1982 when Reagan bit the bullet and agreed to the Democrats' corporate tax hike.

 

Facts are stubborn things.

by ND22 2010-02-07 03:12PM | 1 recs
RE: Unemployment was in double digits

Reagan also reduced taxes on the wealthy.

by MainStreet 2010-02-07 03:54PM | 0 recs
yeah

he wouldn't agree to raising taxes on the wealthy since he belived it would be their money that would bring the economy out of the recession, so he and the Democratic Congress negotiated a deal where corporate taxes would be hiked.

by ND22 2010-02-07 04:00PM | 0 recs
Oh and also

let us not forget the enormous deficit Reagan ran and enormous national debt he rang up, which nearly doubled between 1981 and 1989...but hey, the deficits and debt don't matter, right? Isn't that what Dick Cheney said?

 

Oh, yeah, it only matters when there's a Democrat in office.

 

Facts are stubborn things.

by ND22 2010-02-07 03:18PM | 1 recs
RE: Oh and also

You apparently don't understand economics, and you sure don't understand statistics.

When making year-on-year comparisons---especially during periods of dramatic growth---always include the number as a % of GDP. Otherwise, nobody will take you seriously, trust me. That's what people mean by the term "an apples-to-apples comparison".

The deficit was 2.7% of GDP when Reagan took office, 2.9% when he left. If you haven't figured it out by now (which wouldn't surprise me), the key differential is that the economy was a third larger in 1989 than when Reagan took office, in 1981.

Deal with it.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-07 03:36PM | 0 recs
You apparently don't understand politics

and you sure don't understand specifics. You are deliberately ignoring the fact that Reagan WAS FORCED BY DEMOCRATS AND DEFICIT-CONCERED REPUBLICANS to change course 3/4 of his way through his term because the deficit had almost tripled by 1985. Facts are stubborn things.

I don't expect you to understand this, I'm sure you know this, but it's blasphemy to St. Ronnie, so you will continue to spew your bullshit about how the deficit only went up by .2% when he left office, and ignore the specifics of while he WAS in office.

He HAD to be controlled by Congress because his deficits were getting out of control. The amount of national debt he created in his time in office was only surpassed by the amount of debt George W. Bush accumlated.

Deal with it.

So why you don't just stop now and go jerk off to your Ronnie Reagan pictures somewhere else, k thanks!

 

by ND22 2010-02-07 03:48PM | 0 recs
RE: You apparently don't understand politics

We all remember the causes of those deficits: an enormous defense budget that including getting useless old WWII ships out of mothballs, and creating a pretty dumb defense shield that never worked. It was all a great waste of money, except of course for defense contractors, who took in a bundle on deficit spending.

Reagan was a class B actor and he became a class B president. Yes, he was transformational in the sense that, through racism and antipoor rhetoric, and a "greed is good" philosophy, he pulled the country right. Help the rich and we will get rich, it will "trickle down." We waited and waited, buy sadly, the middle class never improved it economic status. Still, the "me" generation that Reagan created never ceased hoping it would become rich. Even the northern Reagan Democrats, who hated Blacks and blamed them for all their problems, decided to move into the Republican party. Good riddens.

 

by MainStreet 2010-02-07 04:03PM | 0 recs
RE: Oh and also

Sort of stupid don't ya think that Regan increased the deficit (both in real terms and as a % of GDP) when the economy was expanding. That's a time whne the government should be saving money and paying down the debt so as to spare future generations (like the current one) the burden of having to pay it off in the midst of a recession.

Not Mr. Fiscal Conservative there. But Reagan wasn't conservative by any definition of the term. Or atleast not today's definition.

by vecky 2010-02-07 08:19PM | 0 recs
Apparently

you can't read.

I said national debt not annual budget deficits. There is a difference.Debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure.

And just for the record by tenure, the largest increases in gross debt relative to GDP occurred under George H.W. Bush (+11.2%), George W. Bush (+11.9%), and Ronald Reagan (+18.5%). Yeah, that's right our debt problem is largely the result of GOP administrations.

And to be fair to Ronald Reagan, he called the debt the "greatest disappointment" of his Presidency. So even your own hero was cognizant of his failings.

by Charles Lemos 2010-02-07 03:45PM | 1 recs
You said "deficit", not debt

and the two terms have entirely different meaning when discussing fiscal policy. Take a look at your second paragraph:

"In her speech she praised Ronald Reagan effusively on the day that would have been his 99th birthday. Oddly enough, she didn't mention his role his tripling the national deficit..."

Generally, the word debt is used to refer to the cumulative annual budget deficits; as you can see from the second paragraph, that's not what you wrote. The word "deficit" is generally used to refer to annual shortfall between overall budget revenues and expenses.

I can read fine, Charles.....maybe you should be more careful about what you write.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-07 04:24PM | 0 recs
RE: You said "deficit", not debt

My apologies. I meant debt.

That's what I get for writing this at 1:30 am after getting home from dancing.

 

You cite GDP growth under Reagan but what you fail to ask is how was that financed and who did it benefit. The Reagan boom wasn't a boom in productive assets but rather an aggrandizement of financial assets. And it sowed the seeds of what has become the national problem: a worrisome gap in social inequality.

by Charles Lemos 2010-02-07 07:44PM | 1 recs
RE: Reagan was a success; deal with it.

You must certainly live in a dream world. If it were not for Volker, it would have been even worse. Reagan just waited out a normal business cycle. They happen every ten years.

You said:

“Median household incomes grew by $4,000 between 1981 and 1989, from $37,869 to $42,049. The greatest increase came in the lowest quartile of wage earners. Moreover, unemployment declined from 7.6% when Reagan took office, to 5.5% when he left.”

However, the average annual inflation rate during Reagan's two terms was 5.55%. Although Volker reduced inflation, it was still high and it eroded incomes.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Articles/Decade_inflation_chart.htm

That would suggest that the average worker lost earning power during that period, not gained anything at all. It also explains why the wealth inequality index grew, the start of a progress to where it is today closer to its most extreme level in 1929. Reagan was self admitted for the wealthy, and reduced taxes on them considerably, although not as much as Bush. In 2000, the top 10% of the wealthiest people owned 85% of the stock market and 90% of all business assets. It was Reagan who got the ball rolling.

SO quit kidding yourself about the greatness of Reagan. He was a rich man's president who didn't give a damned about workers, wanted to get rid of unions all together, and stuck it to the poor.

And if you didn't know that Reagan ran a racist campaign in 1980, you just don't know anything about Reagan.

 

by MainStreet 2010-02-07 03:48PM | 0 recs
and would have

regardless of how much Obama trashes Reagan.

Look, I understand the liberal belief that if they just say things over and over again people will start to believe them, it won't happen. Reagan was transformatial because he was able to get people to believe his crap who were in turn hurt by his crap. He was able to begin a long era of conservative government by convincing people said government would eventually hurt (unions, working class). That made him a transformatial figure. We're idiots for denying that.

by ND22 2010-02-07 03:10PM | 0 recs
um

<blockquote>We Clintonites repeatedly warned that this was a dangerous path to success.</blockquote>

 

You Clintonites repealed Glass-Steagal and reduced the amount of regulation in our financial system. You Clintonites are partially responsible.

by ND22 2010-02-07 03:14PM | 0 recs
RE: um

little problem formatting?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-07 04:41PM | 0 recs
PALIN SPEECH


THE TEA PARTY CONVENTION

The highlight was to be Sarah Palin’s speech, and the highlight it was. The Alaskan Barbie was in great form and the audience loved it, handing her many ovations.

The speech itself was in no way historic or substantive. But it was a fitting keynote speech, better than one that might be given here by, say, Newt Ginrich, or at a gathering of Democrats by,say, Al Gore. Palin criticized Obama and his policies and filled her speech with platitudes and tea party beattitudes.

The conventioneers got what they paid for.

homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

by altara 2010-02-07 10:33AM | 0 recs
If Sarah Palin is all this movement has, then it is doomed to be no more influential than the Green Party.

The Green Party has been around a long time, but it never caught on as a major voice in politics. My feeling is that there is not much more going on in politics today, hence the press interest in following this tiny movement, and turning it into front page news. If anything, it is the press that will determine just how large it gets relative to tiny.

And Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the Democrats best chance of repeating in 2012. IMO.

by MainStreet 2010-02-07 12:10PM | 1 recs
Your statement about the Reagan deficits is incorrect.

Reagan did not triple the federal deficit, as you assert; this is a fable that liberals toss around, unfortunately. It conveniently ignores the fact that President Reagan grew the economy by a third during his two terms in office.

In 1981, the federal deficit was 2.7 % of GDP; adjusted to 1988 dollars, it was $101 billion. In 1989, the deficit was $141 billion, or 2.9% of GDP.

Reagan's success in simultaneously conquering recession and inflation is pretty much unprecedented, and is one of several reasons that historians rate him as one of our greatest Presidents. It also explains a loyal following among those of us who consider ourselves "Reagan Democrats".

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-07 03:16PM | 0 recs
From 1981 to 1985

he nearly tripled the deficit before Democrats took the Senate in 1986, and fixed constitutional flaws in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act which in turn forced Reagan to take steps to cut the deficit. 

You wanna try again?

by ND22 2010-02-07 03:29PM | 0 recs
There you go again.

