People like Peggy still want to go to all the fancy parties and such so she has to jump on the lib bandwagon and bash Palin.  Sarah represents everything that Peggy is opposed to which is conservatism.  Sarah is clearly more conservative than McCain is and that drives the Country Club crowd nuts.  They actually thought that by getting McCain nominated they would really be done with conservatives.  After all McCain was supposed to nominate someone that anti-conservatism like he is right?  Well a funny thing happened on the way to Minneapolis.  McCain decided he couldn’t win without the base.  Yes Peggy the base, there is a reason why it is called the base, because it represents the majority.  Anyway McCain’s internal polling told him he was going to lose this election by numbers not ever before seen unless he did something drastic to satisfy the base.

McCain saw an opportunity to out do Obama with the female voters and figured he either go with a solidly liberal African American or he had to find a solidly conservative woman.  He chose Sarah Palin and she inspires the conservative base.  Most conservatives actually wish she was at the top of the ticket.  She is far more intelligent than Obama and Biden combined and she connects with voters in a way that few ever have.  It was this appeal to normal everyday people that helped get Bush elected twice, and it was the disconnected style that cost his father a second term.

Peggy rants against Sarah because she still subscribes to the belief that politicians in Washington still owe the media for their very existence.  Peggy rails against those that give the finger to the Washington media.  How dare they, don’t they know that the natural order is for the country club republicans to have a few seats, sit down and not make so much noise and this way they still get invited to the cool parties and such?  These damn conservatives just go a screw everything up and try fix it when the liberals turn the Constitution up side down.

So read with glee my friends as you are witnessing the last gasp of the country club republicans.

rent a car bulgaria 

B

No this bailout was simply to cover the tracks for officials tied to the Clinton Administration who profited from this, and to cover for another failed liberal idea of having government give houses to people that had no ability to pay for them.  Even after all that though we still couldn’t get this passed without a whole lot of pork that isn’t needed.

This is no longer about the two party system, this is about a two ideology system.  The ideology of liberalism and big government taking over everything, and the ideology of conservatism that is less government, lower taxes (on everyone), preserving freedom.  The democratic party is now defined by its socialists, the communists run that party now, that’s fine but the problem is that Republicans have become defined as weak.  Yes there are a few conservatives that stood up and said no, and that is great but will they be allowed to run the party?  I doubt it.  Next time you talk to your republican congressman or senator ask them if they are conservative, if they answer yes which the undoubtedly will then ask them what they think that means.  I doubt they will talk about lower spending, less government intrusion, lower taxes, preserving freedom through a strong military.  You will here words like compromise, working together, things like that.

Ask them to name one program in the federal budget that actually spent less money than the year before.  They won’t be able to because it hasn’t happened in at least 30 years.  I am talking about real cuts, not reductions in rates of growth like what libs think a cut is.  Nope we as a society and as a voting public have some unpopular decisions to make in the next several years.  We need to wean our selves off the government dependency train.  We need to reduce the number of people getting checks from the government.  We need to cut the federal work force by at least 25% if not 50%.  We must eliminate 50% of the departments and garbage in the federal government.  We must begin to push things like education, emergency services, and about 50% of everything else the federal government does back down to the states where the constitution says it should be in the first place.

The federal government needs to get out of the business of regulating everything the private sector does, free markets work but only when they are free of bureaucratic interference.  The federal government is responsible for defending out borders.  They must start doing that, states can and should be able to deport illegal aliens they catch but securing the border is primary focus 1 for the federal government.

A strong national defense is prescribed by the constitution.  The commander of the military is the President.  Period, no debate, the constitution is very clear about this.  Congress’ role in military matters is simply funding only, they don’t get to be generals that tell the President how to manage the military, they don’t get to decide on what weapons the military uses, they are limited to funding the military.

Common Currency is also one of the roles of the federal government.  This is fine, even a high level federal banking system is fine but the constitution doesn’t provide for the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the federal bank the power to be lord and master of all monetary structure and banking for the entire country.  It is not government’s job to tell banks who they can loan to and who they can’t, and it’s not the governments job to bailout investors who make bad loans.  That’s called risk.  Depositors can be insured for money they deposit up to an established level and that’s fine but there is a difference between depositing your money in a bank and buying stock in a bank.

We have to start cutting spending at least 5% per year and eliminating departments for the next ten years at least if we’re to survive as a representative republic!

Take away the book deal for a moment and look at one fact.  She works for PBS, can you point to one objective person at PBS, maybe a janitor or someone who has to fetch a latte for the elitist snobs there but let’s be real.

I think it is time we actual have someone who is objective moderate the next Presidential debate.  This person is clearly not in the tank for either candidate, he has been critical of both candidates equally, he will ask tough questions that are of particular interest to most Americans, he has over 20 years experience in media.  So with all that build up it is my contention that Rush Limbaugh is the only person objective enough and qualified to moderate the next Presidential debate.

Won’t ever happen, I doubt either candidate has the stones to actually agree to it but it would be the most entertaining debate in 100 years…

It is mostly democrats in congress going back to the Carter Administration that have created this mess by arm twisting banks into giving loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Banks were threatened with investigations, etc all through the Clinton years. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd should also resign as chairmen of the House and Senate Banking Committee.

Next item is how to pay for it. I have yet to hear anybody especially the House or Senate leadership tell us how we’re going to pay for this $700 Billion bailout. For some reason congress has to “pay” for tax cuts but not bailouts? Not buying it. We need to generate more revenue to the treasury; we need a more friendly business climate in this country so I suggest we abolish corporate taxes immediately. This will stimulate the economy, encourage more investment and create more jobs.

As usual the answer to any crisis is to get government out of the way, and as usual governments reaction to a crisis will be to get in the way.

The mantra seems to be that if his highness Obama doesn’t get elected that all of us who don’t vote for him are racists.  Wow that’s original; Jesse and Al have been running around making a living on racists for the past 40+ years.  Of course McCain hasn’t said anything to remotely be considered racist, so it will fall on all of us to wear this title I guess.

Well ok let’s go with that.  If standing up for ideals like low taxes, less government, pro 2nd amendment, anti-socialism, anti-communism, means I am a racist?  Ok fine if it makes you feel better (because that’s what it is all about) then call me a racist.  Personally I prefer the term Patriot.

Anyway the excuses don’t end there.  We have seen a few stories of late that are somewhat critical of Hillary’s tepid support for Obama.  Not that I like defending Hillary but let’s be real, she has to make absolute certain that Obama doesn’t get elected.  If he does, the Bill & Hill show has played it’s last show on the national stage.  Hillary has to hope for 2012, she also has to hope that Obama loses in a Dukakis like way so she can rally the Dems in 2012 by saying “see I told you so…”

So now the trial balloons being floated are that if Obama loses it will be Bill Clinton’s fault, I kid you not.  This won’t be Hillary’s fault; Hillary keeps “the list” the list of those who supported her and the list of those that lined up against her.  Some in the media are starting to figure out a couple of things, first, Obama might actually lose this election, and second if he does then who will be standing there in 2012 ready to issue paybacks for those that dared go against the Clinton machine?  Yep Hillary.

So in the coming weeks we’ll see this effort intensify.  The media is too invested in defeat; they are leaving everything on the field in their support for Obama.  They needed to be rid of the Clinton’s as much as the right needs to be rid of the Clinton’s if not more but they know that they have to be careful with Hillary.  Blame Bill until the end of time because they don’t need him anymore, but Hillary may not be done yet…

In a press release dated September 11, Tom Schatz, the president of CGAW’s lobby arm, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, stated:

There has been much debate and even more speculation about how funds for the Bridge to Nowhere were first provided, Congress’s role in changing the nature of the funding, and the various options the state of Alaska had to build the bridge. Many in the media and the public are providing an opinion when they should be providing the facts. We intend to continually update this document on our website as additional verifiable information becomes available.

Indeed, many critics of GOP vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin have been misrepresenting the facts about the bridge and her part in the process which led to the cancellation of the project. CGAW’s background report vindicates Palin and shows that it was she, not congress, who should be given credit for killing the bridge. Schatz explains:

Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate. The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.

The report also clarifies Palin’s position on the project before and after her election to the Alaska governorship:

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.” Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”

CGAW also details the genesis of the project and the attempt by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn to take the money which would have financed the Alaska bridge and apply it instead to a project of higher priority - a badly needed bridge rebuilding project in Louisiana:

The Bridge to Nowhere was first funded in August 2005 through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Act through a $223 million earmark inserted by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska). In October, 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act to transfer $75 million in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, along with money for the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska, to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82. Senators Biden (D-Del.) and Obama (D-Ill.) voted against the amendment; Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote.

The CAGW report clearly vindicates Gov. Palin and shows that her actions were prudent and responsible to her state’s taxpayers. In her own words, she had always spoken of a link, not necessarily an expensive new bridge, between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. This link could have included a new ferry capable of carrying more vehicles than the current one or a less expensive bridge than the one proposed by Young.

This report should silence the anti-Palin forces at least on the issue of the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Unfortunately, given the irrationality of many of her critics, the facts will not impress them. The truth will, however, impress the majority of voters, most of whom see the relentless attacks on Sarah Palin for what they are - sheer propaganda with no basis in fact.

- JP