Thanks again to another dedicated reader of MNPublius, did the soundtrack of John McCain’s biographical video remind anyone of anything? Like — I dunno, the theme to Dallas.
John McCain’s bio video (sorry, can’t find it in embedable form yet).
And the theme to Dallas
Dallas, you’ll all remember is a show about a scheming, super rich, promiscous oil family. The irony is so delicious I could just eat it up with a spoon.
Loading ...
It’s the same music used in the Palin video. Not Dallas, but similar.
I noticed the similarity right away.
Funny. Didn’t anyone tell McCain that he already had the Texas vote locked up? He doesn’t need to do the subliminal Dallas thing.
The Obama equivalent would be the video of a Bon Jovi concert. Stadium is packed with dedicated fans, he walks onstage to a roaring cheer, says one word and has the crowd in the palm of his hand. Theme would have to be “Living on a Prayer”
DantheMan I agree 100%,
Everybody knows Obama’s supporters are shallow, and stupid. That is just common knowledge, That is the only way these moonbats could support Barack Obama, That is the ONLY explanation that makes any sense.
…………and it is troubling. I’m concerned, as I can tell you are, DantheMan.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger DantheMan!!
“So Sambo beat the bitch!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/
There you go, DtM. These are your people. Hope your proud. By the way, taxes are not a burden, they are an obligation. Why do right wing extremists hate America?
TFRWG -
Actually, you took it quite a bit farther than I. The fact I don’t think Obama has the experience nor the character to lead our country doesn’t mean I’ve judged his supporters.
I’d say most right wingers, of whom you attempt to exaggerate, think Obama is indeed shallow. I also think that they believe the leftmost wing of the party, the “wind only” environmentalists and the Michael Moore clones, are in fact a bit crazy.
The majority of Obama supporters, however, are quality people. They just have made a careless decision.
DantheMan, I Agree 100%,
Sarah Palin was not a careless decision, because she agrees with the Republican ideology, and is very very good at misrepresenting the views of Liberals and insulting them.
Everyone knows only Barack Obama was a careless decision because he disagrees with us on issues. That is just common knowledge.
I’m just pointing out the stark contrast. It’s quite troubling.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger DantheMan
The majority of Obama supporters, however, are quality people. They just have made a careless decision.
Wow, the left wing dupe meme. Haven’t heard that one in a awhile. Meanwhile the economy is tanking, unemployment just went up again, illegal wars are raging, and which party has been in the white house for the last eight years, which party has controlled congress for 12 out of the last 14 years? Oh yeah, the GOP. And the left gets accused of making careless decisions. Priceless.
Richard -
If you would, please cite which factors of the Bush administration have caused the “tanking economy” as you mention. And while you are at it, why is it that those policies created the lowest unemployment level for any President in the past 4 decades. Bush has that distinction, even with the hiccups we’re hitting at the moment.
I’m not a Bush apologist on the war, but I think he has done an OK job with his domestic leadership, with the notable exception of implementing Medicare Part D without a defined way of paying for it.
Oh, and thanks for that Palin link. I’m disappointed that you would promote that smear. The level of credibility that you have, in my book, just dropped a few notches. You can be better than that.
DantheMan I agree 100%,
Everybody knows deregulation, smaller government, tax breaks for corporations, tax cuts for wealthy people, the Iraq war, not allowing gays to marry, teaching abstinence, campaigning against people who believe mankind is causing Global Warming, and running a permanent election campaign from the White House are the only things that have helped keep our fragile, delicate economy strong.
Every American is reaping the benefits of these policies. That is why we Republicans are the true agents of change.
In addition, everyone knows it is because of the Republican partys track record that ONLY we Republicans are the only party able to predict the outcomes of any Liberal policy.
Every Liberal policy is wrong, and will lead to disaster. Anyone who disagrees with this is just partisan, and are a part of the leftist wing of the Democratic party.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger DantheMan.
3/91 - 3/01
Beginning number of jobs: 108,542,000
Ending number of jobs: 132,504,000
Total Jobs Created: 23,962,000
Compound rate of establishment job growth: 2.01%
11/01 - ?
Beginning number of jobs: 130,883,000
Ending number of jobs: 135,409,000
Total Jobs Created: 4,526,000
Compound rate of establishment job growth: .71%
That’s the worst in 40 years. The previous administration created over 23 million jobs. The Bush tax cuts which were suppose to create jobs, created just over 4 million.
This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration’s fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).
Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits.
Bottom line to all this is the middle class, the real engine of our economy, did much better under Clinton and much worse under Bush. When the middle class doesn’t do well, they consume less. Less consumption means less jobs, more debt and generally, a poorly performing economy. Keynes had it right. As far as Palin goes, I’d like her to answer these questions about her racist statements. Apparently, she’s got a problem with diversity in both opinion and appearance. I’m sure more will come to light. Will she be able to survive the politics of personal destruction? Will she be able to handle the Atwater tactics that will dog her? Did McCain select her for any other reason then to mollify the religious right? Was her selection really putting country first or was it just getting Rev. Dobson off his back?
You go Richard!! It is a fact that in the last century Democratic Presidents have done more for the economy and moving our country forward than republicans.
Dobson is now standing squarely next to the McCain Palin ticket…and “SpanielMan”
the truth about the Palins is only beginning to surface. I sense an October surprise coming….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
Biden’s really not going to play nice anymore. This is going to be fun to watch.
Richard -
Thank You, Thank you for adding some true dialogue here! Your points are excellent. So many of the lefties on this board try to talk about conservative economic policy, and as long as they use the words “big oil”, “tax breaks for the rich”, and “income inequality” they feel they’ve made an in depth analysis. I truly appreciate your points.
I’ll grant you that Clinton had a good impact on job growth. And Clinton did a very good job of addressing the deficit. No honest conservative would argue with that. But I’ll ask here what I ask often — how much impact does a President have in the short-term on economic cycles, jobs, inflation, the dollar, etc., and how much credit should go to the Fed? You could argue that Reagan didn’t reign in inflation, Paul Volcker did. And you could argue that Bill Clinton didn’t expand the economy, Alan Greenspan did.
With that said, let’s not completely discount conservative approaches to economic policy. Two points I’d make:
1) W is the first President in a generation to never have the unemployment rate rise to above 6% in any year of his adminstration. The last President to do it? Nixon. Additionally, Bush’s average unemployment rate is the lowest of any President since Nixon.
2) Reagan proved that cutting tax rates is actually better for Government. In addition to encouraging growth, Reagan’s cutting of taxes, including cutting the top rate from 70% at the start of his Presidency to under 30% at the end, doubled the annual revenue intake by the federal Government during that time. Less tax burden actually equals more Government revenue.
Finally, even if a President has a significant impact on economic policy, the timing of when such policy impacts the real world is debatable. If I become President in 2008, I take office in 2009. The first time my proposals could actually be approved and written into tax code would be for 2010. As a small business person, I begin to behave differently at that point, having a material impact on later 2010.
That all would make Reagan’s numbers even better because the first year of his adminstration he was saddled with Carter’s deterioration, and would show that the economy had a material decline as the bubble burst and into the early 2000’s, before Bush’s tax cuts turned things back around.