Just track the GDP numbers between 1981-1989 if you want to get an understanding of how all this works (and take an introductory course in economics as well)

The deficit number will always peak when a recession is ending; it spiked to 6.3% of GDP in 1983, as we began to come ouf of recession, due to Reagan's tax cuts. Subsequently, it declined each year beginning in 1984, as economic growth returned, and was 2.9% when Reagan left office in 1989. This is what's meant by the expression, "growing your way out of deficits".

The Gramm-Rudman act of 1986 had nothing to do with it; you're the first person I've ever heard suggest that it had any impact at all. Economists on the right and the left agree that the Reagan economic boom got federal deficits back to a manageable level.

YOU wanna try again?

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-07 03:49PM | 0 recs
Wow you are delusional

I don't give a fuck about 1989, if not for Congress, we might have seen a quatrupling of the deficit by 1989. So take your 1989 numbers and shove it, ok?

The deficit spiked in 1986...say it with me...Nineteen-Eight-Six

The deficit ballooned under former President Ronald Reagan, peaking at 6% of GDP in 1986.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/issues/issue_budgetdeficits.html

...that would be three years after the recession ended. It was that year Democrats took the Senate and forced changes to Gramm-Rudman that forced Reagan to cut the deficit.

I would think someone who is getting seriously humilated on a comment thread would disappear, but you seem to like it...you want more?

 

by ND22 2010-02-07 03:57PM | 0 recs
And you just keep getting your ass kicked

Let's see how this is going: you've finally admitted that budget deficits didn't materially worsen under President Reagan.....and you're reduced to arguing that is was a Democratic Senate---elected during the final two years of his Presidency---that made everything OK? Wow, that's what I'd call a retreat....or in martial arts jargon, a tapout.

Reagan ended a recession, ended runaway inflation, and won the Cold War. If your incredible shrinking President Obama comes anywhere close to those kinds of accomplishments---which is highly unlikely based on his first year performance---he'll probably be rated a success.

Go have a drink and watch the Super Bowl....I think the Obama implosion is getting to you.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-07 04:34PM | 0 recs
RE: And you just keep getting your ass kicked

What kind of excuse is that? You just point out that not only did Reagan actually increase the defieicit as a % of GDP, he did it while the economy was expanding! That's pretty much the height of fiscal irresposnbility don't you think? Reagans success seems to have been relegated solely to increasing the debt load.

Btw, Reagan wasn't in office when the SU collapsed... you do know that right? He was quite suprised when it happened too.

Obama's facing a greater bunch of challeneges than Reagan did in '81. But he's doing pretty well, far better than Reagan was at this point in his presidency.

by vecky 2010-02-07 08:26PM | 0 recs
Obama is doing "pretty well"???

Yeah, Obama is doing just great.

What rock have you been living under? The man started his first year in office with a filibuster-proof Senate (i.e., 60 votes), an enormous majority in the House, record high approval ratings, and still couldn't get his #1 domestic priority passed.

Yeah, that's a real strong performance.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-08 10:17AM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is doing "pretty well"???

then any presidential first year in recent history, including your love thing Ronnie Reagan.

Healthcare reform got farther than it ever did

Suck on this you twit

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116

by ND22 2010-02-08 10:50AM | 0 recs
There you go again.

Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) to jumpstart the economy during his first year in office. This was his highest domestic priority, and he passed it through Congress while making it look easy.

This may be hard for you to comprehend, but Reagan showed REAL leadership: he had to deal with Tip O'Neill, and a huge Democratic majority in the House. Unlike Obama---who bows and scrapes to anyone and everyone in his pitiful desire to be liked---Reagan understood the concept of leading by strength. And it was his leadership that made America strong again, after the weakness of Jimmy Carter. Reagan was genial with Tip O'Neill, but he didn't do any Obama-style grovelling.

Sadly, Obama is more like Nixon than Reagan, which could end up being his downfall. Like Nixon, he is petulant, thin-skinned, intrinsically dishonest, and obsessed/paranoid about media that he regards as unfriendly. Like an increasing number of Americans (Obama down to 44% in Rasmussen), I fear for our great country.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-09 12:16AM | 0 recs
Back for more I see

great, cause I love kicking your ass, makes my day.

Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) to jumpstart the economy during his first year in office.

Too bad he didn't jumpstart shit as the recession only began in 1981 and ended two years later. Facts are stubborn things.

This may be hard for you to comprehend, but Reagan showed REAL leadership: he had to deal with Tip O'Neill, and a huge Democratic majority in the House

Actually Democrats had a smaller majority in the House in 1981 as they do now and the balance were "boll weevels," certainly you've heard of them, who bowed to his every beck and call, oh, and he had a Republican Senate and since the Senate tends to be the more powerful of the two bodies...yeah. Facts are stubborn things

Like an increasing number of Americans (Obama down to 44% in Rasmussen), I fear for our great country.

Don't worry, you got a much better President in office than Reagan ever could've been...one day you'll realize it, you'll just never admit it.

Want more bjjhole?

 

by ND22 2010-02-09 04:08PM | 0 recs
Ah, having a bad day, little wuss?

When you wake up, go to the home page, and read the comments/diaries (Obama in a Bubble?) from other progressives who are finally admitting that your boy is in over his head. Only you and two other losers here are trying to defend him anymore.

And now you're trying to tell us that Obama is a better President than Reagan?  Got it, nd: you're right, the rest of the political world is wrong. The real truth is that when it comes to leadership, Barack Obama couldn't lead a fart out of an asshole.

For your next act, just convince us that 2+2=5. No doubt here that you'll try.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-09 05:28PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is doing "pretty well"???

Me... Rock? Actually Obama started out with a 59 vote senate (58 actually since it took Franken several months to be seated). It's now back to where it was with Brown being the 60th vote rather than Specter, no biggy.

And ofcourse the 60-vote Dem senate DID pass a HCR bill. It may not be the final bill, and it clearly would have been a better bill if it had a 50 vote threshold rather than 60, but let's not let facts get in the way...

by vecky 2010-02-08 02:16PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is doing "pretty well"???

Honey, you're great with reciting minutia, but you keep missing the big picture:

"And ofcourse the 60-vote Dem senate DID pass a HCR bill. It may not be the final bill, and it clearly would have been a better bill if it had a 50 vote threshold rather than 60, but let's not let facts get in the way..."

That's all wonderful, but I have to break this to you: a bill passing just the Senate does you no good. It has to pass both houses of Congress to become law. Without that, Barack's HCR remains an epic fail. Sorry.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-09 12:50AM | 0 recs
You fuckhead

you're reduced to arguing that is was a Democratic Senate---elected during the final two years of his Presidency---that made everything OK? Wow, that's what I'd call a retreat....or in martial arts jargon, a tapout

This was my entire argument in the first place. What retreat, you're giving credit to a man who deserves no credit because he was forced to do this.

God, to think after getting his ass kicked by four different people in one thread and now you're trying to act like you WON an argument.

You're like the poster child for pathetic.

by ND22 2010-02-07 10:20PM | 0 recs
RE: You fuckhead

The real problem is conservatives like him keep trying to dig themselves deeper into the hole. For example bjj tries to cite the example of the federal deficit of 1.58% of GDP in 1979 increase to 3% of GDP by 1988 as a small increase (avoiding the several years of 5% inbetween, but whatever) t0 make his point thus ignoring simple compound arthemtic. The fact that the debt as a % of GDP increased from 26% in 1980 to 42% in 1990 is completely ignored by him I guyess becasue facts like that don't fit the world-view (Another incovientnet truth is that the debt in 1970 was 28% so yes, it actually went down in the "bad years" of 71-80). That's what faith in "voodoo economics" will get you.

Btw, debt as a % of GDP was down to 33% of GDP in 2001, back up to 40% of GDP by 2008 (just before the crash)... and it's only gotten worse since then. If Bush had managed to keep paying down the debt, it would probably have been at around 25% of GDP by 2008 and the recession would have been more managable. And ofcourse the financial crash might never have occurred to begin with...

by vecky 2010-02-08 02:46AM | 0 recs
RE: You fuckhead

What on earth are you babbling about?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-09 12:37AM | 0 recs
too many facts

for you to handle asshole?

by ND22 2010-02-09 04:10PM | 0 recs
RE: too many facts

Only one response for idiots like you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsZADqLuaGI&amp;NR=1

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-09 06:06PM | 0 recs
Here's some more reading for you

Here you go, asshole; read it and weep:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/02/obama_hits_lowe.php

your boy is dropping like a stone, especially among indies, where he commands an impressive 29%, lol!

See ya; wouldn't wanna be ya.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-10 12:55AM | 0 recs
She is delusional

That Sarah Palin thinks she has a shot is a testament to her stupidity. I dont know a single republican who thinks she has a chance or would vote for her. My closest friend is a conservative and in his words she is "Dumber than dirt". The only folks who buy her crap are the way way right nuts. Mainstream republicans and most sensible conservatives I know, dont think much of her. She is viewed poorly by independents as well. She wont make it our of the early primaries if she runs, I dont care how much money she has. Once she starts hitting the trail and appearing in candidate debates, anyone who hasnt seen her will dislike her quickly. Why anyone here woudl take her potential candidacy seriously is beyond me

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-02-07 04:33PM | 0 recs
RE: She is delusional

Considering the McCain/Palin ticket got 45% of the vote it's clear there is a lot of latent support out there for her. Maybe folk are just embaressed or won't admit it, but in the privacy of the voting booth you can be sure where their conservative soul is.

by vecky 2010-02-07 08:38PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads