Tired of the Dems painting the GOP as obstructionists with no plan? Here's the Republican answer to the bad economy

From the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595257066605147.html

Some quick thoughts from the past few days

-The Obama administration's strategic response to those who question them on the almost incomprehensible vastness of their proposed budget deficit became clear after this week's Sunday shows. They point to the deficits of the previous administration. As a father of three, I recognize it as the "He did it, too" defense. As far as I can tell, no one employed the standard "if they jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" rebuttal that is taught in parent school.

-With an enormous backlash developing over the free-spending, tax hiking policies being put in place, Obama has begun characterizing his opponents as "special interests and lobbyists." The problem with that is, polls show over half the nation is opposed to these big government policies. Is Obama trying to say the majority of Americans are lobbyists?

-The market continues to tank. As of this morning, the Dow is expected to dip below 7,000 for the first time in 12 years despite the aggressive hands-on approach of the Democrats. They blame the policies of the past 8 years. The problem is, stock market fluctuations are caused by expectations of the economic future, not policies of the past.

-Obama promised there would be no lobbyists in his cabinet and then blatantly appointed or nominated a dozen current or former lobbyists. He promised openness and clarity by putting legislation on line for 5 days so the public can scrutinize it before it becomes law. He then pushed through the costliest spending plan in history without giving Congress even 12 hours to study it before forcing a vote. He said his spending plans contained no earmarks, yet we have unearthed billions of dollars in liberal special projects and set asides. When he says he will cut the budget deficit in half during his time in office and opposes the Fairness Doctrine to censor his critics, do you believe him?

Senate Republican leader: Obama's federal spending spree could stimulate the GOP

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44260

I've always said, there would never be a Reagan Revolution without Carter. The Republicans would not have become a majority party without Clinton. Could Obama bring vitality back to the GOP?

Pet Peeve: The herd/group-think effect on major national addresses

Barack Obama's address before Congress last night? A masterful, positive, Reagan-esqe soliloquy, right? Barack Obama? This generation's premier orator, right?

Bobby Jindal's GOP response? Dry, boring and wonkish, right? It was unfortunate for him he had to follow Obama, right? Poor guy just didn't have a chance, but he has plenty of time recover to resurrect his political future, right?

If you caught any of the coverage last night that was your opinion. It was your opinion because it was the opinion of everyone else -- Republican or Democrat; right or left; elephant, donkey, rino or blue dog. If you don't have the same opinion, obviously there is something wrong with you.

I didn't watch either speech -- on purpose. It took some discipline, because coverage was everywhere. I found myself switching between college basketball and Family Feud reruns. It's not that I wasn't interested. I just wanted to form my own opinion instead of being neatly herded into the corrals set up well before the speeches had been delivered.

This is how it works. The person giving the speech (in this case President Obama) withholds the speech from the public until perhaps 1 hour before it is delivered. In the mean time, Obama's press crew lay the subliminal message foundation of what they want you to hear by leaking abstract observations to the press. The press then hits the airwaves with their "insider information." This creates the group-think of what you will take from the speech. All that's left is finding and quoting verbatim lines that backup your predetermined opinion of the speech.

Yesterday, how many times did you hear this speech was going to be positive and Reagan-esque? How many times did you hear that Obama was a wonderful orator? How did the pundits find the speech after delivery? I'm sure they received it as a positive, Reagan-esque speech delivered wonderfully.

I have become a fan of reading transcripts. I recommend you do the same in order to remove the media pundit filter and personally evaluate the emperor's clothing.

Transcripts:

President Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.obama.transcript/

Governor Jindal:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.jindal.transcript/

I love this guy's rant. CNBC's Rick Santelli in 2012!

Obama to sign death warrant for Democratic majority

Today, President Obama will burn 20,000 gallons of tax-payer funded jet fuel in order to created a spectacle in signing the mile-high pork bill. Where the nearly $800 billion "stimulus" plan was stocked full of liberal pet projects and payoffs (a high-speed rail system between LA and Vegas, a couple billion dollars set aside for community activism with ACORN), it lacked in debate and transparency.

As we move forward on this Democratic over-reach of historic proportions, it makes me wonder whether those who voted in favor of it will still think it worthwhile when they run for re-election. Will $13 per week in tax savings be enough to save their seat? Some lawmakers who voted in favor are already backpedaling. Indiana's Evan Bayh is already trying to soften the backlash by saying he was not in favor of earmarks, like those set aside for "the arts", but the package was needed and needed to be put in place quickly.

The economy will recover. The American economy always does, despite the muck the government makes us trudge through in order to do so. When it does, the Democrats will claim it was the stimulus, with its ATV parks, condoms and livestock insurance, that caused it. What will not save those who voted in favor of it is the overwhelming price tag and the scant tax relief Americans will see on their pay stubs.

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter doesn't have a ghost of a chance to survive what will surely be a strong primary challenge. That is assuming he even chooses to run for reelection. Will he attempt a Joe Lieberman independent run? Possibly, but he doesn't have the reputation as a statesman that Lieberman has earned.

In 1994, Bill Clinton blamed his retroactive tax hike for the bloodbath Democrats took when Republicans gained majority control of Congress. He called the defeated Dems "courageous" for putting tax hikes ahead of their popularity. Look for President Obama to make the same statements after the 2010 elections, when he finds a much less friendly Congress moving to Washington.

Here's a nice perspective on this stimulus madness

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2009_02_08_archive.html#6075529645504368465

I came across this link from Ann Coulter's blog.