The Demo Duo's recycled rhetoric

President George W. Bush addressed the nation Wednesday, devoting much of his State of the Union comments to progress on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan and, on the domestic front, to Social Security reform. The President's remarks on those and other topics were forceful and, as has become the custom, were followed by an amusing rebuttal from the Left. Not to be outdone, this column will herewith continue its own custom of rebutting the rebutters -- sort of like shooting fish in a barrel.

Visibly shaken by the President's performance, the tag-team of Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. San Fran Nan Pelosi managed to find an open mike from which to regurgitate one of John Kerry's campaign stump speeches -- all of which, you will recall, were the same.

Reid was up first, and, after regaling us with a story about a little boy who wanted to grow up to be just like him, the Senator from Searchlight asserted that "the president's economic policies have left Americans and American companies struggling." The Demo assumption here is that the President controls the economy. Of course, the best any president can do is just what the Bush administration has done: get out of the way of the free market. Here, fiscal conservatives (and constitutional constructionists) understand that government's proper function is to allow the Invisible Hand to move, and to minimize interference with the economic forces that are key to the preservation and extension of liberty and democracy.

For the record, economists conclude with unanimity that our most recent recession started in the last year of the Clinton regime and was exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks. Here we hasten to add that this recession wasn't necessarily Bill Clinton's fault, though culpability for those horrendous attacks is another story.

For its part, the American economy has recovered quite nicely, having added well over two million non-farm payroll jobs in the past 19 months. In addition, home ownership and corporate profits are both at all-time highs, and the unemployment rate fell to 5.2% from 5.4% in January, the lowest since September, 2001 -- but you wouldn't know it from listening to Harry Reid. "We need to invest in our nation's future with a Marshall Plan for America ... to build the next economy," said Reid. To be sure, when a Leftist says "invest," he means "tax," and his suggestion that government should build the "next economy" is Orwellian at best, and Marxist at worst.

The myth of outsourcing just doesn't seem to want to go away. All in all, outsourcing -- sending jobs to India and China -- is good for the economy, as reflected in our low unemployment rate and consistent GDP growth in manufacturing and other sectors. Outsourcing removes lower-paying jobs and facilitates the growth of new industries, raising wages and keeping employment rates relatively stable. As such, outsourcing is merely another dimension of free trade, which keeps the markets working efficiently.

"Unless we give all Americans the skills they need to succeed, countries like India and China will take good-paying jobs that should be ours," added Reid. Perhaps he should look into school vouchers -- so "all Americans" can get the quality of education Reid's children received.

On the subject of partisanship, Reid noted, "When we believe the President is on the right track, we won't let partisan interests get in the way of what's good for the country." In other words, as long as the President's policies comport with the hallucinations of Sociocrats like Reid, they won't object.

Naturally, Reid reserved his biggest partisan punch for President Bush's plan for Social Security reform. "It's more like Social Security roulette," he said. You can read all about it in next week's column, but for now, understand that Democrats object to privatization of Social Security for two principal reasons -- neither of which relates to "retirement security" and both of which relate to Demo job security.

First, for generations Congress has spent every dime taxed, ostensibly, to finance the non-existent Social Security "trust fund" (though there are IOUs sitting in a file cabinet somewhere). Privatization would leave some of that tax in the hands of Americans, meaning they could invest it in their own future rather than Reid and company "investing" it in boondoggles to benefit their fat-cat campaign donors and constituencies. Democrats need "their share" of your income like most of us need oxygen. Without it, their special-interest extortion rackets suffocate.

Second, allowing investments in the free market would leave Demos at the mercy of conservatives, who would hold them accountable for any attempt to legislate new taxes or regulations which would stifle private sector returns -- the returns that millions of Americans depend upon.

Finally, as noted above, not only did Reid's children and grandchildren get far superior educational opportunities than those he advocates for your children, but he and his congressional colleagues get far superior retirement plans, too. Indeed, Harry can opt out of paying Social Security taxes in order to participate in -- you guessed it -- a privatized retirement plan -- a plan far more privatized than that proposed by President Bush.

If you managed to keep your eyelids peeled during Reid's soporific little speech, you must have had them sewn open. Which brings us to San Fran Nan Pelosi -- the woman who never blinks. (So much for digression.)

Predictably, Pelosi repeated the same stale whistle-stop arguments about the warfront in Iraq: "We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force." (Last time we checked, only Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and those democracy-fearing Jihadi terrorists were calling the U.S. an "occupying force." You're in good company, Nan.) We are liberators, not occupiers.

"Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency," Pelosi said, "and is now a magnet for international terrorists." As noted in this column last week, and by President Bush this week, that is precisely our strategic objective -- keeping the warfront on their turf and not ours.

"We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq," growled the Lioness of Haight-Ashbury. Yet however unpleasant it may be -- and it is unpleasant -- our country's commitment to the War on Terrorism is a prolonged one. It's a commitment driven by objectives, not day-planners; a commitment whose exit strategy is as follows: We will exit Iraq as soon as our strategic objectives have been met.

On a related subject, Pelosi claimed, "For three years, the President has failed to put together a comprehensive plan to protect America from terrorism." This, of course, would explain the dozens of terrorist attacks we Americans have endured here at home since 9/11.

Memo to Ms. Pelosi: It is our belief that Homeland Security realignment, intelligence reform, and the Bush doctrine of pre-emption -- as demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in ongoing covert and overt counter-terrorism operations around the globe -- constitute something on the order of a "comprehensive plan."

In the end, given their mind-numbing efforts to rebut all that is good and right with America, Reid and Pelosi serve to remind us of Ronald Reagan's quip, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Publisher's Note: In honor of Ronald Reagan's birthday this Sunday, The Patriot will dedicate Monday's Brief to the wit and wisdom of our dearly departed friend.

"Our generation has been blessed -- by the expansion of opportunity, by advances in medicine, by the security purchased by our parents' sacrifice. Now, as we see a little gray in the mirror -- or a lot of gray -- and we watch our children moving into adulthood, we ask the question: What will be the state of their union? Members of Congress, the choices we make together will answer that question. Over the next several months, on issue after issue, let us do what Americans have always done, and build a better world for our children and our grandchildren."
--President George W. Bush

Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot, a Townhall.com member group.

I overheard a conversation tonight about how the demoRATS are lost in the wilderness, Two guys said they could not believe what they were seeing out of the RATS, they called Boxer and Pelosi two nutcases. It's not just Freepers who are picking up on the RATS decline.

My hubby and I have been questioning why the RATS are doing some of the things they're doing - it makes no sense - almost as if they have a death wish for their party. My thought is somehow the Clintons have convinced them to take the insane approach they have so as to make Hildabeast look "centrist" and a good candidate in 2008. Knowing the Clintons as we do, it's not an unthinkable idea.

The Toons time has come and gone. They are so out of it they actually believe people are going to fall for the trick you just mentioned that they are trying to play on people. If anything it is infuriating people and is going to backfire on them tremendously.

Pitty the poor minority Dimocrats Yorkies, yapping continuously as they nipp at the heels of the Republican majority.

Their message? Doom and gloom.

Their prospects? More doom and gloom.

And their solutions? Why anything that President Bush is for, they are against.

They have become so ill that they are asking Dr. Howard "Kavorkian" Dean to end it all, while Boxer, Kennedy and Reid comfort them in their final hours.

I have heard of terminal cases, but extinction?

I hope you are right. Hillary goes through periods of silence, puncuated by brief attempts to "reach out" and "find common ground". Remember her immigration speech a few weeks back? One poster( who shall remain nameless) said he would consider voting for her if she sealed the borders. Then her abortion speech two weeks ago. She is preparing to run, and I believe they do think we are stupid enough to buy her conversion. If you think the media carried the water for Kerry-they are going to be writing Hillarys speeches if she is nominated..

I've got the Dems figured out. They are simply a channel through which to fund massive bribery. They care far less about winning elections than in gaining campaign donations that can be diverted for personal use. Witness time after time Democrats will take positions that make no sense, followed shortly by a direct fundraising appeal to the constituency that supports the nonsensical position. (Witness also the hard evidence of this practice, in the form of Memogate 2003.)

In this sense, their behavior is logical and explains why so many of the powerful Democrats are sabotaging their electoral chances.

related:

Two Cents: Putting Two Massachusetts Blowhards in Their Place
Human Events Online ^ | 2-5-05 | Chris Field
Posted on 02/05/2005 5:17:21 AM PST by FlyLow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1336597/posts

After the islamist curs took an action figure hostage and the Dubya action figure rescued Cody, I thought Pelosi and Reid looked like inaction figures.

It was hard to follow what they were saying because they were so boring. I remember rage welling up when Pelosi started talking about U.S. forces and occupiers, as if the Sunday elections hadn't take place, but Reid totally baffled me.

When he talked about Dylan being able to do better then him, I was like, duh! Generations of dung beetles have done better. And that's about all I remember of his remarks.

The only other thing about the rebuttal is it proved my old saw: Socialism is applied boredom.

Even women don't like Hillary, the media is toast as far as having the power they once had to control an election. "It takes a Village of a Hollywood morons to lose an election".

Keep the faith, the only way the GOP loses is if they try to outliberal Hitlery.

It an continuation of the "Hate Bush" strategy that served them so well in the last election. After all, Kerry 'almost' won. (And if it hadn't been for the 'stolen votes' in Ohio, he would be president today. /sarcasm)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.