Adam Andrzejewski: Shamelessly promoting what didn't happen
02/02/10
Having already disproved the idiocy that Glenn Beck endorsed Adam Andrzejewski or even "highlighted" his campaign, let us now turn our attention to the other "endorsement", or "feature", or "highlight", or whatever they want to call it that has Adam and his minions bursting at the seams: Rush Limbaugh.
If you go check out National Review, you'll probably see this web ad:
"The Scott Brown of Illinois" is a label that everyone is trying wear right now. And I'm sure there is one candidate that's being described that way. Maybe several. But it's not clear that Rush was actually speaking of Adam.
Like the aforementioned Beck incident, this, too, just. didn't. happen. At least not nearly the way Adam's people are portraying it.
Listen to the audio of Rush that Adam's campaign (yes, this is how tone-deaf and delusional they are) provided yesterday:
Just as with Glenn Beck, Rush is highlighting the comments Lech Walesa about America's declining role as a beacon of freedom in the world and diminished capacity as a military and economic power. Citing Adam was merely contextual.
As for the Scott Brown portion, my friend Blake Dvorak over at The Voting Booth is spot on:
Notice what Limbaugh actually says: "There's a particular candidate that's being described as the Scott Brown of his race." [Emphasis added.] Not to split hairs, but that's a bit different than Limbaugh saying "He is the Scott Brown of Illinois," as has been reported.
That's not splitting hairs in the slightest. That's a wholly accurate summation from Rush's comments. It's not even remotely clear that he's speaking of Adam, and frankly, if you've been following the IL races, it's much more likely that he's speaking of Pat Hughes bid for the US Senate against Mark Kirk. And if Rush did mean Adam, since he'd just mentioned his name — well, mispronounced it — and played audio from an event where Walesa endorsed Adam, then why not state it specifically rather than cloak it in secrecy? It's not like Rush is usually shy with what he means.
For Adam and his fact-immune acolytes to even be running this ad using Limbaugh's likeness just further demonstrates my summation stated in my earlier exposition about the supposed "feature" on the Glenn Beck Program as accurate — They are completely feckless and utterly shameless.
permalink, comment or share this
Glenn Beck endorsed Adam "What's His Face"? Don't think so...
02/02/10
Yesterday, Adam Andrzejewski's campaign was boasing an "endorsement" from Rush Limbaugh (which wasn't really an endorsement), as well as Adam's campaign being "featured" by Glenn Beck. I guess that's true if by "featured" you mean "not discussed at all, and not even named". Jumping on the bandwaggon of the Washington Times and the American Spectator, Adam's fact-immune acolytes were all a-Twitter over it, calling it an "endorsement". Anyone who actually listens to the Glenn Beck Program would be mightily confused, as Beck didn't even mention his name, let alone talk about the GOP race for governor in Illinois. Put simply, it just didn't happen.
Today, Beck cleared it up:
I know the Adam's people are completely feckless and shameless in supporting a candidate whose promise is to rule by executive fiat, but perhaps it's not smart to claim to things that are this easily disproved.
(Disclosure, as if you didn't know: I work on Dan Proft's campaign, where we don't boast endorsements that didn't happen.)
permalink, comment or share this
And now, Obama bows to...
02/01/10
... Pam Iorio, the mayor of Tampa Bay, FL
Don't get me wrong, I love Tampa. I'm going there this upcoming weekend. I was heretofore unaware not only of the necessity of American Presidents to bow to foreign heads of state (because it's not necessary and it's an outrage), but of the need to bow to ... American mayors.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this guy?
Perhaps he can consider bowing to the will of the American people. The will against his current agenda.
permalink, comment or share this
Who says you can't learn something from rap?
02/01/10
Rap... meet economics...
The world will never be the same again.
permalink, comment or share this
New Rasmussen poll: It's Obama vs. you
01/29/10
New polling numbers from Rasmussen show an America very much at odds with President Obama's agenda, both as has existed for his first year in office, and as was re-laid out for all of us stupid people who just didn't hear enough of his speeches to make us realize his infallibility:
Fifty-three percent (53%) of likely voters now believe that decreasing the level of government spending will help the U.S. economy. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 24% of voters think that cutting federal spending will hurt the economy. Eleven percent (11%) say it will have no impact, and another 11% aren’t sure.
By a margin of more than 2 to 1, people believe that cutting government spending will improve the economy. That's a pretty staggering figure, especially coming off all the spending in the last decade, and especially in the last year.
But wait, there's more:
To help the economy, 61% say cutting taxes is the way to go, the highest level of support since May. Just 16% now say tax cuts will hurt the economy, and 14% say they will have no impact.
A 4 to 1 margin favor cutting taxes. Still more...
With a lingering 10 percent national unemployment rate, 59% of voters believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool. But 72% expect the president and Congress to increase government spending instead.
If track record is any harbinger of the future, there's good reason for 72% of people to believe that Obama and the Congress will continue spend in a manner that would make drunken sailors ashamed. And when you actually do the math on Obama's proposed "spending freeze", the supposed money we'll be saving through that amounts to .58% of the FY2011 budget. That's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who passed remedial math.
Even more from Rasmussen:
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of voters say increasing government spending will help the overall economy, but 52% disagree and say it will hurt the economy. Ten percent (10%) say increased government spending will have no impact. These numbers have been fairly consistent for months.
Take that, John Meynard Keynes. And, still more...
Similarly, 20 percent (20%) of voters think tax increases are a good way to help the economy. Sixty percent (60%) of voters think tax increases will hurt the economy, a belief that has been growing in recent months. But again 10% say they will have no impact.
Fifty percent (50%) now say they would vote for a candidate who opposes all tax increases while 36% prefer a candidate who would raise taxes only on the rich. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.
Three times as many people believe tax cuts will hurt the economy than believe they will help it. And for all of that class warfare rhetoric from the left, a tax-the-rich-only guy garners a whopping 36% as compared to the 50% that want a candidate categorically opposed to raising taxes.
One more tidbit:
Most Republicans (70%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (50%) believe a decrease in government spending is good for the economy. Democrats are more closely divided on the question. In part, that’s because while 80% of Republicans and 58% of unaffiliateds say tax cuts help the economy, just 46% of Democrats agree.
Behold Obama's biggest problem: the flight of the independents and the splitting of the Democrat Party.
You heard in Obama's State of the Union that he's sticking to his guns on his far-left, statist agenda.
Obama's message to all the people highlighted by the stats in this poll: "Kiss off. I know better than you."
permalink, comment or share this
The best summation of "high speed rail" that I've heard yet
01/29/10
"This isn't smart public policy, this is a 'Simpsons' episode"...
This is more accurate than you know. They say "high speed" and you immediately think of Japanese bullet trains. Except that's not even remotely what we're talking about. This "high speed" rail means about 30mph faster than Amtrak. All at the cost of about $1.3 billion that, considering our $14 trillion national debt, we just don't have.
It's a pipe dream and a boondoggle. An unforgivable waste of money.
permalink, comment or share this
UPDATED x 3: Join me for "Which Obama will it be?!?"
01/27/10
Tonight's President Obama's first State of the Union address. It's also his third address to a join session of Congress, so it feels like we've been here before. But, you know, his political problems are totally because he hasn't been communicating enough. Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket.
Will it be conciliatory Obama? Center-tracking Obama? Clintonian "I raised your taxes too much" Obama? I expect that about as much as I expect him to arrive at the Capitol on the back of a unicorn. But, as the Zen Master said, "we'll see...".
Tonight at 8pm CST, when Obama takes to the podium and fires up the TOTUS, join me for a live blogging of what will surely be ... a speech.
UPDATE: Your obligatory SOTU drinking game, courtesy of the Huffington Post. (God help me, I'm linking to the Huffington Post...)
UPDATE 2: Obama SOTU Bingo from American's from Tax Reform
UPDATE 3: More drinking game suggestions courtesy of NRO's Jonah Goldberg
permalink, comment or share this
Obama hints at change he's unlikley to make
01/27/10
Continuing his "there's no much thing as too much exposure" tour, President Obama kinda-sorta-almost fessed up to screwing up health care "reform" on ABC:
“We had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right,” Obama told ABC’s Diane Sawyer Monday. “But I had campaigned on process—part of what I had campaigned on was changing how Washington works, opening up, transparency. ...The health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters that we just don't know what's going on. And it's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals.”
What is conspicuously absent from his assessment was whether or not they actually got the policy right. Remember, he was originally pushing for a public option and, really, a much different vision from either the House or Senate bills. But notice that while he acknowledges it was "ugly", at no point did he attempt to, ya know, lead and push publicly to purge the ugliness from this system.
More...
“The process didn't run the way I ideally would like it to and that we have to move forward in a way that recaptures that sense of opening things up more,” Obama said.
Do you mean starting over? I have a hard time believing that he's going to move this way. I fully expect him to double down tonight in the SOTU. I don't think he wants to have to admit to losing an entire year.
Still, more...
“Let's just clarify. I didn't make a bunch of deals,” Obama told ABC. “There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked.”
This is a really awful job of deferring blame. You're offended by the process? You're bothered by the backroom deals? So why not stand up against them? Is it just because it's more important to get the structure of this government take over of health care passed, no matter how it happens?
So, apparently he's offended by it, but just not offended enough to actually do something about it.
permalink, comment or share this
You're so vain, you probably think "We the people" is about you...
01/27/10
Ladies and gentlemen: Our narcissist-in-chief...
There isn't a doubt in my mind that tonight's State of the Union will be aproximately this self-referential. After all, he's already (allegedly) claimed that the difference in the "health care reform" battle now as compared to 1994 is ... well, Obama.
Of course, that'll be in between the gratuitous blaming of Bush and Cheney. Can't deny a guy his formula, now matter how much it's failed.
permalink, comment or share this
We choose to go to the Moon... or not...
01/27/10
Since he uttered the famous words promising to put a man on the moon before the end of the century, the left has been using the moon landing as a justification for, well, just about everything.
"If we can put a man on the moon, we can provide universal health care to everyone!"
"If we can put a man on the moon, we can end global warming!"
"If we can put a man on the moon, we can get people to listen to left-wing talk radio!"
Ok, some where obviously more far reaching claims than others.
But none the less, these non sequitur claims are regularly made as if our moon landing accomplishment has any bearing whatsoever on progressive domestic policy prescriptions. And it is always absent any consideration of the actual feasibility of the claim.
But now, it appears that Obama doesn't even think we can put a man on the moon anymore:
NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.
When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.
There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.
Alright then. So be it.
I could make the argument that if we really wanted to land another mission on the moon and save money, we should probably have private firms work on the project and end NASA's monopoly over this field. But I digress from this clarity...
Does this at least mean we can drop all the other proposterous totalitarian proposals supported by the historically inept "we put a man on the moon" rhetoric?