Tea Party Cartoons

Book Review: COMMON SENSE By Glenn Beck

The out-of-control government spending we are witnessing right now began under George W. Bush. That much is true. But, just because Bush did it does that mean that it is okay for Obama and the Dems to accelerate it? No, absolutely not. If Bush was wrong for running up a $2 trillion debt, then Obama is five and a half times as wrong for wanting to run up an $11 trillion debt. (For those of you who don't understand the math, here is the equation: 11/2 = 5 1/2.)

That basically sums up Glenn Beck's thesis in his #1 bestseller Common Sense. Taking some inspiration from Thomas Paine, the author of the original Common Sense, Glenn has built up an argument that shows us why we, as a nation, are on the wrong path, what will likely happen as a result of going down this path and why we should hold those in power (both Democrat and Republican) accountable for what they've done.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution knew what dangers there were in a government that over-reaches its powers. Glenn reminds us of this throughout the book with passages such as the following:

Thomas Jefferson knew that government debt was not only bad economic policy but also morally unacceptable because it effectively makes your children responsible to pay for what you bought. He said, "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." If that wasn't clear enough, he also said that politicians should consider themselves "unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves ..."

I am not aware of any other commentator who even knows about that quote from Jefferson much less actually reminds us of it. But, since most of us don't know the numbers or don't seem to care enough about what those numbers mean, we simply let it go and expect someone else to handle the problem for us.

That is not possible in the current situation. Here's why: Our interest payment to service our debt stands at $26 billion per month. That's right, per month. That's money that is sent to our creditors rather than going to upgrade schools or roads here in the U.S. Multiply that by 12 and you get $312 billion per year. If the government taxed away the total profits of Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, Wal-Mart and IBM, we wouldn't even have enough to pay one-third of the interest payment on the debt much less pay down the debt! Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Small businesses? Higher taxes on the middle class? (As I write this, the Dems in Congress are already working on several new plans that will raise taxes and depress our economy even further which means even less ability to pay down the debt.)

With this type of insanity going on in Washington D.C., Glenn asks another very important question: "Why do we keep sending these bozos back to Congress?" Therein lies the crux of the title of this book. Sending the current crop of politicians back to D.C. defies common sense.

And here is another good excerpt:

President Obama announced that his 2009 budget was projected to produce a $1,700,000,000,000 deficit. If you break that down you find that we're spending $4,657 billion every day for a year, which breaks down to $53,906.64 per second.

Our government is spending in one second what most Americans don't even make in a year! How sustainable is that? It isn't, which is why all of this fiscal madness is only going to bring us to economic disaster and ruin.

And this brings us to one of the most poignant questions any commentator has ever asked:

Borrowed money has to be paid back - but it won't be us who will have to do it. Our children will question our sanity for spending money we did not have on "bridges to nowhere," skateboard parks, tattoo removel, and other pork-laden projects that politicians stuffed into "must pass" legislation. They will wonder why we tolerated such reckless behavior from our elected leaders instead of holding them accountable. How will we respond?

Indeed, how will we respond? More specifically, how will you respond if your child or grand-child comes up to you after they've turned 18 and asks why they are working to pay off a debt that they didn't vote to incur and from which they are getting no benefit at all?

I doubt anyone will have a good answer to that question. I know I don't.

I highly recommend this book to all Americans whether Democrat, Republican, Lbertarian or otherwise. The issues brought up by Glenn Beck are not political so much as they are national concerns that will touch every single one of us in very negative ways.

Each of us has a choice. Either a) stand up and finally tell Congress to bring spending under control or risk losing their next elections, or b) just sit back, do nothing and wait until the dollar collapses and our children wake up to find themselves up to their foreheads in a debt that they did not incur but will be held responsible for.

I'm sure that you can see choosing the latter will mean that you waited too long to become active.

Tea Party Messages Resonate Loudly Among Average Citizens (Photos Included)

Thomas Jefferson once said, "When people fear the government, that's tyranny. When government fears the people, that's liberty."

The U.S. Government should take the time to understand what Jefferson said and to relate it to yesterday's Tea Parties.

Those tea parties were not the elite coming together nor was it the rich coming out in an effort to keep their money. It was Joe and Jane Average American sending a message to D.C. That message is: "We're fed up with your wasteful mismanagement of our money and your selling off of our children's future."

Look at the pictures below. They are randomly selected from the 800 or so tea parties that took place yesterday. You will not see fear of the government in these people's eyes. You will see anger; an anger that can only be placated on the day when politicians in D.C. do the right thing. It does not look like that day will come under Barack Obama or with a Democrat-controlled congress. But that day will come soon.

Contrary to what the libs are saying about these events, they were not organized by Fox News nor were they put together by Rush Limbaugh. These were not Republican operatives. These were common men and women coming together for a higher purpose. They were not called to come, they came of their own volition. This is more than just a grass-roots movement. What we saw yesterday was the beginning of the Second American Revolution.

There were no riots. Police officers who were sent to maintain the peace saw nothing but peace.

The pictures:

















It won't stop here. People are angry at what the socialists in Congress and the White House are trying to do. The people will win in the end.

Palin Saboteurs Want To Kill Her Career Now

In the current political climate here in the United States, it is pretty easy to see who the effective politicians are and who the potential movers and shakers may be. Given the attacks made against Sarah Palin in the days and weeks after the election, it is pretty clear the the Alaskan Governor is among the most effective politicians in the GOP and her potential to move and shake things is nothing short of awesome.

That is why some people are trying to kill her career right now. Mostly these attacks come from Democrats who simply cannot accept a strong, independent woman in politics. But some attacks do come from within the GOP from people who are afraid of losing their own power within the party.

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown have penned an excellent column about this over at Town Hall. Here are a few of their observations:

Attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin by McCain campaign staff at first appear to be a case of making her a convenient scapegoat, but the attacks have a more devious motive. This post-election barrage is the first volley of the campaign to choose the Republican nominee in 2012. The Washington, D.C. based establishment that rules the GOP wants her career over now. She threatens them.

Yes, I agree. Sarah Palin is a big threat to those put party before country, whether Democrat or Republican. That is one of the reasons we like her so much.

Sarah Palin brought a vibrant, fresh face to the Republican Party. The GOP elitists saw how she easily connected with voters. Palin drew huge crowds of up to 30,000 people anxious to see and hear her. The crowds flocking to see Gov. Palin bond with her culturally. She has the potential to garner Obama- or Reagan-like devotion. The Republican Party needs this grassroots energy and her reform agenda after a decade of broken promises and the disappointing Bush presidency. Looking back at history, you see resemblances of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in Palin. Both Thatcher and Reagan were dismissed and insulted by their own party stalwarts. "Useful idiot" was a term once leveled at President Reagan.

Sarah Palin is not an Ivy League lawyer nor is she anything like the elitists of either party who have completely lost touch with the American people. She is one of us; one of the common people; someone who knows what it is like to live in Main Street America.

That is why she is being attacked.

Remember the Shakespearean play Henry V? Henry actually disguised himself and walked among his troops in order to get a better understanding of what they were thinking and what they believed. Sarah Palin has not only walked among us, she has lived among us and that makes her the most influential politician in the GOP and America in general right now. That also makes her the biggest threat to the political elite.

That is why the Dems and certain Republicans are so scared.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Palin Saboteurs Want To Kill Her Career Now
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
TownHall.com
November 14, 2008

If Principles Matter, So Does McCain

Are you one of those "Principled Conservatives" who is till seething over Senator McCain's clinching of the GOP nomination for President? If so, you really need to read the latest column by Mark Hillman, former Majority Leader of the Colorado Senate. He was the type of Republican who supported the "anybody but McCain" mantra but has since come out in support of Senator McCain's candidacy.

Here's why:

Recently, some conservatives behave as if they have nothing to lose if McCain loses. But a McCain loss equals a Barack Obama win, and we have plenty lose from that. Conservatives remain unified on three key policy objectives: pro-growth tax policy and no-nonsense budgeting, judges who respect the constitution, and a resolve to defeat Islamic terrorists. On these key issues the choice between McCain and Obama cannot be dismissed as the lesser of two evils. The choice is clear and the stakes are enormous. McCain is one of just five Senators who flatly reject pork-barrel budget earmarks. He has vowed to veto any spending bill containing earmarks and has already incurred the wrath of several pork-loving Republicans. That's a welcome change from the you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours spending of the last eight years. By contrast, Obama has promised programs calculated to grow the already bloated budget by $900 billion. Despite his vote against the Bush tax cuts, McCain has vowed to fight to preserve them. Obama conveniently forgets that middle class families benefited most from the Bush tax cuts and instead demagogues against "tax cuts for the rich." However, he can't pay for his big government utopia without squeezing the working class hard. As a Vietnam veteran, McCain understands the lasting consequences of an ignominious defeat. America's stature was badly damaged for years after Vietnam. We now see that McCain's prescription for Iraq after Saddam was right, and the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy was wrong.

But it is the question of Supreme Court Justices that should weigh the heaviest on the minds of "Principled Conservatives." What differences will we be looking at there? What are the potential losses on that front?

However, two things are indisputable: the constructionist justices on today's court were all appointed by Republicans, and the Democrat appointments are all undeniably liberal activists. John Paul Stephens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two justices most likely to retire soon, are both activists who re-write the constitution in contravention of the plain text. Replacing either or both with another John Roberts, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — each of whom McCain supported — could at last restore the court's historic role as a defender of broad individual liberty and a restraint against over-reaching government. If Obama makes the next appointment, we can be certain he will fortify the court's activist wing. Should a constructionist justice retire or die, Obama could swiftly reverse the gains of the last 28 years.

And finally, Mr. Hillman addresses the idea that allowing a liberal to win the White House would somehow be a good thing.

Some conservatives argue that a Democrat victory would galvanize Republicans for 2010 and produce a public backlash, a la 1994. That's a tremendous gamble. Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years from 1955 to 1995. In the Senate, Democrats ruled for 34 of those years. Here in Colorado, perhaps more than anywhere else, Republicans should realize how quickly political fortunes can change and how hard it is to reverse that tide. Conservatives generally recognize short-sighted self-indulgence when practiced by others. Now many conservatives are in danger of practicing a suicidal self-indulgence of their own. We must put aside self-pity and frustration and do what we always have done: choose the right and responsible course for our country. If instead we purposefully withhold our votes to gratify our personal pride and prejudice, the surrendered freedoms, suffocating tax burdens, and national insecurity that result will be as much our responsibility as that of those we "helped" to elect.

That last paragraph says it all. It should be emblazoned on banners all over the Republican Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

If Principles Matter, So Does McCain
Mark Hillman
TownHall.com
March 26, 2008

The Base Is Wrong About The Gang Of 14

It seems as though the so-called Conservatives of the Republican Party (I say "so-called" because they were so conspicuously absent during the early primary campaigns) are grasping at anything to snipe at John McCain about and try to paint him as a liberal. They usually fail when confronted with the facts.

So let's look at the facts behind the Gang of 14 deal that occurred in 2005. The claim is that John McCain sold out the GOP for personal gain. But let's check that against the facts of history. From Richard Baehr writing for Real Clear Politics:

For the GOP in its then-ascendant state, such a nuclear option seemed like a good way to stick it to the Democrats, and get a bunch of judicial nominees who had been held up through the confirmation process quickly. ... But the big test came when Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court. Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58-42, with 54 Republicans and 4 Democrats supporting him. Lincoln Chafee, desperately trying to appease Democratic voters in his home state of Rhode Island , was the lone GOP Senator to vote no. ... But the tally of 58 for confirmation is indicative of the fact that had the 7 Democrats who agreed to the compromise all voted no on a cloture vote, Alito's nomination could have been held up by the minority through a filibuster. ... The gang of 14 compromise helped two Supreme Court nominees get approved quickly and a few Appeals Court nominees to be confirmed as well. Use of the nuclear option in 2005 would have enabled a few additional Appeals Court nominations to get through in 2005 and 2006. But it would also have given a blank check for the next Democratic President who took office with a majority for his party in the Senate to get all of his or her judicial nominations approved from the start. That would be a really bad deal for the GOP, much worse than the gang of 14 deal, a compromise in which the GOP gained more than it lost.

This is the most reasoned view of the "Gang of 14 Deal" I have ever read and it is 100% accurate in it's facts and historical timeline.

Remember that the GOP is in great danger of losing at least three more seats in the Senate. Couple that with a Dem winning the White House and the Gang of 14 Deal is going to look incredibly sweet by comparison.

And I will admit that I too was against the Gang of 14 until a few months later (and even moreso when the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2006) when I saw what the ultimate result was, and what it could have been, exactly as Baehr described it above.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Base Is Wrong About The Gang Of 14
Richard Baehr
RealClearPolitics.com
January 30, 2008

It is beginning to look as if Sen. John McCain may have been smarter than we thought on this deal.

Redemption: McCain At CPAC

I admit, I've been hard on John McCain in this blog. But, can you really blame me?

It is difficult to put trust into someone who doesn't have a track record consistent with their plans. With John McCain, it is diffcult to trust that he will try to make the 2001 Tax Cuts permanent since he originally voted against them. It is difficult to trust that he cares about national security because he favored an open borders policy and amnesty plan. It is difficult to trust that he favors free speech because of McCain-Feingold. It is difficult to trust he would put a Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court because of his involvement with the Gang of 14.

No, I wouldn't blame anyone who was very skeptical of John McCain becoming the de facto leader of the GOP.

Ken Blackwell is taking a look at Sen. John McCain's speech to be given to the Conservatice Political Action Convention (CPAC) today and how it might help or hinder his candidacy. It will all come down to themes and embracing of Republican values for the Senator. But Ken writes something very profound here:

Mr. McCain needs to embrace his own party. He must tell conservatives that he cares about their concerns and that he will fight for these principles. If Mr. McCain does, he may find that there is another value conservatives hold dear: Redemption. If he does not, millions will stay home, even if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton. Disdain for Mrs. Clinton can carry the GOP base only so far. CPAC could not come at a better time for John McCain. He needs to make the most of it.

Exactly! Right on the money!

I've been saying this for a long time. It is for the Party to come back to us, not for us to follow the Party. The question is, can John McCain bring the Party back to us? Will he even try?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Redemption: McCain At CPAC
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
February 7, 2008

Irregularities In Florida Primary And Congress Gets A Raise

Flip Pidot has something interesting today. He notes that although Florida was supposed to be a closed primary, exit polls showed that it was not quite as closed as it should have been. From his blog entry:

In my attempts to self-soothe in the wake of Romney's Florida defeat, I'm poring over the details of the exit polling in search of encouraging morsels, thus far with sporadic success. Mitt beat McCain soundly among conservatives (37-29), among "issues" voters (35-27), and even edged him out among voters for whom terrorism was the most important issue (29-26). One breakout that puzzles me though is the vote share by party identification. Romney and McCain were tied among Republicans at 33-33, while McCain won independents 44-23.

Now, if I understand Florida law correctly, the only people who should have been voting in the Republican Primary were Republicans or those who changed their party affiliation to Republican in the last 30 days.

So why this:



Self-identified Independents voted in a supposedly closed Republican Primary? Note the 44% that McCain got from these people.

Flip goes on:

Despite my support for Romney, I'm loathe to hunt for extra innings in this or any contest. That's a game usually better left to the Gores, Kuciniches, Paulnuts, and the other dark-minded conspiracy buffs of the world. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting conspiracy is afoot, only that Florida's record of electoral execution is... well, checkered. At the risk of being lumped into the ranks of the aforementioned, and given that the impact of participation by non-Republicans in this primary appears to account for the entirety of McCain's margin of victory, I'm tempted to swallow my loathing and press for some answers as to what might have happened. Exit polls rely on the accuracy of the verbal responses given by the pollees and therefore aren't definitively dispositive of anything at all. But 17% of 1,500 respondents self-identifying as independents who voted Republican means something irregular took place, unless hundreds of voters chose to tell pollsters a similar lie.

We need answers for this. Florida seems to have a great deal of trouble voting these days. Perhaps it is not the system that is broken so much as it is the people who run the system.

You can access the complete blog-entry on-line here:

Was Florida A Closed Primary Or Not?
Flip Pidot
SuitablyFlip.com
January 30, 2008

---

And Congress got another pay raise on New Years Day this year. Jeff Jacoby has this to say in the Boston Globe:

While the median income of US families has increased by around $11,000 since 1998, the income of their representatives in Washington has increased by more than $30,000. Considering that the latter work for the former, the imbalance between them is striking. It is also unconstitutional. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to pay itself with public funds, but the 27th Amendment circumscribes that authority. It provides: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." The amendment limits the power of Congress to change its salary by preventing any pay raise from taking effect until the voters have had their say. Members of the House and Senate are free to alter the next Congress's salary, but they are prohibited from enlarging their own.

Go figure.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Congress Helps Itself, Again
Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 30, 2008

Compare The Presidential Candidates' Positions On Illegal Immigration

This should be an eye-opener to many people. Do you think you know how your candidate would address the issue of illegal immigration? Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure?

Check out the following links and see where your candidate stands on 16 different immigration related issues:

Click this link to see the Republican Candidates
Americans For Better Immigration
As of Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Click this link to see the Democrat Candidates
Americans For Better Immigration
As of Wednesday, January 02, 2008

I'll bet you dollars to navy beans that Old Media isn't covering this issue this closely.

If you disagree with how this comparison was conducted, please contact the NumbersUSA Staff through Americans For Better Immigration with your concerns.

Social Conservatives 'Mad As Hell' And Congress Gets An 'F'

If you are anything like me (and the fact that you are coming here and reading this blog usually means that you are, at least, a little like me) then you have been watching the GOP primary and seeing the front-runners go up and down like yo-yos. Not a very promising start to the 2008 campaign season, but at least it is entertaining.

That is where the positive spin ends. The GOP has a real problem, one that it has ignored for far too long. Paul Edwards' latest column explains what this problem is. There is a schism within the ranks of the GOP and no one seems willing to admit it or to do anything about it. But really, what can be done?

We are stuck between giving up our priciples in order to maintain a good economic status or giving up our fiscal beliefs in order to see our social ideas have a chance. Why can't we have both?

Edwards writes:

The Republican establishment has looked down its nose at social conservatives far too long, tolerating us because they need our votes. But now the tables are turned. The grass roots are looking up at the establishment with the will of a Lech Walesa, demanding that fiscal issues take a back seat to moral issues for a change. It’s long past time for the moral and social issues of our times to be given more than just lip service. It’s now time for our fiscal policies to be informed by our social policies rather than sacrificing our morality to our economic standing in the world. Don’t expect the Republican establishment to take this lying down. The New Media tanks are already rolling in to suppress the revolt.

So, which candidate is going to take advantage of this? I don't know. I just know that whomever follows the philosophies of the Republican Party most closely should win:

I'm a Republican Because... I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least. I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

You can access Mr. Edwards' complete column on-line here:

Social Conservatives Are “Mad As Hell”
Paul Edwards
TownHall.com
December 25, 2007

---

And now that the end of the year is close at hand, we can look back at what our Democrat controlled Congress has done and effectively grade them.

Here is what Jennifer Rubin has to say over at Human Events Online:

The Democrats in Congress, despite a year in the majority and facing a president whose approval ratings are historically low, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in achieving items both small and large on their agenda. A combination of overreaching and incompetence on their part and savvy prevent defense by President Bush and Congressional Republicans has spared the country untold grief. Most striking was the Democrats utter failure to live up to the key promise of their 2006 campaign: “ending the war in Iraq.” First, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petreaus (who had committed to a Surge strategy) by an 81-0 vote in late January. Despite more than 60 votes to withdrawal or limit U.S. forces in Iraq, Democrats could not win a veto proof majority to begin retreat in Iraq. This included a 108-day fight over the Defense Department Supplemental spending bill. Although the demise of the “Surge” policy was widely anticipated in September, testimony by General Petreaus and Ambassador Croker shifted the tide -- with help from a backlash over the ludicrous and outlandish MoveOn.org attack on General Petreaus -- and drowned out Democrats demands that U.S. forces close up shop. ... Democrats also failed on other priorities held dear: federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, elimination of secret ballots for union elections, hate crime legislation protecting homosexuals (tucked into a defense authorization bill), voting rights for the District of Columbia, and government price setting for Medicare drugs. Even the pettiest of goals --working five days a week -- could not be achieved. On the SCHIP -- the Dems’ plan for a first middle-class entitlement program -- President Bush and Congressional Republican stared down the Democrats’ threats to expand this poverty program to millions of middle class Americans, not just the “children” that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid paraded before the cameras. On immigration after the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill failed Democrats could not even achieve victory on a more limited measure --yes, for the “children” -- the DREAM Act. They likewise failed to pass a separate immigration bill for agriculture. Although Democrats swore that hard line Republican views on immigration were a losing proposition and contributed to GOP losses in 2006, they had no stomach after the immigration fight for any more immigration “reform.” (“Blue Dog” Democrat Heath Shuler, who apparently learned a different lesson, did introduce an enforcement only measure which quickly gathered over a hundred co-sponsors.) ... Democrats got an energy bill, but not the one they envisioned. In June and again this month Republicans refused to agree to a bill that would have resulted in millions in new taxes for energy companies. Republican also achieved outright wins: a seven year extension of the internet tax ban and utter rejection of Charlie Rangel’s “mother of all tax bills” (which never received so much as a committee vote) that would have “solved” the alternative minimum tax issue by raising billions in new taxes. Democrats cherished “Pay Go” (their self imposed rule that all tax reductions must be “paid for”) just went.

And why did all of this happen?

First, the Democrats badly misinterpreted the results of the 2006 election. Had the vast majority of the country wanted amnesty, defeat in Iraq, socialized medicine and the like, the elected representatives in Congress on both sides of the aisle would have felt the heat and voted accordingly. Second, divided government may be a powerful argument for the GOP presidential nominee. If it were not for the presidential veto -- actual or threatened -- much of the Democratic agenda could well have slipped through. The GOP nominee will be greatly aided by a simple argument: “Do you want Nancy and Harry to have their way?” Finally, Republicans do best when they do not “split the baby” (e.g. give Rangel half of his tax increases) but instead say “no” and force Democrats to vote on measures unpalatable to most voters. In that regard, 2006 may have made 2008 a far easier year -- provided Republicans stick to their guns for one more year.

You can access Jennifer's complete column on-line here:

Democrats' 2007 Report Card
Jennifer Rubin
Human Events Online
December 21, 2007

And more evidence of a deserved 'F' comes from the Associated Press:

President Bush, successful in forcing the Democratic Congress to bend to his will, complained Thursday that lawmakers had wasted time and taxpayers' money. His aggressive stand set a confrontational tone for Bush's final year in the White House. Bush used a year-end news conference to scold lawmakers for stuffing 9,800 special-interest projects into a $550 billion spending measure. He directed his budget director to explore how to erase what Bush considers wasteful spending. What began as a troubling year for Bush, facing a new, energetic Democratic Congress, ended in triumph for the president as frustrated Democrats nursed their losses. Democrats failed in their No. 1 objective to stop the war in Iraq and bowed to Bush and his veto threats on tax policies, energy legislation, children's health insurance and general spending.

I seem to recall the Dems claiming back in 2004 and later on that President Bush was "stupid" or "dumb" or "not intelligent enough" for the Presidency.

Well, maybe someone should add up the collective IQs of the Dems in Congress and compare it to the IQ of President Bush, and then answer why the Dems lost so many intellectual fights.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Says Congress Wasting Time, Money
Terrence Hunt
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 21, 2007