Do We Really Need To Make the Case Anymore?

Stemming from Mark’s excellent thread yesterday on Spending Reform, my question today is – do conservatives actually have to make the case anymore? In light of the spectacular current failure of the Obama brand of liberalism, my short answer would be no. Any objective analysis of the current state of the economy would lead one to the conclusion that Obama is a complete failure – gas prices, employment, GDP growth, taxes, poverty, welfare, health care, and consumer confidence ALL headed in the wrong direction. And now, Obama wants us all to believe that a slight reduction in the rate of growth will result in economic calamity, proving once again that he thinks we are all that stupid.

So what do you think? Do we press the case to the American voter? Or wait for them to coming running back to us? Sunday just seems to be a good day for an Open Thread, and I excel at Open Threads. What’s on your mind? And keep it civil.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:  As its kind of an open thread, I happened to spend some time over at Iowahawk’s twitter:

#SequestrationThreat drones dropping “IOU 1 Bomb” notes

#SequestrationThreat TSA agents only fondling one testicle

#SequestrationThreat Arts in our high schools will be cut, creating a dystopian nightmare future without high school art projects

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan:  Bobby Jindal tries out a couple 2016 talking points, “growing the private economy, not the government economy” and “You’ve seen the greed of Wall Street replaced with the greed of Washington, D.C.”


48 thoughts on “Do We Really Need To Make the Case Anymore?

  1. Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 11:28 am

    Any objective analysis of the current state of the economy would lead one to the conclusion that Obama is a complete failure – gas prices, employment, GDP growth, taxes, poverty, welfare, health care, and consumer confidence ALL headed in the wrong direction.

    And that isn’t a NEW phenomenon. One only has to consider the mood reflected in this CBS/New York Times poll just 3 weeks before the election to realize how effectively the Obama campaign distracted a majority of voters from their abysmal record and made them dislike and distrust Romney. I can remember thinking at the time, Romney’s got this in the bag; no incumbent president can survive economic data like this.

    A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that 89 percent of Americans believe that country is on the wrong track, a new all-time high surpassing the 83 percent who said the same earlier this year. Just seven percent of Americans in the poll said they felt the country was headed in the right direction, down from 14 percent in September. Solid majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents agreed that the nation is on the wrong track.

    I’m curious if anyone has seen a recent poll asking, specifically, people who voted for Obama if they regret their vote, and asking people who stayed home if they regret their choice.

    • M. Noonan February 24, 2013 / 7:26 pm


      I was confident of Romney victory until they called the Florida Senate race for the Democrat – if Romney was going to get elected President, his coat tails should have at least carried the GOPer to a very late call…when he didn’t, I knew we were in trouble. So, egg on my face: got it flat wrong. But I always saw the path to victory for Obama to be a replay of the 2002 path to Democrat victory in the California gubernatorial contest: slander opponent relentlessly and concentrate on small issues which have nothing to do with what is actually going on. Obama followed that blue print to the letter – I just didn’t think it would work on the national stage. Got that wrong – but part of getting it wrong turns out to have been some tactical mistakes on the part of Romney, clear now in hindsight but harder to spot during the campaign (most notably, in my view, not plunging in to blue areas of the country in the immediate aftermath of the first debate).

      Also, though, there was enough good economic news in the last six weeks to at least give those who doubted Romney an excuse for giving Obama four more years – the good news was, from top to bottom, all lies, but it was there…and it was official, and not enough people have yet learned to doubt government statistics, especially when the President is someone who is clearly willing to lie and manipulate his way in to power.

      All lessons learned for the future…

      • Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 7:34 pm

        All lessons learned for the future…

        One can hope. Three times in recent memory the Republicans put forth a comprehensive conservative message (Reagan in 1980, and the 1994 and 2010 Congressional mid-terms. All three times they won substantial victories, so they know what works and what doesn’t. The just don’t seem to be able to learn from either their successes or failures.

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2013 / 7:51 pm


        It is a tug of war, isn’t it? And even some of our best can get captured by the system once they are in DC. Long term, the solution for that is term limits and a large increase in the number of House members…get them closer to the people and in office for a shorter period of time.

      • Amazona February 24, 2013 / 11:52 pm

        Mark, you make a good point about increasing the number of Representatives and having reasonable term limits, but I would like to add that a stringent approach to Constitutional restraints on the size, scope and power of the federal government will by default shift more power to state and local governments, and this will divide power among all the states, distributing it and spreading it out so it is not concentrated in D.C.

  2. Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 11:37 am

    Do we press the case to the American voter? Or wait for them to coming running back to us?

    My guess is that, as things continue to deteriorate, the administration spin machine will paint this as the new normal and convince the low information voters, who now make up the majority, that things would be MUCH WORSE if Romney had been elected and Republicans had won the Senate. The agenda media will run interference for this strategy, and the Republicans will, in their typical inept way, be unable to counteract it.

    • Cluster February 24, 2013 / 11:52 am

      and the Republicans will, in their typical inept way, be unable to counteract it.

      That is a sad statement, but hard to disagree with. I think too many republicans have cowered to the bullies in the administration and in the media and are afraid to speak their mind out of fear of being labeled a racist who doesn’t care about minorities and children. This is fifth grade playground bullying tactics that the media and Obama engage in and sadly too many decent people allow it to happen. It is time to grow and backbone and chart another course.

      I do think that Obama has over played his hand on this sequester issue. He wants us to believe that economic chaos will ensue if we slow down the rate of growth of spending, despite the fact that we are still spending more than we did last year, and are spending over $1 trillion more than we did just four years ago. I think people are growing tired of this “crisis” Presidency.

      • neocon01 February 24, 2013 / 12:30 pm

        “crisis” Presidency.

        alinsky 101, he read the playbook.

    • GMB February 24, 2013 / 1:54 pm

      ” The agenda media will run interference for this strategy, and the Republicans will, in their typical inept way, be unable to counteract it.”


      “That is a sad statement, but hard to disagree with”


      I have to disagree with both statements. boehner, cantor, and mcconnell, aka the three stooges are just as vested in keeping the staus quo as the rats are. Their power depends on the ability to pass out OPM. End the OPM, none of them have the power they do now.

      They are just as guilty as barky for the shape this country is in.

      They are the ruling class and any action that perpetuates the continued existence should be stopped.

      Being just a little bit less progressive than the opposition is not going to cut it anymore.

      • Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 6:06 pm

        I have to disagree with both statements. boehner, cantor, and mcconnell, aka the three stooges are just as vested in keeping the staus quo as the rats are. Their power depends on the ability to pass out OPM. End the OPM, none of them have the power they do now.

        Point taken, GMB. I should have said, “unable or unwilling”.

  3. Cluster February 24, 2013 / 11:56 am

    How many of us have grown tired of the “balanced approach” meme? There is nothing that is balanced with the Obama regime. Including his personal mental capacity.

    • neocon01 February 24, 2013 / 12:28 pm

      Thanks again donks (commies)

      “Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

      Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
      card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

      An old Social Security card with the “NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION” message.

      Our Social Security
      Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
      Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

      1.) That participation in the Program would be
      Completely voluntary,

      No longer Voluntary

      2.) That the participants would only have to pay
      1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
      Incomes into the Program,

      Now 7.65%
      on the first $90,000

      3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

      No longer tax deductible

      4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

      Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

      5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
      as income.
      Under Clinton & Gore
      Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

      Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’
      — you may be interested in the following:

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-

      Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

      A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —

      Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

      A: The Democratic Party.

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–

      Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
      Security annuities?

      A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –

      Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

      A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

      ———— — ———— ——— —– ———— ——— ———

      Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

      And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve.”

    • M. Noonan February 24, 2013 / 7:46 pm


      True, for Obama “balanced approach” is a lie…but it is a lie which has now been embedded in the popular mind…whatever we do, it has to be balanced. And, of course, our accusation against the Democrats must be that their plans are unbalanced.

  4. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 24, 2013 / 12:27 pm

    Meanwhile, Americans continue to buy guns and ammo in record numbers.

    “We absolutely are in uncharted territory,” said Larry Hyatt, of the family-owned Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C.. “Our store is 53 years old, and we have never seen anything like this. We have had some spot shortages and busy gun times in the past. This is a level (of demand) never before seen.”

    He adds: “The political turmoil is intensifying it. People feel like this administration is very anti-gun, and they are going for the legal gun owner.” Among the rumors he hears, he says, are that taxes on ammunition are going up and that background checks for ammunition purchases are coming.

    “Whether true or not, this information is out there, and people are getting it while they can,” Hyatt says.

    And individual Americans aren’t the only ones buying record amounts of ammunition.

    Homeland Security and other government agencies have stocked up, buying more than 1.6 billion bullets (and counting) in recent months. That’s enough ammo for five bullets per head in the American population. The astounding purchase records are admitted fact, but the question is Why?

    • Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 12:41 pm


      There’s been a lot written over the last year about government ammo purchases, particularly by the Department of Homeland Security. One of the funniest lines (the bolded part) from the linked article:

      For arguments sake let’s assume a quarter, 25%, of the DHS employees need to shoot. If you think this is too low, you have no idea how many Federal employees it takes to not do a lot. So, 50,000. Got it. They need to practice, need to carry magazines on the job, etc. They will need bullets. Let’s look at how many the DHS has provided them.

      • neocon01 February 24, 2013 / 12:51 pm

        Not too many are forthcoming with that information. My guess is over 25.


      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 24, 2013 / 2:07 pm

        Spook, don’t know what the current number is, but the number of DHS employees authorized to carry a firearm in 2008 was something like 5,000. That would make the bullets/person look even more bizzare. And at least half the pistol ammo purchased by DHS has been JHP designed for doing maximum soft-tissue damage, not for target practice. They’re preppin’ for something.

  5. Willis Forster February 24, 2013 / 12:48 pm

    There will in fact not even be a slight reduction in economic growth. There will be a slight reduction in government spending. The calculation of GDP includes government spending, government spending is not a “product”. It goes back to the Lincoln story about how many legs does a dog have if you call it’s tail a leg. It still has but 4 legs no matter what you call the tail. The government is misleading as usual, as a matter of mercy. You can not handle the the truth in their opinion and your opinion is also something they do not care to consider.

  6. Doug Quinby February 24, 2013 / 12:53 pm

    Running back to us? Who is ‘US’? The GOP establishment and Obama and his democrats are all on the same page when it comes to spending. Heck, the GOP ran a big government MA liberal for President, throwing up the white flag forever.

    Yes, the argument needs to be presented, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, because it just so happens that most of the ‘US’ that you want the voters to run back to, are really ‘THEM’ in disguise. We need to rid those of power who are in power that have been ‘THEM’ in disguise. Anyone, politician, blogger, anyone, who endorsed Romney during the primaries, that is a ‘THEM’ disguised as an ‘US’….someone who embraces a big overwhelming government that wants to intrude in your life – if only in those particular areas that grab their fancies.

    The argument needs to shout down those that brought us the Romney’s, the McCain’s, the Coulter’s, and about 50 GOP congressmen and a dozen GOP senators who continually put themselves over country.

      • Amazona February 25, 2013 / 10:58 am

        Gee, too bad this vet is not a beloved Leftist media hero like David Gregory, who proved he had a large capacity ammo magazine, illegal in DC, by showing it on TV, and got a pass.

    • Cluster February 24, 2013 / 1:42 pm


      I only disagree slightly. The “us” would be fiscal and constitutional conservatives which I am hoping that Paul, Rubio, Ryan and Walker are the leading edge of. I do disagree about Romney. I think he would have brought about real, positive change in the direction that would have pleased many conservatives. I don’t disagree that he is establishment, but having the business acumen he does, he is sensible about the inefficiencies of big government, the need to decentralize, and the need to empower the individual, small business and the states.

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2013 / 7:48 pm

        Agreed about Romney – I think he has seen a bit of the light; he is a creature of the Establishment and so he would not have gone to war with it, but he knows enough to understand that things can’t go on like this. It is a pity he lost – and he’ll always have a warm spot in my heart because he did give it all.

      • Retired Spook February 25, 2013 / 12:49 am

        he’ll always have a warm spot in my heart because he did give it all.

        Ditto. I thought Romney was the most honest, decent and honorable man to run for President in my lifetime, and that’s saying something given my affection for Reagan. I could live with it if he had lost fair and square in the arena of ideas, but the way he lost is something I will likely never let go of completely.

      • Cluster February 25, 2013 / 8:14 am

        Couldn’t agree more. On Romney and the way he lost. That election was stolen from him by a dishonest media, a dishonest and sleazy Democratic campaign, and by too many people who bought into it and allowed it to happen.

      • Amazona February 25, 2013 / 10:54 am

        ” I thought Romney was the most honest, decent and honorable man to run for President in my lifetime….”

        Spook, I could not agree more. While I supported Romney on objective (dare I say “pragmatic”?) grounds, as I saw more and more of him I started to feel a yearning to finally have a man in the White House who was such an example of absolute integrity.

        When the vote count favored Obama, I had two separate reactions. One was disappointment at losing the election, and one was profound sadness at the missed opportunity to have someone of that caliber in the Oval Office.

        (And the missed chance to replace Michelle with Ann? Devastating.)

      • M. Noonan February 25, 2013 / 5:12 pm


        Well, we got another bit of data as to why Romney lost – his chief strategist was a fool:

        KURTZ: Do you believe today that much of the media is in the tank for Barack Obama?

        STEVENS: Oh, it’s — it’s not a yes or a no question. In the tank, I would say no. So, yes or no question? I would say no.

        KURTZ: Too favorable to the president, too sympathetic to the president? How would you put it?

        STEVENS: I think after that the election, you’re going to have a lot tougher questions that are going to be asked because you’re out of an election environment. I think you’re seeing that this past weekend with this whole golf outing.

        His chief strategist didn’t think the MSM was in the tank for Obama! For goodness sakes, the debate “moderators” were actively helping Obama during the debates – how much more in the tank can you be? No later than August, the whole of team Romney should have been treating the DNC and the MSM as two sides of the same monster…

      • Cluster February 25, 2013 / 5:53 pm


        That would definitely be a good reason why Romney lost. Add to that – I can’t understand why Romney laid low in the second and third debates. He should have gone for the jugular, especially in the foreign policy debate.

      • M. Noonan February 25, 2013 / 9:19 pm


        I can see it, though…Romney is of the establishment and so he got a lot of his staffer from the same…and such people are not likely to war on the MSM (want to keep in good in order to get television and writing gigs after the election, right?), nor are they likely to take the fight to the blue areas (and so no appearance in CA when gas there hit $5 a gallon…the perfect illustration of Obama failure, and Romney let is slide). Whomever we nominate in 2016, it will be far more important to see who is high up in their campaign ranks – establishment types, or true political players? In a certain sense, I’d almost rather have Christie with a TEA Party veteran as campaign manager than Jindal with an establishment manager.

    • Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 2:03 pm

      Hilarious line from Ray LaHood: “LAHOOD: “Well, look, budgets go up and down.” Yeah, the list of budgets that have gone down is a very short list. LaHood, in spite of being a Republican, is the personification of a bureaucratic toady.

      Can you imagine the different political picture we’d be looking at right now if all journalists were asking the same tough question of members of this administration? Perhaps Candy Crowley is trying to make up for her abysmal performance as debate moderator.

      • neocon01 February 24, 2013 / 2:43 pm

        Obama’s Sequestration Scam ^ | February 23, 2013 | Wayne Allyn Root

        The economy is in freefall. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Walmart calls their sales “a total disaster.” But don’t panic. Our fearless leader Obama is just back from a “Swing State”…you know, the kind of place where you work on your golf swing. He was consulting on the economy with Tiger Woods and Butch Harmon. While Michelle was playing in Aspen. You wouldn’t accept this storyline if it was a fictional movie script. Too unrealistic. This country under Obama is becoming one big scam. A Ponzi scheme. Obama is the guy running the Ponzi, playing the role of Bernie Madoff. But…

  7. Cluster February 24, 2013 / 5:29 pm

    And WOW again:

    BILL PLANTE, CBS NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We’ve gotten used to being called whiny lapdogs. I’ve heard it for 30 years. But this is not about a picture of Tiger Woods. This is about access to the president. And access to the president has been cut and pushed and curtailed over every administration I’ve covered.
    And here’s the nub of it, Howie: this administration has the tools to reach people on their own. They don’t need us as much. And to the extent that they’re able to do that, they’re undercutting the First Amendment, which guarantees a free press through many voices. If they put out their own material, it’s state-run media.

    Undercutting the First AND the Second amendments in my opinion. And it’s good to see some of the liberal media finally get a backbone.

    • Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 5:52 pm


      I think there’s a great deal of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the media, but I think most journalists draw the line at criminal dishonesty.

      • Cluster February 24, 2013 / 6:15 pm

        I could be wrong, and I often am, but I get a sense that a lot of people are waking up from their Obama hangover. They just cant deny the realities of his incompetence and divisiveness anymore. Too bad this didn’t happen last October.

      • Retired Spook February 24, 2013 / 7:16 pm

        I could be wrong, and I often am

        See, that’s why you don’t get paid the big bucks, heh.

        I have a theory that the low information voters who put Obama back in the White House are not only ignorant in terms of issues, but most lack enough intelligence to know when they’re being screwed. I would guess that you could piss on the shoes of most of them and tell them it’s raining, and most wouldn’t dispute it. Seriously, though, I have a real hard time wrapping my head around the fact that, 3 weeks before the election, 7% said the country was on the right track, and yet 51% said, “yeah, give me more of that”. And voila — BOHICA.

  8. Doug Quinby February 25, 2013 / 1:36 am

    Ryan is not on the edge of fiscal conservative stardom, don’t ever forget what his budget proposal did as far as the budget is concerned. Romney picked him, not because he was fiscally conservative, but because Ryan was a big government Republican like Romney but he managed to trick people into believing he is a fiscal conservative. NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE who creates a plan to balance the budget 20+ years from now is a fiscal conservative. They are a sleezy politician who wants to look like they are fiscally sound, while at the same time having their cake and eating it too.

    Rand Paul, yeah, I’m excited for him for the most part. Jindal, isn’t he the guy that is running the state that is prosecuting business owners because they are selling their gallons of milk too cheap? Again, it sounds like a big government republican. Don’t listen to what they say, look at their actions. That is the rule for all politicians. They hire media consultants to put a positive spin on everything they do. A Jindal can do something so far left that he is bordering on a fascist, yet talk to the camera like he is a good righ wing conservative.

    Judge them by what they have done, not by the words that spews from their speechwriters.

    • GMB February 25, 2013 / 7:47 am

      “Judge them by what they have done, not by the words that spews from their speechwriters.”

      That is one congregation that I will gladly witness for. Tell it brother! Tell it loud and tell it proud!

    • Amazona February 25, 2013 / 11:09 am

      Doug, I don’t see Ryan the way you do. I agree that I would have preferred, in a perfect world, a much stronger approach to our budget woes.

      But I would rather have a partial solution that at least gets us working in the right DIRECTION, and is based on sound principles even if they don’t go far enough, and has a decent chance of passing, than a sweeping Quixotic draconian measure that doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of passing, the presentation of which would be largely symbolic.

      I’d vote in a minute for a way-back machine that would simply erase our debt, return us to old levels of entitlement, and make all our illegal aliens disappear from our land. Find us a “Shazaam!!” like that and I’ll be thrilled.

      But we, as a nation, have allowed certain things to become so established that they can’t be uprooted without severe damage. I don’t like this but I accept its reality, and the reality that fixing these problems is going to have to be a sequential process.

      I never saw Ryan’s plan as a solution, and I didn’t think he presented it that way. I saw it as an important first step toward not just budget cuts but a new way of THINKING about what we spend and why.

    • Amazona February 25, 2013 / 10:25 am

      Sandoval is, sadly, correct in his statement about the kinds of people welcomed by the Church after Vatican II and the Church’s sudden lurch to the Left.

      I am always aware of the careful selectivity in the Left’s attacks on the Church—they decry what they insist is “pedophilia” in spite of the fact that sexual abuses from priests are almost always based on predatory homosexuality and directed at post-pubescent boys, because they want to focus on sexual abuse of young people, need to be able to use the more highly charged word “pedophile” and want to skip over the homosexual aspect of the abuse.

      If the Church had never openly encouraged gay men to enter the priesthood, it would not have become a hunting ground for predatory gay men to prowl in search of confused and trusting young men. But the goal of the Left is attack the Church, because religion is an alternative authority to the State and the Left demands that the State be the only source of authority. Their goal is not to address the problem of young men being victimized by predatory gay men, because of the need of the Left to court homosexuals to shore up their base, but to reframe this abuse in terms of religious abuse and not homosexual abuse.

      And they’ve been pretty good at it.

  9. Cluster February 25, 2013 / 8:59 am

    This just in – Eric Holder is now working with the states to find a cooperative framework:

    “They’re looking at how we can adjust something in the rule-making — is there something in the regulatory framework that we can accommodate the will of these voters, and can we do it in such a way that doesn’t endanger or put undue pressures on our neighboring states or other states?” …

    Is this new found cooperation with states that are trying to work within federal laws, secure their border and maintain their sovereignty?


    The good faith effort is with Colorado and legalizing pot!

    • Amazona February 25, 2013 / 10:16 am

      It’s informative to see how Eric chooses his battles.

      He is selective about which examples of state sovereignty he will use his position as AG to support

      Aside from this he has used the position of head of federal law enforcement to declare a citizen guilty before he has even been accused of a crime (George Zimmerman) and to give de facto approval to voter intimidation and the public offering of a bounty for the killing of a citizen by a group with which he shares a racial identity.

  10. Amazona February 25, 2013 / 10:42 am

    Obama Group Plans Unlimited Donations (emphasis mine)

    “Two of President Barack Obama’s top political strategists are behind the launch of a new liberal activist organization that will be funded by seemingly unlimited donations of $50,000 or more from “Hollywood studio executives, California energy investors and Chicago business titans,” according to the Washington Post.


    “This OFA idea is a terrible example of individuals and corporations being asked to pay to get access” to administration officials, added Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania who heads Common Cause, referring to the new group, Organizing for Action.

    Organizing for Action’s leaders insist it will be nonpartisan and steer clear of election activity. But it is already drawing up a list of plans for ads and other activities that amount to a liberal agenda of gun control, climate change legislation, same-sex marriage laws and “ballot access.” The first ads on gun control targeted only Republicans, the Post reports in an article published online Sunday.


    A one-page memo accompanying the invitation says the OFA will help “strengthen the progressive movement and train our next generation of leaders. It also promises to engage in “state-by-state fights” over issues such as “ballot access and marriage equality.”

    So much for being “…nonpartisan and steer clear of election activity. …”

  11. Amazona February 25, 2013 / 10:47 am

    BTW—the Complicit Agenda Media have, by and large, ignored Colorado state senator Salazar’s bizarre comments about the inability of women to know if they are really being raped or not, and that “call boxes” and “whistles” are all they need to protect themselves.

    One of the things seldom if ever mentioned is that he is the brother of political whore Ken Salazar, who got elected on the promise that he would demand an up-or-down vote on Presidential appointees instead of letting their appointments be controlled by political interests which keep them from being taken to the floor for a vote, and whose then blocked the vote on the first appointee that came up.

    He’s a slimy piece of work and his brother is equally slimy or just plain dumb, or both.

    • neocon01 February 25, 2013 / 3:18 pm

      lets not forget “WORK PLACE VIOLENCE” AKA islamic terrorist attack at Ft Hood.

      • neocon01 February 25, 2013 / 3:20 pm


        homosexuality, alcoholism and even men that were pedophiles. The church and its leaders who didn’t provide any support to these good men of faith sick bastards & allowed them to ruin the lives of many of our loved ones.”

Comments are closed.