Does it not strike anyone as strange that when Republicans try to give businesses more useable cash in the form of tax cuts, they are lambasted as being in the ‘pockets’ of big businesses but when DEMOCRATS blow HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars to bail out Wall Street, they are “protecting our financial system”?

How is it that unconscionable loans to the US auto industry that reward uncompetitive behavior and fundamentally unsustainable union demands… loans that line the pockets of interest groups that give generously to the Democratic party… are hailed as brilliant and necessary public policy by the same people who despise Republican tax cuts?

Does not anyone wonder how Democrats behaving exactly like republicans as a practical matter (except worse, they are rewarding incompetence instead of rewarding ingenuity), they are hailed even by their own party as saving the country, standing up for the little guy… but when Republicans try to make life easier on businesses, they are EVIL CORPORATE SHILLS…

You democrats are a piece of work… I’m serious.

Yup… Senate Dems just do wonders for the prospects of American companies:

One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it. Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking her “to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq.” The Bush administration wisely refused to do so, but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.

Wow! you know, it’s kind of funny how QUICKLY and how INTENTIONALLY the media has RUSHED to tell us all of the DIRT on Palin (and her family). It turns out that 3 days can uncover all this information:

1. Her Daughter is a whore who sleeps around and is now pregnant! (CNN, Politico)

2. Oh, and it’s all her MOM’S FAULT.

3. OMG, her husband has a DWI arrest! (CNN)

4. She wanted a guy who deserved to be fired to actually be fired. (Alaska news)

5. She hates black people (*jk*)

Isn’t it funny HOW QUICKLY the media can find out dirt about people if it WANTS TO??? I guess it’s not that hard and not that time consuming. But wait… it took the media a good 3 months to find ANY dirt on Obama– (and only after conservatives had been discussing it amongst themselves for weeks ahead of time). How come we had to rely on talk radio to find out anything questionable about Obama? Why does the media hold these two candidates to two completely different journalistic standards?

And if this weren’t bad enough, liberals (the loving, accepting, understanding people that they are) start attacking Palin and her daughter–turning her pregnancy into a political issue. She is being forced to keep her child, her mom didn’t tell her about birth control, kids will be kids and therefore we need more sex education in the schools (which somehow leads to the conclusion that Palin isn’t qualified enough to be VEEP because… well… you know…. if a “condom bill” ever got tied in the Senate… she might vote it down).

The same people who said Obama’s WIFE was off-limits are now attacking Palin’s daughter (never mind the bit about CHENY’s daughter back in 06) … it’s WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE.

I wanted to bring your attention to an article by Joseph Leiberman in the Wall Street Journal. It is illuminating because it gives an historical context by which to view the modern democrat party and explains why this change has occurred.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.“

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.“

This belief in the American cause and its people has slowly been replaced, on the left, with a hatred for these very principles. The Left did not see the Soviets were not evil… they were victims of American provocation…

Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.

But before I reprint the article in its entirety, head over to WSJ.com and read it for yourself.

I must admit; it feels a bit odd to find myself finding such common ground with former Democratic presidents. Does this make me some kind of Neo-Democrat… or does this say more about the lengths the Democratic party has moved left?… I would tend to think it’s the latter.

Ok… another global warming post. Ok… it turns out that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorced an 80 by 50 (80% recution in CO2 emissions by 2050) CO2 plan. Let’s look at what this would actually mean for Americans… (via WSJ.com)

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood.

If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

If this goes to prove ANYTHING… it is that Democrats are so out-of-touch with facts and reality that neither facts nor reality matter to them in the slightest. They are completely willing to believe that we can have lower carbon footprints in 2050 than we did in 1700… even though there was next to NO industry in the 1700’s. The Democrats who want or believe this is possible suffer from a severe mental impairment. They are delusional. To even suggest this as a matter of public policy is laughable…

Are these the minds we want RUNNING the country? (oh! let’s allow these minds to manage the economy too…)

boy, I can’t wait for the Democrats to start micromanaging the rest of our economy!

Democrats Then:

• efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” - Senator Barak Obama
• the surge “is a failure,” - Senator Nancy Pelosi
• the troop buildup “is a failure” - Senator Biden
• the surge was an “absolute failure” - Ron Paul (ya, I know he isn’t a democrat but he was still wrong)

Democrats NOW:

• More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact. - Dick Durbin
• The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results. - Carl Levin
• We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working. - Hillay Clinton

I don’t need to add any commentary to this… I am vindicated.

Oh, and this in the New York TImes:

The New York Times just published an article explaining how congressional Democrats are going to pass a bill extending the N.S.A. wiretapping program. Now this is certainly an oddity. The same democrats who cheered that they had “killed the patriot act” and who have claimed bush is “shreading” the constitution by turning the U.S. into a police state are now authorizing the continuation of the very program they equate with totalitarianism.

Based on such an odd move, I can think of only one explanation. It seems this fear-mongering about Bush’s police state is nothing more than a political ploy. They know the program is within constitutional limits, but are trying to scare their base into believing Bush is going to listen in on their phone conversations. They know how effective the wiretapping program is at preventing terrorists activities and know that the consequences of future terrorist activity could be placed squarely on them should they stonewall the bill.

I suppose the Democratic leadership could be so ineffective that they can’t stop anything the Bush administration wants passed–even though they are the majority party in a lame duck presidency, but I’d hate to be accused of thinking that badly of them.