Monday, November 05, 2007

Democrats in Trouble by Rush Limbaugh

Full Story

Interesting story from the Wall Street Journal today: "Frustration Builds for Democrats." I want to warn you about this, because the story is correct, and that we all need to be really, really, really careful. Because this is when Democrats get really nuts, when nothing works, when they've been trying left and right to get things done in Washington, and nothing works, and they start getting frustrated, that's when they blame us for their failures. That is when they decide we need to be punished for not understanding their brilliance.

"The way in which Senate Democrats wavered and then consented to the confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general reflects the party's broader struggle to make headway on its national-security agenda, despite President Bush's unpopularity. On questions such as Mr. Mukasey's stance on waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping and the war in Iraq, Democrats have been stymied by Republicans in Congress and the White House. That has sparked frustration among supporters, especially those on the left, who anticipated that last year's congressional takeover would force some policy changes. These dashed expectations are one reason polls give Congress an approval rating lower than Mr. Bush's. The difficulties faced by Democrats on these issues look certain to complicate the party's bid to expand House and Senate majorities and regain the White House in 2008, a wartime election in which national security will be a major issue."

This takes me to a companion story found today in the Washington Times: "Change Called Crucial for '08." It's by Donald Lambro. "Democratic strategists are warning their party and its presidential contenders that they have failed to connect with the voters' demands for change. In a memorandum on the state of their party one year before the election, strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg said that 'Democrats have yet not found their voices as agents of change, except perhaps on Iraq, and risk falling short' of their political potential in 2008. 'The conservative attack machine will soon launch nuclear war against the Democrats' nominee when he or she emerges, and a lot of the discontent in the country could fragment and push voters to third parties and some even back to the Republicans, particularly if progressives fail to tackle key grievances, like immigration and taxes.'" Well, hell's bells. This is Carville and Greenberg's memo. If they fail to tackle key grievances like immigration and taxes? The Democrats are on the wrong side of both. What do you mean, fail to tackle 'em?

They have tried to tackle immigration and they've had it stuffed right back down their throats. They keep trying to go back to immigration. Amnesty! They're pushing amnesty at every crook and cranny. Nook and cranny. "Crook" works better in their case. They're having it rammed right back down their throats without any KY Jelly to lubricate it on the way going down! It's hurting! These guys think that, my gosh, they're having all kinds of problems, tackling key grievances, taxes? You think the people of this country want their taxes raised? "The dire warnings by Mr. Carville and Mr. Greenberg coincided with a nationwide Quinnipiac University poll that showed former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, leading Mrs. Clinton by a razor-thin margin, 45 percent to 43 percent. The survey of 1,636 voters also showed that just as many voters had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton as those who had an unfavorable view." Yes! She is perfect polarization, which is not what you want in a presidential candidate. I'll get to that in a second.

"'The "Clinton Express" has hit a bump. Future polls will show if it's been derailed,' said Maurice Carroll, Quinnipiac's director of polling." Now, I want to go back to this last sentence on the number of voters. "The survey of 1,636 voters also showed that just as many voters had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton as those who had an unfavorable." What an artful spin of an absolutely, totally negative result in a poll! When half the people hate your guts, that's the story, if you're running for president, when half the people disapprove of you. Yet they write this thing up, "Just as many voters had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton as opposed to those who had an unfavorable." It's called burying the truth or burying the lede. So the Democrats are frustrated, nothing is going right, they're not tackling the right key issues here, according to Greenberg and Carville.

Then in Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria: "This Won't Be The Iraq Election." Where have we heard this before? Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, where have we heard this? Where have you been told that the 2008 presidential race will not be about Iraq? I told you that. I told you it's going to be about the future of the country. It may be about national security. I know a lot of people thought I was nuts, because Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, that seems to be the one issue, but it's not. And now Fareed Zakaria has gotten a hold of it. "Petraeus' new strategery is working, though not exactly for the reasons initially advertised." Why? Well, because of success in March to victory, the economy will be number one -- that's what this guy says, economy is going to be the number-one issue because we're going to have to victory in Iraq; the Democrats are not going to be able to run very much on it. But I told you that. That's exactly what I mean when I tell you you're on the cutting edge of societal evolution when you listen to this program.

One more thing before we get to the phones. This is from the Financial Times by Michael Franc, who is the vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation. The headline says it all here: "'Democrats Wake Up to Being the Party of the Rich.' -- A legislative proposal that was once on the fast track is suddenly dead. The Senate will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from mega-millionaire hedge fund managers. The decision by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, surprised many Washington insiders, who saw the plan as appealing to the spirit of class warfare that infuses the Democratic Party. Liberal disappointment in Mr. Reid was palpable at media outlets such as USA Today, where an editorial chastised: 'The Democrats, who control Congress and claim to represent the middle and lower classes, ought to be embarrassed.' Far from embarrassing, this episode may reflect a dawning Democratic awareness of whom they really represent. For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the rich'.

"More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers -- single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 -- and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them. Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats. This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.

"Income disparity -- to use the class warrior’s favourite term -- is greatest among the districts of lawmakers that lead each party's campaign arm. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen chairs the Democratic congressional campaign committee. With more than 36,000 prosperous households and a median income of nearly $70,000, his suburban Washington district even out-sparkles Ms Pelosi's. In contrast, fewer than 5,000 such wealthy households are found in the largely rural district of his Republican counterpart, Tom Cole from Oklahoma. The median income there is only $35,500."

So the Democrats are the new party of the rich based on their constituents, based on what they represent. Who could doubt this? Hollywood. San Francisco. New York. They are the new party of the rich. This is why Dingy Harry put off the vote or actually tabled this whole thing on raising taxes on hedge fund managers and portfolio asset managers because they're largely Democrat contributors. Dirty little secret, isn't it? They're largely Democrat contributors, plus, they were lobbied quite a bit. Dingy Harry, author of the Rush Limbaugh smear letter, lobbied heavily by a number of people, but the truth is out now. The difference is that the Democrat wealthy feel guilty about it, or want us to think they feel guilty about it.

No comments:

Post a Comment