The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Rachel Maddow Deceiving You Part II – “ConservaDems & Corruption”

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2009

Be sure to see our first installment HERE after you are done reading this post.

Today we put together a nice little video that kills two birds with one stone.

It shows you the reaction Rachel Maddow had when she heard about the “Conserva-Dems”.  Group of allegedly moderate senators who have announced that they are going to moderate the presidents far left agenda. In short she is not happy and wants their skins.

It will also show you the reaction that Rachel Maddow had when she found out the the GOP plans to punish three senators for voting for the stimulus bill. You know, the largest spending bill in HISTORY that the Democrats forced a vote on before anyone had a chance to read it… the one that had language inserted to protect AIG and Fannie Mae bonuses when they had given huge donations to the Democrats. Yup, that bill.

We titled the video “Rachel Maddow, Hypocrisy, Conserva-Dems & Corruption”

Maybe Rachel Maddow should ask why it is that anyone, Democrats, Conserva-Dems, Republicans, RINO’s (like Chuck Hagel) or Independents can vote for the largest spending bill in history and not even read it to hash out the details? I deliberate more on what car I will buy or what credit union I will choose than these pinheads in Congress did in spending $1.1 Trillion (including interest) of your money. That is over a million dollars a day since the time of Jesus. That is over $200,000 for each job it CLAIMS to create. Only 23% is slated to be spent by the end of 2010 … so much for stimulus now.

So far the “Conserva-Dems” are all talk as ALL OF THEM voted for that wastefull porkulus bill.

Evan Bayh did vote against the $411 Billion earmark (pork) bill, but he knew it would get enough votes to pass. If Evan Bayh was so against the bill, why did he vote to preserve many of its worst provisions such as THIS ONE.

The “Conserva-Dems” are likely nothing but a show to save face for Senators like Bayh who come from conservative states like Indiana. When the ConservaDems vote with the president they can guard his right flank and say:

See how moderate (this radical left wing agenda is) the presidents policy to tax energy into the ground is, even we trouble making Censerva-Dems voted for it, so those rascally Republicans must be out of touch.

Bayh and the press will throw in our face the fact that he voted against that earmark bill. Expect him to vote “NO” when other bills like this will still have enough votes to pass without him. This political strategy is called “Triangulation” and this is a strategy that is taught by many schools who teach political science.

When Tim Roemer votes against Clinton’s spending bills in 1993, he voted to preserve them in their current form in dozens of procedural and amendment votes. When that bill had enough votes to pass he voted against it so he could come back to Notre Dame and the South Bend Tribune and tell us all about what an independent minded man he was who is looking out for us.

Some political insiders tell me our current congressman Joe Donnelly plays much the same game; although to be fair I have not researched his record to the degree I have Roemer’s. They say he waits till almost all of the votes are cast by other members to see where things stand and then casts his vote.

UPDATE – Maddow claims that The Constitution does not have a preamble… – LINK.

4 Responses to “Rachel Maddow Deceiving You Part II – “ConservaDems & Corruption””

  1. JPM said

    While I have a problem with people not reading a bill before voting on it, Hagel wasn’t in office to vote on the stimulus bill. I realize you have to throw him in there to perpetuate the hysteria, but c’mon. Also, explain why Conservative is the exclusive definition of Republican.


    Thanks for commenting.

    The video, nor this web site, says that Hagel voted for the stimulus. No hysteria, just facts. So with respect, either you just made that up or you weren’t viewing and reading for comprehension.

    To answer your question, politicians want power, while some are true believers on both sides, for a great many politicians in both parties, their rhetoric does not patch their voting record or political agenda.

    For Example:

    1. Look at how many Republicans were thrown out of office for acting like typical big government politicians. Chuck Hagel retired because Republicans could not stand him any more.

    2. Look at how the Democrats campaigned against Republicans for spending too much and being for big government in the last election. Too many Republicans were violating the Republican brand, the Democrats could see that and used it in the election.

    3. As a result why do you think that Obama couched his rhetoric in Reagan like conservatism? He know he could appeal to those voters that many Republicans betrayed. So Obama talked about going through bills line by line, a tax cut for 95% of poeple (which ended up being a $13 tax cut and his new taxes will more than eat that up if he gets them), and he talked about reducing government spending and being responsible. He talked about transparency which he has violated all over the place. All conservative ideals, none of which he followed seriously. He did a couple things as tokens but no one can honstly say that he is governing how he campaigned.

    4. Look at Dick Lugar, when he campaigns he talks up conservatism, family farms etc and after he gets elected he favors gun control, and he pushes for every opportunity he can to further empower the United Nations which further limits our sovereignty. Many of these UN treaties & programs such as the Law of The sea Treaty (LOST) are not in the best interests of the United States. Do you believe for a moment he campaigns on that stuff when he is up for election?

    Everything I just told you is “political communications 101”. If you follow politics with some academic seriousness all of this should be obvious to you. If its not you should try to avoid emotional attachments to your candidates and realize that most politicians range from mere obfusctators, to liars, to full blown criminals.

    Chuck Hagel was good on some issues (he was a champion of mortgage reform which Democrats blocked since 2001), but he did what he could to ingratiate himself to the Washington establishment, and that is what happens to most politicians. In my view with both parties combined barely 20% of them are really trying to do right and be straight with us. This fact can be true of most politicians and at the same time most politicians are really good on one or two issues.

    The sooner you come to realize that the better off you will be. – Editor]

  2. JPM said

    Thanks for the reply, very well done.

    “Democrats, Conserva-Dems, Republicans, RINO’s (like Chuck Hagel) or Independents can vote for the largest spending bill in history,” makes it, though, look like Hagel was there to vote for it.

    Maybe Hagel left because he couldn’t stand the party anymore, but, when he first ran, he said 2 terms, and that’s what he did.

    Yes, the party went off track, spent too much, and lost. The problem is, trying to turn around and play the same game now that it has been done isn’t going to work. The sooner that is learned, the sooner the country can be turned around.

    I agree that Obama should have stood up and done what he promised now, not next year.

    Politics 101 is about people and the country, only. When you bring the labels into it, you’re drawing attention way from it. That’s what’s holding us back right now: Labeling everything to keep everyone apart. Whether or not anyone likes Obama, I should hope everyone likes the USA. If everyone has to work together for a few months to right the track, and I mean, work a solution that works for everyone, would that really be a bad thing?

    Yes, most politicians are as you described, and that’s sad, but Hagel doesn’t fall into that category, people place him there.

    I think a PAC should be created to vote anyone, R or D, who put a piece of pork in the new budget out of office. Doing so would have been the most selfish thing any member of Congress could have done.

    [It’s funny when the Democrats say that the Republicans spent too much and grew government too much, when they were gleefully going right along with it. Funny how no one seems smart enough to make that point on TV when the subject comes up.

    Another talking point is an aleged lack of regulation from Republicans…what nonsense… growth of regulations published in the Federal Register was at record levels during Bush.

    On the point on the labels, we are sort of stuck in America. Most voters, and this is a pretty sad comentary on the state of citizenship here, maybe spend a little less than 1% of their time looking at politics. If you cant package the message in 30-60 seconds you lose. Compound that issue with the fact that if the elite media (TV and a few newspapers) are your only sources of news then you will end up really undersdtanding next to nothing.

    Things won’t change until peoples priorities change and they start to think beyond the surface of an issue. Unfortunately I fear it will take a great deal of suffering for people to wake up and get to that point. It takes a real shock to get people over their emotional attachment to a candidate and admit that they were wrong to vote for them. – Editor]

  3. JPM said

    Again, well done.

    See, we agree on things, but I’m a R who people call a D, and you, they wouldn’t disagree that you’re a R.

    Regulation? Then what happened! Fannie and Freddie killed a bill that would have prevented some of this, but who cared? If you’re going to argue that there was regulation in the finance industry, then good luck, you’re better than even I thought you were.

    I have a blog I’m working on that, at this point, is more of a rant page, but, you’ll see, we’re not too far away from each other other than toeing the party line (, and believing that R is the only right (though, maybe, you wouldn’t fall into that category every time, hopefully). I mean, to say that Republicans did well the past 8 years is absurd beyond any standard.

    People don’t need to suffer, the idiots needs to listen. If they continue on this path, won’t the 2010 elections be fun to watch?

    [Oh I have the mortgage industry thing pegged ;-) Seriously we have an entire section on it. Our analysis was mimiced (likely not on purpose) in the WSJ, IBD, and Bloomberg. Look at the mortgage collapse link on the lower left hand corner of this web site.

    I am also researching the idea that the artificial keeping of interest rates down by the Fed caused the bubble to balloon much larger than the market would have allowed.

    As far as the last 8 years, it was like any, some things good and some things bad. Good and bad things happened under Clinton and under Bush. Bush just gets a harder rap because their administration never defended itself and let their political enemies define them.

    Back to the mortgage industry, the problem was not a lack of regulation, the problem is multi layered, but a thick layer was that the policing organ was being actively coopted by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Republicans tried to fix this year after year and the Dems blocked it. Another thick layer was the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy all the high risk loans they could get their hands on, so what was the incentive to stop giving bad loans? It took most of the risks away from the banks.

    Where AIG and some banks went wrong was that they were foolish enough to buy mortgage backed securities….. that is what really creamed them. AIG also issued credit default swaps to insure those garbage securities.

    We were very hard on Mike Oxley because his regulation really aggravated this crisis. He tried to lie his way out of his culpability in the crisis and we blasted him. Oxley is a Republican, but the elite media let him off the hook.

    Republicans are often for less regulation but good policing. An important point that you wont see in the elite media.

    Also dont get me wrong, my ideology is not so much “right wing” as it is anti “Elite Media” I try to give news and analysis that the elite media wont. I take the facts they under report or misreport and put the spotlight on them. Contrast and perspective is what we try to achieve. – Editor]

    [By the way, the comments are likely to change after I post them and reproof read them so check back lol – editor]

  4. Charlie said

    I teach political science at a university in the Midwest and I fully agree that citizens in the U.S. are not fulling their duty as citizens in a democracy. I consider it my job to try to turn my students into better, more informed, more active citizens.

    [You sir have your work cut out for you. Good luck at undoing the damage. – Editor]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: