Occupy Wall Street vs The Tea Party For Idiots (Or the MSM, But I Repeat Myself)

Two weeks ago, I responded to the Mainstream Media's labeling of the Occupy Wall Street protests the Left-Wing version of the Tea Party. Apparently the reasons given to prove that comparison false were too vague for the media to understand because they continue to  make that comparison.  So to be helpful to the people in the "fourth estate," I have created sort of a "difference between the Occupy Wall Street Protests, and the Tea Party Movement' for idiots and the Mainstream Media ( I guess that is redundant). It follows below:

• There was never a turd left on a Police Car during a Tea Party but there was during an Occupy Wall Street protest. 

Occupy Wall Street Protesters also defaced this Police Car:

• After Tea Party Rallies many people commented about how the protesters left the area cleaner than how they found it. This is what Occupy Wall Street looks like:

• No one at a Tea Party Rally ever defaced the Stars and Stripes, the same can't be said of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

• Tea Party protesters never sent an email to politicians suggesting that it was time to kill any group of Americans, but the  Occupy Wall Street protests did.

• Tea Party Protesters never made Anti-Semitic statements that Jews Control the media and Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street Has.

Note to the Mainstream Media: Please do not confuse Occupy Wall Street with Media Matters For America who have made similar Anti-Semitic statements.

Occupy Wall Street Also has an Anti-Israel component, something that was never seen at the Tea Party protests.

•  Sadly no one in the Tea Party movement has ever been paid to attend a rally. But Some of the Occupy people get paid.

 Note: I have also never gotten money from the Koch Brothers per the claim by the Daily Kos types, maybe they don't have my correct email.

•   The Tea Party Movement Doesn't have the Support of this guy, (but shhhhh we don't want it).

• And finally, when the Tea Party started it had no support from any party, Democrat or Republican. In fact the GOP establishment is still not comfortable with the Tea Party.  Occupy Wall Street was immediately embraced by the Democratic Party Leadership, such as Nancy Pelosi

and even President Obama.

In the end the difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party is very similar to the difference between the President and his progressive supporters and Conservative Americans.  Just like Occupy Wall Street, the progressives believe that American Institutions need to be defaced and torn down, maybe the progressives don't attack police cars, but they attack our freedoms.

Conservatives believe that tapping the drive of the American people is the best way to clean up our problems.  For example they believe that the best way to clean up the economy is to make it easier for Americans to run their own businesses. On they other hand, both the progressives and the Occupy Wall Street Protesters believe that it is Government's Job to clean up their mess.

Conservatives and the Tea Party both believe in American exceptionalism, we would never travel the world apologizing for America the way President Obama did, and we would never deface representations of that exceptionalism such as "Old Glory" the way the Occupy Wall Street movement did.

Antisemitism is big in the Occupy Wall Street Protests, just as it was during the progressive Anti-War Protests during the Bush Administration and  progressive Media Matters ever since. I have been to only a few Tea Party protests, have even worn a yarmulke and was never confronted with hatred against Jews or any other minority.  The Occupy Wall Street Movement also has anti-Israel elements, no surprise as the President who has embraced them is the most anti-Israel President we have ever had.

It is also interesting that leading Democrats have embraced the Occupy Wall Street protests.  The Tea Party Movement's loyalty is to the American constitution and fiscal responsibility. While some of the hundreds of Tea Party groups across the country have endorsed candidates the deciding factor was not whether they were the party of the elephant or the mule, it is the candidate's support of the movement's agenda; returning the government to the Constitution and the freedoms which it guarantees, and to restore our "federal bank account to solvency.  We do not hate individuals who are rich or poor, we simply hate government policy which erodes the greatness of this one-of-a kind republic.  Which is something the mainstream media is either too biased or too dense to understand.

In 2009 Democrats Fought AGAINST "Millionaires Tax"

Sometimes it is really amazing how quickly politicians flip-flop. Anybody who hasn't been on Mars or one of the outer planets during the past few weeks knows how the Congressional Democrats have been playing class warfare, setting up successful people as being selfish and not wanting to pay their "fair share" of Taxes.

But back in 2009 it was a very different story.  During the Obamacare debate Nancy Pelosi was trying to legislate that Obamacare would be partially funded via a surtax on the "rich" ($250,000+ income). Democrats in both houses fought that suggestion "tooth and nail," and Pelosi's attempt was defeated.

Back then Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) told USA Today

“Still, the idea has been criticized by some Democrats. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Tuesday that he has ‘not heard much support’ from his colleagues.” (“House Dems' Health Bill Would Tax Rich,” USA Today, 7/15/09)

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told the Washington Post:

‘Tax is a four-letter word’ with voters, even families not ranking in the top 1 percent of earners ‘hope they're going to be there someday,’ he said. ‘So they don't necessarily think it's fair.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post,7/15/09)

 He told Bloomberg something similar, that "he’s ‘not hearing a lot’ of support for a surtax on wealthy Americans. People in his state don’t like the so-called millionaire’s tax ‘because they are looking someday to get there themselves,’ Nelson said. ‘It’s the American way.’” (“House Health Plan Seeks 5.4 Percent Millionaire Tax,” Bloomberg, 7/14/09)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), was fighting against the Millionaire's Tax, instead he advocated the Cadillac Tax, a tax on the most generous 1 percent of private plans.  Conrad told the Washington Post that the Millionaires tax is ‘a very tough sell.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post, 7/15/09)

Perhaps the most surprising repudiation of the Millionaire's Tax was a letter sent by Congressman Polis,  Former Congressman Tickle-me-Massa and twenty other Representatives sent to Strong-Armed (and fake big-lipped) Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Embedded below,  the letter made some of the same anti-tax points that the Democrats are ridiculing today because they are coming from conservatives and Republicans.

“Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery. By concentrating the cost of health care reform in one area, and in one that will negatively affect small businesses, we are concerned that this will discourage entrepre­neurial activity and job growth.” 

“This proposed surcharge will also have a direct negative impact on manufacturers, another industry essential for our recovery. As manufacturers are capital intensive businesses, their taxable income is often higher… Manufacturing machinery can cost over $1 million and many owners have to save for years to expand and buy new equipment. Yet those profits saved each year would be hit by this proposed surcharge, which could lead to reduced investment.”

And my personal favorite:

 “… a surcharge would tax income above $1 million at a new rate of 45 percent. Combined with state taxes, many successful small businesses -- the very kind of business that should lead in creating new jobs and help us emerge from this recession -- will be taxed at over 50 percent.” 

Only two years ago, Congressional Democrats made a pretty compelling argument that a Millionaire's Tax would be a lousy idea and the proposal was pulled from Obamacare. Two years later many Democrats still think that the tax is wrong. Heck that's why Harry Reid did not allow Obama's plan to be voted on yesterday, it didn't have the votes.

Despite his party's objections in 2009 and today, the President continues to place the blame at the feet of conservative Republicans, proving that the only reason for his Class Warfare charge is to demonize his political opposition and divide the country to help him in his fight for re-election.

The full 2009 letter to Pelosi is below, I would suggest that you click on the view in full screen button (bottom left) to read it without hurting your eyes.

The Liberal Media Begins Its Attacks on Marco Rubio

It was bound to happen. The liberal media has only one way to cover Republicans, to sink down into the sewer and attack from there. In 2008 that's how they covered Sarah Palin, ignoring her policies, but questioning whether she really gave birth to her youngest child, her daily reading and even what she wore.

This years presidential  election cycle continues the trend, even by disparaging the entire GOP field but saving their most special attacks for those in the top tier or are about to join the race.  Despite his protestations the liberal media has been clamoring for New Jersey governor Chris Christie to join the race.  Now that he is on the precipice of making a final decision, they aren't attacking his policies, no they are wondering if he is too portly to run for President.

The liberal media attack team is not only trying to politically disfigure the GOP candidates for POTUS, but they are also lurking around the lives of possible Vice Presidential candidates. One of those VP candidates who scare the liberals the most is Marco Rubio, he is young, intelligent, conservative, an excellent orator and like Palin he is part of a minority that usually votes Democratic, Palin of course is a Feminist Woman and Rubio is a Latino.

Granted I may be a bit prejudiced when it come to Rubio, he was the first speaker at my first CPAC and he brought the house down. I remember him talking about his heritage, and his parents who were refugees from Castro's Cuba. He said what makes America great, there are dreams that are impossible everywhere else, but are possible here. All over the world we find governments that control the economy and pick the winners and losers. The ones who have influence on the government wins.  Only in America could someone who is an employee one day become the employer. You see Marco Rubio is a conservative because of his heritage and what his dad had to go through.

It is precisely because of Rubio's heritage that the Hispanic TV Network Univision, tried to blackmail him into making a network appearance with a story about his brother-in-law's criminal past.

Days before Univision aired a controversial story this summer about the decades-old drug bust of Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law, top staff with the Spanish-language media powerhouse offered what sounded like a deal to the U.S. senator’s staff.

If Rubio appeared on Al Punto —Univision’s national television show where the topic of immigration would likely be discussed — then the story of his brother-in-law’s troubles would be softened or might not run at all, according to Univision insiders and the Republican senator’s staff. They say the offer was made by Univision’s president of news, Isaac Lee.

But Lee said in an email to The Miami Herald that any insinuation that he offered a quid pro quo was “incorrect” and “defamatory.”

In a written statement Friday, Lee said: “With respect to Senator Rubio, Univision covered the story in the same objective, fair manner we cover every significant story. Univision did not offer to soften or spike a story...we would not make such an offer to any other subject of a news story and did not offer it in this case.”

Senator Rubio never appeared on Al Punto, and Univision aired the story about Rubio’s brother-in-law, a lower-level player in a 1987 coke-and-pot ring, on July 11.

"I always knew Univision to be a professional organization until this happened," said Rubio, who won’t comment specifically on the case.

Univision, headquartered in Doral, is a top-rated network,....ratings are tops in prime-time in such cities as Los Angeles, San Antonio and Miami — regardless of language. It recently created an investigative team.

The Rubio brother-in-law story was its first investigation. The story about Rubio and his brother-in-law was broadcast in English and Spanish on television and the web over two days.

What Univision tried to do is tie Senator Rubio to his brother-in-law's criminal activities even though there was absolutely no connection.

Univision also pointed the story out to the governor, and emailed reporters from Washington to Miami to highlight “Rubio’s families ties to narco-trafficking.” Univision hyped it on Twitter with the hashtag code "#rubio, # drugs."

Mainstream media sources and bloggers barely gave it play due to the quarter century-old nature of the case and the fact it had no apparent peg to current news.

Univision wanted the Conservative Republican to be part of their immigration debate, so they can skewer his policy opinions, and this was the network's way of getting back at him.

On the night of July 5, Rubio received a call from his sister, Barbara Cicilia. She was distraught. A Univision reporter had called her about the arrest and incarceration of her husband, Orlando Cicilia, in the 1987 federal bust called “Operation Cobra.” Rubio was 16 at the time. Before Rubio was elected to his first legislative seat, in 2000, Cicilia was cleared for early release.

According to Rubio's communication director the network made itself clear.

On July 7, Alex Burgos, Rubio’s communications director, and Rubio’s political advisor, Todd Harris, held a 45-minute conference call with a handful of top Univision editorial staffers, including Lee, the news chief who handled most of the discussions for Univision. Harris represented Rubio as Burgos took notes. Rubio was not on the call.

Toward the end of the conversation, Lee brought up Ramos’ show and suggested the drug-bust story could change — or not run at all, according to Harris and Burgos’ notes.

Said Harris: “You’re saying that if Marco does an interview with Ramos, that you will drop this investigation into his family and the story will never air?"

Lee, they say, responded with this statement: "While there are no guarantees, your understanding of the proposal is fair.”

In his statement to The Herald, Lee disputes that. He said “various” people were on the call with Rubio’s staff for what he said was an “off-the-record discussion” about the story, including two of the network’s “top internal legal counsels.”

Rubio and his office initially refused to discuss any aspect of the story with The Herald. But after Univision insiders spoke about the story, Rubio and his staff agreed to speak on the record.

The Herald obtained letters from Rubio’s office to Univision in which Burgos denounced the story and reporting as “outrageous” and “tabloid journalism.” Rubio’s office confirmed their authenticity and later furnished a follow-up letter from Lee in which he again mentioned Al Punto and another show, Aqui y Ahora.

But the Univision sources, with knowledge of the discussions, affirmed Harris’ version of events.

"We were stunned,’’ one Univision executive said. "Can you imagine how embarrassing it is?"

The message to Senator Rubio was clear, play the game our way, think what we think, or we will do our best to destroy you.  Marco Rubio should get used to attacks like this no matter how distant the charges may be.  Rubio and people like him are the future of the GOP, I would not be surprised seeing his name as the GOP presidential candidate...he is just that good! Someone with those qualifications is bound to scare the left and thus make him the center of media attacks. Its the way the left does things.

It's Time For Some Truth! Bill Clinton NEVER Balanced a Budget and NEVER Ran a Surplus

On Friday Former President Bill Clinton spoke at the dedication of a bridge at his Presidential library.  During his address he complained that Republicans try to take too much credit for his welfare reform legislation and for balancing the budget. The two parties can argue about who was behind welfare reform, but no one deserves credit for balancing the budget.  The truth is  the United States federal budget was not balanced in any of Bill Clinton's eight years as President. Not once!

The federal government has two types of debt public debt and intra-governmental debt.  Public debt is comprises securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by investors, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments  Intra-governmental debt comprises Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government, such as the Social Security Trust Fund.

Traditionally the annual federal government budget deficit or surplus is the cash difference between government receipts and spending, ignoring intra-governmental transfers. This is a trick as intra-governmental debt needs to be repaid just like the publicly held debt. This is also how Clinton claimed a surplus in three out of his last four years. (Source for all of the numbers below, US Treasury Direct).

Fiscal Year	End Date		Public Debt	Claimed Surplus
FY1997	09/30/1997		$3.789667T
FY1998	09/30/1998		$3.733864T	$69.2B
FY1999	09/30/1999		$3.636104T	$122.7B
FY2000	09/29/2000		$3.405303T	$230.0B
FY2001	09/28/2001		$3.339310T

These figures include the public debt but not the intra-governmental debt.  Its like paying off your American Express card while ignoring the fact that your Mastercard over the limit and months past due. Your Amex looks great but your budget is not balanced.

When the Treasury department reports the National Debt (now at $14.5 trillion) it counts both public and intra-governmental debt. Clinton's first full budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994) and his last started in October 2000 and ended in September 2001. Using those bookends and subtracting each year's national debt from prior years,  here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets.

Fiscal Year	Year Ending	National Debt	Deficit
FY1993	09/30/1993	$4.411488 trillion	$346.87 billion
FY1994	09/30/1994	$4.692749 trillion	$281.26 billion
FY1995	09/29/1995	$4.973982 trillion	$281.23 billion
FY1996	09/30/1996	$5.224810 trillion	$250.83 billion
FY1997	09/30/1997	$5.413146 trillion	$188.34 billion
FY1998	09/30/1998	$5.526193 trillion	$113.05 billion
FY1999	09/30/1999	$5.656270 trillion	$130.08 billion
FY2000	09/29/2000	$5.674178 trillion	$17.91 billion
FY2001	09/28/2001	$5.807463 trillion	$133.29 billion

To be fair, Clinton's FY 2000 budget came very close, it only added about $18 billion to the national debt, but in his last budget he was back up over $130 billion.

Despite what you may hear from Democrats on the campaign trail, there were no giant surpluses that Bush squandered (Bush did overspend, but there was no surplus to squander). The myth of Clinton balancing the budget and producing surpluses belongs with unicorns and and elves, in the realm of myths. The last president to preside over a balanced budget/surplus was Dwight Eisenhower, whose government saw surpluses of  approximately $2 billion dollars in 1956 and 57.

Neither Bill Clinton nor any Republicans deserve any credit for balancing the budget in the 1990s, because the budget was never balanced.

The Rise and Fall of Rick Perry->And The Lid Teaches His Friend Jazz The Facts About Israel

Participating as a guest on the Rick Moran show is a guilty pleasure, and last night's show was probably one of the most enjoyable ever.  Rick, who is an editor at both PJM, American Thinker and runs his own blog Right Wing Nut House is very masterful at getting his guest to think and interact and last night the interaction between Stephen Green the famous Vodkapundit, my good friend Jazz Shaw who blogs at the Hot Air Green Room and myself was pretty spirited.   Make sure you listen to the last segment where we discuss the Middle East.  For those of you who don't know both Jazz and me, we agree 95% of the time, that 5% is mostly comprised of the Middle East. While Jazz will probably still disagree, I didn't argue with Jazz's opinions but the facts that he based his opinions on.

(if you cannot see media player below Please Click Here)

Another Survey Shows Obama's Deteriorating Jewish Support (and Its not Just Because Of Israel)

Another opinion poll was released reporting s a deterioration of Barack Obama's support in the Jewish Community.  What makes this set of results surprising is the poll was conducted by the American Jewish Committee, a group who's leanings are so liberal,  it chastises more conservative Jewish organizations that criticize Obama's Israel policy. Another surprise in the survey (at lease for those unfamiliar with Jewish voters) is that Israel is just one of the issues driving Jews away from Obama.

For the first time since his inauguration, the annual  AJC poll shows more Jews disapproving of Obama's performance than approving. Approval of Obama’s performance declined to 45 percent, and disapproval rose to 48 percent. Last year's AJC survey reported 51 percent approved, and 44 percent disapproved.

Key areas of  Jewish voter disapproval are the economy (duh), and immigration. Foreign policy is a wash and most Jews approve of  the President's performance with National Security and Energy.As expected, the President's Israel Policy meets with disapproval.

Note: the only people who believe that Jews approve of his policy are members of the Democratic caucuses in either house of Congress, people who work for the DNC, or Obama reelection campaign or members of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Of course the NJDC wouldn't criticize Obama even if he woke up one day and (God forbid) decided to bomb Tel Aviv.

 It would be hard for those folks to deny the objection to Obama and Israel now as the results aren't even close.Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of U.S. -Israel relations?

Interestingly the Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu, not a favorite amongst the liberal Jewish Community in the US has a better approval story than Obama.Do you approve or disapprove of the Netanyahu government's handling of Israel-U.S. relations?The poll also asks how they would vote in an Obama election against:

• Romney (Obama 50%, Romney 32%, Neither 16%)

• Perry  (Obama 55%, Perry 25%, Neither 18%)

• Bachmann (Obama 59%, Bachmann 19%, Neither 21%)

A few things to point out, Obama beats each of the above, but in each case his percent of the vote is lower than his 2008 total. Based on the poll Obama's 2012 performance with Jews  depends on who the Republicans put up. It is very early, and actual Jewish support for each of these GOP candidates could be much higher or much lower because Jewish Democrats are not  familiar with the GOP candidates (except for what the mainstream media slanders about them).

In the end this study doesn't show that Obama will lose the Jewish vote in 2012, nor should it.  I would be very surprised if  Obama lost the Jewish vote in 2012. What it does show is the GOP has an opportunity to steal enough  Jewish votes to make a difference in some key states.  The large "none of the above" numbers reflect the possibility that Jewish voters may become so frustrated with the choice of candidates that a big segment of them may stay home. This hurts the Democrats.  Based on historic trends 70-80% of those Jews who stay home will be votes lost to the Democratic candidate.And most important IMHO, is that it kills the argument of many  unfamiliar with Jewish voters.  Israel  is not the only issue that shapes their election picks.

Gallup's Analysis of Obama Approval Rating in Jewish Community is Dishonest

A helicopter was flying around above Seattle yesterday when an electrical malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and communication equipment. Due to the clouds and haze the pilot could not determine his position or course to steer to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign and held it in the helicopter's window. The sign said "WHERE AM I ?" in large letters. People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign said, "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map and determine the course to steer to SEATAC (Seattle/Tacoma) airport and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded, "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT building because they gave me a technically correct but completely useless answer."

That story was written about Microsoft, but could have been written about Gallup's recent report on Obama's approval rating in the Jewish community. They provided information that was technically accurate, but totally useless.

The Headline of their story was:

Jewish Support for Obama Down, but Not Disproportionately Current 13-point gap between Jewish and national support is about average

That headline is absolutely true, but its the wrong comparison.

Assuming  the overall Jewish American approval numbers are correct, Jews gave President Barack Obama a 54% job approval rating in September, down from 68% in May,  and drastically below the 83% at the beginning of 2009, but its the comparison to the general population that is disingenuous.

There is little sign that President Obama is suffering disproportionately in support among Jews; 54% approved of his job performance from Aug. 1-Sept. 15, 13 percentage points higher than his overall 41% approval rating during that time, and similar to the average 14-point gap seen throughout Obama's term.

There's the problem, Jews can't be compared with total US Voters, because they don't vote that way.  Jews are far more liberal-Democratic than the average voter.  According to Gallup US Party affiliation as of May 2011 44% of American voters are Democrats.

The latest Gallup figure I could find for Jewish party affiliation (Sept 2009) shows that American Jews are almost 50% more likely to be Democrats than the average American.

Why is this important? Because Obama's approval rating has not fallen off with Democrats as fast it has for Republicans.  Using numbers from May 2011 and August 2011 Gallup reports the Democrat approval fall off is less the total US figures. Total US fell by 20% while total Democrats fell by fell by 12%

A more reasonable national baseline to compare the Jewish vote to would be 
to create a weighted average figure based on the general population approvals but weighted by the party affiliation of Jewish voters(66% Dem, 27% GOP and 7% independents)

That weighted average comes to 63.7% approval in May and 54.9% in August a drop of  almost 9% or a -13% difference in President Obama's approval rating

At the same time Obama's approval rating amongst Jewish voters dropped from 68% to 54% a drop of 14 percentage points or -16% difference.

Based on this more realistic comparison President Obama's job approval is falling faster than the national average.  While the president enjoyed a higher approval rating this May in the Jewish community than the national average (based on Jewish party affiliation), his approval today is slightly lower than the national average.

That's where Gallup gets it wrong. By comparing the drop in Obama's approval in the Jewish community to that of the overall voter, it does a disservice to it readership and creates a dishonest story.

The old proverb says there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Friday's Gallup look at Obama Approval Rating amongst Jewish voters has  proven that proverb to be very true.

Congressional Democrats to Obama: "Sure I Love You, But Just As a Friend"

President Obama put is succinctly yesterday, "If you love me you will help me pass my bill!"

Unfortunately for the President the reply he is getting from Democratic Party lawmakers is we love you but we are not IN love with you, "Can't We Just Be Friends?"

It was obvious that the President had anticipated Objections to his  jobs bill new stimulus plan from the GOP side of the aisle, but the most vocal objections have come from his own party.

This morning on the Joe Scarborough show, NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd declared that the Democrats are in open revolt about the president's Jobs proposal

In a moment, at a time when the campaign, the Obama campaign is desperate to have him seen as a tough leader again, you don’t want to get rolled by your own party.…to have this string of Democratic Senators come out and tell the New York Times… Joe Manchin this thing seems too big and Bob Casey saying, I would like to deal with it piece meal. Oh by the way, Casey and Manchin are up for reelection in swing states/red states in Pennsylvania and West Virginia respectively. So, that is not a good sign.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That NY Times article  talking about in the clip should be rather upsetting to the President:

Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.” 

Democrats like Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who does not want the oil industry singled out for tax changes, object to parts of the bill. The White House has opposed breaking it up. 

“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month.

Reid seemed more bewildered than normal when he spoke to reporters:

“‘I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet with the president's jobs bill, but we're going to have a full caucus meeting on it on Thurs,’ Reid told reporters, saying merely that he had introduced the bill Tuesday. A number of Democrats have previously opposed some of the ideas in the bill

Other Congressional Democrats weighed in on their displeasure to other news sources:

• “Terrible.” “‘Terrible,’ Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told Politico when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. ‘We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.’”

• “Frustrating … There’s an unfairness to it.” “Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, said it was ‘frustrating’ to see the president single out the oil industry after calling on the congressional supercommittee in last week’s address to Congress to find savings. ‘When you start singling out certain industries, there’s an unfairness to it,’ he said in an interview. ‘On the pay-fors, I have a problem.’”

• “I disagree with the president.” Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat whose state includes some of the wealthiest counties in the U.S., said she didn't support the health-care tax, according to Bloomberg News. ‘I disagree with the president,’ she said.”

• Even Senator John "Why The Long Face?" Kerry said the bill would have to be broken up into pieces.  “I don’t think anybody expects it to pass en bloc.” “‘I don’t think anybody expects it to pass en bloc,’ Kerry told reporters yesterday afternoon. ‘So, the issue is going to be what, if any, parts of it might be cherry-picked. And really that depends a lot on the overall mix of the negotiation.’”

According to the Raging Cajun James Carville...its time for the White House to panic.

What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic. We are far past sending out talking points. Do not attempt to dumb it down. We cannot stand any more explanations. Have you talked to any Democratic senators lately? I have. It's pretty damn clear they are not happy campers. …For God's sake, why are we still looking at the same political and economic advisers that got us into this mess? It's not working.”

This jobs plan was to be the cornerstone of the President's reelection effort.  Not the passage of the bill, but the Republican rejection of the bill. For the next 13 and a half months we were to hear nothing but those scary stories of the GOP pushing unemployed people off the cliff, taking away their healthcare and sending their parents back to Mexico (or something like that).

The roadblock Obama didn't anticipate was that when Democratic members of Congress went home, they found a constituency that was sick and tired of the tax and spend policy reflected in both parties.

Unless the Democrats fall in line soon, the president's reelection campaign is going to have to find a different enemy, because it will be a bi-partisan rejection of his Jobs plan.

What The NY-9 Contest Teaches Us (And Doesn't ) About The Jewish Vote

As usual the Drudge headline was striking and accurate, "Revenge of the Jews." Indeed a big part of GOP candidate Bob Turner's win against the Democratic candidate David Weprin was the Jewish vote going to the GOP. NY 9 may be the most heavily Jewish district in the country (estimates range from 33-40% of the electorate). The real question is what does this mean for the 2012 election and can these results be replicated in other districts. The answer is---probably not. What people nationally forget is that some of the Jewish vote for Turner was about Israel, but also some of the vote was about other issues. And it was the combination of issues that gave Turner the Jewish vote last night.

There were three major Issues in the campaign Israel, Gay Marriage and the economy. When Ed Koch got involved and turned the race into a referendum on Jews and Obama, he gave two reasons. The first was Obama's poor treatment of the Jewish State, and the other was Obamanomics. Interestingly, he did not criticize Obama's economic platform because of all the conservative reasons such as the debt, big government, etc. Koch criticized it because he wasn't spending/doing enough.  In his endorsement of Bob Turner published in the Jerusalem Post, he said voters needed to send the Democrats a message that Obama was not liberal enough in the debt ceiling negotiations saying the President has

been the major advocate for seeking a far-reaching deal that would have combined a debt limit increase with substantial spending cuts; significant changes in social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and perhaps Social Security; and as much as $1 trillion in new revenue.

Koch was unhappy that Obama was even considering reforming entitlements.  In the end the message Ed Koch brought to the campaign was Obama hates Israel and is too much of an economic moderate.

That appealed to the Liberal Jews of Queens, especially in the areas of Forest Hills and Kew Gardens.

The message to the more conservative Jews of Brooklyn was a bit different. They too were energized by Obama and Israel but just as important (If not more) was Weprin's recent vote in the NY State assembly in favor of Gay marriage. Indeed according to my sources in the campaign much of the robo-calling to Brooklyn pointed out this Weprin vote.

There is one other issue that could have effected the campaign. Jews in the district were urged to send Obama a message, but it was understood that the message would be a short-term one.  It is well known that when the redistricting is done before 2012, NY-9 will be redistricted away. Therefore the winner will probably not be in office for much more than 15 months.  I have no evidence of the fact, but I wonder if liberal Jews would be as willing to switch party's if the district was not about to go away.

At the end of July the Democrat had 26% of the Jewish vote, a week before the election that lead was 6% and Weprin's hemorrhaging of Jewish votes was still going on.
Last night's last night's vote for Bob Turner was the result of a "perfect storm." A district whose voters are up to 40% Jewish, and was about to be redistricted out of existence, with two distinct Jewish Communities, one very liberal, the other center-right. On the issues,  Liberal disaffection with Obama's policies as not liberal enough, conservative disaffection with Weprin's Gay Marriage vote and Obama's disastrous policy on Israel. None of these issues were big enough to sway Jewish voters on their own, but the combination of two in Queens switched enough Jewish voters to make that vote close in a borough that should have gone overwhelmingly to the  Democrat, and a different pairing of two gave Turner a landslide in Brooklyn, where the race should have been close.

Last night's vote for Turner was a message to Obama by the district Jews about his Israel policies, but it wasn't the only message.  NY-9 is a unique combination of voters with a unique  combination of issues, not a bellwether of the Jewish vote across the country.

GOP strategist need to understand that the traditional Democratic Jewish vote is vulnerable in 2012, but in most areas a switch in the Jewish vote will not tip the election (but it might in state such as Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania) , and each set of voting circumstances are different requiring different issues to be combined with the Israel issue to sway Jewish voters.

The No Obama Speech, Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata, Republican Candidate Debate at The Reagan Library

Tonight conservatives and Republicans across the country found themselves in unfamiliar territory... MSNBC, the network host for The Reagan Library-No Obama Speeches-Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata-Republican Candidate Debate.  This was the first debate that would include the Texas Governor on the firing line. At the beginning it seemed as if the moderators were trying to make the debate, a war between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. In fact it seemed as if they weren't going to let any of the other six candidates come out and play. But then they switched tactics and made the rest of the evening a game of lets beat up the Texas governor. On many occasions candidates were not asked to express their opinion, but to comment on Perry's.  If one didn't know better they might suspect the NBC news staff was intent on bringing down Perry, or at least trying to give Obama ammo if Perry ends up with the nomination.

Who Won?  It depends,....once again Mitt Romney looked very Presidential. In most case he said the right things, the question is can you believe the guy. Romney did seem like a unifier something that will appeal to independents, but to get to the independents he needs to get the nomination and to be honest Romney is just not popular with his own party because of the lack of belief that he means what he says.

Romney did however have a  great comeback to Perry in one of the early exchanges, on the issue of who's state created more jobs:

"Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Perry quipped, in a stinging reference to the former Massachusetts governor who lost the presidential election to George H.W. Bush.

Romney immediately shot back that “George Bush and his predecessors created jobs at a faster rate than you did.”

Later in the debate Huntsman topped them both reminding both Governors that it was his State, Utah that led the country in creating jobs.

Romney didn't win tonight, but he really didn't have to, for his campaign it was just important that he didn't lose.

While Romney looked presidential, Rick Perry looked "straight out of central casting" presidential.  He looks like a take-no-crap-from-anybody type who follows the old Teddy Roosevelt advice "Speak Softly but Carry a Big Stick." Perry was set up to fail by the moderators and handled himself admirably. 

Perry's appeal is that he is direct and says what he thinks, but he has to learn to explain himself better; he is right Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but he needs to explain why. Tell people what a Ponzi scheme is and explain why it is a valid comparison. He also should bone up on some of the other theories about what causes climate change, Solar Activity, ocean currents, etc. Its the same thing as his Ponzi scheme line, he is 100% right but needs to explain himself better.

Newt was, well Newt. Just like the Fox debate he went after the moderators and the media, at one point saying , "I'm frankly not interested in your efforts to get Republicans fighting each other."  He continued with all Republicans should "defeat efforts by the news media" to spark an internal struggle when the real objective is to defeat Obama in 2012. He was right, it was a good point but it seemed like deja vu all over again. We heard that act in the last debate.

Michele Bachmann had another bad debate.  More than any of the other candidates,  she seemed as if she was just repeating talking points.  At one point she said one of her jobs as nominee is to elect 13 more Republican senators. To my ears that line sounded like she was trying to work for ACORN. I understand the power of positive thinking, but there is a thin line between positive thinking and flinging too much bull-crap.  Today Michele was a bit to heavy on the Bull-Crap.

If I had a dollar every time Herman Cain said 9-9-9 my bank account would be approaching seven figures.  Its not that his plan is bad, but he uses it as the answer to every question, whether appropriate or not. Besides, doesn't 9-9-9 seem like one of those long distance services that used to be popular like "dial 1-10-10?"

Ron Paul was scarier than usual, we're  talking about "frothing from the mouth" crazy.  The way he jumped from point to point made it almost seem that the guy was losing his hold on reality. And Ron, if you are going to shrink government to your desired levels you do have to answer the question what would you replace it with. 

 If there is a "Mr Cellophane"  in this campaign there it is Rick Santorum. While I don't agree with all of his positions, he handled himself very well when asked a question, but he wasn't asked many.  Santorum's answer to the Catholic-poverty question was really heartfelt and the GOP should heed his approach on the reasons the welfare system needed to be changed.

"There is no one in the 12 years I was in the United State Senate who did more to work on poverty than Rick Santorum," Santorum said. He then went on to discuss his work on the welfare reform bill in the 1990s. "We didn’t pass it to cut money, we didn’t pass it to punish anybody, we changed the welfare system because it was punishing people…it was creating a culture of dependency and we went out and talked to the American public and said trust us to end this federal entitlement, put a work requirement in place, put a time limit on welfare…and we will transform it from a dependency system to a transitional system."

 And finally we have the former Governor of Utah, Doctor Huntsman and Mr. Hyde. Jon Huntsman is so right on so many issues and extremely wrong on so many others. His economic program is excellent, but his refusal to acknowledge that the global warming consensus is non existent is very problematic. Especially when he gives the media (and the Democrats campaign lines about rejecting science). Its not a rejection of science it is a scientific disagreement.

In the end tonight's debate served to clarify the GOP picture for the next five months till people begin to actually vote in primaries.  It is a contest between Perry and Romney, the once promising Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann continue their march backwards.  Santorum and Huntsman have their moments but gain no traction. Newt has good ideas and zingers, but the fact is people just don't like him, and Dr Ron Paul is still a couple of french fries away from a happy meal.

Labor Secretary Solis-Obama Hasn't Been Ignoring Jobs (He's Just Incompetent)

Sometimes when administration hacks defend their boss they don't quite understand what they are saying. For example, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka criticized the President's effort on fixing the job market.  He said said Obama has not offered bold enough solutions to fix the economy and has been distracted by Republican demands to bring down the national deficit.

Today Labor Secretary Solis rejected Trumka's criticism and said the president has been focused on jobs.

Solis said Obama has “absolutely not” been nibbling around the edges in trying to fix the economy and instead had offered bold solutions to create jobs as the economy struggles. She highlighted Obama’s efforts to help the U.S. auto industry.

"Absolutely not,” Solis told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Monitor. “I can say that because the last two and a half years I have spent a tremendous amount of time ramping, reforming and reinventing some of our job-creating programs to strengthen them, to better coordinate them with our partners in the field.”

Maybe Solis should have let well enough alone.  Think about it for a moment.  Trumka was claiming Obama wasn't doing enough in the job market.  He may be right, after all the unemployment is over 9% (and he promised it wouldn't go over 8%).  But according to Solis the administration has been working hard on jobs, which means their programs haven't been working. Instead of jobs not being a priority the Secretary of Labor is saying something much worse, the Obama administration is simply not up to the task.

Man Made Global Warming Another Romney Flip Flop

Once again the media has it all wrong.  They claim that the conservative wing of the GOP has trouble with Mitt Romney because of some of the positions he has taken on the issues.  That's not quite true. Conservative Republicans have an issue with Romney because his positions change so often they're not sure where he stands.

During his two attempts to gain the GOP nomination for president, Mitt Romney has changed his views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.  According to Reuters he has now added global warming to his little waffle dance.



In early June the former Massachusetts governor turned perpetual presidential candidate announced his support of the man-made global warming hoax.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."'

When he was Governor of Massachusetts,  Romney also took the opening steps toward joining a cap-and-trade compact for power plants now known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 

Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan.

In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide.
''This is a great thing for the Commonwealth," Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ''We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."

He later went on to say:

Romney said Monday that he had some concerns about the agreement, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but he endorsed this and other clean-energy initiatives by saying they would stimulate the development of technology that Massachusetts companies could sell to other states and countries as the emphasis on climate change grows.

“I’m convinced it is good business,” Romney said. He cited analyses showing that the agreement would boost energy prices by just 1 or 2 percent.

 His comments in June seemed to indicate his continued support of the Climate change myth. But yesterday he tweaked his support a bit.

"Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that but I think that it is," he said. "I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans."

"What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to."

Not willing to spend trillions? But on June 3 he said:

  "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."'

 That's the Romney problem. He doesn't have stances on issues, its more like a political game of whack-a-mole, when you try to hit him on an issue he ducks his  head and pops up in a different stance.

Romney's global warming waffle can be added to this list of changed stances.

• Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as pro-life.

• Gun control. Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said he favored strong gun laws and did not "line up with the NRA." He joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 while pondering a presidential run, and he praised the group for "doing good things" and "supporting the right to bear arms."

• Campaign finance. In 1994, he advocated a spending limit on congressional elections and the abolition of political action committees. In 2002, he supported public financing of campaigns from a 10 percent tax on private fundraising. In 2008, he said the McCain-Feingold law limiting campaign contributions is an attack on free speech.

• Immigration. In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described an immigration overhaul advanced by John McCain as "reasonable." When he was running against McCain for the nomination in 2008 he denounced  it as an "amnesty plan.

I am not a big fan of the "circular firing squad" and will vote for Romney against Obama if he gets the nomination, but he is killing himself with these constant flip flops. And in the end, his wavering stances on so many issues may turn out to cost him the nomination more than the issues he remains steadfast about.

Is John Huntsman-Posturing For 2016?

I often wonder why Jon Huntsman is still in the race he is almost an afterthought in the campaign.  In the Iowa straw poll results he finished 9th with only 69 total votes out of almost 17,000 votes.  Huntsman received fewer votes than Rick Perry who got 718 write-in votes and he didn't even announce that he was running until the straw poll voting had already started.

In a campaign season where Republican's are trying to recapture their conservative mantle, Jon Huntsman is a liberal Republican.  In fact many a pundit has wondered if Huntsman was running for the nomination of the wrong party.

The Wall Street Journal said that Huntsman's contrary positions are part of his strategy, at least as it applies to global warming. The Journal says that Huntsman is using climate change as his opportunity to differentiate himself by appealing to Republicans to the left of Mitt Romney.

As Jon Huntsman tries to save his GOP presidential bid, he's decided to embrace global warming as a wedge issue. Mr. Manchin had the better strategy.

Mr. Huntsman, the former Utah governor and ambassador to Beijing, began his candidacy stressing his resume and his attractive family. With that getting him nowhere in a year when issues trump biography, he's now attacking fellow Republicans for, among other things, not embracing the science of global warming. "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," Mr. Huntsman said on Twitter, a criticism of recent remarks by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Mr. Huntsman followed that up on Sunday on ABC, telling Jake Tapper that the GOP has a "serious problem" when it becomes "anti-science."

Huntsman has two shots at winning, slim and none, but he is spending his time attacking the other candidates.  Its almost as if he is saying, "If I can't have the presidency no one can."

The broadside was part of a larger strategy of attacking all of his GOP opponents for something or other. He ripped Mitt Romney for flip-flopping on taxes, assailed Michele Bachmann for saying she'd get gas prices below $2 a gallon and called Mr. Perry "unelectable."

All of this is the hallmark of John Weaver, who is Mr. Huntsman's chief strategist. Mr. Weaver has long been at war with the GOP mainstream, and his candidates typically end up running against some element of the Republican base. That was his strategy in 2000 with John McCain, who won New Hampshire but lost in South Carolina after attacking fellow Republicans. Mr. Weaver was no longer advising Mr. McCain in 2008 when the Arizonan won the nomination. Mr. Weaver is angling Mr. Huntsman for a McCain-2000-style victory in New Hampshire.

The strange part is it just doesn't makes sense. True McCain got the nomination last time but he lost the election, the GOP isn't likely to make that same mistake with a nominee so soon after the 2008 Election.  The GOP is a lot different than it was it 2008, the traditional party hacks that helped nominate McCain have been overrun by the conservative wing of the party.  Huntsman's no idiot, he understands this, so it leads back to the question what the heck is the former Utah Governor doing.

Here's another suggestion. What if Huntsman is posturing himself for a 2016 run.  Perhaps he remembers the conservative movement in the early 1960's and he is expecting the 2012 GOP nominee to lose in the same way LBJ trounced Goldwater.

If that is behind Huntsman's  strategy of being a liberal Republican in a conservative world he is in for a big surprise. Barry Goldwater was running against someone who was a popular president at the time. A return to conservative values was something new for the for the country and the party. In fact many in the traditional GOP Republican did not work hard to elect because of the divisive primaries that let to his nomination.

The 2012 nominee (as long as it isn't Ron Paul) will have the support of a united party.   The nominee will be facing a president whose programs, especially in the area of the number one issue, the economy is very unpopular. In 1964 there was no reason to change course, this time there is every reason to change.

According to the WSJ Jon Huntsman is posturing himself to become the liberal alternative in 2012.  It would not be beyond reason for Huntsman's approach to be directed toward 2016. Either way the former ambassador to China seems out of touch with the country and with his party.  Perhaps his time would be better spent doing something else.

Barack Obama Vs. The American People (Obama's 2012 Strategy)

This weekend President Obama and his campaign team went on television and made it clear he will not be running against Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or any of the other Republican Candidates, no those candidates are too formidable in his mind. The president will also refuse to run on his record and to be honest who can blame him.  No based on what he said in his weekly address and supported by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs on the Sunday News shows, the enemy in this upcoming 2012 presidential campaign will be the Republicans in Congress and the American people.

Its an interesting yet disingenuous message that we have heard many times before. Grass-roots Americans in the form of the tea party  are forcing members of the Congressional Tea party caucus to take stands and stick to them which they do solely for political reasons. Even worse according to the presidential team, those positions are bad for the American people, and are the reason nothing gets done in Washington DC.



What positions are they talking about? Specifically the President is talking about some of those evil Tea Party positions such as, obey the constitution, do not add any more taxes until you can bring spending in line, and of course cut spending and reform entitlements lest the country go bankrupt. I would suggest that by taking those stands and sticking to them, despite all of the pressure to give in the tea party caucus is putting country in front of party and in front of their political careers.

The claim that it is the Tea Party caucus that has been holding up progress on legislation is also troubling.  The President has been running the country since January 2009. From inauguration day till January of this year when the GOP took over the house, Obama was working with two houses of Congress from his party. For most of that time, there were 60 Democrats in the  Senate making it filibuster proof! Isn't it reasonable to ask why was nothing done the first 75% of his term so far?

The answer to that question is the President and his party were pushing through programs that had nothing to do with Jobs, but had everything to do with putting political agenda in front of country, a trillion dollar stimulus program which included every type of pork possible, targeted to reelect Democrats.  Instead of having the stimulus dollars hit ASAP which would be most helpful to the economy, a large chunk of the money hit in early 2010, so it could be used as re-election pork. Instead of using the construction programs in the stimulus bill to help everybody, he directed the funds via executive toward his political supporters the unions, only 14% of construction shops are union. Costs for construction jobs were estimated at 20% higher because the president was helping is ideological base.

After the ill-fated stimulus was passed, in stead of working on jobs the President again put party needs in front of the country as the Democrats pushed first for cap and trade and then  for Obamacare. When cap and trade didn't pass, the EPA took up the baton and is trying to implement job-killing regulation on its own.

The job killing Obamacare program and the Chris Dodd/Barney Frank financial regulation bill followed.  Both of these efforts were passed to sate the progressive ideological base. Both of these efforts hurt rather than helped the economy.  So who exactly is putting party in front of Country?

Lets talk a bit about the War Effort.  Again in response to demands by his political base, President Obama executed a surge in Afghanistan which was smaller than his Generals recommended.  A year later, he announced a pull out from Afghanistan that was larger and faster than his Generals recommended. Once again this President is put his progressive politics in before the needs of the American people.

Twice before Congress rejected the Dream Act based on the will of the people. The reason for the rejection  is that the people believe that the first step must be to secure our borders. That would be the best thing for the country.  But because the President's support in the Latin community is softening, his Homeland Security Dept., is executing the amnesty program anyway.

In his two and a half years as President of the United States, Barack Obama constantly chose an agenda which placed the ideology of his progressive base in front of country.  He helped to push through major legislation which not only went against the will of the people, but the needs of the country, an improved economy and the SHMOTUS, VP Biden's favorite three letter word J-O-B-S. When he couldn't even get the support of a congress controlled by his own party, programs were implemented by executive fiat. It seems to me that it is the President and his progressive followers who are putting party and ideology in front of country. His latest political strategy, casting a grass roots effort of the American people as evil is just one more example of the progressive cynicism, they are dividing the country just to support their political agenda.

New Tone? DNC Talking Points Memo For Iowa Brands GOP Candidates As Extreme

Sadly it seems the Democratic Party operatives are forgetting their own demands for a "new tone" by issuing a "talking points" memo omitting any supporting facts, but simply branding GOP candidates as extremist Tea Party flaks pushing tired, divisive policies which elevate the rich and hurt the middle class.  Not once does the memo give the "hows and whys" of why they disagree with the point of view of these candidates, instead the DNC is repeating the same fear mongering the President has been repeating over and over.

"As we expect to see tonight, the GOP candidates' extreme aims to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party shows that Republicans are more concerned with protecting their special interest friends and the wealthy than protecting working families," the memo, penned by DNC National Press Secretary Melanie Roussell, reads.

"The GOP would rather seniors and the middle class sacrifice and the wealthy pay even less in taxes. Unlike President Obama, their policies would eliminate, not create, opportunities for the middle class."

The memo goes on to make personal attacks on each of the major GOP candidates and their stance on the issues.

"[T]he actions or lack thereof of candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and others are clear - these Republican candidates for President are not interested in leading. They simply want to please the far-right, extreme Tea Party base of their party because that is what being the standard bearer of the Republican Party today requires," says Roussell.

"At a moment when America should have been their top concern [the debt  ceiling mess], they put politics, party and rigid ideology first. And the Republican presidential candidates backed them up - and the GOP field will double down on that flawed approach to leadership tonight."

Pushing Grandma off the cliff:

"Both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty endorsed a Cut, Cap and Balance proposal that would have cut Medicaid by one-third over 10 years and nearly half by 2050. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, that alone could cause 36 million people to lose their Medicaid coverage, including individuals with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes."

On Romney:

"Mitt Romney has consistently ducked and dodged on the most pressing issues facing America including the debt ceiling debate. Not only did he wait until 12 hours before the final vote to actually say something-leading one reporter to say Romney was in a "Mittness Protection Program"-he endorsed the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that would have harmed our economic recovery in the short-term while simultaneously hurting our long-term economic competitiveness all while putting a greater burden on America's oldest citizens and our most vulnerable. Look for him to reassert his support for Cut, Cap and Balance tonight."

On Bachmann:

"To her credit Michele Bachmann did not actually vote for the Cut, Cap, and Balance - because she didn't think it was extreme enough! She told Fox News that America should pay off all our foreign creditors first, even if that means slashing Medicare and Social Security payments to America's seniors. We expect her to repeat similar sentiments tonight."

On Cain:

"Additionally, look for Herman Cain to tout more failed economic policies like his support for a 'fair tax' for everyone, which even the Wall Street Journal editorial board called 'the most radical reform imaginable' and one that would 'hit hard the young, middle-income families.'"

A famous Hasidic tale teaches: A man once went around spreading lies about the rabbi. Eventually he began to feel remorse for the wrong he had done. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything to make amends. The rabbi said, “Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds.” The man followed the request gladly. When he told the rabbi that he had done the task, the rabbi said, “Now, go try and gather the feathers.” The man said, “But Rabbi I cannot gather the feathers they are all scattered to the wind.” The Rabbi replied, “Exactly! You cannot take back the damage your words have done; the same way you cannot then recollect the feathers.”

This election however needs to be different. The United States is arguably facing its biggest economic crisis in its history. Even during the Great Depression, full faith in the United States credit was never questioned. But this week our credit rating was downgraded. Voters are demanding a full and rational discussion of the important issues facing the country. Yet 15 months before the election and possibly a year before the GOP will pick a candidate, the Democratic Party has already started  ignoring the issues and waging the politics of personal destruction. We need to fight this nonsense wherever it comes from. This election is just too important to be like the man in the Hasidic tale, hopelessly chasing feathers blowing in the wind.

Read the Full Memo Below:

From: Melanie Roussell, DNC National Press Secretary

To: Interested Parties

Date: August 11, 2011

Re: What to Expect from Tonight's Republican Debate

________________________________________

With 179 days left before the Iowa Caucuses, the American people are increasingly turned off by what they are learning about the Republican presidential candidates and who they fight for. Instead of new ideas that give the middle class more security, we hear the same old policies that carve out special benefits for the special interests. Instead of a new approach that puts party aside and America first, we hear a rigid and extreme ideology that asks working and middle class families to carry the entire load.

This is why the GOP is seeing its support erode significantly. In two recent polls the GOP is seeing some of the highest negative ratings ever-driven in large part by their willingness to let the extreme Tea Party dictate the Republican Party's agenda and take over the party, with the 2012 Republican candidates following their lead.

In a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday: "[F]avorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked." http://bit.ly/pp9t8F: "More Americans now think that members of Congress who support the Tea Party are having a negative effect than said that in January, at the start of the new Congress. Currently, 29% judge the impact of Tea Party supporters as mostly negative compared with 22% who see their impact as mostly positive.

At the beginning of the year, the balance of opinion was just the opposite: 27% said that Tea Party members in Congress would have a positive impact, while 18% expected a negative effect." http://t.co/v7hZidL

Despite these historic negative ratings, we should expect to hear more from this field of Republican presidential contenders who have not only embraced the same failed policies of the past that eroded middle class security and led our country to the brink of depression, but who have also embraced an extreme and rigid ideology that will hurt America's seniors and the middle class.

In advance of tonight's debate, we wanted to highlight some key points we expect to hear from the Republican candidates as they continue to fight for the title of "Most Extreme," in their efforts to pander to the far-right Tea Party base of the Republican Party to seek the nomination.

Failure of Leadership - Duck, Dodge and Dismantle-Make no mistake the Republican presidential contenders have fully embraced what we call the Duck, Dodge and Dismantle approach to leadership because they are ducking their obligation to the Middle Class; dodging their obligation to our nation's seniors; and, they want to dismantle critical education and job creation programs while protecting tax breaks for the wealthy, big oil and corporate jet owners. They support the same unbalanced economic policies as Washington Republicans. Tonight you will hear GOP presidential contenders continue to tout their support for the Republican budget that would end Medicare as we know while giving NEW tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and the special interests. While they ask average Americans to cut back and sacrifice, they ask nothing of those at the very top.

Moreover, the actions or lack thereof of candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and others are clear - these Republican candidates for President are not interested in leading. They simply want to please the far-right, extreme Tea Party base of their party because that is what being the standard bearer of the Republican Party today requires.

Pushing the Nation to the Brink-Expect the overwhelming majority of the Republicans on the stage tomorrow night to proudly state that they would not have supported the bipartisan debt agreement that prevented our country from defaulting on its debt for the first time in history. To these candidates, compromise is a dirty word and the prospect of America not paying its bills was a risk they were willing to take.

The recent decision by S & P to downgrade the United States debt, as flawed as it is, highlighted the need for the type of compromise and consensus that the candidates opposed. In fact, part of what the S & P based its reasoning on was the fact that Republicans in Congress were unwilling to consider revenues. While Democratic leaders showed their commitment to standing with President Obama to support a grand bargain that asked everyone to compromise, Speaker Boehner and his Tea Party Caucus, during negotiations, walked away no less than three times. At a moment when America should have been their top concern, they put politics, party and rigid ideology first. And the Republican presidential candidates backed them up - and the GOP field will double down on that flawed approach to leadership tonight.

Extreme Aims toward America's Seniors-Over the course of their campaigns, each of the Republicans running for president has proven that their priority is not standing up for seniors or America's middle class; their priority is protecting the wealthy and the special interests. Look for them to say more of the same tonight.

Both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty endorsed a Cut, Cap and Balance proposal that would have cut Medicaid by one-third over 10 years and nearly half by 2050. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, that alone could cause 36 million people to lose their Medicaid coverage, including individuals with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes.

Jon Huntsman, who proudly called himself a radical for wanting to end Medicare as we know it, endorsed the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance including a balanced budget amendment. The amendment that the House will consider would put a cap on what the government pays out in Social Security and Medicare while allowing one-third of the members of Congress to block asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. It would be easier to cut Social Security than it would to close corporate tax loopholes for private jets and Wall Street bankers. The amendment, coupled with the cuts from the House Republican budget, would change the rules for generations of Americans who paid into Social Security and Medicare week after week and paycheck after paycheck. Instead of getting what they paid for and earned, they would see cuts that could result in a $1,500 per year average reduction in benefits for the 70 million seniors on Social Security, and an average reduction of approximately $1,100 per year for those who receive Medicare.

Extreme Aims toward the Middle Class-All of the Republicans have committed to the same extreme economic policies of the Republicans who held Washington hostage over the course of the last month. They all support protecting corporate subsidies and tax loopholes instead of protecting investments in critical programs that would create the jobs of the future, like education, research and development of clean energy. In addition, their cuts would cost middle class families jobs.

For example, Mitt Romney has consistently ducked and dodged on the most pressing issues facing America including the debt ceiling debate. Not only did he wait until 12 hours before the final vote to actually say something-leading one reporter to say Romney was in a "Mittness Protection Program"-he endorsed the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that would have harmed our economic recovery in the short-term while simultaneously hurting our long-term economic competitiveness all while putting a greater burden on America's oldest citizens and our most vulnerable. Look for him to reassert his support for Cut, Cap and Balance tonight.

To her credit Michele Bachmann did not actually vote for the Cut, Cap, and Balance - because she didn't think it was extreme enough! She told Fox News that America should pay off all our foreign creditors first, even if that means slashing Medicare and Social Security payments to America's seniors. We expect her to repeat similar sentiments tonight.

Additionally, look for Herman Cain to tout more failed economic policies like his support for a "fair tax" for everyone, which even the Wall Street Journal editorial board called "the most radical reform imaginable" and one that would "hit hard the young, middle-income families."

Conclusion -As we expect to see tonight, the GOP candidates' extreme aims to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party shows that Republicans are more concerned with protecting their special interest friends and the wealthy than protecting working families. The GOP would rather seniors and the middle class sacrifice and the wealthy pay even less in taxes. Unlike President Obama, their policies would eliminate, not create, opportunities for the middle class. They are not interested in a balanced approach to reducing America's deficit that increases revenues and protects America's promise to our seniors and middle class through Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

From day one President Obama has been willing to do the hard work to address the fiscal mess he inherited and move our country in the right direction. The President has worked tirelessly to bring our economy back from the brink, get it growing again and to create jobs for middle class families. He understands we have a long term deficit problem and that special interests aren't left off the hook when it comes to paying their fair share. And sadly, to date all we've seen from the current GOP field is a Duck, Dodge and Dismantle approach. Tonight in Iowa we should not expect anything different than more of the same failed economic policies that brought our economy to the brink and advocacy of extreme policies that will hurt seniors and the middle class.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/08/11/exclusive-fox-news-obtains-dnc-memo-gop-iowa-debate#ixzz1Ul2XDlj6