Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

The cost of the bailout

Here's a graph comparing the cost of the bailout to other government projects through history.

That's right. The bailout is bigger than all of those combined.

It's even more hilarious when you realize that the real cost will be $8.5 trillion, double the amount used in this graph.

Sunday, November 30, 2008


Friday, November 07, 2008

Obamageddon: the bright side

Now that the Barackalypse is upon us, we can comfort ourselves with a few silver linings in the mushroom cloud:
  • The media will now freely mention the fact that we're winning in Iraq.
  • People will start loving America, now that we've determined that it's once again "cool" to do so. (Only as long as she keeps doing what we want, after all.  Isn't that why you love?)
  • Dissent will no longer be the highest form of patriotism.
  • This proves — to a degree of certainty once held only by gravity — that public financing is the stupidest idea for "campaign finance reform" since, well... the McCain-Feingold Act. Way to go there, champ.
  • Unity!  Unless you disagree.  Then, shutup.
  • Within 2 years all the old Carter jokes will be new again and ready to make the rounds after a few dust offs.
  • No need to worry anymore about gas or mortgage payments!  That was a hang-up of the pre-Obama world.
  • PALIN 2012.

A thrill down his leg

Not even trying to hide it anymore:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.
Carrying Obama's water: the new journalism.

Although I suppose that's not new.

The top 7 reasons the GOP can't be based around moderates

To boil it down:
  1. "Moderate" has no fixed meaning.  What's "moderate" changes from person to person.
  2. Moderates don't pay attention.
  3. They are unreliable voters.
  4. They vote based on how others vote, not principles.
  5. Conservatives are where the money, volunteers and dependable votes are at.
  6. There is no "moderate" media to get the message out, unlike the conservative media.
  7. America is a conservative country, not a moderate one.
It's not that moderates are bad, it's just that you can't form the base of the party around them.  You reach out to them during the elections.

If we want to win, we have to offer a clear alternative to the Democrats' liberal plans.  We have to offer a clear conservative alternate, not a wishy-washy compromised mess that excites no one.  You can't build a castle on quicksand.

Proposition 8 passes

The country rejected the GOP's moderate wing on Nov. 4th, not conservatism. You can't win with Democrat-lite when the people can just choose a real Democrat. Surprise. Just look at Proposition 8, that conservative throwback to a darker time: while the rest of the country was flooded by a sea of blue, it passed in California. If it's going to pass there it will pass anywhere. So it looks like the country is in favor of traditional marriage, and it is the liberals who are the extremists in rejecting it, not conservatives in backing it.

FLASHBACK: Obama supporter: "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage"

There sure are going to be a lot of disappointed people after this short honeymoon is over and people realize Obama isn't God.

Flawless victory

Thursday, November 06, 2008

From 52 to 48

We'll see...

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Golden Age begins: Stocks fall nearly 500 points on Obama win

Don't worry. It's all part of the plan. The Dow dropping to historic levels after an election isn't bad news; now I can buy stuff too.

Thanks, Barack!


Requiem for a dream

The Presidential election is over and we have a winner. McCain lost and Obama will be our next President. He will bring with him legions of liberals into power, solidifying Democrat control over the government. But all is not lost. The world has not ended.

We are still a center-right country. Don't let this electoral victory fool you into thinking we've finally tumbled over the precipice into full fledged socialism. What has changed is merely the arrangement of the states under the Democrat and Republican columns; when it comes to the popular vote, we nearly hit 50%. Half the country is still with us, as always, and when you consider the fact that most people see Obama not as a liberal but as a bipartisan agent of "change," that is significant. Not only that, but this near majority was reached in one of the toughest anti-Republican electoral environments in history. Let us count the ways.

Any Republican entering this race had to deal with the following: a faltering economy, an unpopular war, one of the most disapproved of Presidents of all time under his party, and the fact that we've already had Republican dominance for many years. When you have a party in power that long that makes people tired of the incumbents and willing to usher in the opposition for a change. Furthermore, Obama was the first black candidate to reach that pinnacle in history, had more money than God, and the infinite rage of the Bush hating Democrats propelling him forward on a wind that cared not how he maneuvered to win over the rest of the country so long as he could stick it to Republicans. Then there's the media: Obama could shoot a baby on live television and the media would say it was because the baby was a terrorist. Add all that together and you have a Mt. Everest challenge to scale.

But then, it wasn't just any Republican. It was McCain. McCain, who the base hated, and who spent most of his electoral adventures in debt and skirting with bankruptcy. Somebody who had no clear philosophy and was not a conservative. He was conservative, but not a conservative.

Add all of these together, and it's a miracle that McCain got as far as he did. Yet Barack won, not because the country had flitted to the left but only by pretending to be a centrist tax-cutter in a center-right country. It will be a short honeymoon before people realize with bitter disappointment that he's not the Messiah™ they thought he was and can't do everything he promised. By the next midterm elections everybody will know how liberal Obama is, and the pendulum will swing once again. It will be up to us to see that it swings far enough.

We must remember that we are conservatives, and not liberals or "progressives" or whatever they're calling themselves today. Politics is not our life. Unlike liberals, if we lose an election, we're still going to be happier than liberals, whose worldview is premised on misery. They place their hopes and dreams in government, and so they will always be disappointed, especially when they find out they have to pay for their gas and mortgage after all. Conservatives, on the other hand, have low expectations of human nature and even lower from government; it is hard to be disappointed. And unlike liberals, our happiness is where it has always been and will be tomorrow: our family, our friends, our local community, in our work, our faith, and in our country. These will be around whether or not the current incumbents have a "R" or "D" next to their name.

Tough times are ahead, and we can't throw in the towel. We're going to have to fight like hell to make sure Obama doesn't run the country over the cliffside with his liberal fantasies. But we've been there before, and we've prevailed there before.

Remember: we are conservatives. Don't give liberals the satisfaction of seeing us break before defeat and cry like schoolgirls. That's what they do. They're the ones who fall apart when they lose. We can take it and get back up fighting. We are followers of Reagan, the Happy Warrior, who responded with such adversity with good humor, irreverent mockery and hard work. We may have lost the election, but we're still right and they're still wrong. The fight goes on, and we will have our time once again.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Obama wins

I hope we're all prepared for some good ol' fashioned Change™.

Why McCain will win PA (I hope)

Obama has always been a terrible closer. In the primaries, he held onto large, ten point leads against Clinton only to win or even lose by a point when the actual results came in. The national polls for this election and the last few have been terribly off, skewed in favor of Democrats. They are unreliable. I pay attention instead to the two campaigns' internal polling, since it's so important for them to have reliable information. Both McCain and Obama have been fighting in the Keystone state. Why would they be doing that if it was a guaranteed blowout for Obama? McCain has been shown closing in the last few days and he must be within reach.

Furthermore, in regards to the heavy turnout... black people always turn out heavily against Republicans. There's not much left to scrape out of the bottom of that barrel. The legendary "youth vote" is supposed to ride to the rescue of the Democrat candidate every year but never shows up.

Can Obama do better than Kerry did in PA? I'm not sure that is likely. Kerry carried voting blocs in 2004 easily that Obama has trouble with now. The blue-collar voter that turned out for Kerry rejected Obama in the primaries, giving the state to Hillary in a decisive win, and he hasn't done well for himself since then.

If McCain wins Pennsylvania, half of the election will be won. He'll be able to lose as many as four other states he needs and still win. If he loses Pennsylvania, then he'll have to pretty much go on a winning spree through the others to make up for it.

Don't pay attention to exit polls

They were off by a mile in 2004, and in 2006. Nobody noticed in 2006 because the races were won by Democrats anyway, but by margins of a few points instead of twenty point blowouts that were predicted. The only thing these exit polls are good for are depressing Republican turnout and giving media outlets an excuse to call states for Obama early.

I'm not going to bother to pay attention to them, but just check the states as they're being called.

Monday, November 03, 2008


Here's mine:

Sure hope I'm right.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


Scarborough to Obama supporter: Name one accomplishment

This never gets old.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Study: Networks still in the tank for Obama

Water is still wet...

Thursday, October 09, 2008

How Gallup chose its "undecided" voters

CLARK [an "undecided" voter at the townhall]: So the Sunday before last, I received a call from the Gallop Poll. They asked a few questions regarding my choice in the Presidential election. They asked who I would vote for. I said most likely I would be voting for Barack Obama. They followed with, “is there any chance that you would change your mind“? I said “Of course anything is possible.” They then asked me as an uncommitted voter would I like to participate in the Town hall debate. I said “Of course!”

MSNBC's First Read found this, but they didn't highlight the part where Clark said he was essentially supporting Obama and then was picked. They decided to flag this part where Mr.Clark speculates McCain is racist because McCain suggested the American public may not be familiar with how exactly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked.
Well, I for one am shocked.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

"Not the man I know"

"That one"


Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Debate first impressions

The only person who got housed in that debate was me for watching it. McCain won the debate on substance, but Obama is a smug lying charlatan and there were no game-breaking moments, so it was a wash. And since Obama is in the lead right now, that means its effectively an Obama win.

Also, what was with the internet questions? I thought the entire purpose of a "town hall" debate was to inject some spontanaeity into the process, but instead we got the same-old same-old, and boring, obscure questions at that. Not to mention that almost all of those "undecided" voters sure weren't asking "undecided" questions. Rush's rule is validated once again: there are no undecideds or moderates, just liberals.

What did you guys think?

60 seconds of pure truth

TMZ doing work of objective journalists

The reason she didn't answer was that she had been thrown a "gotcha" question. She didn't answer for the same reason President Bush never answered what he thought his "mistakes" were during the Presidential debate when it got posed to him to basically give John Kerry an opening he could drive an 18 wheeler through on a live debate. No matter what she said, the press would've descended like vultures on the publications and picked them apart, found a random article or line that would then be used to paint her as a racist, sexist, homophobe, whether or not she agreed with every single thing that was in what she read.

How does the LA Times cover McCain hitting Obama on the economy?

By cutting out his remarks on the economy, then suggesting he's afraid to talk about the economy. That's how afraid they are of Obama getting taken to task on this.

Mmm, that is some good bias.

My problems with the bailout

I was initially supportive of the bailout, with every expert forecasting Apocalypse if it didn't pass, but the more I read about it the less I saw to like.  It's already passed, but among the things I didn't like:
  • There is  no oversight.  The Treasury basically gets unlimited spending power with no ability for anybody to put a check on it, or question it.  The Treasurer could go to Vegas and spend it all gambling for all we know.
  • The bill was a liberal Christmas tree.  If it was really such a crisis, and the Democrats just wanted to pass something to fix it right away, then why didn't they just pass the actual fix that everybody could agree upon, without all the handouts to liberal interest groups? Practically half the bill is pork spending thrown to the liberal troughs.
  • The Democrats basically tried to ram the bill through without any deliberation on it.  Isn't that what they kept saying was the problem with the Patriot Act?  And if they couldn't support such drastic action in the event of a terrorist attack, which is surely more dire than the current crisis, then how could they have supported it now?  And of course, it was so important to pass it—there's no time to read it!—but they had time to go on vacation during the crisis.  Does that sound like Armageddon to you?
  • The people who made the bailout admit that they don't even know if it's going to help.  They don't even know how much money is needed to fix it, or if money is even something that can fix it.  They have no idea what the relationship of money spent to effect is.  Instead of standing back and trying to think of a better approach, they just decided, "Hey, we lost all this money already, let's throw another $700 billion down the hole since it might do something... maybe."  For all we know, it could make it worse.  The Great Depression was deepened by the government's activities, not lessened.
  • If it's so important to pass it, why couldn't the Democrats muster the votes themselves?  They're the majority.  They've managed to enforce party line votes on things of lesser importance.  Yet when it comes to this, they wouldn't do it.  They didn't want to have full responsibility for the disaster, so they needed Republicans to step on board.  Despite that they couldn't bother to make the bill appealing to them by stripping out the liberal provisions in the bill.  And yet it's the Republicans fault the bill didn't pass the first time.
Considering all of this, I doubt it's going to help us at all.  The markets kept right on tanking after the bill passed.  We're just burning another $700 billion, and creating more government overhead and bureaucracy while we're at it.  These aren't things that are going to go away, they're permanent institutional changes that are going to affect how government bungles up future activities for years.  If they wanted to fix it, they shouldn't have just thrown money at the problem; that is, at best, a band-aid.  The crisis came from the regulations the Democrats made, and so they should fix the regulations to prevent it from happening again.

Europeans psyched about US financial crisis

Take that, America!

They should be hoping that we don't tank, considering how much worse off they're going to be once it hits their shores. They already have twice the unemployment, half our standard of living, and higher taxes. Maybe they can use the fires from more Muslim riots to heat their homes at night.

Monday, October 06, 2008

"My career was not launched with the assistance of an unrepentant terrorist"

If Obama's not an extremist, then nobody is.

"He is one of them"

Mark Levin:
"Obama is not merely associated with domestic terrorists, Palestinian radicals, Marxists, and black liberation ideologues — he was their favorite candidate. . . . I am not among those who raise Obama's associations but add "of course, it doesn't mean Obama shares their views." Oh really? These miscreants include Obama's former pastor, political mentors and allies, and friends."
He's never truly repudiated his associations either, or if he has he only has done so when the political pressure started weighing down on him. He was fine with having Rev. Wright be one of his political advisers in his campaign until people noticed—then out the door he went. Why, he just woke up and suddenly he was surrounded by radicals!

McCain: Obama has "called me a liar"

Look at how the people are responding to simple challenges to Obama. Nobody has actually stood up and let Obama have it. There is a hunger out there. And McCain looks happy delivering.

"Rather than answer his critics, Sen. Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers serious and legitimate questions he's been asked... for a guy who's already authored two memoirs, he's not exactly an open book!”
This is the John McCain that can win.

Finally: McCain lowers the boom on Obama on Fannie and Freddie

More of this. We need more. It's about time. Did he finally take off the gloves? It's just absurd and ridiculous and a shame that a candidate like Obama has almost coasted to the highest office in the land without so much of his record and past being so much as glanced at. The only question is if McCain is too late.

Biden's fantasy world

Sarah Palin didn't just win the debate on style. She won it on substance.

Biden is the stupid person's idea of a smart guy. He doesn't actually say very intelligent things; he just makes things up as he goes along but with the confidence that he's absolutely correct. Yet half of what he says turns out to be boneheaded. If Palin said these things, she'd never hear the end of it. I mean, she's getting harangued for mispronouncing a name, of all things. Substance. But when Mr. Foreign Policy Expert goes off into the wild blue yonder, nobody bats an eye. Which should be surprising given that someone who's supposedly so experienced shouldn't be making these kinds of errors, but somebody who's new could be cut some slack.

Sunday, October 05, 2008

"I find Palin's God-and-guns fundamentalism terrifying"

The British media hates Palin too, of course.