Wednesday, October 22, 2014

WHO Knew?...


Oh My!!! From The American Conservative we now find out that our Socialist, Marxian, Commie, Muslim President is more like a Nixon Republican than a Marxist Commie? S*it, what are those Patriotic Tea Party folks and the rest of the right wing going to do now?. Probably ignore the evidence as they usually do and barrel ahead as they look for more scandals to imagine.

Back in 2008, Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich wrote an article for this magazine making a conservative case for Barack Obama. While much of it was based on disgust with the warmongering and budgetary profligacy of the Republican Party under George W. Bush, which he expected to continue under 2008 Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, Bacevich thought Obama at least represented hope for ending the Iraq War and shrinking the national-security state.

I wrote a piece for the New Republic soon afterward about the Obamacon phenomenon—prominent conservatives and Republicans who were openly supporting Obama. Many saw in him a classic conservative temperament: someone who avoided lofty rhetoric, an ambitious agenda, and a Utopian vision that would conflict with human nature, real-world barriers to radical reform, and the American system of government.

Among the Obamacons were Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff; Charles Fried, Reagan’s solicitor general; Ken Adelman, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for Reagan; Jeffrey Hart, longtime senior editor of National Review; Colin Powell, Reagan’s national security adviser and secretary of state for George W. Bush; and Scott McClellan, Bush’s press secretary. There were many others as well.

According to exit polls in 2008, Obama ended up with 20 percent of the conservative vote. Even in 2012, after four years of relentless conservative attacks, he still got 17 percent of the conservative vote, with 11 percent of Tea Party supporters saying they cast their ballots for Obama.

They were not wrong. In my opinion, Obama has governed as a moderate conservative—essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican before all such people disappeared from the GOP. He has been conservative to exactly the same degree that Richard Nixon basically governed as a moderate liberal, something no conservative would deny today. (Ultra-leftist Noam Chomsky recently called Nixon “the last liberal president.”)

Here’s the proof: BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

2014 Mid Term Elections to Cost Almost a Whopping 4 Billion Dollars...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


If one wants to know the problem with our political system they need look no further than the money. OpenSecrets.org has pegged the cost of the upcoming mid term elections at almost four billion dollars. Given the gridlock, political ineptitude, lack of serious statesmanship (predominately on the art of republicans), and the generally dismal state of the nation that has dogged us for the last six years and more shouldn't this colossal waste of resources be questioned?


Almost $4 billion will be spent for this year’s midterm election, the Center for Responsive Politics is projecting. That figure makes this year’s election by far the most expensive midterm ever. The candidates and parties alone will combine to spend about $2.7 billion, while outside groups will likely spend close to $900 million on their own — a figure that veers close to the $1.3 billion spent by outside groups in 2012, when the hyper-expensive presidential race was fueling the fire.

By the end of the battle, when totals for every category are added together, Team Red will outspend Team Blue, CRP projects. GOP and conservative-leaning candidates, party committees and outside groups will spend at least $1.92 billion, compared to at least $1.76 billion their rivals on the Democratic and liberal-leaning side will spend.

SKIP


As with the 2012 cycle, the explosion in outside money is a dominant theme of this election’s spending story. So far, at least $663.3 million has been spent by outside groups like super PACs and 527s (a figure that is current within the last 48 hours), but CRP’s projections based on the pattern in the 2012 cycle indicate that at least another $233.5 million remains to be spent in the 12 days before Nov. 4; that’s a rate of $19.4 million a day.

Overall, liberal outside groups — including 527s — have spent $308.9 million so far, while conservative groups have spent $327.1 million. CRP is projecting that by Election Day, that dynamic will have flipped, with liberal outside groups slightly outspending conservative outside groups, $433 million to $424 million.

Those figures, however, come with a major caveat. Our estimate is based on spending disclosed to the FEC. Again, certain ads don’t have to be reported, and it’s difficult to get a fix on exactly how much they cost. ...

Overall, it’s likely that at least $100 million in spending is not being counted, and that money leans distinctly to the right, records filed with the Federal Communications Commission indicate. If that’s an accurate estimate, any advantage the liberal outside spending groups have over conservative ones will be washed away by Election Day.

Much more BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Ron Paul Takes the Rational Road While Son Rand Takes the Hysteria Highway...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Again, as he so often is on many issues, Ron Paul is on the rational side of the Ebola air travel ban hysteria. He opposes a ban on travel to and from Africa while his more mainstream right wing son Senator Rand Paul supports a ban. Of course Ron Paul is right in his assessment that the current hysteria is largely (if not completely) driven by political motivations.

POLITICO - Ron Paul on Monday said that calls for a ban on travel from West African countries affected by Ebola are primarily “politically motivated” — just days after his son Sen. Rand Paul announced his support for one.

Appearing on Newsmax TV’s “America’s Forum” with former Arizona Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Ron Paul said he wouldn’t support a travel ban. “Right now, I would say a travel ban is politically motivated more than something done for medical purposes,” the former Texas congressman and three-time presidential candidate told Hayworth.

Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator openly considering a 2016 presidential bid, said on a radio show last week that a temporary travel ban is “only reasonable,” BuzzFeed noted Monday.

Many lawmakers and elected officials, mostly Republicans, have called for the Obama administration to ban travel to the U.S. from West Africa, the region where Ebola is having the heaviest impact. On Monday, GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida announced he would be introducing legislation to create a temporary ban on new visas from the affected West African countries. The White House and many public health experts have pushed back against a ban, saying it would be ineffective and potentially harmful and make it more difficult to root out the disease for good.

Ron Paul, a favorite within the libertarian community, said the death of Thomas Eric Duncan, who died earlier in October in the U.S. after apparently contracting Ebola in Liberia, was not enough to justify a travel ban. “We’re talking about one person that’s died, and we want to close down the world travel system, and yet right now, it doesn’t look anything like that kind of a problem,” he said. He also noted that the expected U.S. death toll for influenza is far higher than that for Ebola.

Complete story BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Cruz(in) the BS Highway Without a Cogent or Rational Thought to Offer...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth




Okay, I'll say it straight out. If this is considered intellectual thought or intellectual honesty by the republican party brass it is only a matter of time before the party is dead. Because this is pure intellectual dishonesty and political BS.

STORY BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails