Posted on 09/21/2010 4:03:30 AM PDT by lancer256
My immediate response to liberals who emerge from their Ouija boards to denounce Christine O'Donnell as a one-time dabbler in witchcraft is: At this point in our history, I'd vote for Elmira Gulch before I'd vote for another statist masquerading as a Republican.
The fact that O'Donnell might have done some things in her past she's not particularly proud of would make her fairly normal. I'm more concerned with where she is now, and she seems like a reliable Christian conservative with her head on straight about both religion and politics. In her television appearances, she's been quite impressive -- energetic, articulate and right on the issues.
But Christine O'Donnell isn't really the issue here. The more interesting and relevant stories arising out of her primary victory are: 1) the liberals' efforts to paint her -- along with other mainstream conservatives, including the entire tea party movement -- as extreme and, frankly, a bit wacko when the real extremism resides in the Democratic Party; 2) the liberals' efforts to fabricate a major schism in the GOP when, in fact, the real dissension of consequence is occurring in their own Democratic Party; and 3) establishment Republicans disgruntled over their inability to control the selection of candidates going forward, their apparent anxiety about the entire tea party phenomenon as rocking their world, and their resulting collusion with the liberal establishment to discredit the upstarts, who are beyond their power to manage and manipulate.
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlimbaugh.com ...
And then there are the "church lady" conservatives all too eager to eat their own for the silliest infractions the media can dredge up. Then they give the democrats a pass because, well, what else do you expect from them?
It would be funny if it were not so destructive.
Good one!
The flak is always the heaviest over the target!
Nation digging in against big government
September 21, 2010
BY STEVE HUNTLEY
The more Americans see of the Obama administration’s big-government programs, the less they find to like.
Consider a couple of revelations about the $862 billion stimulus act. In Los Angeles, two departments got $111 million in stimulus money and created just 55 jobs, according to the city controller. Government red tape was blamed for keeping the departments from creating jobs more quickly.
One of the knocks on the “recovery” act has been that it was written to benefit government agencies, employees and private firms that aid them. Further evidence of that came in figures showing more than $3.7 billion in stimulus contracts, grants and loans have gone to the District of Columbia and two adjoining congressional districts. That adds up to nearly $2,000 for every resident, three times the national average, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal.
The more criticism President Obama’s policies face, the more extravagant the claims are made in support of them. Administration supporters routinely claim the stimulus saved or created 1.4 million to 3 million jobs, despite the unemployment rate hovering at 9.6 percent — much higher than the 8 percent ceiling the act was supposed to put on joblessness.
Now former President Bill Clinton has upped the ante. In an interview on “Meet the Press,” Clinton asserted that without stimulus the bill, the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at zero and the government “saving the financial system” — presumably meaning the bank bailout — “eight and a half million more people would be unemployed.”
EXCERPT:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/2730516,CST-EDT-HUNT21.article#
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.