-------------------
In their recent column (“Daines can reach across aisle for Montana” Nov. 11, 2012), the Chronicle editorial board came to the bizarre conclusion that Steve Daines will end partisan gridlock in Washington (The hallmark of a good leftist: subtly change what was actually written and then refute the new statement. The Chronicle wrote that they hoped he would end gridlock, not that he would.) and act as a rational voice for Montanans as our congressman-elect. Really? Were they actually buffaloed by Daines’ aw-shucks-goodol’-boy “moderate” routine during the campaign? (If you read Mr. Daines' website or do any other sort of research about him, including his critics and his opponent Ms. Gillian, there is no indication anywhere that he was representing himself as a moderate) Daines has absolutely zero experience in Washington, making him the perfect corporate puppet. (Nonsense statement. Everyone who is in D.C. was at the level of zero experience. Might we ask how much experience his opponent has in D.C.? Might we also ask about Obama's level of experience the day he darkened the door of the oval office?) His carefully scripted campaign, using the hollow slogan, “More Jobs, Less Government,” (Hollow? Can you say "hope and change? For some reason the Left is highly offended by the idea of less government. Anyway, I dealt with his campaign slogan here) was bought and paid for by pro-life, pro-coal Super Pacs, including FreedomWorks, founded by Tea Party sugar daddy David Koch (naturally, only republicans accept money from PACs and sugar daddies *cough* George Soros *hack* Peter Lewis *choke* Bill Mahar).
In lockstep (oh, those goose-stepping neo Nazi republicans. Godwin's law alert!) with the extreme wing (leftists love that word "extreme." Ms. Gillian herself used it to describe Mr. Daines multiple times. Of course, it is a word that is used for its emotional content, a rhetorical devise to marginalize a person without actually dealing with fact, reason, or logic) of the Republican party, Daines has promoted a balanced budget amendment via broad federal spending cuts in agencies including the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and pushed extending the Bush tax cuts for ‘job creators’ as a means to stimulate the economy. (damned good ideas, all of them.) The board uses Sen. Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act as an example of good legislation that outgoing Congressman Rehberg stalled with extreme partisanship (there's that word "extreme" again. And of course, the left never is partisan. They never hold legislation hostage or cause it to die in committee. They never make back room deals or hide crucial evidence from the public.) and Daines will be able to negotiate by reaching across the aisle. Why would we believe Daines would perform any differently than hyper-partisan (hyper-partisan? There once was a day that people used to admire principles) Rehberg once he gets to Washington? Daines is beholden to the same corporate donors, and espouses the same philosophies on all the major issues as his predecessor (hopefully this isn't true. Rehberg compromised too much. I hope Daines sticks to his guns and avoids getting co-opted by this fake "compromise" crap).
The Chronicle, for some inexplicable reason, endorsed Daines over State Sen. Kim Gillan, who offered an excellent track record of proven bipartisan success in Helena. (not to impugn the writer in any way, but I'd have to see proof of this.) I certainly hope the Chronicle is right about Daines being the bridge for bipartisanship in Washington, but I’m not holding my breath. Unless I am really missing something, it appears we’re sending a carbon copy of our last congressman to join the ranks of the most partisan, lowest-rated Congress in U.S. history (And the senate, controlled by democrats polls extremely low as well. Perhaps Ms. Wilder might explain that?).
Cara Wilder
In their recent column (“Daines can reach across aisle for Montana” Nov. 11, 2012), the Chronicle editorial board came to the bizarre conclusion that Steve Daines will end partisan gridlock in Washington (The hallmark of a good leftist: subtly change what was actually written and then refute the new statement. The Chronicle wrote that they hoped he would end gridlock, not that he would.) and act as a rational voice for Montanans as our congressman-elect. Really? Were they actually buffaloed by Daines’ aw-shucks-goodol’-boy “moderate” routine during the campaign? (If you read Mr. Daines' website or do any other sort of research about him, including his critics and his opponent Ms. Gillian, there is no indication anywhere that he was representing himself as a moderate) Daines has absolutely zero experience in Washington, making him the perfect corporate puppet. (Nonsense statement. Everyone who is in D.C. was at the level of zero experience. Might we ask how much experience his opponent has in D.C.? Might we also ask about Obama's level of experience the day he darkened the door of the oval office?) His carefully scripted campaign, using the hollow slogan, “More Jobs, Less Government,” (Hollow? Can you say "hope and change? For some reason the Left is highly offended by the idea of less government. Anyway, I dealt with his campaign slogan here) was bought and paid for by pro-life, pro-coal Super Pacs, including FreedomWorks, founded by Tea Party sugar daddy David Koch (naturally, only republicans accept money from PACs and sugar daddies *cough* George Soros *hack* Peter Lewis *choke* Bill Mahar).
In lockstep (oh, those goose-stepping neo Nazi republicans. Godwin's law alert!) with the extreme wing (leftists love that word "extreme." Ms. Gillian herself used it to describe Mr. Daines multiple times. Of course, it is a word that is used for its emotional content, a rhetorical devise to marginalize a person without actually dealing with fact, reason, or logic) of the Republican party, Daines has promoted a balanced budget amendment via broad federal spending cuts in agencies including the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and pushed extending the Bush tax cuts for ‘job creators’ as a means to stimulate the economy. (damned good ideas, all of them.) The board uses Sen. Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act as an example of good legislation that outgoing Congressman Rehberg stalled with extreme partisanship (there's that word "extreme" again. And of course, the left never is partisan. They never hold legislation hostage or cause it to die in committee. They never make back room deals or hide crucial evidence from the public.) and Daines will be able to negotiate by reaching across the aisle. Why would we believe Daines would perform any differently than hyper-partisan (hyper-partisan? There once was a day that people used to admire principles) Rehberg once he gets to Washington? Daines is beholden to the same corporate donors, and espouses the same philosophies on all the major issues as his predecessor (hopefully this isn't true. Rehberg compromised too much. I hope Daines sticks to his guns and avoids getting co-opted by this fake "compromise" crap).
The Chronicle, for some inexplicable reason, endorsed Daines over State Sen. Kim Gillan, who offered an excellent track record of proven bipartisan success in Helena. (not to impugn the writer in any way, but I'd have to see proof of this.) I certainly hope the Chronicle is right about Daines being the bridge for bipartisanship in Washington, but I’m not holding my breath. Unless I am really missing something, it appears we’re sending a carbon copy of our last congressman to join the ranks of the most partisan, lowest-rated Congress in U.S. history (And the senate, controlled by democrats polls extremely low as well. Perhaps Ms. Wilder might explain that?).
Cara Wilder
Inevitably, compromise according to the leftist template is the ability to agree to a bit less spending, a bit less bigger government, and a bit less loss of liberty in the name of bipartisanship. So instead of driving 100 mph towards the cliff, we'll only do 85.
So the letter writer thinks that Mr. Daines is not a compromiser, that he won't be satisfied reducing the headlong plunge to 85. Heaven forbid, he might want to stop the car! We can't have that.
No comments:
Post a Comment