Back during the 2008 election, the mainstream media couldn't be bothered with asking then Senator Obama about his radial associations or socialist views because of course he would never force them on the American People or compel them to say, purchase a product against their will. Don't be silly! Why waste valuable interview questions on something like that?
Based on the current panic amongst liberal journalists and talking-head types over Mitt Romney placing the family dog, Seamus, in his kennel and strapping it to the top of the car in order for them to take him on a family trip to Canada, one would have to assume that liberals apparently believe he intends to do the same thing with them if elected president.
No. Don't ask him, "How would you fix the economy?" Don't ask about his ideas regarding policy towards Iran or North Korea. No. Don't ask "What are your ideas to reduce gas prices or what would be your national energy policy?" What about ideas to get the unemployed back to work. No. What is really on the minds of most Americans is: "What about Seamus the damn dog on the roof of your car?" Come on! Really?
The journalists and the people aren't that stupid. We all see these questions for what they are: a distraction from President Obama's all around miserable record during his first term in office and a feeble attempt to get an opposition candidate to trip up while answering an irrelevant question. They did this with Santorum and Gingrich too.
Romney needs to push back by answering stupid questions like these with questions. In the case of Solidad Obrien and the Seamus the dog question, he needs to say, "Solidad, can you please tell me how this is a presidential-level question? Do you really believe the American People are lying awake at night wondering about Seamus? Is this really something you consider important because I believe the people are more interested in the economy, unemployment, gas prices, the national debt, etc." If he does this, then maybe we would hear some actual ideas from the candidates.
There was a time when folks put their dogs in the bed of the pickup and off they went! Heck, come to think of it, they did the same with the kids. How about serious journalists asking both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney some real, relevant, and tough questions and leave the fluff to People and US Magazines. We will all be better off for it.
I have come to respect the views of the Tea Party after having read constintutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley's book on the subject "The Tea Party: Three Priciples". One thing they are though is dour and humourless, angry, resentful and spiteful. Not a lot of fun at a cocktail party, or at breakfast, or at work, or on the Metro, or at a rodeo, or while driving....or while having sex,watering the lawn, taking a shower, surfing the Internet, fishing, having a beer, going to church, or playing Modern Warfare on PS3! So I'll just fiddle while Rome burns with my grasshopper Dem pals. Life's too damn short!
ReplyDeleteDifficult not to be dour and humorless, angry, resentful, amd spiteful when everything you listed, liberals would tax if they could. I think the Beatles said it best on their 1966 Revolver album:
ReplyDelete"Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me."
Right, so just what does taxation rate utopia look like for you then? No taxes? Given that there will always be government waste to criticise, it seems profoundly cynical to me to use that as proof positive of the need for ever lower rates of taxation even if personal income tax is at historically low rates. Unless of course you're Grover Nordquist for whom any government that he cannot "drown in a bathtub" is too big.
ReplyDeleteThere are no utopian solutions. I would argue that it is more likely for the rampent state of government waste, fraud and abuse like we are currently seeing to exist in an environment where government funding levels are at least adequate to their current demands. More likely they indicate a bloated level of funding: When you are flush with funds, it is more difficult to notice bits here and there being improperly siphoned off. This doesn't argue for cutting tax rates as much as it does for not raising them and doing away with such things as the baseline budgeting process and being better stewards of the peoples' money.
ReplyDeleteCutting taxation rates is a GDP growth argument that history has shown also leads to increased revenue. The liberal increase taxation rates argument is mainly a "fairness" issue that has historically lead to lower revenue levels, slower GDP growth, and only a "feel-good" increase in fairness.