Change? Obama Worse than Bush

The verdict is in, and Barack Obama did not produce the change he promised.  In fact, as he blames all his ills on the last 8 years, it is interesting to compare the Bush years to the Obama years.  Consider the following:

Average Annual Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush: $543,818        Obama: $1,497,601

Total Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush (8 years): $4,217,261   Obama (4 years): $5,990,407

Average Annual Unemployment (Also see here):

Bush: 5.26%                    Obama: 9.2%

Median Household Incomes:

January, 2009: $55,198       August, 2012: $50,678

The Average Annual Price of Gas (not even including 2012):

Bush: $2.14                     Obama: $2.89

Cost of Higher Education (adj. for inflation, not even including 2012):

Bush 2008: $16,661     Obama 2011: $18,497

But isn’t health insurance cheaper now with Obamacare?  No.  In 2012 the amount a family with employer provided coverage pays in annual premiums has increased to about $16,000.  For families with private individual plans, the amount is up to $5,615.  And before you ask why families don’t all just switch to private individual plans, remember that Obamacare taxes medium-large businesses up to $3,000 per employee that they don’t cover.

But we know Obama has handled the economy terribly.  The other thing people elected Obama for was to end the wars.  Obama promised to close Gitmo, which didn’t happen, and to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq by sticking to Bush’s timeline, but that wasn’t the whole story.  Obama intended to continue the war and leave troops in Iraq, but Biden could not negotiate simple immunity for our troops.  Don’t look now, but the Afghanistan war isn’t ending in 2014.  The administration is already negotiating to keep up to 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Let’s look at war by the numbers.

Involvement in Major Foreign Conflicts:

Bush: 2 countries           Obama: 3 countries

Military Spending as % of GDP:

Bush, 2008: 4.4%          Obama, 2011: 4.7%

Average Annual War Spending:

Bush: $99.3 Billion       Obama: $155.1 Billion

Obama boasts of ending the war in Iraq, but how is the peace President doing in Afghanistan?

Average Annual Troop Deaths:

Bush: 606                        Obama: 445

Iraq:  528                         66

Afghanistan: 78              379

But what about Bush’s handling of Katrina?  Surely Obama has done better than that, right?  Former NYC Mayor Guiliani says no.

What about taxes?  Obama boasts about cutting people’s taxes, but most of the tax hikes he passed don’t go into effect until next year.  Obamacare has 20 different tax hikes in it, and many of those affect the poor and the sick.

But Obama saved the auto industry, right?  Actually, the only Detroit major that survived was Ford.  Ford didn’t take Obama’s bailout.  Chrysler did, and is now owned by an Italian company called Fiat.  GM took Obama’s bailout and is now owned by the taxpayers.  This was after Obama spent billions to bailout the unions before letting the two companies go through bankruptcy.  If that’s Obama saving the auto industry, I hope he doesn’t do me any favors.

Add these factors to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Black Panther polling case, Solyndra, and the other various scandals and overreaches of the Obama administration, and there is no reason to re-elect Obama.  Except of course if you got an Obama phone and are afraid of losing it.

How Obama Could Still Win:

Several states in play are ties or tossups in the latest polls.  In some, Obama is leading by 3-5%, but 3-5% are either undecided or going third party.  Obama can still win, even with his horrible statistics, if people vote third party or stay home.

I know many out there are voting third party or not voting to protest Romney.  I, like you, am a very libertarian leaning constitutionalist.  I’d love to see us out of the Middle East.  I’d love to see government spending cut in half.  I’d love to see us hold to our 10th amendment.  But Mitt Romney is NOT Barack Obama.

If anything, Mitt Romney is far closer to Reagan.  Despite being hailed as a conservative hero, Reagan is not as conservative as I would have preferred.  In fact, many Ron Paul and Gary Johnson voters would probably not vote for Reagan either.  But Mitt Romney is not the candidate you should be protesting.  You should be protesting Barack Obama.

Consider your goals and which candidate will get us there:

Less involvement in the Middle East: Mitt Romney has a comprehensive energy plan that gets America using its own resources to lower our dependence on OPEC.  Obama spent billions of your tax dollars on green energy companies that went bankrupt, and we are no closer to independence from foreign oil.

Simpler, fairer tax system: Romney’s plan reduces rates in order to remove loopholes and deductions based on the government’s definition of what a good citizen looks like without raising taxes.  Obama’s plan is higher taxes, more redistribution and a more complex tax system designed to pick winners and losers.

Foreign wars: Obama has proven himself to be an interventionalist.  He is not the peace President people hoped for.  He hasn’t closed Gitmo.  He only left Iraq because he was too incompetent to negotiate a way to stay there.  But he is already negotiating to keep 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Romney’s approach is to show the kind of strength Reagan did.  What major war did we fight when Reagan was President?  The Cold War, where we sat across the ocean from each other and didn’t pull the trigger for eight years.  Finally, the Soviet Union collapsed under their economic system.

More personal freedom and responsibility: Nothing took us backwards further as a nation than Obamacare.  Obamacare mandates that every American buy private health insurance or pay a tax.  Obamacare takes deciding power away from doctors and patients and gives it to the government.  If you protest Romney, Obamacare is here to stay.  If you vote to protest Obama, we have a shot at repealing this monstrous tax on the sick and the poor.

Does My Vote Count?

If you are thinking of voting third party or not voting because Romney is not as conservative as you’d like, you could be part of the margin that gives Obama four more years to take us down the path towards socialism at hyperspeed.  So where does Romney need your vote the most:

Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Arizona.

But believe it or not, he also needs you in Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine. If nothing else, vote to tell the liberals in your state that they do not have a mandate.  The country is changing and is leaning to the right.  You will never get the conservative, limited government you want if you let the country fall off the socialist cliff because the most conservative candidate who can win is not conservative enough for you.

When you walk into the voting booth, consider what you want America to look like in 2016.  Do you want to move forward the way Obama does?  Do you really want four more years of this?

Why Ryan Is A Strong Choice For VP

Saturday morning, Romney announced his VP pick to be Ryan — no, not Ryan Seacrest — Paul Ryan, budget wizard and Wisconsin representative. Ryan is arguably the most prominent Republican in the House. He is young (42), personable and energetic and has over a decade in Congress. He knows how Washington works and why it doesn’t.

Also, like Romney, he appears to be clean. Everyone has skeletons, especially politicians, but as far as anyone knows to date, the Romney-Ryan ticket may be the cleanest duo since Batman and Robin. It would be a surprise if a real scandal related to either man was uncovered. This may not win them an election but it should win them some fence-sitters.

Ryan is considered the go-to-guy regarding the budget. Nobody in Congress possesses the detailed knowledge he does which is why he chairs the House Budget Committee.

Ryan also knows how to campaign, in fact, he’s never lost an election. He’s 7-0. He has successfully defended his seat against both Democrats and Libertarians. During his first campaign Ryan received 57% of the vote. This is the lowest of his career. Since, he has never dipped below 63%, typically pulling in 67-68% range. In 2010 he earned 68% of the vote.

He is one of the three co-founders of the Young Guns Program, an electoral recruitment and campaign effort by House Republicans. He, along with Rubio, Walker, and other young conservatives is symbolic of the future for the Republican party.

But like all of us, Ryan is not perfect.

He has been on Romney’s short list for months so there’s no doubt the Left has a dossier and media packet on Ryan already prepared for shipping. The Left will also unroll articles comparing Ryan to other short-list folks like Portman (much more “real” experience) or Rubio (could have delivered Florida) to make Ryan appear a weaker pick than he is.

A lack of foreign policy experience will be something the Left tries to exploit. This will create a few headlines but Republicans should be capable of over-coming the criticism by pointing out this election is more about getting our house in order than world affairs. Besides, Obama had no foreign policy credentials a few years back and he was running for the top spot, not VP.

Ryan has proposed an aggressive plan that includes substantial changes to entitlements. Obama mocked it on live television — with Ryan seated in the front row — and the Democrats have already sliced and diced it. Now, with Ryan directly involved in the election, this plan will become a prominent issue. Already distorted, the Left will continue to have at it. To his credit, Ryan is a communicator, so if anyone can effectively walk the common folk through some of the plan details, it’s him.

He’s also likely to be labeled extreme or a hard-Right tea-bagger with draconian outlooks. This is a heavy distortion as Ryan’s “yes” votes on the bank bailouts and on Medicare expansion program prove. But it fits in well with the Left’s tired rhetoric — ‘Republicans want dirty water, polluted air and will abandon the old and poor’.

Many will ask if Ryan on the ticket will put Wisconsin in play? Except it already is. Sure, Obama won Wisconsin by 14% in 2008. That’s huge. But today, that has been trimmed down to about 6%. And don’t forget the message Wisconsin sent during the Walker recall. The better question is — can Ryan deliver Wisconsin? That is unknown but what is known is that Obama and the Democrats, still black and blue from the beating they took during the recall, will now be compelled to spend time and money in Wisconsin, perhaps to the detriment of a different swing state.

Because Ryan is a communicator he should hold his own during the VP debate. Ryan is not a punch-line kind of guy so Biden may score a jab or two. But if properly prepped, Ryan should be able to counter. And if the debate actually delves into issues of substance, Ryan is likely to badly embarrass Biden and show him as the buffoon he is. Ryan’s expertise on budget matters should help bring Romney up to speed, too.

Romney’s selection of Ryan has, intentionally or unintentionally, changed the nature of election. Probably not as much as most pundits think. The economy will remain the primary issue but now political ideology has been introduced. Team Romney must be confident the common folk want to hear about fiscal responsibility and changes to entitlements — complete with fine details. Ryan offers this. Obama wins here also as he now has ideological distortions to exploit. Both sides, particularly the super PACs, will play to this — do you want the anti-America radical Left or the rich loving polluters on the Right — but the reality is voters that answer to strict ideology have already made their decision. Independents aren’t likely to be swayed by the well worn cliches. It is likely to boil down to who the voters feel can get us out of this mess.

People vote for president not VP. But if there is one politician in America currently capable of explaining America’s nasty financial situation, in painful detail, it is Ryan. The Left, by pushing ideology, will guarantee Ryan has to break out the charts. But that’s a Ryan strength.

Like every candidate, Ryan has some shortcomings. But his positives far out distance his negatives. And compared to Biden as a VP, he’s gold. Ryan is informed, intelligent, and a proven leader. He isn’t an elite live audience orator but there are few better with television interviews and presentations. Romney definitely could have made a worse choice. He may not have been able to make a better one.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

What Does Paul Ryan Bring to the Ticket?

 Bookmark and Share  By picking Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, Democrats will claim that Mitt Romney, a wealthy and heartless robber baron who has killed people through his business dealings, has picked a running mate who pushed grandma off a cliff and is trying to make the wealthy richer by starving the poor.  Democrats will claim that the Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan aligns the G.O.P. with it’s most damaging and ideologically extreme policies.

Less than two hours after nominating Romney for Vice President, the Obama-Biden campaign went up with a new website that can be found when one goggles Paul Ryan or ask the questions who is Paul Ryan?  Typing that question on your keyboard will bring up barackobama.com/paul-ryan,  an Obama  website that defines the Romney-Ryan ticket as the “go back team”  and claims that Paul Ryan is the architect of a plan to end Medicare as we know it and which raises taxes on the middle-class in an attempt to create tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

An hour after Romney named Ryan as his Vice President, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina issued a statement claiming that Congressman Ryan “is best known as the author of a budget so radical The New York Times called it ‘the most extreme budget plan passed by a House of Congress in modern times’.”

So it is clear that Democrats are ready to do exactly what they were expected to do ——- escalate their political terrorism and double down on their class warfare tactics.   But they do so at the risk of falling right into the trap which Republicans have baited with with a tempting target that has hidden in it the issues that lie at the heart of the 2012 election —– the budget and the economy, the two issues which Democrats must avoid if they want to be elected.

By endorsing Paul Ryan as his running mate and embracing the Ryan approach to fiscal sanity, Romney has dared Democrats to continue their fear mongering.  And if Democrats continue to take the bait, they will be ensuring that the very issues they are trying to make voters fear the Romney-Ryan ticket for, are the very issues brought to the forefront of the campaign.  The selection of Ryan as his running mate is both courageous and brilliant.  It demonstrates that Romney is committed to fiscal responsibility and unafraid of defending conservative economic policies against the harsh distortion and demonization of demoncrats.  But by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has also plotted a brilliant strategy that now puts him in control of the political agenda by reframing the campaigning on the big issues which lie at the heart of our nation’s future.

While Obama and his fellow demoncrats try to describe the fiscal responsibility of a Romney-Ryan ticket in divisive class warfare terms, they will be forcing the Romney-Ryan ticket to explain their ideas and shed the truth on those ideas.  By going on the attack, demoncrats will be forced to actually have to debate the economy and the budget, something which they would rather not address.   The liberal strategy of distractions and distortions will give Republicans the opportunity yo fully explain the big fiscal decisions that will have to be made but which demoncrats refuse to address.

The demonization of the Romney-Ryan economic policies will provide Republicans the perfect chance to explain why it is not Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney who are endangering Medicare, but that it is the status quo of the the left and their nominee President Obama, which is endangering Medicare.   The attempts to demonize Romney and Ryan and scare senior citizens into believing that Romney and Ryan are throwing them under the bus, the ensuing national debate will force the truth out and shed the light of day on the facts that Ryan’s entitlement reforms not only reduce the national debt by $6 trillion dollars without raising taxes on anybody, but that it makes Medicare solvent and preserves it for generations to come, without making a single change to the program for those born prior to 1954.

Beyond Romney’s selection of Ryan taking control of the political agenda, it reinforces the impression of a leadership team that has the courage to propose bold plans and actual solutions that demonstrate an ability to get our nation back on track, something which the Obama-Biden team has been unable to do.  It also corners the market on the critically important independent swing vote which is made up largely of fiscal conservatives who want ideas turned into actions and actions turned into solutions more than they wish to hear politicians turn distortions into accusations.

In addition to placing someone on the Republican ticket who can appeal to independent voters, having Ryan as Romney’s running mate makes the usually blue state of Wisconsin fertile territory for Republicans.  History demonstrates that running mates can increase a tickets plurality of votes in their home state’s by as much as four percent.  Before nominating Ryan, the RealClearPolitics average of the most recent polls in Wisconsin has President Obama leading Romney by 5.4%.   Now with Ryan on the ticket there is good reason for Republicans to target that state in the months ahead, and as such, Wisconsin is likely to be deducted from the current projections of President Obama’s electoral college count.  And while Ryan’s popularity in neighboring Midwest states combined with his appeal to blue collar workers and personal background has still to be measured,  at this point in time he  can’t be seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in that region.

But picking Paul Ryan was much more than an attempt to select a regional nominee or a candidate who could help deliver a particular case.    It was a decision to pick a national nominee that would reframe the campaign and focus it on the big issues, the tough but unaddressed issues which Democrats are trying to avoid but will now be forced to confront because of Paul Ryan’s solutions and Mitt Romney’s courage to fight for those solutions.  Picking Paul Ryan will force voters to have to choose between two clearly different paths for our nation.  One path is a series of  tax and spend policies of an Administration which has refused to address our problems or even admit that the problems exist, and which has turned our economic woes into such a systemically debilitating problem that it is now the biggest threat to our national security.  The other path seeks to be hoinest with the American people and stop pretending that federal treasury is an ATM machine that issues a staedy and endlesss stream of free cash.  This other path is one which acknowledges our problems and addresses them by making tough decisions, to implement bold solutions and reforms that will help to prevent the United Sates from following in the footsteps of Greece.

What does Paul Ryan bring to the Republican ticket?

He brings us the opportunity to confront the demons that are haunting our economic health and the chance to slay them before they consume us.  He brings the promise of an issue oriented debate that reclaims the narrative of this election in a way that will allow it to focus on the problems that we face instead of the the distortions that left tries to create.   He also brings to the ticket the bait that will entice Democrats to take their class warfare strategy and lies to an extent so profoundly outrageous and exaggerated that they will lose what little credibility they have remaining.

Bookmark and Share

The VP Matrix

Excitement continues to brew about who Mitt Romney might choose as his Vice President.  Today a story hit the news circulation that Marco Rubio is not being vetted, but Tim Pawlenty is being given serious consideration.  Romney found himself on the defensive this evening.  But before you get too excited about a Marco Rubio candidacy, or too upset about it, you may want to take a breather and consider who Romney is and what kind of campaign he is running.  Flash and splash are not the orders of the day.

Mitt Romney’s campaign need do no more than promise a stronger economy and let Obama continue to create a weaker economy.  In fact, Mitt Romney’s tour through small town USA promoting the private sector and values of competition is exactly where he needs to be.  Obama is spouting a controversy mixed with a gaffe every day.  Why jump in front of a train wreck?  Romney’s VP choice will be about as blockbuster as a sandwich from a WaWa vending machine.

Get out your VP scorecards and consider the following:

Mitt’s VP choice will not be a fresh face.

Mitt Romney is not looking for a candidate with little national experience.  Nor is he looking for a candidate who everyone on the far right loves.  Romney doesn’t need a shot of adrenaline or steroids.  The last thing he needs is someone who is going to distract from the national disaster of the Obama Presidency.  Romney does not need a divisive TEA party figure.  He certainly doesn’t need someone who could be perceived as inexperienced.  If Romney picks a veteran, the media will be cautious about trying to embarrass them as a rookie.  But media types smell blood in the water when there is fresh meat.  Even a studied, prepared candidate might not be able to field a trick question like “do you support the Bush doctrine”.  However, a veteran is less likely to be asked that question.

Obama’s inexperience took a back seat in the media when McCain brought in Palin

This is bad for Allen West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, and Paul Ryan.  Could be good for Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, Condi Rice, or Rudy Guiliani.

Mitt’s VP choice will not be old and tired.

The death knell for a Republican candidacy, fair or not, is being old and grey.  Nothing plays into stereotypes of Republicans more than an old, grey haired, slow talking wrinkly man.  While Romney doesn’t need a shot in the arm, he also doesn’t need something contributing to the stereotypes more than he does already.  Right now Romney is Reaganesque in his looks and style.  But an older veteran running mate would turn his campaign into the old rich white people’s ticket.  Again, it may not be fair or right, but don’t expect a VP over 55 years old.

Don’t expect Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, or Rob Portman.  Could be good for Bobby McDonnell, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie

Jack Kemp and Bob Dole combined had nearly two centuries of experience

Mitt’s VP choice may not be female or minority.

There is this idea that the only way to defeat Barack Obama is by running a female or minority VP candidate.  Aside from that strategy failing miserably with Sarah Palin, the problem is that Republicans pay far less attention to race and gender than Democrats do, and Democrats virulently hate conservative women and minorities.  We have seen in recent years just how much visible hatred has been directed toward Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Allen West, Nikki Haley, Michelle Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, etc.  There is a clear desire on the left for female and minority Republicans to fail.  In Mitt Romney’s case, he is not looking for diversity for diversity’s sake.  That’s not to say he won’t pick a female or minority candidate, but if he does it will be someone respected by both sides and unassailable.

This makes Allen West, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Susana Martinez less likely.  However, it doesn’t necessarily knock Condoleeza Rice out of the running, although she will carry the stigma on the left of being chosen for diversity’s sake.  Again, might not be fair, but since when were politics fair.

Mitt’s VP choice will not be controversial.

It’s bad when your VP candidate has almost as many quotable gaffes as Joe Biden

Mitt Romney is not looking to cause trouble for himself.  He doesn’t need a loudmouth or a controversial character.  Don’t expect any candidate who is going to make serious waves.  As I said before, Romney doesn’t need a distraction from the freak show of the Obama economy.  Expect a well respected candidate who is as smooth politically as Romney himself.

You can scratch the Donald, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Allen West, and Newt Gingrich off your list.  This is a strike against Jeb Bush and Condoleeza Rice as well.  But it favors Mitch Daniels, possibly Bob McDonell, and John Thune.

Expect a strategic pick.

Romney’s not going to choose a popular governor from a red state.  But he might choose a popular candidate from a purple or blue state.  And there are a few to choose from.  Rubio would lock of Florida.  Bob McDonnell could secure the nearly must win blue state of Virginia.  Tim Pawlenty could inspire votes from the teetering Great Lakes states.  Rick Snyder of Michigan could really bring in some blue states, but he is likely disqualified for being old and a fresh face at the same time.  Brian Sandoval might help swing Nevada to Romney while also providing the opportunity to highlight Harry Reid’s role in the destruction of our economy.

This set of criteria will hardly provide a definite pick.  In fact, some points are contradictory.  But it should provide some ideas for people who are looking at the potential VP picks.  I could hardly make a prediction even based on this criteria.  But I do believe it comprises the factors that Romney will be looking at when making his pick.

Hit Piece Misses

The day after Scott Walker demonstrated the sheer might of the conservative vote over the power of public unions, media outlets are doing everything they can to find something else to talk about.  For example, Ross Tucker at The Exchange writes “Republicans Bungle the Battle Over Light Bulbs”.  His article is all about how Republicans are preventing Americans from saving money by preventing Democrats from making incandescent light bulbs illegal.  Apparently, the only way Americans know how to buy economically is if the government eliminates all non-economical options as determined by bureaucrats in DC.

In other news, MSNBC tried to say that the Walker win was a great thing for Obama because the exit polls that showed Walker barely surviving also showed Obama winning in Wisconsin.  Of course, Walker didn’t barely survive, but instead creamed his opponent by a 7 point margin.  If you adjust exit polling by the actual results of the election, Romney will have the distinction of being the first Republican President to win Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan.

AP highlighted Elizabeth Warren tweeting about Scott Brown’s no vote the Democrat equal pay bill that would unintentionally make more women unemployable.  I’m not sure why Warren needs an equal pay bill for women; she already got her affirmative action benefits for being a “Cherokee”.

But the best hit piece was a headline from Rick Newman at US News & World Report stating that Mitt Romney’s desire to sell the government owned GM stock would cost taxpayers $15 billion.  Or as his headline put it, “Mitt Romney’s Stance on GM Sale Would Cost Taxpayers Dearly”.  What a headline.

Newman himself reviews the reason we have GM stock in the first place, but can’t seem to make the connection that the losses to taxpayers from GM might actually be Obama’s fault.  When GM was faltering and heading into bankruptcy, instead of selling GM to Italy like he did with Chrysler or allowing them to go through the legal bankruptcy protection process, Obama funneled about $25 billion dollars into GM making the US taxpayer a Wall Street shareholder.  He did the same thing with AIG and Citigroup.

When it comes to playing Wall Street fund manager with our tax dollars, Obama sucks. I wonder what Occupy Wall Street thinks about our Wall Street fund manager-in-chief?

When GM re-emerged on the market at $35 a share, Obama did not cut our losses and sell.  Instead he held on to GM with our tax dollars.  GM has now dropped to $21 a share according to Newman’s article.  Newman admits that GM would have to reach $52 a share in order for taxpayers to recover the original money Obama invested in GM.

The premise of Newman’s article is that we don’t need any of our money back and can wait to see if GM makes it back to $52 a share.  Of course, at this point GM would have to more than double in value.  Newman thinks this could happen by the end of 2013.  I’d like to know what he is smoking and where I can get some.

Large cap stocks rarely double in a year.  Large cap stocks freshly out of bankruptcy with 60% of their common stock shares owned by a government who is just itching to sell may never double in price. Romney is wise to cut our losses.

By Newman’s own math, Obama cost taxpayers $8.7 billion by not selling when GM peaked at $39.

Newman was trying to use fuzzy math to make Romney the bad guy for cleaning up the President’s taxpayer funded investment.  Instead, he unintentionally presents a clear indictment of one more foolish Wall Street fund manager: Barack Obama.

The Hidden Truth Behind Wisconsin’s Vote

Yesterday Wisconsin voters confirmed the validity of Gov. Scott Walker’s agenda and slapped unions hard enough to leave a welt. Ultimately, the recall election, spurred by union interests and hyped as “too close to call” for months, wasn’t that close at all. Walker jumped out to an early lead and prevailed easily over the generic and boring Democrat Tom Barrett. But there is more to this story.

Since taking power, Walker has knocked down unemployment a full point and has created some 28,000 jobs. Juan Williams on Fox, promoted the asinine idea that Walker should be recalled because he didn’t deliver 250,000 jobs. But if Walker could have spent the last 18 months doing his job rather than defending it, those employment numbers would be higher. This sad complaint also shows where the left really stands regarding jobs. After all, if Williams and the left are down on 28,000 jobs created then they must be really down on the pathetic results of Obama, who has netted zero. That’s zero, as in the number lower than one. But they aren’t because they don’t care about jobs. They care only about the expansion of government. They dream of an American society where public unions take money from government workers and funnel it to Democratic leaders. These leaders, in turn, pass laws to help perpetuate this cycle. Meanwhile, to pacify folks not involved with unions, they provide endless entitlement programs. But entitlement programs mean nothing if only a tiny portion of the population is collecting them. Therefore, Democrats do nothing about the economy. In fact, wrapped in lies about protecting people and the environment, they in fact, attack industries and businesses with straggling legislation to ensure the economy sputters. It’s simple really — more unemployed people means more entitlements and more entitlements means more people reliant on government. Those reliant on government handouts will vote for those writing the checks.

But the citizenry of Wisconsin rejected this. They see the illusion. They want to be working and independent not unemployed and reliant.

Scott Walker also wiped away $3.6 billion in deficits, ultimately creating a surplus, without raising taxes. Pay special attention to the word ‘without’ in the previous sentence. As progressives and Democrats continue to call for tax hikes rather than common sense cuts they’re only going to dig their grave deeper.

Over the next few weeks, the airwaves will be saturated with reasoning as to what the Wisconsin results mean. Unfortunately, with a presidential election still to come, virtually everyone that hits the airwaves will put a spin on this in hopes of concealing the real meaning. The right, still composed of too many political cowards, will resort to generic talking points like ‘a good solid win’ and ‘Walker’s accomplishments shows raising taxes isn’t necessary’ and ‘Wisconsin voters have had enough of big government’. Although these points are accurate, they are still a surface-based perspective concealing the reality.

And the left, utterly horrified, can’t afford to mention the true meaning of this vote. They will promote ideas all over the board like it was ‘merely a state election and therefore won’t have national implications’, or that Wisconsin shows why the ‘hardcore, radical right needs to be tamed’ or even ‘this is the beginning of the end of democracy’. Well, this is the beginning of the end of something, that’s for sure. Of what?

Oh, just the progressive-liberal movement.

Outrageous conclusion? Not really.

The fact is that all the supposed reasons and justifications for this recall are utter rubbish. The only issue Democrats and unions were really fighting is payroll deducted union dues. Nothing more. Unions, contrary to the hype, retained the ability to negotiate pay. Further, knowing the gig was up, they folded on benefit contributions early on. But when Walker took away mandatory dues, unions and Democratic politician’s hair stood up. By making union dues a choice for members rather than a payroll deducted requirement, Walker has changed the money river that funds the Democratic party into a stream. And this is the real reason behind Walker’s recall.

On the last day of May, Fox reported, “Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state’s second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme’s figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.”

Cearly, given a choice, union members prefer not to pay dues. Whether members quit or were tossed out after they stopped paying dues is irrelevant. That discussion is a distraction. The point is for the first time in forty years, the money laundering scheme put in place by the Democratic party has been destroyed. Citizens paying government workers, who in turn pay unions, who in turn pay Democratic politicians is a scam that the Wisconsin citizens will no longer tolerate. Democrats and unions fought it hard but lost. But they lost more than just the Wisconsin fight. Forcing a recall vote after a legitimate election that put Walker in power, was, like Obama-care, another example of the Democratic party going against the will of the people. Democrats and unions looked selfish and low doing so. As the election year pushes forward, this shameful behavior will be remembered.

Wisconsin is a major step in dis-mantling of the progressive liberal movement. Obviously, Republican governors across the land will feel emboldened and initiate similar agendas. And stopping unions ability to steal from the citizens will be the goal. ”For many years, [unions] were the unquestioned biggest boy on the block, you didn’t dare cross them,” said Bill Wilson, president of the conservative group Americans for Limited Government. But “if they are unable to topple a governor in a state like Wisconsin, then their power is greatly reduced and greatly overstated. … If they can’t maintain it there, then I would have to contend that only in the most liberal of states — California, Illinois — are they going to be able to maintain it.”

Progressive liberals have always been in the minority and without money, their ability to promote and perpetuate their anti-American philosophy is damaged considerably. Look for infighting as pragmatic Democrats, for survival of the party, begin distancing themselves from liberals by bad-mouthing liberal philosophy and rejecting liberal spin. There are meaningful political struggles ahead, but if the cards fall correctly and the hands are played smartly we could see liberalism within the Democratic party marginalized for several administrations.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Wisconsin Bodes Well For Republicans in November and America in General While Making Liberals Suicidal

  Bookmark and Share Last night’s trouncing of liberal Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in a rare recall election, marked a pronounced shift in American attitudes towards liberalism, big labor unions, and the agenda of the radical leftists who wish to hijack democracy and government in order to suppress the true will of the people.

The stunning victory by Walker over big labor union and bosses and the liberal Occupy forces, left Republicans and conservatives pleasantly surprised and it left Democrats and their liberal soul mates mired in anger and a depression so deep that at times at times, some of them seemed to show suicidal tendencies.

As seen in the video below, one Barney Rubble sounding Tom Barrett, big labor union, liberal activist broke down during a brief interview with a CNN reporter.  In the thirty second interview, the emotional Barrett backer held back tears and choked up several times as his quivering voice declared that Walker’s victory was “the end of the U.S.” and that “democracy was dead”.

What the ignorant, emotional wreck representing the liberal point of view did not realize was that Scott Walker’s landslide victory was not the end of democracy, it was merely the beginning of the end to the recent resurgence of American Socialist-Democrats in contemporary American politics.

