Erick Erickson's Blog, page 62
March 8, 2012
What is 'Winning Our Future' PAC Doing With Sheldon Adelson's Money? [Updated]
[Updated] Apologies to Rick Tyler of Winning Our Future, who has expressed his displeasure with this post to me on twitter, pointing out as well that some of his ad buys have been here at RedState. Online advertising hasn't been my concern below as I'm sure it is geotargetted, etc.
As to the television and radio advertising, a friend familiar with the ad buying of the super PAC tells me that in some cases the ads were purchased late and most air time had been filled up. Consequently, the ads were bought as a package that spread them out, though unfortunately those bundles necessitated some ads continuing to play after the primaries in the particular states had ended. Additionally, as I originally mentioned, some of the ads are national ad buys which appear on the national network, be they television or radio.
The original post is now below the fold.
Is 'Winning Our Future', the Super PAC affiliated with Newt Gingrich and mostly funded by Sheldon Adelson using Mr. Adelson's money wisely?
I only ask because yesterday — the day after Super Tuesday — I was still hearing their not very good advertisements on radio in Georgia.
I noted that on twitter and subsequently had individuals tell me that the PAC is still running ads in Florida, Michigan, and even in Iowa. A radio host in South Florida confirmed for me he has heard the ads there recently. Most troubling, several Virginia residents tell me the PAC ran ads there despite Gingrich not being on the ballot.
All of this, I should be clear, comes in from reports on twitter except for the recent report from Florida and my own experience in Georgia after the election.
One might presume that the advertisements in Georgia and Florida were actually targeting Alabama, except Atlanta radio does not penetrate Alabama, nor does radio from Southern Florida where the ads have been heard on the radio. Additionally, some of them could be national ad buys running on national shows, but not all of them are. Finally, I'm sure a few could be ads bought in a block and the days spilled past the election. That is sometimes cheaper than specific date purchases. But still, it makes little sense that Iowa, Virginia, and South Florida are still hearing ads. If they are national ads, I would question if the shotgun approach is the right approach.
As I noted just a day before the Florida primary, the super PAC was attacking Mitt Romney in South Florida about abortion — not a relevant topic to voters in that area in that primary.
The PAC otherwise has had a minimal presence, though is now airing commercials on Rush Limbaugh's program (which would account for some, but not all, of the reports of ads in odd places). But I am beginning to wonder if there is an actual strategy or do they just need a new ad buyer. If they need a new ad buyer, what sort of commissions are being paid with the PAC money?
What is 'Winning Our Future' PAC Doing With Sheldon Adelson's Money?
Is 'Winning Our Future', the Super PAC affiliated with Newt Gingrich and mostly funded by Sheldon Adelson using Mr. Adelson's money wisely?
I only ask because yesterday — the day after Super Tuesday — I was still hearing their not very good advertisements on radio in Georgia.
I noted that on twitter and subsequently had individuals tell me that the PAC is still running ads in Florida, Michigan, and even in Iowa. A radio host in South Florida confirmed for me he has heard the ads there recently. Most troubling, several Virginia residents tell me the PAC ran ads there despite Gingrich not being on the ballot.
All of this, I should be clear, comes in from reports on twitter except for the recent report from Florida and my own experience in Georgia after the election.
One might presume that the advertisements in Georgia and Florida were actually targeting Alabama, except Atlanta radio does not penetrate Alabama, nor does radio from Southern Florida where the ads have been heard on the radio. Additionally, some of them could be national ad buys running on national shows, but not all of them are. Finally, I'm sure a few could be ads bought in a block and the days spilled past the election. That is sometimes cheaper than specific date purchases. But still, it makes little sense that Iowa, Virginia, and South Florida are still hearing ads. If they are national ads, I would question if the shotgun approach is the right approach.
As I noted just a day before the Florida primary, the super PAC was attacking Mitt Romney in South Florida about abortion — not a relevant topic to voters in that area in that primary.
The PAC otherwise has had a minimal presence, though is now airing commercials on Rush Limbaugh's program (which would account for some, but not all, of the reports of ads in odd places). But I am beginning to wonder if there is an actual strategy or do they just need a new ad buyer. If they need a new ad buyer, what sort of commissions are being paid with the PAC money?
Morning Briefing for March 8, 2012
RedState Morning Briefing
March 6, 2012
Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
1. Super Tuesday By The Numbers
2. What is 'Winning Our Future' PAC Doing With Sheldon Adelson's Money?
3. Judge David Flanagan linked to Scott Walker recall. Twice.
4. Lots of Taxpayer Green Going to Greens
5. Senate Republicans and Boehner Unite Against Conservatives
———————————————————————-
1. Super Tuesday By The Numbers
The voting is over, and so for the most part is the counting. The delegate math, I leave to others; let's take a look at how the popular vote has shaped up over the course of this primary season and what conclusions we can draw. First, the overall popular vote before Super Tuesday, on Super Tuesday, and to date.* In addition to listing the candidates' individual vote totals, I've classified them in three groups: the five conservative candidates (Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain), the two moderate candidates (Romney and Hunstman) and the libertarian (Paul). While there will undoubtedly be some grousing over the use of those labels, I think it's uncontroversial to note that Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain all built their campaigns around appealing first to the conservative wing of the party and reaching out from there, while Romney and Huntsman took the opposite approach (and Paul, of course, is in his own category), so this turns out to be a reasonably useful descriptor of how the electorate has broken out between the voters responding to these different appeals. If anything, this overstates the moderate voting bloc, as Romney's "electability" argument, among other things (including religious loyalties among Mormon voters), has tended in exit polls to draw him some chunk of conservative support.
I. Popular Vote Totals To Date
Pre-3/6Votes
%
SuperTuesday
%
TOTAL
%
Romney
1,831,177
40.4%
1,404,594
38.1%
3,235,771
39.3%
Santorum
1,082,820
23.9%
996,305
27.0%
2,079,125
25.3%
Gingrich
982,341
21.7%
836,726
22.7%
1,819,067
22.1%
Paul
505,760
11.2%
419,499
11.4%
925,259
11.2%
Huntsman
52,872
1.2%
13,639
0.4%
66,511
0.8%
Perry
29,889
0.7%
13,929
0.4%
43,818
0.5%
Bachmann
14,339
0.3%
5,475
0.1%
19,814
0.2%
Cain
13,603
0.3%
0
0.0%
13,603
0.2%
Conservatives
2,122,992
46.8%
1,852,435
50.2%
3,975,427
48.3%
Moderates
1,884,049
41.5%
1,418,233
38.4%
3,302,282
40.1%
Libertarians
505,760
11.2%
419,499
11.4%
925,259
11.2%
TOTAL
4,535,498
3,690,167
8,225,665
There are three obvious conclusions here. One, Romney is steadily outpolling any one of his individual rivals, cementing his frontrunner status. Two, his frontrunner status derives entirely from the division among his opponents: the conservatives have consistently outpolled the moderates. And three, despite winning his home state of Massachusetts by a 60-point, 220,000 vote margin on Super Tuesday and despite none of the conservatives being on the ballot in Virginia, Romney's not getting any stronger – even with Perry and Bachmann out of the race and Cain not drawing a single recorded vote, the conservatives drew a majority of the votes on Tuesday. Thus, as Romney pulls away in the delegate race and thus advances closer to being the nominee, he does so over the sustained objections of a near-majority faction of the party. More optimistically, the strength of the conservative vote – even in a year when that vote is fractured and underfunded and the remaining conservative candidates are decidedly subpar – bodes well for conservative candidates who can unify that vote in the future.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. What is 'Winning Our Future' PAC Doing With Sheldon Adelson's Money?
Is 'Winning Our Future', the Super PAC affiliated with Newt Gingrich and mostly funded by Sheldon Adelson using Mr. Adelson's money wisely?
I only ask because yesterday — the day after Super Tuesday — I was still hearing their not very good advertisements on radio in Georgia.
I noted that on twitter and subsequently had individuals tell me that the PAC is still running ads in Florida, Michigan, and even in Iowa. A radio host in South Florida confirmed for me he has heard the ads there recently. Most troubling, several Virginia residents tell me the PAC ran ads there despite Gingrich not being on the ballot.
All of this, I should be clear, comes in from reports on twitter except for the recent report from Florida and my own experience in Georgia after the election.
One might presume that the advertisements in Georgia and Florida were actually targeting Alabama, except Atlanta radio does not penetrate Alabama, nor does radio from Southern Florida where the ads have been heard on the radio. Additionally, some of them could be national ad buys running on national shows, but not all of them are.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. Judge David Flanagan linked to Scott Walker recall. Twice.
Quick background, as to why you should care: Judge Flanagan has placed a temporary (although you can count on the Democrats wanting to put that adjective in scare quotes, and right quickly) restraining order on last year's Wisconsin voter reform law mandating that voters show picture ID. There are a few "this just happens" involved, here:
This just happens to prevent Voter ID from being implemented in Wisconsin's open Presidential primary in April 3rd. Normally that wouldn't be all that big a deal, except that this year the Democrats are openly calling for disrupting the Republican nomination process.
This just happens to be a judge who last year signed a recall petition against Governor Scott Walker. And Flanagan neglected to admit to this event, prior to making his decision.
And this just happens to be a judge who has former Kathleen Falk (and current Wisconsin Education Association Council) adviser Melissa Mulliken as his campaign manager. This is important because Falk is of course running against Scott Walker in the recall election – and WEAC has preemptively endorsed Falk. Also, Mulliken has been prominent in the anti-Walker crusade.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. Lots of Taxpayer Green Going to Greens
Democrats have a penchant to misconstrue the parlance related to tax credits and subsidies. They refer to subsidies as tax cuts and tax cuts as subsidies. They would have you believe that oil companies are completely on the dole, while solar and wind companies are heavily taxed entities in desperate need of some "tax breaks" and loans in order to alleviate the burden of producing their auspicious form of energy.
Yesterday, CBO released a report stating the obvious. They found that in 2011, federal subsidies for green energy totaled $24 billion. Also, between 2009 and 2012, the DOE provided $25 billion in loans "primarily to producers of advanced vehicles, generators of solar power, and manufacturers of solar equipment." Fossil fuels, on the other hand, received $3.4 billion in "tax preferences."
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. Senate Republicans and Boehner Unite Against Conservatives
Who needs Democrats when so many Republicans are willing to orchestrate their agenda for them?
The Senate is on the precipice of passing Barbara Boxer's highway bill with overwhelming support. Mitch McConnell is negotiating a deal with Harry Reid in which Republicans would be granted a vote on some of their choice non-germane amendments. After Democrats summarily defeat those amendments, Republicans will return the favor by voting for the underlying bill, which overspends its revenue source by 43% and raises taxes to bridge the gap.
The sad thing is that S. 1813 is not just Boxer's highway bill. It was supported by every Republican on the committee level, and only 9 Republicans voted against cloture to proceed with the bill on the floor.
March 7, 2012
The Nominee
Many political analysts compare 2012′s Republican Presidential cycle to the Democrats' go of it in 2008. Barack Obama deployed a delegate strategy while Hillary Clinton went for big state wins. It worked to Barack Obama's favor. This year, it works for Romney.
Both took a while and had some ups and downs, but ultimately Barack Obama prevailed. After Ohio came in tonight, it is clear Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee if Newt Gingrich stays in the race. Gingrich is now only serving as a spoiler to Santorum.
The big difference between 2008 and 2012 is that in 2008, David beat Goliath. The base of the party rallied to the David who took out the machine no one thought could be taken out. In 2012, Goliath is beating David and no one ever really cheers for Goliath.
Barring a rapid Gingrich exit from the race — he cannot win outright given the states remaining, including Texas — which would suddenly reset the Santorum coalition for a one on one match against Romney, Mitt Romney is the nominee. Frankly, even if Gingrich exits, Romney will still most likely be the nominee.
He will be the nominee having lost the South, Appalachia, evangelicals, conservatives, and blue collar voters. He will go into the general election deeply distrusted by his own base while having to woo independent voters. This is not a dazzling position to be in to beat an incumbent President.
Were I Mitt Romney I'd be wondering how I spent 5.5 times as much money as Rick Santorum and barely won Ohio. I'd be wondering who on my campaign staff gets fired first. Mitt Romney has been running since 2006, has the best organization, and the most money. He won his home state of Michigan by less than 3%. He won Ohio barely after pouring in money. A win is a win is a win. But with each Romney win, he comes away even more badly bruised.
The rest of March will be just as brutal. What a mess.
Morning Briefing for March 7, 2012
RedState Morning Briefing
For March 7, 2012
Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
1. The Nominee
2. Super Tuesday: Romney and Santorum Limp Along, Tea Party Claims First Scalp
3. Silencing the Right
4. Yet Another Obama Administration Aviation Security Failure
———————————————————————-
1. The Nominee
Many political analysts compare 2012?s Republican Presidential cycle to the Democrats' go of it in 2008. Barack Obama deployed a delegate strategy while Hillary Clinton went for big state wins. It worked to Barack Obama's favor. This year, it works for Romney.
Both took a while and had some ups and downs, but ultimately Barack Obama prevailed. After Ohio came in tonight, it is clear Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee if Newt Gingrich stays in the race. Gingrich is now only serving as a spoiler to Santorum.
The big difference between 2008 and 2012 is that in 2008, David beat Goliath. The base of the party rallied to the David who took out the machine no one thought could be taken out. In 2012, Goliath is beating David and no one ever really cheers for Goliath.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. Super Tuesday: Romney and Santorum Limp Along, Tea Party Claims First Scalp
Romney wins OH, VA, MA, VT, and ID; Gingrich wins GA; Santorum wins OK, TN, and ND. Alaska is still pending.
According to exit polls, 50% of Massachusetts voters feel that Romneycare went too far.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. Silencing the Right
Last week, Rush Limbaugh suggested Sandra Fluke was a slut. The left immediately began calling for boycotts of his advertisers. He apologized on Saturday. Fluke refused to accept his apology claiming he did it under duress and the pressure has kept up.
It is organized and it has nothing to do with Limbaugh referring to Sandra Fluke as the same thing Ed Schultz referred to Laura Ingraham as. It has to do with a well executed PR strategy to frame a debate on mandating Americans subsidize the sexual habits of women as a war on women by the GOP. The media, which leans left already on social issues, would much rather focus on Rush Limbaugh than on the left's PR strategy and Sandra Fluke's own testimony.
What is happening here is an organized campaign by the left to shut down opposing views from the right. Much of this has to do with the right's overall success in the past several decades. As more Americans consider themselves pro-life, even California constitutionally banned gay marriage, and most Americans agree with the right on mandates and global warming, the left has resorted to a new tactic — dialing up the outrage to shut up the right.
Many on the left and right, myself included, have said things we should not have said. The difference is that the left seizes on the statements made by the right as excuses to demand they never be heard from again and are unqualified to speak on any topic. They harass advertisers. They harass networks. They harass the conservative who said what it was as well. Any unforced error is seized to shut down the right in a way that does not apply to the left. If at first they are not successful, they will work to compound the story, manufacture outrage, and seize on statements and twist words to build a case against the conservative in question that they should be shut up and turned off.
Rarely do people on the right operate in the same aggressive way against the left.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. Yet Another Obama Administration Aviation Security Failure
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has failed us again. Her hostility to allowing pilots to be armed against terrorists is going to make our nation less safe. On Monday, Napolitano's vision for a "risk based" security system failed to keep a box cutter off a commercial aircraft in Houston.
Secretary Napolitano said recently at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing that she is proposing a 50% cut in funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer's program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program, because "the program is not risk based." Yet her Transportation Security Administration failed to detect a box cutter that ended up on a flight in Houston, Texas this past Monday. This is further evidence that President Obama's and Secretary Napolitano's plan to terminate the FFDO program is an aviation security mistake.
March 6, 2012
I Voted for Rick Perry
I wasn't going to vote at all. But then all sorts of people, including Donna Brazile and Sean Hannity, started in on me about my "civic obligation." Frankly, I wish less people voted. But nonetheless, I voted. I was the only person in my precinct in the middle of a city that usually sees steady turn out.
No one in Georgia seems to want to vote except the die hard supporters of the various candidates.
I did not want to vote for Romney. But I did not want to vote for Santorum or Gingrich or Paul. Choosing between them has been like choosing the tallest midget. I have been left uninspired for various reasons by each.
So I went with Rick Perry. Consider it a protest vote. But at least, unlike many, I went with who I liked as opposed to voting for someone to be against someone else or some other strategic pattern of voting.
What a mess this primary season is. At least soon we'll be able to focus on Barack Obama instead of the hand we've dealt ourselves this primary season.
Silencing the Right
Last week, Rush Limbaugh suggested Sandra Fluke was a slut. The left immediately began calling for boycotts of his advertisers. He apologized on Saturday. Fluke refused to accept his apology claiming he did it under duress and the pressure has kept up.
It is organized and it has nothing to do with Limbaugh referring to Sandra Fluke as the same thing Ed Schultz referred to Laura Ingraham as. It has to do with a well executed PR strategy to frame a debate on mandating Americans subsidize the sexual habits of women as a war on women by the GOP. The media, which leans left already on social issues, would much rather focus on Rush Limbaugh than on the left's PR strategy and Sandra Fluke's own testimony.
What is happening here is an organized campaign by the left to shut down opposing views from the right. Much of this has to do with the right's overall success in the past several decades. As more Americans consider themselves pro-life, even California constitutionally banned gay marriage, and most Americans agree with the right on mandates and global warming, the left has resorted to a new tactic — dialing up the outrage to shut up the right.
Many on the left and right, myself included, have said things we should not have said. The difference is that the left seizes on the statements made by the right as excuses to demand they never be heard from again and are unqualified to speak on any topic. They harass advertisers. They harass networks. They harass the conservative who said what it was as well. Any unforced error is seized to shut down the right in a way that does not apply to the left. If at first they are not successful, they will work to compound the story, manufacture outrage, and seize on statements and twist words to build a case against the conservative in question that they should be shut up and turned off.
Rarely do people on the right operate in the same aggressive way against the left.
Likewise, typically the right is willing to say their colleague should not have said what was said, but the left rarely speaks out as loudly about their own. The right more often apologizes for its own and more often the media expects the right to apologize for its own in a way that is not expected of the left.
It is a double standard and if the right does not do a better job of fighting fire with fire, the left will be emboldened to keep it up. Feminist groups, left wing blogs, unions, and community organizing groups stick together on these issues speaking with one voice to silence the right.
Free market groups, pro-life groups, and right-wing blogs rarely unite in such fashion. "It's not our issue," some of them will say. On the left, it is their shared issue. The gay rights group that feels insulted by Kirk Cameron speaking frankly about marriage will be joined by the feminists, the unions, etc. The social conservative group offended by Bill Maher probably won't see free market groups rallying to the cause.
Because of it, both the free marketers and the pro-lifers should expect more and more attempts to get them both shut up. The left will unite and exploit divisions on the right.
Consider Richard Cohen today at the Washington Post. He "can find nothing of value" in Andrew Breitbart's life in his column celebrating Breitbart's death. Had a conservative said the same about someone on the left, there'd be a campaign today to get them driven from the Washington Post.
Consider Mike Malloy. On Friday, Malloy mocked Christians who were killed by tornadoes. Arguably few people pay attention to Malloy because he sucks as a radio host. I should know. I sit behind the microphone where he got his start. My ratings are better than his ever were. Nonetheless, Malloy has advertisers for his show. He has a poorly syndicated show. The left loves him. Why isn't the right uniting to go after him? The Governors of Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, and Oklahoma should be in on the game today calling his affiliates, his advertisers, etc. to take him off the air.
Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin as a "dumb tw*t." He has no advertisers, but only days later was parading around other television shows. He still does. Every time he appears on another network, the right should raise holy hell about it. He followed up that remark, by the way, by calling Palin a "c*nt" a week later. Still, in a way the media would never celebrate Rush Limbaugh, he's heralded as some funny comedian for whom everyone rolls out the red carpet.
Montel Williams has a syndicated television show. On radio he said he hoped Michelle Bachmann would slit her wrists. Why is the right not protesting the Partnership for Prescription Assistance. He is their national spokesman.
We need not even get into Keith Olbermann and all the things he has said. He still has a show.
Whether it is supporting traditional marriage (don't you dare refer to it as "normal"), opposing gay rights, offering alternatives to global warming, or generally championing conservatism, the left hasn't been doing as well as they'd like so they have decided competing ideas can no longer be tolerated. Tolerance is only a virtue for their views.
Many of us, myself included, have made an unforced error. We should be charitable. Mistakes happen. Dumb things are said. I know it from my own life. I know it from the lives of friends and even opponents. Unfortunately, as the left has been losing the hearts and minds of the public, they've become less and less likely to give any pass, accept any apology, or turn any blind eye to the right. It is an ugly time in American politics because of the decline of charitable hearts between opponents. But it is also reality.
The left has united in this. It may not be one group's cause, but that group will go all in with the others. The right will not do it. And because of that, the right will lose unless they change.
Morning Briefing for March 6, 2012
RedState Morning Briefing
March 6, 2012
Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
1. Will Republicans Vote to Raise the Debt Limit for the Fannie Mae of Corporate Welfare?
2. Mitt Romney, The Unconvincing Convert
3. Obama throws… all non-Obama Democrats… under the fundraising bus.
4. Limbaugh, Fluke, 'War on Women' and the Travesty of Cravenly Caving to Lies of the Left
5. Republican Senators Selling Out on Obama/Boxer/Inhofe Stimulus
———————————————————————-
1. Will Republicans Vote to Raise the Debt Limit for the Fannie Mae of Corporate Welfare?
The Export-Import Bank is a federal agency whose sole reason for existence is to use your tax dollars to subsidize sales of American manufactured goods to foreign buyers. It is nothing short of corporate welfare, and its business model (providing loans and loan guarantees at below market rates) is virtually identical to that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Almost half of all Ex-Im loans wind up lining the pockets of just one company: Boeing. General Electric is another top beneficiary. That's right. Your tax dollars are underwriting a profitable company that didn't pay any federal income tax in 2010 and whose CEO is Obama's chief spokesman for more stimulus.
And if these loans go bad, your tax dollars are legally obligated to bail them out. It also has the perverse result of actually costing U.S. jobs.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. Mitt Romney, The Unconvincing Convert
It can be difficult to summarize in one place all of Mitt Romney's problems as a candidate and as a potential President. I have tried; I wrote, back in 2007, a series so lengthy on Romney's flaws (some 15,000 words, Part I, II, III, IV & V) that I can't possibly hope to rewrite the whole thing now, and explained why I preferred McCain to Romney. More recently I focused on the dangers of backing Romney to the integrity of his supporters, the conservative movement's need to maintain its independence from Romney, and the problems with Romney's technocratic approach. Let me try to zero in on four of his problems here: the unconvincing nature of his political conversion, the hazards of becoming enamored with candidates whose primary rationale for running is their money, the unprecedented difficulty of winning with a moderate Republican who lacks significant national security credentials as a war hero or other prominent foreign policy figure, and Romney's vulnerability arising from his dependence on his biography.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. Obama throws… all non-Obama Democrats… under the fundraising bus.
I had not realized that things were this bad for the Obama administration:
"Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee — a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010.
"But that's not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks."
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. Limbaugh, Fluke, 'War on Women' and the Travesty of Cravenly Caving to Lies of the Left
I learned something this weekend. Evidently, using the word slut is far more egregious than peeing on the Constitution and on personal and religious liberty. And being equated to a slut due to demanding that others pay for your personal sexual choices is more egregious than actually being a thirty year old perpetual student leech, spouting outright lies. Because, entitled. I had another teachable moment as well: the GOP has yet to realize what a travesty it is to cravenly cave to lefty false narratives, unbelievably giving them credence. I realized that I am very concerned about the lack of testicles (is there a mandate to cover a pill for that?) in the GOP. But, hey, us dames will handle it with our huge sets of brass ovaries. I'll start, as I'm a giver.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. Republican Senators Selling Out on Obama/Boxer/Inhofe Stimulus
Folks, it's not the amendments we should be focused on; it's the underlying bill that we must block.
Yes, it's another week in D.C., and that means it's another week of work on the highway bill. Throughout the past two weeks, there have been copious pages of ink spilled pontificating about the ramifications of the Blunt amendment and religious conscious issues. Moreover, the Capitol Hill papers are filled with news about Republican Senators protesting Harry Reid's "filling the amendment tree," blocking their precious non-germane amendments from being considered on the Senate floor. However, through it all, we are forgetting about the underlying bill; the tax and spend highway bill (S. 1813).
March 5, 2012
Will Republicans Vote to Raise the Debt Limit for the Fannie Mae of Corporate Welfare?
The Export-Import Bank is a federal agency whose sole reason for existence is to use your tax dollars to subsidize sales of American manufactured goods to foreign buyers. It is nothing short of corporate welfare, and its business model (providing loans and loan guarantees at below market rates) is virtually identical to that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Almost half of all Ex-Im loans wind up lining the pockets of just one company: Boeing. General Electric is another top beneficiary. That's right. Your tax dollars are underwriting a profitable company that didn't pay any federal income tax in 2010 and whose CEO is Obama's chief spokesman for more stimulus.
And if these loans go bad, your tax dollars are legally obligated to bail them out. It also has the perverse result of actually costing U.S. jobs.
The bigger issue is that the bank by its nature helps some companies at the expense of others. ExIm, for instance, helped its biggest client—Boeing—win airplane contracts in 2011 from Air China, Air India, Cathay Pacific and others. That's great for Boeing, which accounted for 45.6%, or $40.7 billion, of ExIm's total exposure in fiscal 2011.
But this subsidy means that foreign airlines can then buy newer aircraft more cheaply than their U.S. competitors. This gives them an advantage in the global air transportation market. In a letter to Congress last month, Delta estimated that ExIm cost the U.S. airline industry up to 7,500 jobs and $684 million a year.
House Republican leaders have a golden opportunity to stand up for free enterprise, say no to bailouts, and peg Obama as a defender of corporate cronyism. All they have to do is sit on their hands until May 31, when Ex-Im's legal charter expires.
But that would be smart, and we're talking about members of the Stupid Party who are in thrall to lobbyists for Big Business.
So not only are House Republicans about to renew the charter for the Fannie Mae of Corporate Welfare, they're planning to raise its debt limit from $100 billion to $160 billion!
Smart Washington insiders say there's no chance taxpayers will ever have to bailout these loans. These are the same smart people who told us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime either, right up until the day they imploded.
We need to kill the Export-Import Bank once and for all. The vote is supposed to come sometime this month. Tell your member of Congress that you're tired of bailing out their corporate cronies. Click here for easy access to your Congressman and make your voice heard.
We Are at War. Is the Media Scared to Really Cover It?
Journalists are much more tolerant of attacks on Christianity than Islam. It is a fact.
ABC is airing a television show called "Good Christian Bitches." Never mind the outrage over the recent Sandra Fluke business, but there is a double standard. And let's not fool ourselves as the media would never tolerate a story where "Muslim" was substituted for "Christian" in that show.
The media's present politically correct excuse is that Islam binds certain minority group's cultures in a way Christianity does not. First, that is crap and speaks of a secular ignorance about many Christian communities even in this country. Second, it is an excuse so the media does not have to admit it is scared of muslims. You'll see a news story about Christ in a jar of urine, but don't ever expect to see a cartoon of Mohammed on the nightly news. The reporter doesn't want to get murdered.
I am starting to wonder if the same holds true in the present war our country finds itself in that too few reporters are really brave enough to cover. We are at war on our southern border with Mexico and the press is really not doing justice to coverage of the war.
The latest story points out just how much of a war it is and just how badly our government and Mexico are handling themselves.
A Mexican drug leader. Oscar "El Apache" Castillo Flores, was released by the United States back to Mexico and immediately set about reacquiring power and killing people. He eventually is gunned down himself. His death happened this past week.
In September of 2011, Oscar's brother Omar was gunned down in Texas. About the same time, someone kidnapped his wife from a Walmart in Brownsville, TX. These events rarely make national headlines.
More and more, the Mexican drug war is spilling over into the United States. American citizens are getting killed. Border agents are getting killed. Random citizens are being kidnapped. Mexico is less and less safe.
And the media rarely reports the extent of the violence or that it is spilling over into the United States. These are not acts of crime so much as acts of terror. They are escalating. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a plan to help Mexico in this war.
Look again at the article. It has no author. Why? Because the reporter is in danger of losing his life. He must be kept anonymous. But this local reporter is willing to report and keep reporting. It is not something national reporters have yet started doing. I wonder if they are scared or just do not get how bad it is and will become.
The only other very obvious explanation is that this war does not fit into some sort of media narrative to make it newsworthy. It's Mexicans killing Mexicans and the occasional Texan. Surely that's not why the media is ignoring it. Do they not care about Mexicans and Texans?
Erick Erickson's Blog
- Erick Erickson's profile
- 12 followers
