October 31, 2010
Oct 31 16:39 The Nuge Telling It Like It Is, Joe Manchin Not So Much Oct 31 19:39 Today's ABC's: Anderson-Bachmann-Clark Debate
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The Nuge Telling It Like It Is, Joe Manchin Not So Much
Saturday afternoon, Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin campaigned with John Raese in Charleston, WVA. According to this article , The Nuge didn't pull any punches:
Nugent started his speech with a rendition of the national anthem on his electric guitar.
Then, he took to the issues.
Nugent blasted congressional Democrats, especially Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
He referred to politicians in Congress as "corrupt, power-abusing monsters that have weaseled their way into our lives and that control our paychecks and decide to take money from the people who work so hard and give it to idiots."
But Nugent told the audience they can change that.
He said he saw hope this year.
"We got some hope now. John, there's hope," Nugent said. "Not that funny hope, not hope that we can become like Indonesia, not that kind of hope. Not the hope that the productive people will continue to reward bloodsuckers, not that kind of hope."
Again questioning the current Congress, Nugent said change was needed to turn around the county.
"If you think this gaggle of people is going to fix America, you're nuts," Nugent said.
Sending Joe Manchin to Washington, DC won't change things. His shooting his rifle at the Cap and Trade target was interesting theater but it doesn't have anything to do with reality. That's the election Joe Manchin. Here's what the governing Joe Manchin doesn't want West Virginia voters to know about:
Manchin Proposed And Signed A Bill Requiring Electric Companies To Curb Coal Use By 25% A Similar Requirement To The Federal Cap-And-Trade Bill. "Raese points to House Bill 103, a bill proposed and signed by Manchin last year. The bill requires electric companies to curb the use of coal by 25 percent in the next 15 years. Companies must use renewable energy sources or find credits elsewhere. The bill is very familiar to one of the parts of the federal cap and trade bill, which calls for a 20 percent reduction by 2020." (Kallie Cart, "Manchin vs. Raese On The Coal Controversy," WSAZ, 9/14/10)
The Nuge told West Virginians to question the things that their leaders were doing. Based on Gov. Manchin's theatrics vs. Gov. Manchin's very real actions indicate that he's a cheap politician who has to rely on cute optics rather than doing the right thing.
He's a phony in a year when voters demand people of character. Gov. Manchin is the wrong man for the wrong job. If sent to DC, he'll just be another rubberstamp for President Obama's failed policies.
That's why should be defeated.
Posted Sunday, October 31, 2010 4:39 PM
No comments.
Today's ABC's: Anderson-Bachmann-Clark Debate
I've been watching the 6th District debate hosted by Tom Hauser. I had to stop for a moment and write about Tarryl's last answer. Hauser asked if cutting spending was her first option in balancing the budget in 2009 considering the fact that she'd voted to raise taxes in 2008.
Tarryl said cutting spending was her first option. That isn't what I've recorded on this blog. During the first week of the 2009 session, Tarryl Clark and Marty Seifert appeared on @Issue With Tom Hauser. During their interview, I transcribed this exchange between Tarryl Clark and Tom Hauser :
Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won't be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.
Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million.
At the time, the budget deficit was $6.4 billion. Tarryl told Tom Hauser that cutting spending was her first priority in balancing the budget. Based on this exchange alone, Tarryl wasn't being truthful.
That's before considering the fact that the DFL leadership was counting on a huge chunk of stimulus money to help them balance the budget without cutting spending.
In fact, the stimulus was roughly $4 billion, the first tax increase that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed was $1.6 billion and Tarryl's spending cuts were less than $750,000,000.
Based on these figures, cutting spending was Tarryl's lowest priority.
During the debate, they played an ad that Michele ran against Tarryl, outlining the various regressive tax increase Tarryl voted for since 2007. It included a sales tax increase caused by Tarryl Clark and the DFL voting to put a state sales tax increase on the ballot for the Legacy Act as well as the gas tax increase and other regressive tax increases.
Tarryl said that Michele was "spreading lies" about her tax votes. She then said that she didn't vote for the Legacy Tax tax increase. She voted for putting it on the ballot so voters could decide. Without Tarryl's vote, that tax increase wouldn't have happened.
Let's remember that this bill was changed so part of the funding would go to the arts, which essentially guaranteed its passage on the November ballot. Ergo, a vote to put it on the ballot was a vote knowing it would pass. Let's also remember that this wasn't accidental.
This was something put together by the DFL leadership in conjunction with their special interest allies.
This is a perfect examply of a politician claiming plausible deniability after they'd worked hard to structure the bill so the DFL's special interest allies would get the bill passed.
Tarryl, that ad was deadly accurate, which is why you're now fighting so desperately to distance yourself from your votes.
Posted Sunday, October 31, 2010 7:39 PM
Comment 1 by Zabazoom at 31-Oct-10 09:57 PM
Yup the voters of Minnesota, are a special interest group. What a moronic point you attempted to make.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Nov-10 01:44 AM
You mean the public employees' unions that negotiate pensions that non-unionized workers can only dream about? Yeah, that's what I'd call a special interest group.
Especially considering the fact that these public employee unions negotiate their contracts with people who agree with them.