Walker’s win was not an end of democracy, it was a vindication of the democratic process.  Voters of Wisconsin said three things last night.  They declared that when they elect someone to do a job, their vote should stick and that person should be afforded the opportunity to do that job until their term is up, not when liberals don’t get their way.  They also said that Scott Walker’s policies of fiscal austerity, getting control of the budget, and his attempts to rein in the out of control big labor union bosses, is the right way to go.  But their overwhelming support for Walker also said something else.  It said that a political leaders who are willing to take on the tough problems and who are willing to stand up to the most belligerent bullies and politically intimidating forces in our country, deserve our respect, our support, and a chance to deliver upon their promises.

Whether this bodes well for Republicans or not has yet to be seen, but it should.  However that really depends on whether Republicans get the right message from Walker’s win or not.

If Republicans like Mitt Romney fail to gleam from the election results the fact that Americans want reforms and that they want their politicians to actually enact reforms and not just talk about them, then they will be facing a tough electoral road ahead.  They will be risking the support of millions of Americans who are no longer tolerant of politics-as-usual and who are not particularly attracted to the go-along-to-get-along types.  If Republicans are not willing to accept the fact that a majority of Americans want more Scott Walkers and Chris Christies leading than Tom Barretts and Jerry Browns leading them, then they will go the way of names like Dick Lugar and Mike Castle, Republicans whose years of service were  ultimately rejected because they were viewed as part of the establishment and part of the problem and not as one of the people and a part of the solution.

Meanwhile the left is almost apoplectic.

Liberal opinion mavens like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz were distraught and stretching for the slightest hint of a silver lining in last night’s liberal loss.  They devoted entire segments to trying to convince everyone that Republicans undermined this recall election with an abundance of money.  They tried to suggest that voters did not really vote on the issues that mattered to them.  They simply voted for Walker because he spent more money.  But these suggestions ignored reality and such things as the fact that more than 80% of Wisconsin’s voters made up their minds about who they were going to vote for, over a month ago, well before most of the money was spent in this campaign.

Another aspect of the money angle that many liberal advisors and talking heads tried to ascribe credit or blame for Walker’s win to was the significantly larger amount of out of state campaign contributions that Walker received than Barrett received.   What was lost on the Rachel Maddows of the liberal loonasphere was the fact that the level of money contributed to the candidates in last night’s recall election was a reflection of the level of approval that each candidate’s cause had both in Wisconsin and in the nation.  They also failed to accept that it was a sign of things to come in November.

But that was a fact not lost on all liberals, such as the one featured in the video accompanying this post.

Like the goofy leftist in that clip, may liberals are beside themselves and not just because they lost, but because they lost by so much.  And not just in their attempt to defeat Scott Walker.  Last night liberals lost in almost every attempt to recall all those who opposed their socialist, big labor union agenda, including their attempt to remove Wisconsin’s Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch as well as in at least three of the four Republican State Senators that were target for removal by the left.   The fourth one, Van Wangaard of the 24th Senate District, is too close to definitively declare to have been defeated yet.

The resounding losses are frightening liberals so much that many are beginning to suffer from what in 2004,  psychologist and executive director of the American Health Association, Rob Gordon called “post-election selection trauma” or PEST.  According to author David Limbaugh in his book Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party”, Gordon described symptoms of the disorder as having “feelings of withdrawal and isolationism, anger and bitterness, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, nightmares, intense moodiness, and preoccupied anxiety over the country’s future”.    In 2004, PEST was running rampant in the liberal loonasphere.  According to Limbaugh, Renana Brooks, a Washington, D.C. clinical psychologist observed that people were suffering from post-traumatic stress and total despair when George W. Bush was reelected.  Brooks added that PEST sufferers were believing that “America was pretty much destroyed”.

It was even reported that after the election, a liberal 25 year old Gerogia boy by the name of Andrew Veal, committed suicide with a shotgun blast to his head because of John Kerry’s loss in the 2004 election.

Upon witnessing the tears and emotional breakdowns of the left last night, I would say that post-election selection trauma is going to become a national epidemic among liberals.  In fact I think liberals will be dropping like flies because not only will they be stressing over the post election results in Wisconsin, their anxiety will only be compounded by the pre-election jitters that they will have to try survive in advance of their now anticipated losses in the House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, gubernatorial elections, and the White House come November.Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: