-
Soros Election-Rigging Project Dies?
May 1, 2012 | 42 comments
-
ACORN Visits Obama White House
December 8, 2011 | 24 comments
-
Soros Vote Counters
November 2, 2010 | 64 comments
-
The Smallness of Saul
October 29, 2010 | 26 comments
-
How ACORN Survives — and Thrives
October 25, 2010 | 15 comments
Political Hay
Fighting Frankenstein
Thanks to Republican resignation, Al Franken is close to becoming the monster the right has long dreaded.
Among other things, Mary Shelley’s masterpiece of Gothic horror, Frankenstein, warns of the dangers of letting ambition push a man to aim beyond what he is capable of achieving.
What a happy coincidence it is that former funnyman Al Franken, the Democrats’ would-be 59th U.S. senator from Minnesota, has a surname so close to one of literature’s most famous cautionary tales.
Although Franken is not quite the misunderstood monster that in Shelley’s classic story was cobbled together from the scavenged body parts of the dead, he is nonetheless manifestly unsuited for public office, a fact that reared its head repeatedly throughout last year’s campaign. Now that a Minnesota court last night ruled in Franken’s favor and declared him winner in the state’s dead-heat Senate race, a monstrous outcome is that much closer to becoming reality.
Stopping Franken from taking a seat in the Senate has been a noble endeavor, especially given that the leveling Democrats are so close to attaining the 60-seat supermajority that might allow them to transmogrify America, turning it decisively away from whatever’s left of its original limited government foundations and remaking it into a European-style socialist nation.
For conservatives, it hardly needs to be pointed out that Franken is a fundamentally unserious and untested figure worthy of ridicule. After being isolated in the echo chamber of the entertainment-media-academia complex where he got nothing but praise for decades, Franken is quite unsuited for the world outside. He cannot tolerate criticism and characteristically responds to it with over-the-top vitriolic attacks. He is the living embodiment of all the horrible things that conservatives fairly or unfairly impute to DailyKos bloggers.
Franken, whom I thought was often funny before he got into politics, has the volatile temperament of an artist, not a statesman. Recall that after one debate last year Franken’s wife had to pull the candidate away from incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. Franken could not get out of Coleman’s face and stop arguing and he couldn’t understand why it was not acceptable for him to continue invading Coleman’s personal space. Liberals may applaud Franken for his passion, but most people encountering a person behaving that way might reach for the pepper spray — just in case.
For a man who preaches class warfare and salvation through Big Government with the same enthusiasm that a Baptist preacher exudes in delivering a sermon about fire and brimstone, Franken’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. This is the case even in the age of tax cheats Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Charles Rangel.
One incident from the early part of the campaign is particularly instructive.
During a debate in 2007, Franken reportedly tried to burnish his business credentials. “I’m a corporation, I employ a bunch of people,” he said. “I love corporations that play by the rules, and we have to make them play by the rules.”
But we now know that Franken’s corporation didn’t bother to carry the required workers’ compensation insurance in New York State for employees who helped the comedian with his work from 2002 to 2005. He reportedly ignored New York officials until the heat of the Senate campaign. Eventually he forked over a $25,000 fine to the Empire State.
From 2003 to 2007, his personal corporation didn’t get around to filing corporate income tax returns in California, and by April of last year, Franken was forced to pay a total of $70,000 in income tax arrears in 17 states for tax bills stretching back to 2003. He blamed his accountant and said he expects to get some of the money back.
Conservatives detest Franken, and rightly so, but the Republican punditry is losing interest in keeping up the fight against the former Saturday Night Live star.
In November the feeling in Republican circles was that Franken was trying to be a usurper: If he couldn’t win in a Democratic sweep, he couldn’t win ever. But now after so many months of legal warfare many prominent Republicans seem resigned to a Franken victory over incumbent Coleman.
Two respected National Review Online writers use reasonable enough sounding arguments to urge Coleman to throw in the towel, but their words betray their weariness over the protracted post-election fight.
Ramesh Ponnuru makes a concise argument for surrender:
About the Author
Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative journalist at a conservative watchdog group in Washington, D.C. Vadum is also author of Subversion Inc: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (104) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matthew Vadum
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/14/fighting-frankenstein
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Nowall | 4.14.09 @ 6:18AM
Al Franken once claimed, way back, in an "SNL" news commentary segment, that "Frankenberry" cereal was ripped off from his name and personal appearance. I dunno...I remembered the bit down to this present day...did I think it was funny at the time?
Why not drag out the battle? The Democrats are willing...
Jeff Helfrich| 4.14.09 @ 6:40AM
Excellent analysis and conclusion Mr. Vadum, there really can be no relinquishing in a battle of this magnitude. To step aside and allow this Hollywood caricature to take office in the land that we still love even if it has been given over on many fronts already should be unthinkable. God have mercy on the State of Minnesota and the forethcoming judgments of our Congress if the utterly repugnant Al takes office.
Jenna| 4.14.09 @ 7:51AM
What is stunning is that enough Minnesotans voted for Franken to allow the race to come to this. I'd really like to kick Minnesota out of the US. They can become Swedish subjects or something.
Bram| 4.14.09 @ 8:18AM
Sweden's business taxes are far lower than the U.S. and the government more conservative - no bailouts for Saab or Volvo. Minnesota should be so lucky/
stu.b.con| 4.14.09 @ 8:20AM
The fact that this detestable human being was even able to be nominated for the US Senate, let alone get elected, speaks poorly of Minnesotans and the democrat party.
Can we sell Minnesota to Canada?
Dave| 4.14.09 @ 8:36AM
Somewhere in Minnesota.
Jenna, you have to remember that we in Minnesota have a "distinguished" history of electing jokes, after all we did suffer through four years of Jesse "the Governor" Ventura.
But the truth is, Normie did not deserve re-election. If anybody other than Al Franken had been put up against him, there wouldn't have been any need for a recount.
I think that for our (Minesota's) next election we should bring in observers from, say, China and Cuba to monitor the fairness of the process.
jim rice| 4.14.09 @ 8:42AM
Franken may not be the best suited person to become a United States senator... but I'm all for anything that helps roll back everything that bush tried to do. More power to him. Go, Franken!
Big J| 4.14.09 @ 8:57AM
A little food for thought: I live in Texas, but contributed to 2 Senate campaigns outside my home state. The looming threat of a Democrat supermajority was just too great. Coleman's was one, I won't mention the other. As an uncanny coincidence, I received a letter from the Coleman campaign about a month ago. It seems that someone accessed the credit-card information from every campaign donor that used one. I don't mind telling you that I can't even count the credit card purchases and donations that I make online, and that has NEVER occured. Coincidence? I think not.
Jim: These days, Franken (with his radical left-wing policies) probably fits right in with the majority of the House, Senate and White House. Hard to know if your sarc button was engaged. ".....Best suited...."? Understatement
Second, regarding your "roll back everything that bush tried to do", are you referring to keeping us safe from a terrorist attack for 7 years or the tax cuts that helped us all keep a little more of our money?
Clarification, please.
Sandra Martin| 4.14.09 @ 9:05AM
Mr. Rice: What exclusively did two-term Republican President George W. Bush do that you think needs to be rolled back? I never hear specifics from the former President's critics. It would be refreshing if you would enlighten me. I don't see any evidence the current admistration is in any hurry to roll back anything, which leads me to believe that President Bush was on the right track. It seems rather silly to lead people to think the likes of a Franken will be your saving grace.
Robert Rosencrans| 4.14.09 @ 9:35AM
Another tax cheat inside the beltway. Too bad when the ship of state is overloaded with tax cheats, it doesn't sink like the Titanic.
Periwinkel| 4.14.09 @ 9:39AM
I fear that Franken is the next Senator from Minnesota. Let's watch him embarass those good Minnesotans who voted for him. In two years you won't find a soul up there who will admit to putting him in the Senate.
jim rice| 4.14.09 @ 9:41AM
it's just sad that people like Franken have to be the saving grace.
What needs to be rolled back?
No Child Left Behind
Gitmo
The farce that is the "Iraq War"
The Patriot Act
The War on Drugs
The ban on stem cell research
The non-renewal of the ban on assault weapons
Even the notion of amending the Constitution to REMOVE someone's rights due to some other peoples' religious intolerances.
there are some specifics...
at least we've already made progress on several of those issues. Hopefully more will come, and if we need people like Franken to hopefully make it happen, then so be it. Not ideal, but C'est la vie.
Ryan| 4.14.09 @ 9:41AM
I almost wanted Franken to get in. He's so vitriolic, so left-wing, so crazy that he's going to be a massive turnoff for many Americans who are dabbling on the left side of the aisle. He's the type that no one is going to want to be associated with much, and will probably come out with several idiocies a month that he may be lucky to last a full term.
Also, keep in mind he's the most junior member in a branch of government (the senate) that trends toward the moderate and doesn't give much voice to the extremists on either side. He'll be an outspoken, but ineffective, voice in the senate.
If the Republicans in Minnesota are competent at all, he'll be easily defeated in five-and-a-half years.
Mike| 4.14.09 @ 9:55AM
Surrender, Republicans! Let us march forward together to embrace our glorious collective future!
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 10:00AM
It looks like the right wing lemmings are out in force here. The story is not Franken, the story is the weakness of the Republican party. Social conservatives have minimized the party as there was a huge shift of voters from being Republican to being independents. Bush's legacy of the largest downturn in 80 years plus huge amounts of debt plus the non-conservative action of invading Iraq has left the party in shambles.
You guys offer no intelligent commentary, Vadum continues his ad hominem attacks on people, and you continue to be your own worst enemies in your lack of understanding of the demographic shifts in this county.
The party is comprised of nothing more than reactionary, older, white populists -- and there are lots of statistics that back up this proposition. With the election of Obama, most people are saying we want some intelligence in the people that run this country.
This country needs fiscal conservatism and the vast majority of people who post here don't even have the remotest understanding of economics blaming populist targets like the CRA, ACORN, and Barney Frank rather than economic cycles, Fed monetary policy, securitization by unregulated entities, and lack of capital requirements.
You guys still believe that tax cuts are stimulative when the data doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest. You are living in a world of fantasy rather than reality.
That's why Franken was elected. If Republicans valued education rather than being anti-intellectual and looked at the world with reason rather than fantasy beliefs, there might be a chance of success.
So don't blame Coleman for losing -- blame yourselves for continuing to diminish the Republican party.
Dave| 4.14.09 @ 10:03AM
I have to agree with some of the above-posters.
Minnesota should be ashamed.
jim rice| 4.14.09 @ 10:06AM
I *heart* Bob
Bill Bailey| 4.14.09 @ 10:09AM
The march of the concern trolls continues.
Bob, where is your concern trollmate, jharp? There is nothing quite as condescending as a gaseous dweeb like you saying what the 'real story' is. How much is David Axelrod paying you? I did not see any 'ad hominem' attacks in this article at all. Some of the comments in it were caustic but there was nothing in there beyond the pale.
pete the mediocre| 4.14.09 @ 10:09AM
Right, Bob! Franken was elected because he is an economic genius.
You are absolutely wrong about tax cuts. The efficacy of tax cuts in stimulating the economy has been proven over and over since JFK. Only a dunderhead would try to deny this.
2Anglico| 4.14.09 @ 10:13AM
jim rice, let's start from the top. 1. No child Left behind was an act of congress (Ted Kennedy's bill) that Bush signed onto AGAINST the wishes of conservatives. 2. Club Gitmo, isn't that the spa where murderers from foreign lands go to GAIN weight? How terrible! 3. Iraq War=SUCCESS! 4. Patriot Act -What's wrong with it? Do you have terrrorists calling you from overseas? 5. War on Drugs is now a "Bush" contrivance? It has been going on longer than you've been alive, I'd guess. 6. There was NEVER a ban on "stem cell" research. There was only a prohibition on using TAXPAYER money to fund the destruction of embryos for EMBRYONIC stem cell research. If you want some of that, USE YOUR OWN MONEY. 7. "Assault Weapons" ban ok by you even though the GOVERNMENT has no authority to issue such a ban. 8. What?
Barbarian Heretic| 4.14.09 @ 10:31AM
Jim, perhaps you missed the news that the Obama Justice Department now strongly backs the so-called "warrantless wiretapping" of the Bush Administration... or perhaps your talking points weren't yet delivered this morning?
jose goldfinger| 4.14.09 @ 10:32AM
My friend Bob is back (maybe he never left). Bob is the economic genius who argues that tax policy has nothing to do with raising revenue. Most of us don't quite get that but we are not nearly as smart as Bob so we'll just have to take his word for it.
And don't believe your lying eyes that the CRA, ACORN and Barney had anything to do with our current financial woes. After all, how could making millions of loans to "borrowers" who had no chance of repaying them become a problem? No, no - the problem is economic cycles, Fed monetary policy, and other matters that only elites like Bob can understand.
So Bob, I ask you to be patient with us and perhaps offer some tips as to what mental institutions you would recommend that would help us see the world as you do.
jim rice| 4.14.09 @ 10:33AM
1) Yeah, but bush signed it. And he shouldn't have. Regardless of where it began, it became law under bush. And it sucks.
2) Or it's where they are improperly transported, immorally detained, and inhumanely treated.
3) Success? We'll have to agree to disagree on that, but regardless of success, it was a contrived war, and we had no right to invade that country. The UN should be sanctioning US.
4) No terrorists calling me outside of the people trying to sell me crap I don't want. :) But Ben Franklin best sums up what I think about "The Patriot Act:" Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
5) No, it is not a bush contrivance. Not at all. But he kept pushing it even tho it is failing and SHOULD fail. He should have done what Obama did and call off the DEA goons from California. Seems like something a conservative leader would have supported. Let the states choose.
6) And sorry, I figured that everyone would know what I was talking about. The prohibition was based on socially conservative religious beliefs. It was wrong.
7) I think the government should have that authority... if they're going to try to control drugs, they'd damn well better try to control guns. Someone with a semi-automatic in hand is much more likely to hurt someone than some dude smoking weed.
8) Ban on gay marriage. The only reason this is even a problem is b/c people think it's an affront to their religion to allow it. The problem, of course, is that the government has been given the authority to lord over what should be a religious rite. Your church can decide not to marry gay people, and I 110% support it. But that's it. That this was even considered as a Constitutional amendment is flabbergasting.
jim rice| 4.14.09 @ 10:34AM
@Barbarian:
Obama is also wrong to do it.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 10:44AM
pete the mediocre/jose goldfinger -- if you really believe that tax cuts are stimulative, please support your contention. The fact is, you can't. Not even the economists in the Reagan administration will back you up. Again, I will post the links to the charts, primarily from conservative sources:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-T1-Income-Tax-Receipts-Stay-Constant.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html
Perhaps you can explain why we had greater growth under Clinton than either Reagan or Bush and why the GDP growth under Reagan or Bush was not any greater than most other presidents. Furthermore you can explain why when the marginal tax rates were reduced or increased it had virtually no effect on federal revenues.
Please show me you understand what you're saying so you don't support the contention that the social conservatives on this site lack minimal comprehension and intelligence.
Big J| 4.14.09 @ 10:53AM
There's jharp. I had a rather lengthy post typed up, then my internet dropped me. Probably for the best. I cited many facts in it, which Bob and jharp don't really care to consider (unless they can be twisted to support their ridiculous points).
Anglico, Barbarian and Jose: You are all correct, but don't expect to convince Bob, jharp or our new troller jim (I would say this is Dave Mathews in disguise, but he doesn't support all of his arguments with a bunch of blathering and name calling. Give him time I guess. Sooner or later they all resort to such nonsense).
2Anglico| 4.14.09 @ 11:04AM
1. We agree!
2. Most of them should have been shot like the rabid dogs they are.
3. We only did what the UN said we could but were too sissyfied to do themselves.
4. Freedom to receive phone calls from enemies of America in a time of war? The Founders would suprise you on issues of war.
5. I really couldn't care LESS about he "war on drugs". I was just pointing out YOU were the one who INITIALLY blamed it on Bush.
6. Embryonic stem cell reasearch is a dead end, tax money or no. If nothing else it saved a little wasteful government theft.
7. Then get enought of your buddies together and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. But then, you don't like the rules, do you?
8. Seeing as how several states have had homosexual marriage FORCED on them by judges, there appears to be no "ban". And a constitutional amendment was and still is being considered because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which WILL be used to FORCE every state to go along with homosexual marriage.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 11:04AM
Big J -- funny story. When you were in school did you also use the excuse that the dog ate your homework? Please provide facts. And if you believe you have better data than me, please provide that data. I'm not interested in articles by ideologues because it is easy to manipulate selected point data. Show me charts and trends. You do have the intelligence to do that, don't you?
2Anglico| 4.14.09 @ 11:20AM
Big J, thanks for the advise, it is tempting to launch. I'm not really trying to convince, just jousting.
old farm boy| 4.14.09 @ 11:27AM
To Jim Rice and Bob. Both of you are evidence of a public school education or when God was passing out brains y'all thought He said trains and said we'll take the next one. Now for y'all history lesson liston up. Mr peanut,POTUS 39, started our present mess we find ourselves in. Mr. peanut POTUS 39 put an end to RED LINING. For y'all uneducated dimocrats,that is forceing banks to make loans to people with bad credit. Then MR.I didn't have sex with that woman,POTUS 42, reenforced the law and under penalty of jail time the bankers went along with it. Also ACORN started to demonstrate and threaten bankers into making bad loans. Then POTUS 42 put Franklin Raines in charge of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Along with other dimocrates Rambo,Obamo,and others received millions of US DOLLARS. That was our tax money. In 2006, POTUS 43 and Mccain called attention to the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how ever Barney Frank and Maxine Waters two dimwits said that there was not any problem at the two agencies. Then 2008 the chickens came home to roost. Now if y'all don't believe this go Google it. Y'all probably will not investigate because y'all hate Bush!
Marc Jeric| 4.14.09 @ 11:28AM
A very good article - the proof is how many left-wing nuts are disturbed (jharp, jim rice, bob).
No Child Left Behind was corrupted by the teacher unions and Ted Kennedy - more money for less education. Gitmo was a mistake - those murderers should have been shot dead on battlefield; I hope our soldiers will act now more rationally. Iraq has been a success - that favorite of the left Saddam is gone; no more $25,000 for every "martyr". Abu Hussein from Kenya is keeping the Patriot Act. If the embryonic stem cell research is so promising - why does it need taxpayer money? How come private companies are not investing when, say, the cure for Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's etc. deseases would make them trillions? Government-paid "scientists"? 90% of them rejects of private enterprise. See what these have "produced" so far: 1) Globaloney cooling scam of the 1970's announcing the new ice age; 2) Globaloney warming hoax of the 1990's when they announced the boiling end of the earth; climate change flimflam now after 11 years oc substantial cooling.
Marc Jeric| 4.14.09 @ 11:35AM
Well - Minnesota! ACORN brownshirts ar work - just like in Washington State governor race 4 years ago. Secretary od State - ACORN EXECUTIVE!!! And now what with $9 billion in the "stimulus" bill dedicated to ACORN, plus with them in charge of the 2010 census - we won't have those pesky close elections any more! Plus several hundred more marxist judges to be appointed by Obama - and we are already in the socialist/marxist/fascist paradise forever!
Bram| 4.14.09 @ 11:43AM
I have a dumb question:
Who got more votes? (Not more court approved, reviewed, un-rejected, whatever)
Kent Lyon| 4.14.09 @ 11:49AM
If Franken does ascend to the Senate, can we then officially call the Democratic Party the Frankenparty? And the Senate the Frankensenate? And America a Franken-nation? Or will such terms just elicit a Ras-Frankenberry response?
Skep41 | 4.14.09 @ 11:58AM
Gee, Bush v Gore, that governor's race in Washington a couple of years ago and now this. Looks like a pattern. Has there ever been a close election where an aggressive recount gave votes to a Republican? Of course not. The most upsetting thing about this is not that the Dems have stolen another close election. Thats bad but its not the real problem. The real problem is that there is anyone in the benighted, frozen, mosquito infested bog named Minnesota that would think that casting a vote for a lying, thieving, out-of-control hunk of human flotsam like Franken in the first place. What were they thinking about? Democrats are a symptom that the blood flow to America's brain has been cut off and the body politic is beginning to rot. Schumer, Boxer, Leahy; Democratic voters will vote for any variety of crawling, malignant Marxist nematode as long as it has a 'D' following its name. We're sunk. I'm not kidding. Some Republicans are waiting for all these idiots to make the mess they are going to make and then yell,"AHA!" and take power. Its not going to happen. This country has fallen off the cliff of terminal stupidity and the Republicans are a bunch of gutless moderates who will stand by, like Norm Coleman, and watch the yahoos destroy civilization.
Robert Rosencrans| 4.14.09 @ 12:01PM
One of the posters above, while claiming that others were engaging in ad hominem attacks, then launched into a diatribe which was nothing but an ad hominem attack. Typical Alinskybot.
Robert Rosencrans| 4.14.09 @ 12:01PM
One of the posters above, while claiming that others were engaging in ad hominem attacks, then launched into a diatribe which was nothing but an ad hominem attack. Typical Alinskybot.
stephanie| 4.14.09 @ 12:03PM
HEY BOB! It's all temporary. Bring Franken in and let him act the fool that he is. The republicans will be will back the senate next year.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 12:11PM
One of the posters above uses the word "Alinskybot" and then has the temerity of talking about ad hominem attacks? Typical intellectually deficiency of the strain of social conservatives bringing down the Republican party.
Barbarian Heretic| 4.14.09 @ 12:12PM
Skep, while I generally agree with your sentiment, I think it's also fair to say that the fact that Franken got anywhere near the Senate is not only an indictment of Minnesota voters, but the GOP candidate, as well...
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 12:13PM
stephanie -- you miss the point. I like Norm better. But it is not corruption, or judges, or any other excuse that Franken won. It was the weakness of the Republican party franchise and lack of solutions for our problems.
conservative chick| 4.14.09 @ 12:21PM
Is it any wonder Minnesota's state bird is the loon?
Bo Darville| 4.14.09 @ 12:24PM
Is this Bob guy trying to be ironic? Complaining about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments. Truly fascinating. Anyhow, I live in Minnesota. There's a long history of goofballs in politics here and the politics are very polarized. Coleman is kind of a moderate, so he doesn't fit with our scorched earth, over-reacting, too many bumper stickers on your Volvo/GMC truck style of discourse.
Skep41 | 4.14.09 @ 12:36PM
Barbarian Heretic
Was I kind to Coleman? If I was I apologize. The corruption and demise of the Republican Party has led to this pass. When Gore couldnt succeed in stealing the 2000 election we heard about it for eight years with not a syllable of response from the torpid Republicans. When the Dems stole the Governorship of Washington the Republicans quietly went along. And now this. Coleman is a doofus, there's no doubt about it. Thats why I say that conservatives who think that the electorate will catch on as their standard of living declines and taxes gobble up more of their increasingly worthless income and turn to the Republicans to turn things around are living in a dream world. Welcome to the Franconian States of America.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 12:40PM
Bo, I love ad hominem attacks since so many of the articles here use them. Consider them an appropriate response to anti-intellectual arguments.
By the way, I always accompany my ad hominem attacks with substantive arguments. You guys laugh at the ad hominem attacks on Obama and Dems and in my case, RINO's, but seem to get angered by the same against you. When I start hearing objective points of view, I'll respond in kind.
daboss| 4.14.09 @ 1:25PM
bob said: Perhaps you can explain why we had greater growth under Clinton
Am pretty sure Clinton REDUCED taxes on capital gains ... that was a good thing.
Although I agree with Bob on a flat tax or some form or another. I like a consumption tax myself.
daboss| 4.14.09 @ 1:45PM
jharp - i know there is a sales tax ... i am for replacing the Federal income tax (which politicians use for political advantage) with a consumption tax – no deductions, no manipulation, no FICA, estate tax, nada.
Just a flat consumption tax that all people pay.
Tax cuts WILL NOT be received well in this political environment. Hell, we can’t even agree with the outcomes of tax cuts here. Conservatives/Libertarians/Republicans need to move the issue to something that can win and that lots of Americans can get behind.
This is such an issue.
Pretty simple.
daboss| 4.14.09 @ 1:57PM
Jharp –
Yes – all Americans should pay taxes. When one group of people can VOTE to take property aware from another group it’s mob rule – especially when they do not have a vested interest in the outcome (like paying taxes).
The poor, being poor, will not consume a lot. Hence a consumption tax – not a flat tax. The rich would pay more because the rich consume more.
Plus there is nothing stopping the states from helping the poor.
daboss| 4.14.09 @ 2:09PM
Ok – how about this
1) Consumption tax – simply, better, easy
2) Health insurance similar to auto insurance. Purchase catastrophic insurance – like you do for your car – and then control your own spending for preventative care. Prices will come down – just like lasic eye surgery - not covered by insurance and guided by the market – so prices came way down.
If you believe that health care is a right – then the Fed CANNOT force you to have it nor burden another to provide it to you. Just like the Fed cannot force you to assemble, or to speak, or to purchase a gun.
daboss| 4.14.09 @ 2:11PM
Jharp –
Do you think everyone is stupid? – of course we know the passed the power to tax. It should be repealed.
Same applies to national health care. If you want it – pass an Amendment to the constitution to provide it. Pretty simple and consistent.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 2:25PM
Actually, jharp, you are wrong about a flat tax. Currently, payroll taxes are regressive and income taxes are progressive. If we had a flat tax with limited or no deductions, then it would not favor the rich -- in fact, the effective rate on the rich would be greater.
Furthermore, there have been a number of studies that indicate a consumption tax is better for the economy than an income tax for several reasons. First, a consumption tax will gather revenue from foreign companies that is now missed. Secondly, a consumption tax limits the effect the lobbying on the tax code. Third, it is more difficult for individual/companies to cheat with a consumption tax.
I prefer a flat tax for individuals, abolishing the corporate taxes and replace them with a consumption tax. Then, it would be less desirable to locate jobs offshore. Obviously, to make this revenue neutral, for a short period of time, we would have to require companies to reduce the cost of their goods by the amount they paid in corporate taxes. After 6-12 months, when prices are established, we could get rid of that restriction.
The whole concept here is to take lobbying influence out of Washington and out of the hands of lawmakers who are not well trained in commerce and economics.
jpaul| 4.14.09 @ 2:29PM
I agree that it isn't about taxes alone, but also about how spending is coupled with it. George Bush was no fiscal conservative, he spent like a liberal.
But the spending that is to come, that is what is going to be a true horror show. Can any of the lefties prove when big spending didn't lead to the need for tax increases to cover the bulging debt? Ever?
daboss| 4.14.09 @ 2:36PM
Bob - Amen!!!!!
tonypal| 4.14.09 @ 2:37PM
Ok everyone, Bob has spoken. Nothing more needs to be said.
tonypal| 4.14.09 @ 2:41PM
jharp:
I see you've pulled up your sweatpants long enough to bang out a couple of typically brilliant posts. I'm curious as to which hand you type with, since the other one must be curled up by now due to your day long one-handed escapades.
colin| 4.14.09 @ 2:43PM
Two questions: Are Bob and Jharp the same person as in 3 faces of Eve? If so, should we alert DHS that a dangerous nut is on the loose?
Rayy| 4.14.09 @ 2:55PM
It IS stunning that Coleman, the incumbent, could not prevail against an unproven (Franken)--that in itself should tell you something. Obviously there is some dissatisfaction there. Frankly, I think anything within a tenth of a percent should be decided by coin flip, since our vote counting is obviously not that accurate.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 2:57PM
Colin -- it is far more likely that all of you right wing lemmings are mind melded. I never see any data filled, coherent responses. Furthermore, jharp is a card carrying lib, and I'm a strong fiscal conservative who happens to be socially libertarian -- that is a huge difference to everyone except illiterate social conservatives. The fact that you can't tell the difference does tell us more about you than me.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 3:15PM
jharp, it is hard to read your posts and believe you are a "fiscal hawk". Do you believe in smaller government? Do you believe in a health care solution that retains individual choice? Do you believe in federal government getting out of the education business? Do you believe in tax fairness, i.e., everyone gets taxed at the same rate?
I could go on, but it seems you are for so many social programs and tax progressivity that I could hardly call you a fiscal hawk. Besides, you seem more like a social liberal rather than a social libertarian -- there is a huge difference between the two.
old progrmr| 4.14.09 @ 3:56PM
I really wish that the current American leftists just wanted a European brand of socialism. Hell, we are pretty close to that now. The fact is that American leftists want facism, they are aiming for something far worse than simple European Socialism, I have spent a great deal of time in Europe and recognize that form of socialism. The EU, for the most part, has come to terms with a fairly realistic form of socialism that still permits a fair degree of entrprenuership and private ownership of the means of production. Many European governments are in fact rather conservative or at least moderate of late.
The Obama Administration and the likes of Franken are indeed facists and possibly much worse. They are driven by the worst of human emotions including envy, outright racism and a goal to absolutely destroy their adversaries. Although they are committed to wealth redistribution, they are also dedicated to the ultimate destruction of the wealth producers and therefore the destruction of wealth itself. These are not politicians, but real psychotics who would relish in the very destruction of the nation to get even with those they hate. We are at war with the ultimate enemy within our very country, Franken is an excellent example of these truly crazy people. Islamic jihadists are, in fact, a lesser threat than the Frankens and thier ilk.
Don DeVan| 4.14.09 @ 4:30PM
THE FREEDOM MANIFESTO
I just read an article in Politico on the agenda of MoveOn.org, which explains their new agenda, now that the most liberal politician in our history has been elected President. Got me thinking of what it would look like if the "right" would - hypothetically speaking, of course - develop a plan to resist MoveOn, Obama and the age of huge (hot just big) government. These people at MoveOn did not wait for politicians in Washington to step up to their agenda - they stepped up to the politicians and said "you are going to do this, or else." We Christians and Conservatives, likewise cannot continue to howl and fuss at Republicans who do not fight for the Founding Principles upon which our nation was founded. If MoveOn and the Daily Kos can do it, so can we. And we must. The attack plan below to restore Constitutional government, is just a start but should include: 1.Begin to establish the groundwork for a boycott of the federal income tax. This will require employers to defy a federal mandate to withhold taxes from paychecks. Do they have the courage to do this? What would Patrick Henry do? If you no longer feel the federal government is operating within the confines of the Constitution, you have a moral obligation to become a conscientious objector and simply say NO to the payment of taxes to Washington. Does the Constitution give the Feds the right to bail out labor unions and give non-citizens rights and benefits? If you feel that by doing so, our sovereignty, Constitution and Bill of Rights are null and void then so is any responsibility you may have had for taxes under the 16th Amendment.
2. Begin a vigorous campaign to urge the public to home-school and/or send their children to private schools, with or without vouchers. Then begin a major program to build a private, non-union school system. This is the only way we will crack the huge union dominated government school bureaucracy. 3. Begin to use the legal system to fight big government. If the ACLU can do it, why can't we? We must begin to bring suit on every issue that threatens our nation's original freedoms and traditions. We should call our organization the MFMT which stands for Maximum Freedom, Minimum Taxation, which sums up why we fought for independence in the first place. 4. We begin a systematic march on the media, especially television. TV is the medium through which the liberal agenda is being implemented. The left learned long ago that a picture is worth a thousand words and the best example of this is the pictures of bodies of dead soldiers they broadcast every time we are in a war they do not approve of (usually when a Republican is leading it!). Holding pro-America, Republican rallies at local TV stations would be a great start - especially if the liberals re-implement the "Fairness" Doctrine. 5. Boycott employers who advertise on far left liberal media outlets like NBC. No patriotic American should buy a General Electric household product as long as Matthews, Olbermann and their ilk are permitted to spew their anti-Republican, anti-American hatred. 6. Expose the controlling roll that unions play in growing a totalitarian media/government complex. 7. Establish an underground network of physicians and health care providers that will fight to preserve private sector medicine. 8. Establish Committees of Correspondence and Safety to provide communications and security - just as our Founding Fathers did. 9. Join the NRA.
These are just a few of the actions that are necessary to first stop and then roll back the liberal juggernaut that threatens our basic freedoms and liberty. Patrick Henry said "give me liberty or give me death." It is not too late for us to make that same commitment; in fact it is just in time.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
--Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1778
TALK IS CHEAP. WHEN DO WE MARCH ON THE MEDIA?
http://www.resistnet.com/ http://www.teapartyday.com/Locations.aspx http://www.smartgirlpolitics.org/
Troll Hunter| 4.14.09 @ 4:44PM
"Franken may not be the best suited person to become a United States senator... but I'm all for anything that helps roll back everything that [Bush] tried to do." FINALLY! A leftard with whom I agree.
Where do we start? How about with canning No Child's Left Behind.
De-funding that stupid meds entitlement.
Let's decommission the "Department of Homeland Security" and control the borders intead.
Let's shrink the NEA to zero.
Undo "TARP", and damn! undo the bloody Fed while we're at it. If we can't counterfeit, why should they?
Let's go further, and return the Republican Party to it's libertarian senses.
Yeah - there's one Hell of a lot of Bush's damage to be undone. Jimmy, well said, lad. Well said.
[Though somehow I get the feeling that Al-Franken (PBUH) has a rather fascio-statist agenda...]
mj loehrer | 4.14.09 @ 5:49PM
Drag it out, drag it out, drag it out! Make the sob's spend some more of their ACORN money in the courts
Murphy | 4.14.09 @ 7:48PM
Bob,
Interesting how you cite three links without providing your analysis or the analysis that is associated with your references. You made blanket statements without clearly looking at the data. You can frame your arguments anyway you want but the facts are that the largest decrease in marginal tax rates occured under Reagan and those tax cuts did not "decrease" tax receipts to the federal government. You might want to look closely at the sub-title on the graph entitled: Federal Government Tax Revenue Has Tripled Since 1965. It states, "Government revenue has soared by more than $1.75 trillion since 1965, in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax rates were cut."
I suggest you read the associated articles that support the data as well as the follow-on slides. If you are going to cherry pick data, at least back it up with coherent analysis, particularly if you use someone else's information.
The first "conversative" website you cite is a self organizing blog. There is no mechanism to check to validity of entries unless an indvidual is willing to invest the time/money to research the posting. Regardless, your argument that tax cuts are not stimulative is flawed, like your logic. Economic cycles, Fed monetary policy have nothing to do with economic stimulas. Economic cycles are the result of stimulas or a lack thereof whereas policy either allows or contrains the rate of stimulas. Neither produce it. You fail to mention the rate of inflation that has consistantly dropped with the reduction of tax rates and the strength of US currency on the world market when that occurs.
Clearly you are neither an economist or an accountant but a simple minded democrat. Like the individual who occupies the White House, you can cite what someone else has written, but understand nothing of what you read.
Dale White| 4.14.09 @ 8:40PM
Let it go, guys, Senator Franken will do more for the conservative (I almost said Republican) cause than former Senator Coleman ever could.
Jerry| 4.14.09 @ 11:19PM
Bob,
"Bush's legacy of the largest downturn in 80 years plus huge amounts of debt plus the non-conservative action of invading Iraq has left the party in shambles." -- Subjective, the last 2 years of his administration had Democrats in control - because of his non-Conservative trending. Do you understand the issues brought about by liberal Democrats involving the Credit Reform Act? Franklin Raines ring a bell? Didn't he get $90 M in bonuses for cooking the books?
"The party is comprised of nothing more than reactionary, older, white populists -- and there are lots of statistics that back up this proposition. " - Please provide 3 sources
"This country needs fiscal conservatism and the vast majority of people who post here don't even have the remotest understanding of economics blaming populist targets like the CRA, ACORN, and Barney Frank rather than economic cycles, Fed monetary policy, securitization by unregulated entities, and lack of capital requirements. " -- So you believe economic cycles brought about the current economic malaise??? What that is direct contrast to your earlier statement about Bush... But I agree, economic cycles are trendable... but Barney Frank has been a part of the problems we are in... do you need to learn about this??? Should be publish the names and addresses of everyone who does not believe this?
"You guys still believe that tax cuts are stimulative when the data doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest. You are living in a world of fantasy rather than reality. " -- Clinton's economic success was entirely to his own credit??? Remember the Reagan/Bush economic PROGRESS helped industry because funds were available to expand... and those pesky economic cycles... Clinton in the right place at the right time.
So, how's your excitement with #44? Loving Geithner, huh? and Daschle? and Biden? Remember it's patriotic to actually PAY your taxes... and even more patriotic to talk about forcing private insurers to pay military bills... and how about your energy bills? With no pursuit of nuclear power, and our continuance into Biofules... we're going down a path which is counter-productive to REAL energy policy... Don't you just love all this talk of cap and trade? Do you understand what this will do?
Your links to Heritage looks inviting... but a little deeper investigation into their site - I'm a member - will show the real facts. Don't try to interpret their data and distort it for your own... Be original... Use DailyKos.com... I'm sure you're real adept at that... Or possibly infoshop.org... or codepink.com... You know a moveon.org reference would only be laughed at...
mike| 4.15.09 @ 1:47AM
it's a wonder i can find articles that support politicians staying true to the fight of their platforms, while on others i can view articles proposing stratigies as a politicians best friend. on the same website, focusing on the same political party.
lynnrkts| 4.15.09 @ 3:37AM
Bob, the self-proclaimed RINO-fiscal conservative loves Al Franken. Who'd a thunk it? Lying liberal azz-hat. The Senate is already a joke--what's another clown like Franken added to the moronic mix?
Bob| 4.15.09 @ 8:51AM
Murphy, it looks like you've checked your logic at the door. You clearly have no background in economics. The argument made by Reaganistas is that tax cuts stimulate the economy. That was the argument I continue to hear from Republican polls everywhere. But the data does not show that. You're right, the data shows no decrease in revenues, but also no increase. Therefore, you cannot say tax cuts are stimulative. You seem to agree with that in a back handed way. Furthermore, if you combine that information with the fact that Reagan increased the debt significantly, you'd have to come to the conclusion that the only significant results of the tax cut was a huge increase in debt. Can you actually read charts?
With regard to GDP, if you wanted to check the numbers, and knew anything about adding and subtracting, you could do it in a matter of minutes. The data is correct, I've checked it. The reason I like that particular chart is that it shows BOTH regular and normalized data. You do understand normalized data, don't you?
Clearly, Murphy, you don't understand either mathematics or economics. Please go back to school. If you want to read a summary of Reaganomics from one of Reagan's own chief economists, read this:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
You're probably going to say that he doesn't know anything about economics either.
Jerry, regarding the CRA, Barney Frank, etc., if you PRIMARILY blame them, you don't understand derivatives, securitization, leverage of non-regulated financial institutions, swaps, and rating agencies. The problem here is that it is easy to blame particular people, but if you don't understand the industry products and dynamics, you can't understand what really happened here. It is obvious that you don't understand. By the way, I have said that the CRA, Frank, Raines, etc., all played a role and exacerbated the problem. However, they were not either the cause or the major effect of the problem.
Regarding Heritage -- data is data. I challenge you to contact them and have them deny my conclusions. Most conservative economists, including the ones involved on the Republican side of this last election, will back up what I say. Since you obviously don't have the capacity to understand the data yourself, I suggest you ask someone.
lynnrkts -- I said I preferred Coleman to Franken. But then again, social conservatives seem to have a listening problem.
KevlarKevin| 4.15.09 @ 10:49AM
Here's a tipoff that Bob is full of sh**:
Bob| 4.15.09 @ 8:51AM
"Murphy, it looks like you've checked your logic at the door. You clearly have no background in economics."
Anybody who resorts to such browbeating, such condescension, probably knows his argument is weak and will only succeed through intimindation.
Shame on you Bob: you have been revealed to be a charlatan.
Bob| 4.15.09 @ 11:17AM
Kevlar -- I was just repeating what Murphy said about me. Obviously, your comprehension is selective.... Please give the same reply to Murphy...
Now, Kevlar, can you post something of substance?
lynnrkts| 4.15.09 @ 11:59AM
Bob is a lying liberal troll.
CarlH| 4.15.09 @ 12:26PM
Bob you are so wrong in everything that you write that I don't know where to start to rebut all of your BS. Tax cuts are stimulative. The more money that is left in the private sector (from less tax revenue collected and yes tax cuts) means that the private sector will have more growth versus putting that money in the public sector where it is wasted and does not produce anything. You say we need fiscal conservatism and yet you think Obama is going to provide that? What are you smoking? You don't have a clue. Obama and the left are on the other end of the spectrum of fiscal conservatisim.
The Clinton area was just the continuance of the Reagan area and that is why there was good growth during that period. Yes, Clinton raised taxes some, and that hurt growth from what it could have been (which is not shown on any graph), but fortunately it was not enough to stop the Reagan growth in its tracks. The Gringrich republican congress also tied Clinton's spending hands. Obama is taxing out the roof. Remember, spending is taxing because that money has to eventually be taxed from the taxpayers.
Bob| 4.15.09 @ 12:50PM
CarlH -- The problem with your rant is that the data does not support your contention. I call your point of view the flat earth syndrome. When you look out of your front door, you believe the earth is flat. When you view the earth from 50,000 feet, you believe it is round.
The problem with your argument is that if the extra money in the private sector stimulates consumption and business growth, we should see that result in increased GDP. We don't -- that's the point of the supporting data. The reason it doesn't stimulate growth, is that the effective tax rates hover between 20-22%. The tax cuts reported by the right wing nuts are MARGINAL tax rates. The bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum is not stimulated by marginal tax cuts. Furthermore, wealthy individuals tend to invest the money -- much of which goes offshore and doesn't benefit the U.S. Your simplistic belief doesn't work that way in real life. You are looking at the "flat earth" of economics.
It is private enterprise that stimulates growth in GDP. The reason we had so much growth during the Clinton era is due to the dotcom bubble. This had virtually nothing to do with Clinton or Gingrich.
Besides, how do you explain that the long term growth trend BEFORE Reagan was the same as the long term growth trend after Reagan.
Regarding Obama, I am on record, several times, saying his budget is also too large. However, neither party has been successful at reducing government spending because if you add up social security, medicare/medicaid, military and interest you are at approximately 82% of the total federal budget. These are really not discretionary amounts. Anyone that is serious about reducing federal spending must address entitlements -- you just can't do it with the 18% of truly non-military discretionary spending.
You guys have bought into the populist argument that even Republican economists know is not true. But the rhetoric keeps you in line....
njoriole| 4.15.09 @ 3:44PM
Bob states "You guys still believe that tax cuts are stimulative when the data doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest." Really? You mean the data that shows conclusively that tax revenues skyrocketed after the Reagan tax rate reductions, and after the Bush II rate reductions? It would be laughable (if it weren't so frustratingly sad) when such obvious drivel gets printed, but the truly sad part is that such a lie can be said, and some people will simply believe it because they want to.
dove | 4.15.09 @ 3:53PM
Bob, I'd love to catch you under my tree stand...especially with my bladder full. New phrase: demonic-rat...made just for you! Then again, I wouldn't really piss on you to put you out, if you were on fire. Your just not worth it. On fire, you will be soon enough. BHO will see to it. He laughs at his "useful idiots" . Shoe fits, eh?
Bob| 4.15.09 @ 4:29PM
njoriole -- please show me the chart that supports the conclusions that tax revenues skyrocketed. Here is the chart from the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html
Even the Heritage Foundation went back to 1965 to make their conclusions. And notice, they said "in part". Perhaps that explains why the greatest growth in receipts came during the tax increases of Clinton. Federal revenues at the end of the Bush administration were about equal to those at the beginning of his presidency.
By the way, tax revenues always drop during a recession and rise afterwards without any tax cuts. Here's what the Heritage foundation says about the Bush II tax cuts:
"Both the 2001 and 2008 temporary Bush tax cuts failed to stimulate the economy. Heritage Foundation Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, Stuart Butler explains"
Certainly, if I went to liberal sites we'd hear exactly the opposite. However, here is a primer with a lot more detail than I have presented completed by a non-partisan group:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165
You can believe fantasy, or you can believe the numbers and analysis. It is your choice.
Phil Garringer| 4.15.09 @ 5:14PM
I say, let the dems have it all. For whatever reason, they have led a substantial percentage of the US sheeple to believe that they will feed them like a mama bird feeds her young. No more paying mortgages or any of that!
So, let the American people CHOKE on it. Let them have 8 years of a super majority of the Marxists. I hope that our nation is driven right into the ground, and resembles the Eastern Bloc in the 80's.
Choke on it, America. Serves you right for voting Marxist!
Obama Drules| 4.15.09 @ 7:11PM
I can't believe how friggin' ugly Al Frankenstein is. Shocking.
lynnrockets| 4.15.09 @ 11:24PM
ROCKIN’ WASILLA
(Sung to the Clash song “Rock The Casbah”)
Now Sarah told her cabinet
Go find a racist for A.G.
They came up with Wayne Ross for that
She immediately agreed
He also was a gay basher
He’s a misogynist to boot
She liked him even more now
“This appointin’ thing’s a hoot!”
CHORUS
Sarah loves her day job
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Sarah loves her day job
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Next thing on her agenda…
To fill a Senate seat
Tim Grussendorf was her choice
The Dems said he’s dog meat
So Joe Nelson was her next choice
The Dems labeled him a bum
She next submitted three names
They said,”We don’t need your scum!”
It seems that the Big Dems
Hurt “Mama Bear”
She began to wail…
CHORUS
Sarah P. don’t like it
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Sarah P. don’t like it
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Now back at Casa Palin
Oh’ They really pack ‘em in
Levi’s sleepin’ over
They’re treatin’ him like kin
But as the wind changed direction
And Levi lost a wife
Sarah went on air
With that crazy Palin jive
CHORUS
Sarah P. don’t like it
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Sarah P. don’t like it
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Sarah told the legislators
It’s time for me to get away
I’m going down to Indiana
On per diem pay.
As soon as the Guv’nor was
Chauffeured outta there
The Dems said, “Good Riddance”
And stay away from here
As soon as the Guv’nor was
Outta their hair
The Democrats wailed…
CHORUS
Sarah P. don’t like it
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Sarah P. don’t like it
Rockin’ Wasilla
Rockin’ Wasilla
Sarah P. don’t like it (she thinks its not Kosher)
Rockin’ Wasilla
HistoryWriter| 4.16.09 @ 9:58AM
I could take the Republicans seriously today if they had been as committed to recounts in 2000.
SARAH PALIN FOR PRES 2012!!| 4.17.09 @ 2:44PM
Your name should be History REwriter. 2000 was the first democrat ACORN attempt to steal an election. George W. was too smart for you, but even then, you almost pulled it off. Since then, you've gotten better at your thievin' strategy.
TEA PARTY, WASH DC 7/4,2009!| 4.17.09 @ 2:47PM
We have to stop liberal fascist ACORN election thefts.
Pingback| 5.5.09 @ 1:06AM
MoveOn Fights for Leftist Franken « NewsReal Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 6.30.09 @ 7:47PM
Capital Research Center: links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.1.09 @ 7:55AM
Al Franken (D-ACORN) Heads to the United States Senate « NewsReal Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.2.09 @ 6:40AM
Al Franken (D-ACORN) Heads to the Senate « Count Us Out links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: