Time was when Democrats loved a good protest and booed lying politicians. No longer. Now Dimocrats in power demand elected officials be treated like kings and queens.
Time was when Democrats loved a good protest and did not give a hoot as to the venue. Democrats would either complicity wink or silently cheer protests which interrupted the sacred mass at Catholic cathedrals and chortled as shoes were thrown at George W. Bush in foreign countries. No longer.
Now Dimocrats are the establishment in power and they demand obedience, respect and subservience. Now Dimocrats are the establishment in power and they demand revolting protesters know their place and not disturb “sacred” venues such as the increasingly corrupt congress.
The other night, at lying Obama’s publicity stunt speech before congress, a Republican dared speak the truth and Dimocrats swooned at the insolence of spoken truth. A few days before, prissy PINOs whined against those darned Blue Dogs, but after the boos directed at Obama bin lyin’ the very same PINOs raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect a Blue Dog challenging the damned booer of Obama bin lyin’.
Dumbass PINOs raised money for a Blue Dog because they were so upset that Obama was called the liar which he undoubtedly is.
* * * * *
Hypocrite Dimocrat Queen Carol Shea-Porter is an example of the Dimocratic Hypocrite Aristocrats which now demand subservience of those they rule in America. It was not always thus:
The irony is, of course, that Shea-Porter used to be a “tea-bagger” on the left. She stalked then-congressman Jeb Bradley at town hall-style meetings the 1st District Republican incumbent held throughout his district.
Shea-Porter’s passion against the Iraq war and other Bush policies made her a darling of the liberal throng that came out to rock the house in September 2006 and deliver her a stunning blowout victory over former House Democratic Leader Jim Craig, of Manchester.
Now Dimocrat Aristocrat hypocrite Queen Carol Shea-Porter throws out those who dare question her majesty:
The hypocrite Dimocrat Aristocrat Queen Carol Shea-Porter used to do what she now denounces.
Hypocrite Dimocrat Aristocrat Queen Carol Shea-Porter joined Hypocrite Dimocrats in the House of Representatives because of her protests at town halls. Hypocrite Dimocrat Aristocrat Queen Carol Shea-Porter joined Dimocrats who lustily booed George W. Bush in 2005 during the State of the Union address before both houses of congress.
Back then Democrats booed lustily when George W. Bush lied.
In 2005 when Democrats booed a lying president Republican protested the outrage. Democrats defended the booing of a lying president in the now “sacred” halls of congress. Indeed, Democrats and their allies reminded Republicans of a time when Republicans booed the great President Bill Clinton.
Dimocrats who should remember the booed Bill Clinton and the booed George W. Bush now pretend to be shocked at such unaristocratic behavior towards their Pope Obama. Joe Biden was “embarrassed” and said “It demeaned the institution.”
Rahm Emanuel screeched “No president has ever been treated like that. Ever.”
Rahm of course is lying. Rahm was there when Bill and when George W. were lustily booed.
When George W. Bush was booed and Republicans complained, Democrats reminded Republicans of the once booed Bill Clinton. Democratic ally Media Matters researched the boos against Bill Clinton:
“Pundits called Dems’ reaction during Bush address “unprecedented,” but Republicans booed ClintonFebruary 04, 2005 6:38 pm ET
Media figures have falsely claimed that Democrats’ audible disapproval of President Bush’s misleading claim in his February 2 State of the Union address that Social Security will be “exhausted and bankrupt” in 2042 was “unprecedented.” In fact, Republicans routinely booed and hissed during President Clinton’s State of the Union addresses.
Many hosts and pundits suggested the Democrats’ reaction was the first of its kind:
- TED KOPPEL (ABC host): When the president talked about the bankruptcy of Social Security, there were clearly some Democrats on the floor who thought that that was taking it too far. And they did something that, apparently, no one at this table has ever heard before. They booed. [ABC, Nightline, 2/2/05; Koppel’s panel consisted of former Bush adviser Mary Matalin, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein, and former Clinton speechwriter Michael Waldman]
Media Matters listed the misinformation which came from CBS’ John Roberts, (“I’ve never heard the minority party shout at the president during the State of the Union address.”); Joe Scarborough (“After the Democrats booed and hissed, Republicans were on the floor saying, you know, we never once did that to Clinton. So every time he would talk about Social Security, the roars got a little louder. And they got behind their president.”); Bob Barr (“It will be a very, very difficult battle as we saw by the unprecedented and, I think, highly improper virtual booing of the president when he simply said that the system is going to be bankrupt and the time is now to fix it.”); and Joe Watkins “Did you hear it? Certainly not the polite protocol usually practiced when a president speaks to Congress. If a Democrat one day delivers a State of the Union address, I hope the Republicans won’t lower themselves to such a disrespectful level. I hope last night’s behavior by a few lawmakers doesn’t set a new precedent, that both parties can agree to remain civil, even when voicing disagreements.”).
But indeed Bill Clinton had been lustily booed by Republicans. Media Matters again:
PAUL BEGALA (CNN host): Let me correct your history — 1993, I was with President Bill Clinton in that House chamber when he addressed a joint session of Congress. And Republicans heckled him when he cited Congressional Budget Office statistics about the deficit. [CNN, Crossfire, 2/3/05]
JOHN GIBSON (FOX News host): Maryanne Marsh, what did you think of those audible jeers, boos, for the president? It sounded a little like the House of Commons: that grumbling that comes from the back-benchers when they don’t like something [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair said. That isn’t very common for state of the union speeches, is it?
MARYANNE MARSH (Democratic strategist): I don’t ever remember hearing it, and was very surprised. But I have to say at least the good news is the Democrats are fighting and they’re on offense. And they’re more united than they’ve ever been against George Bush and the Republicans. [FOX News, The Big Story with John Gibson, 2/3/05]
In addition to the 1993 State of the Union, during which, as Begala pointed out, Republicans heckled Clinton, they also voiced their disapproval in three other Clinton State of the Union addresses, which were presumably attended by then-members of Congress Scarborough and Barr:
- “Clinton’s proposal to expand Medicare to allow Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of “no” and some boos from Republicans during his speech.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98]
- “Only once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval — when Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/5/97]
- “The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible throughout the president’s State of the Union address — from the moment Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20 of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes.” [Associated Press, 1/24/95]
As Media Matters for America has noted, the assertion that Social Security will be “exhausted and bankrupt” in 2042 is misleading, since Bush’s own Social Security board of trustees reported in 2004 that “[p]resent tax rates would be sufficient to pay 73 percent of scheduled benefits” after 2042 and “68 percent of scheduled benefits in 2078.”
That was then. That was before Dimocrats fixed nominations. Now Dimocrats think they are all part of the Kennedy dynasty which demands automatic bows, not boos.
Dimocrats now think they are aristocrats and demand the serfs bow their heads. Dimocrats do not want their boob booed and they will denounce hypocritically anyone who dares raise their head in protest.
What has happened to the great Democratic Party? It died in Denver. Now the Dimocrats are the party of establishment aristocrats and race-baiters and gay-bashers and sexists and misogynists.
Obama Hopium addled Camile Paglia recently discussed the Dimocrat Aristocrats:
As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration’s strategic missteps this year. [snip] Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama’s plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)
By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. [snip]
Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? [snip]
Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
How has “liberty” become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? [snip]
But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote “critical thinking,” which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (“racism, sexism, homophobia”) when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it’s positively pickled.
Barack Obama deserved to be booed. If there were real progressives in the congress that night they would have thrown shoes at Obama. Obama lied repeatedly and real Democrats would have booed and not left the job to Republicans.
Obama has been lying and flim-flaming:
So it was throughout this 47- minute nationally televised monument to presidential flimflam. Sometimes the prevarications were so obvious that even the president’s most ardent supporters – like the news staff of The New York Times – had to concede that he was playing fast and loose with the facts. For instance, the Times quoted Obama’s repeating of his familiar claim that “if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance, nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”
“That is technically true,” the Times carefully admitted, “but there is a real possibility that existing policies could change as a result of the legislation. The government, for instance, would set new standards, and employers that already offer insurance would have to bring their plans into compliance.” In other words, when, as is inevitable, the cost of providing health insurance is more than the federal fine Obama seeks for not providing it, companies will drop their employee plans, forcing millions of people into the government-run health care system against their will.
Similarly, Obama claimed “most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.” If $675 billion equals “most” of the $900 billion Obama says his proposal would cost, why wait to get those savings? Finally, there is abortion and illegal immigrants. Obama said “no federal dollars” will fund abortions under his proposal and “the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” If Obama truly believes that, then he will have no objection when Democrats in Congress reverse their previous votes barring such provisions from the legislation when they were proposed by Republicans. In short, did the president sleep through August?
Obama bin lyin’:
The hard part, in terms of both policy and politics, is finding a way to pay for the expansion in coverage. And on that most contentious issue, unfortunately, Obama argued that Congress could cover most of the cost by attacking waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid — a pain-free path that’s as unrealistic as it is alluring.[snip]
Still, the president’s comments about the savings available in Medicare were disingenuous, as was his assertion that a new tax on insurers would lead them to “provide greater value for the money” instead of simply passing the cost on to policyholders. Obama will have to come up with a more complete approach to paying for reform as the legislation moves forward. He claimed the plan as his own with this speech, but he left some of the hardest questions unanswered.
Obama bin lyin’:
“Hubris-laden charlatans” was the way a recent e-mail from a reader characterized the Obama administration. That phrase seems especially appropriate for the Charlatan-in-Chief, Barack Obama, whose speech to a joint session of Congress was both a masterpiece of rhetoric and a shameless fraud.
To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone’s intelligence. To do so after an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has already showed this to be impossible reveals the depths of moral bankruptcy behind the glittering words.
Obama bin lyin’ and flim-flamming. Get the shoes:
“Details Still Lacking On Obama Proposal White House Unclear on How Some Far-Reaching Goals Would Be Met.”
One day after President Obama pitched his plan for comprehensive health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, administration officials struggled Thursday to detail how he would achieve his goal of extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit.[snip]
The 10-year, $900 billion proposal Obama envisions borrows heavily from concepts circulating on Capitol Hill, but there was little evidence that the broad ideas are sufficient to break a congressional logjam.
After declining for months to identify himself with the details of emerging legislation, the president for the first time Wednesday embraced a set of ideas as “my plan.” But the White House released scant specifics on legislation advertised as including new taxes, changes in malpractice law, a new national high-risk insurance pool, a commission on eliminating Medicare fraud, and tax credits for individual consumers and small businesses that cannot afford insurance.
Let’s all remember what Big Media will not say: The Obama “plan” does not exist. Obama is lying that he has a “plan”. There is no Obama “plan”. It is all a lie. There are plenty of Obama words but no “plan” as the word has been understood before Obama. There is no Obama legislation which codifies the nonexistent Obama “plan”.
Big Media is also silent on the quiet “boos” from legislators:
After a White House meeting with Obama, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) voiced concerns that the most prominent health-care proposals fall short.
“We all understand that we want to move toward universal coverage, but I don’t think we’re focusing enough on costs,” he said.
Although virtually every Democrat found something to like in the president’s 47-minute address, the interpretations of what he meant varied widely, suggesting more difficult negotiations ahead. On the controversial question of whether to form a new public insurance option, many liberals characterized what was widely interpreted as Obama’s neutral stance to be unwavering support for the idea.
“We were pleased you explicitly expressed your support for a public option as a central piece of achieving true reform,” leaders of the House Progressive Caucus wrote in a letter to Obama.
Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said the bill that will be sent to the House floor for a vote will have a public option “of course.” But other high-ranking Democrats suggested the idea could be left out.
That is the “Pretend” strategy Dimocrats and PINOs have embraced – which we wrote about yesterday in Pretend Progressives Pretend. That is what the once great Democrats and progressives are reduced to – games of pretend.
* * * * *
On this September 11, 2009 we will rejoice in the democracy the terrorists (now a banned word in Obama-ville) reviled. We will celebrate the diversity of our culture and our people. We will celebrate our citizens, even the gay ones reviled by Obama and terrorists. We will throw (symbolic if not actual) shoes at the television every time Obama makes an appearance to lie once again. We will celebrate at women in pantsuits and Bikinis. We will celebrate at those who enjoy liquor or maybe even a marijuana toke. We will celebrate at all our religions and all our houses of worship. We will celebrate for every politician ever booed in this country, even the ones we like. We will celebrate the Tea Party people who will protest tomorrow at the nation’s capital. We will celebrate protest. We will celebrate ourselves. We will celebrate the honor we had to be the first Hillary support site to speak without fear starting back in early 2007. We will celebrate all our sister websites who continue to speak out against the horror of Obama and the Dimocrats.
We will celebrate democracy and freedom today.
We will defend the rights of all to dissent and to speak their minds. But we will also condemn the Obama supporters who employed their democratic rights to inflict Obama on this nation. We will also condemn, while upholding their democratic rights, the Obama friends who on the Sunday after September 11, 2001 denounced America. We will condemn and denounce Barack Obama.
We will celebrate democracy and freedom today. We will remember the day the planes hit with a celebration of dissent and protest and democracy and freedom. That is what the terrorists fear most. That is what Obama fears most.