The IUSB Vision Weblog

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

Archive for March 22nd, 2009

Barack Obama: Victorious Victim of History

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

By Gerry Rough

Barack Obama: Victorious Victim of History

You’ve heard it countless times by now.  You’ve heard it spoken so many times it is beginning to grate on your nerves, and you’ve even begun to think that it was just your opinion and no one else’s that the election of President Barack Obama was something far less than a real election.  There was something wrong about his rise to power, but you perhaps cannot as of yet put your finger on it.  It is vague and undefined, but it is definitely there.  There is there there, and you know it.

You are not alone!  And as Glenn Beck has so eloquently put it recently, we surround them!  There are, in fact, six – count them, six – very good reasons why conservatives should question whether Obama’s ascension to power was a real bona fide election based on popular will, or whether it was something far less as we shall shortly see.  The long and the short of the 2008 election has yet to be written, but one thing is abundantly clear for all to see, especially our liberal friends who refuse to acknowledge the reality of what happened out of shear political blindness.  The meteoric rise to power of President Barack Obama was not the result of a desire for change in the American electorate, personal popularity or even the proverbial ‘cult of personality’ so present in our modern 24-hour news cycle culture.  It was the direct result of political forces that were beyond his control, and ultimately forces he will likely never master based on his first sixty-plus days in office.  For so it is that without these unseen forces working on his behalf to elect him, it would have been impossible for him to rise to the office he now claims to have won by popular election.  Indeed, as we shall see shortly, if even one of these forces had not been present, John McCain would have won the election, and America’s future would have taken a dramatic turn in a different direction than it is now moving.

As it stands now, the election of 2008 was the perfect storm in American political history, one with so many firsts it is difficult to imagine that an election like the one just witnessed by this generation will probably ever happen again in our history.  But even more than all of the firsts that were present in this election cycle, all of the political forces lined up in a way rarely if ever seen in the history of political theater.  The sheer cumulative magnitude of these political forces made victory a certainty beyond reasonable doubt for one candidate, and one candidate alone.  To wit, if an Oscar Mayer Wiener had been the democratic nominee, the wiener would certainly have won in this political climate, and indeed there are many who would argue that that is precisely what we got that fateful night November last!

Perhaps the most visible of these forces was the American media, who by virtually every objective standard by media watchdog organizations, well known pollsters, and even the dubious public who was forced to watch the train wreck of an election run amok, have concluded universally that the media virtually rolled over for the democratic candidate.  Even the Obama campaign itself has even admitted media partiality when confronted with the bias question by stating that, “We deserved it,” a tacit admission of media complicity.  It was Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania who acknowledged the same when he went on record as calling the media irresponsibility regarding Barack Obama a “national disgrace.”  And it was Hillary Clinton who spoke to the wind in her calls for the media to confront Obama as a real presidential candidate, and stop covering him as a celebrity.  Entire books and videos are now in the works or already published documenting the media complicity in the Obama election.  There were even post-election polls that had upwards of 70% of Americans who agreed that the media willfully worked to elect Obama – and yes, the wording was carefully chosen.  It just doesn’t get any worse than that, unless, of course, you happen to live in a banana republic.  If Barack Obama had been given the scrutiny that every other candidate had been given, he would never have risen to the nomination, let alone the presidency.

As regards campaign cash, the advantage of the Obama campaign put McCain at a severe disadvantage from the start, one from which McCain never recovered.  But remember here that it was candidate Obama himself who broke the campaign promise to receive only public funding for his campaign.  The McCain campaign actually kept the promise and took the public funding, despite countless Republican observers who told him to do otherwise.  And while the cash advantage of the Obama campaign was generally 2 to 1 as late as October, reported a staggering 3 to 1 advantage in television advertising in the final stretch, an advantage only dreamed of in political circles, especially in a presidential campaign.  The magnitude of this level of cash advantage is staggering, and although not completely out of the question to overcome (there are many examples of this in political history), in the greater context of this election cycle, there was in effect no chance for McCain to overcome this enormous advantage.

Yet another advantage Obama had during the presidential campaign was that the outgoing president George W. Bush was nowhere to be seen during the primaries or the fall months leading up to the November election.  And here the poll numbers tell the story.  As late as October, 2008, Bush’s approval numbers were universally in the 20s.  This is devastating to a presidential campaign for the party in power.  In McCain’s case of course, Bush was a virtual millstone around his neck, making him the elephant in the room that no one was talking about.  In fact, it was rather something of a strain for the McCain campaign to ignore the sitting president.  Normally, of course, the party who holds the White House has an enormous advantage going into the fall election.  Imagine if you will, what can be gleaned from the power of Air Force One landing at a local airport: the symbolism, the majesty, the Office of the President, irrespective of the office holder.  This O reader is the greatest of political sins: that we should endure a presidential election cycle having turned an iniquitous eye to such an event!  O what needless pain we bear!  And that, O friend, is exactly what conservatives were asked to bear for this election cycle.  The enormous advantage of a sitting president was nowhere to be found, and it was excruciating to witness up close and personal.  A president with approval ratings in the low- to mid- 40s would have easily propelled McCain into the White House.

Another major force that propelled Obama to victory was the issue of the Bush Administration’s defense of itself in the face of withering democratic opposition.  The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush was the presidential ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ while his political enemies simply did what every political enemy does: they defined him and his presidency from the very beginning.  A quick overview of the major events of the Bush presidency tells the story.  When the Florida recount mess emerged so early in his administration, Bush took the high road and tried to reconcile himself to democrats who refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of his presidency.  When the WMD were not found as expected, Bush again did not hold the democrat’s feet to the fire for their own complicity in the entire WMD debacle, even, mind you, when there were WMD actually found that were never documented by either Sadam Hussein or the UN weapons inspectors.  And what of the Katrina debacle when Bush was accused by democrats of ignoring New Orleans because of race?  It is both inexcusable and inexplicable that a sitting president would ignore his political enemies and allow them to define him in this way; it is nothing less than political malpractice of the highest order.  In the end, it was not the administration who defined itself, but the opposition.  And that, O political junkie, is yet another axiom of politics that should never be ignored: you either define yourself or your enemy will do it for you.  George W. Bush, for all of his positives and negatives, never really quite got the memo on this important truism of electoral politics.  What Bush’s presidency needed was the political killer instinct that was not there, and in the end it destroyed his presidency.  Had the Bush administration defined its political enemies rather than allowing its enemies to define them, it would have changed history and the election of 2008 without question.

On another front, Republican disarray during this past election cycle was so transparent it could not have been missed.  The story was covered extensively in nearly every media outlet, complete with howls of incompetence and the party of “democrat light.”  Even after the election the party disintegrated further with the usual finger pointing and recriminations too many to count.  The Sarah Palin debacle during the last week before the election only made the collapse of the party more intense and noticeable.  It was not as though the reproach was unearned, however.  The fact is that the Republican Party had been in decline for a number of years, and it was just now coming to its inevitable conclusion.  The generic polls that measured whether voters were more likely to vote republican or democrat were heavily in favor of democrats long before this election cycle.  Even the self-identified conservative versus liberal polls had conservatives in the decline for several years prior to the 2008 election.  By that time, of course, it was simply not enough to call yourself a republican any longer and assume that the voter actually knew the difference between the two parties.  The public and the conservative movement had lost the stomach for “republican light” policy, and the republican brand name had been so badly tarnished that by 2008 the party had become a mere shell of its former self, with conservative policy a la George W. Bush now seen as the problem, not the solution.  Time and time again we have learned that democrats cannot win the White House without the help of their republican counterparts, and this election was no exception.

By the time the financial crisis hit in mid-September, the cement of history had already hardened on a given candidate.  While it is true that McCain had up until then defied political gravity and continued to lead in the polls after the Palin nomination, the magnitude of the weight of history and its cruel consequence could not be cast aside so easily, even with another historical first that Sarah Palin represented.  History is not so kind to those who attempt to thwart its predetermined path, and the financial crisis was history’s way of putting the final roadblock to the McCain juggernaut.  In the end, the financial crisis that determined the outcome of the election really brought all of the other forces of nature, of man, of politics and of history herein mentioned to a final climactic doom that only the almighty himself could have changed.  Perhaps up until that point, McCain had victory within his grasp, but it was fleeting at best.  The weight of the forces arrayed against the McCain campaign was simply too great to have any other outcome: destiny would not be denied its place no matter the cost.  By the time of the financial crisis in September, Barack Obama had become without doubt simply ‘good enough’ to get rid of the republicans, and America would have to wait for its next leader one more presidential election cycle.

Make no mistake: liberals can take no comfort in the Obama victory, for he did not earn his place in history, nor did he show himself to be worthy of that favor based on his first two months in office.  He has shown himself to be nothing more than an incompetent dupe who has seized power and knows not how to lead a nation, to give of himself to further his cherished cause, nor to cultivate the skills of others toward a common goal he has set for his presidency.  He has shown himself to be weak at every major turn of his presidency – a trait that will certainly destroy both him and his party and embolden his enemies foreign and domestic.  He has sought to lay the blame for his mistakes on his political foes rather than take any responsibility for his own actions, and he has shown not a single instance of any ability to bridge the partisan divide in Washington, to say nothing of his callous and wanton capacity to twist the truth to his liking at his whim, even when it is transparent to friend and foe alike.  The only accomplishments of President Barack Obama so far have been to unite the Republican Party and a growing coalition of conservative democrats and independents against him, the political appointment of inept members of his own party purely for payment of political debts rather than demonstrated competence to accomplish the task given them, and spend his way into so much debt that even his political allies – his fellow liberal democrats and the European Socialist Democracies – have urged caution that he may be straining the financial system beyond the breaking point.  Small wonder that the whispers of callous incompetence are growing louder each day from the halls of Washington.  Perhaps for democrats it makes no difference whether Obama in reality won the election or whether he was really the victorious victim of history and political forces that simply handed him the keys to White House, but for the rest of us elections really do mean something, and they really do have consequences.

Posted in Gerry Rough, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

The Calls Jim Cramer Got Right – suck on this Jon Stewart

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

Dan Gifford at Big Hollywood has a very fine blog post. It is this kind of excellent work that justifies the blogosphere’s existence as an important journalistic medium.

They describe Jim Cramer predicting what was going to happen. This video is from August 6th 2007 HINT that’s 2007.. “It’s Armageddon”

October 5 – “Take your money out of the stock market now. The stock market will face a 20% decline” 

Be sure to click the Big Hollywood link above to get the rest.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Mortgage Crisis | 1 Comment »

Is the Bail-out mismanagement just a way to nationalize the banks? – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

This author is not big on conspiracy theories so it is not our intention to create one. With that said we have been lied to very deliberately about the bailouts while obvious ways to help alleviate the problem are being passed up. People are suffering and there is no honest reason for it. If one had reasons other than the best intentions for the folks, the actions taken by our government make a lot more sense and this writer takes no pleasure in saying it.

Step 1:

Before the first bailout, as we reported HERE, we were told by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen that the billions we spent on the first round of bailouts would be to buy up “at risk mortgages” so the government could renegotiate with the home owners to pay the government back over a longer period. Think of it as like paying a government student loan.

After the money was appropriated by Congress, the government reversed itself and decided that people like you and me who needed some mortgage help weren’t going to get it. Instead the government started picking winners and losers by using your money to buy stock in certain banks, essentially becoming part owners in them. Winner banks often used those billions and to buy up the banks that the government decided to not give money too.

Government is taking increased control over the banks they chose to survive.

There is no way to put this any other way. Your government lied to you.

Step 2:

All of the experts said that suspending the “mark to market rules” would increase the value of mortgage assets to their approximate value instead of a value of ZERO as the rules demand. This way banks would have more assets on balance and not be forced to fail in the numbers that have for being over leveraged.

What are “mark to market rules”?

What it does, according to federal accounting rules, is artificially lower the value of an asset or security that has lost value and artificially inflates an asset’s or security’s value when the market is going up. So when these mortgage securities crashed companies had to say they were worth nothing (because no one wanted to buy them) in spite of the fact that there is a house there that has some value. This problem was a real factor in why things crashed so quickly because it lowered the liquidity rating and solvency rating of those assets artificially.

When the housing market was going up the companies holding them had their rating inflated by them, making it all look dandy on paper and when they crashed they had their rating set artificially low and the company fell below solvency standards.

The experts have been screaming for this one little change, which could be done with the stroke of a pen by the government since September. So why not do this easy fix if almost everyone agrees that this would help a great deal?

This fix, combined with buying up troubled mortgage assets, would have went a long way into bring the banks solvent again, and since the mortgage securities would have value and people would see the light at the end of the tunnel for getting those mortgages paid, the impact on companies like AIG who issued credit default swaps that were harmed by the mortgage securities value being lowered to ZERO would have been mitigated.

Step 3:

As we reported HERE. Between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Congress we have spent, or are in the process of spending, $9 trillion on these bailouts; government buying up banks and taking an 80% share of companies like AIG. – UPDATE: now over 12 Trillion – LINK.

This is enough money to pay off 90% of every mortgage in the United States. If government did that instead of what they are doing now it would help bring the banking and credit crisis to an end. But the government didn’t even have to go thar far; like we said if the government had just bought all the at risk mortgages and offered some smart mortgage assistance this would have been a much better solution  than what we have now for regular folks, but it would not have fixed it so the government could take such large ownership stakes and control over the banks.

Step 4:

When the Obama Administration finally got around to talking about helping regular folks like you and me with mortgage assistance, they tossed up a pathetic number like $50 Billion in assistance. The plan is structured so that assistance would mostly go to those who tried to scam the system; those who lied about their income or ability to pay, or those who over leveraged themselves trying to make a fast buck with what is known as “house-flipping”.

This is why Rick Santelli & Larry Kudlow (LINK) and Jim Cramer & Pete Morici (LINK) had a fit, because they knew this plan was bogus and unfair. If you followed the two previous links (and you should and be sure to watch the video’s there) they both say that dealing with the housing issue is the first and highest priority, and that is what is obviously proved to be the governments lowest priority.

Housing is the #1 problem, yet instead of focusing on that they are spending your money to take control of the banks.

Feb 11, we posted this video (LINK) on how to help fix housing:

I loved it, so will you. – This video also tells you step by step – in a fun way, how to fix the housing industry. Any good student of economics can tell you how to do it, so why isn’t Washington even addressing it seriously?

When there are a ton of foreclosures, too much supply, low consumer confidence resulting in low demand how do you fix it – you raise the demand. How do you do that? – Watch this video.

Step 5:

So I have been asking myself, have we been scammed and has the government used this crisis, not to help us, but to help them take over the banks. Keep in mind that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government sponsored enterprises and they are a huge part of the reason why we are in the mess we are now.

I have been considering writing this article for a couple of weeks and then a friend sent me the following link form

I was doing some research for a post I’m planning, and came upon an articled entitled “The optimal design of Ponzi schemes in finite economies” which Utpal Bhattacharya wrote in 2001 and published in 2002.  The summary reads as follows:

As no rational agent would be willing to take part in the last round in a finite economy, it is difficult to design Ponzi schemes that are certain to explode. This paper argues that if agents correctly believe in the possibility of a partial bailout when a gigantic Ponzi scheme collapses, and they recognize that a bailout is tantamount to a redistribution of wealth from non-participants to participants, it may be rational for agents to participate, even if they know that it is the last round. We model a political economy where an unscrupulous profit-maximizing promoter can design gigantic Ponzi schemes to cynically exploit this “too big to fail” doctrine.We point to the fact that some of the spectacular Ponzi schemes in history occurred at times where and when such political economies existed-France (1719), Britain (1720), Russia (1994), and Albania (1997).

If the language I’ve highlighted sounds familiar, it should, because it accurately predicts both the economic collapse and the bailout mentality that followed. Someone give Bhattacharya a Nobel Prize for economics, because he nailed it.

One can only wonder now if it was pure happenstance that things played out as they did, or if rational actors were gambling on the bailout Bhattacharya predicted. 


Step 6:

So does my argument have merit or am I just connecting the dots in a way to put the very worst spin on things and an I being foolish to suspect that the government is using this crisis to take further control of the private sector… I have been asking myself that question for two weeks and then I saw this…..

Now Obama is proposing to take even more control of ALL companies government wishes LINK :

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving U.S. government bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last month, as part of the stimulus package, Congress barred top executives at large banks getting rescue money from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay.

So all of this, $9 Trillion in the hole, plans to take more government control and we STILL have gotten no meaningful mortgage assistance and the housing industry problem has STILL gotten no serious attention. How much help have you gotten from these trillions spent?

UPDATE– Stuart Varney – European Financial news Analyst for Fox News –

UPDATE II The administration came out today with a new plan to help the housing and mortgage industry. It is risky and depends a great deal on the private sector’s willingness to take risk now, but it is a far better plan than the first one they floated. Since the administration put out a plan that can at least be considered seriously the stock market rallied today. We will get more details soon. LINK.

UPDATE III– Eric Cantor released his analysis of the mortgage toxic asset plan as released by Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner. He gives the same analysis that we here at IUSB Vision gave in update II. LINK There is just not enough incentive with this setup for the private investor to take the risk. The other part is that government actions are SO unpredictable lately who wants to risk their money partnering with the feds? They can change the rules of the game and you are powerless.

UPDATE IVNew York Times:

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy

By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president’s Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

Folks, where are all the far left commenter’s screaming FASCIST? I ask that question because the government is using a crisis to bring the private sector and the banks into the  government. By doing it this way private business keeps its form and appearance while becoming a part of the state. They will be a part of the state because the feds will have such a degree of control, and have such an ability to punish them for political reasons that what ever the government wants to do these parts of the private sector will have little choice but to be cheerleaders for it. Who was the last leader to engage in this kind of behavior?

Mini-UPDATE – Ed Morrissey at comments on this story HERE. Go read it.

Mini-UPDATE II – Speaking of uttering the word fascism, is also reporting that Obama campaign people are going door to door asking people to sign a pledge to him. Let’s put it this way, you are being asked to sign a pledge to a leader with two of his minions at your door.

Mini-UPDATE III – A friend just sent me this video link. Former Clinton Advisor Dick Morris says Obama is trying to get control of the banks. “This is a well thought out plan for bank nationalization”.

UPDATE V – Treasury realeases his proposed legislation to sieze companies it sees as a threat to the economy.

Talk about a plan that is ripe for abuse and what about the constitutions limits on government taking.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 3 Comments »

ACORN creates front group for “Anti-Capitalism” protests…by the way you are paying for it.

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

Your tax dollars are paying for this very partisan protest.

Conneticutt Working Families is really ACORN

Connecticut Working Families is really ACORN

Busload of Crazies to Tour Homes of AIG Executives This Weekend

See these crazies protesting an an AIG employees home with signs that say “Capitalism is Organized Crime”? They are from a group called “Connecticut Working Families” but who are they really…. ACORN (the vote registration fraud people – 16 states multiple indictments and guilty pleas but they insist its all trumped up).

It gets better….

YOU are paying for this. ACORN receives millions from the “Affordable Housing Trust Fund”. It is a fund that is authorized by Congress and bureaucrats hand this money out to groups like ACORN and La Raza (the race). They say that they are helping people who are in need with the money. Instead they engage in protests, law suits, thuggery and vote fraud. Do these people seem non-partisan to you? The stimulus bill that no one read has $2 billion for that trust fund that ACORN gets paid from. 

From our friends at Sweetnesss & Light:

From CWF’s website:

Working Families Party Making Inroads

by Scott Whipple (New Britain Herald) Oct. 28th, 2008

Asked about the party’s joint founder, ACORN (The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), Dinkin said “while it’s fair to say that ACORN has a role in Working Families, allegations of voter fraud against ACORN are trumped up. At worst, a couple of people who worked for ACORN tried to cheat ACORN and not do their jobs. These people were identified and fired. I’m impressed with what a good operation they run.” …

So it all becomes clear.

The only question is why does ACORN feel the need to hide behind a front group?

By the way did we mention that the govermnment is hiring ACORN to “work” the Census?

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country’s 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.

Cristina Corbin

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year’s count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States — currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census “sell sheet,” an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN “play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful,” including by “help[ing] recruit census workers.” 

But ACORN’s partnership with the 2010 Census is worrisome to lawmakers who say past allegations of fraud should raise concerns about the organization.

“It’s a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it’s not just the lawmakers’ concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country,” Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told “We want an enumeration. We don’t want to have any false numbers.”

ACORN, which claims to be a non-partisan grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, came under fire in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. The group’s activities were frequently questioned in the 2008 presidential election.


Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 4 Comments »

BBC changed coverage after threat from an eco-extreemist.

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

News Busters’ Noel Sheppard on the Glenn Beck program, which is now the second highest rated show on cable.

The BBC changed an article after a threat from environmentalist whacko who ended up being a nobody, just a nut. Unfortunately, all forms of media attract nuts, but there is no reason to give in to them.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

How Does CNN Define a “Moderate Democrat”

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

We have discussed many times how CNN and other elite media networks are in the tank for the Democrats. Republicans are often refered to as “Conservative Republican” or “Right Wing Republican” but you never get “left wing Democrat” or “far left Democrat” from the elite media. However, the most far left are often referred as “moderates”.

News Busters has this brilliant post below. Good work News Busters:

By Michael M. Bates
March 21, 2009 – 22:46 ET

This week CNN’s Political Ticker reported “Congresswoman takes post in State Department.”  The article begins:

California congresswoman Ellen Tauscher is vacating her Bay Area seat to serve under Hillary Clinton at the State Department. 

Tauscher, a moderate Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a message to her constituents that Clinton had asked her to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Let’s briefly examine the congressional voting record of the “moderate Democrat” Ellen Tauscher.  According to interest group evaluations compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2007 the congresswoman received a zero from the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life Committee, an F from the National Taxpayers Union, an F- from Gun Owners of America, and a 4 from Citizens Against Government Waste.  

In contrast, she was awarded 100 percent ratings by NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women.  Americans for Democratic Action assigned her a 95 and the AFL-CIO accorded her a 96.

CNN considers such a voting record to be one of a moderate Democrat.  Apparently, over at the most trusted name in news, liberals are as rare as a Barack Obama misstep.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »


Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

Via the Instapundit

1. Incoherent message – the signs were all over the place. There were lots of agendas. That’s fine. The color and signage look good on TV.But, when it came to the microphone – the overall message was tepid and unsure.

2. Create a theme – like “We want Senator So-and-So to resign for voting for this bill.” Or, “We want the Stimulus Repealed!” “Start Over.” Have a definitive purpose to your Assembly. A central theme will also help public speakers to focus. And don’t be afraid to personalize this. Put it on your Senators, Congress people, and the President. That’s what they are doing to anyone who objects.

3. Speakers not prepared for the media – the organizer was asked to name some specific objectionable items in the stimulus. She couldn’t do it. I doubt many of us could.

If you are an organizer, or the “face” of the event – take an hour to prepare. You don’t need to know everything about the stimulus. Just find 2 or 3 things – hard facts – you can point to and credibly say – these are wrong, wasteful spending items. Or, these items grow government, not the economy. It is critical.

4. Pass out talking points, just in case Joe or Jane Protestor gets buttonholed by a reporter.

5. This is all about image. If we don’t present the media with a professional, organized and, unfortunately, scripted image, they are going to make their own, and it won’t be favorable.

6. Recruit some help to pack the area around people being interviewed for background. God love the guy in the crazy Uncle Sam suit, and we certainly need the Minute Men, but these folks will quickly become THE story because they are colorful or controversial i.e., Good TV. Welcome their support. Maybe give them a minute on the mic. But I recommend trying to pack in mainstream, boring looking, and diverse Americans around the camera. No offense to anyone. Anytime a TV camera comes out, a certain number and type of attention seeker will flock to it. Now is the time for Grandma and Grandpa, the Plumber, the Young Executive, and the Homeschooling Mom to flock to the camera as background. Don’t be shy. Remember, how do you want your cause to be presented by the media? As crazies? Or as Concerned Neighbors?

7. Have an Agenda and a Time. We’re going to Assemble at this Time. We’re going to have a Sign-In Table. We’re going to have a Sign-Making Area. We’re going to have speakers at 10:30. We’re going to March to the Senator’s Office at this time and demand she resign. We’re going to end with Chants, and a Call-to-Action for the next Protest. That, and Protestors want to know what’s going on. If they become unsure, they leave. Organization wins, and it also intimidates the opposition. And the opposition is going to start showing up.

8. Share the Day’s Agenda with the Media. You have to create your own press. The event in Overland Park was HUGE, but only one news station came out to cover it, and there’s not even a photo in today’s Sunday paper. Sell it to them. They love good stories.

That’s it. I hope this helpful. These things are only going to get bigger, and people need to realize that a great responsibility comes with this wonderful opportunity. Get a Message. And Get It Out.

Glenn Adds…

9. Be sure to have a signup sheet where people can put their emails and other contact information for future events.

10. Consider printing up some postcards addressed to your local Representative and Senators. They should say that they’re from the Tea Party protest, and carry a message of fiscal discipline. Get people to sign them, and solicit donations for postage, then mail them. Local mail from real constituents makes an impression.

11. Encourage them to contact local media after the event, and either compliment them on their coverage, or politely criticize it, as appropriate. [hand out their phone numbers on the info you hand out to call the next day – Editor].

12.  Tea Party organizers should keep separate email lists for those who merely want to be notified of upcoming events and those who want to receive the daily blast of organization news, interviews, etc. I joined one such list in an effort to be made aware of upcoming area events but quickly unsubscribed when I immediately started receiving multiple emails every day.

Posted in Chuck Norton, True Talking Points | 5 Comments »