Posts Made By: Patrick Keafer

Is there anything this guy wouldn't say to get elected?


On his affair:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/01/gingrich-admits-abc-claim-was-false-112344.html

After nearly a week on the defensive, CNN's John King reports tonight that Newt Gingrich's claim about offering witnesses to ABC News in his defense — to rebut the network's interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich — was not true.


On Reagan:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams

As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

Newt: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. ... The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan."

"Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda."


Video of Newt claiming Reaganism is a loser (:40):

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/newt-gingrich-in-1988-bush-wont-win-if-he-runs-t

The jobs situation is so bad Obama is now resorting to inferring something is wrong with applicants. When the wife of an unemployed semi-conductor questions Obama's H1B visa policy, he snobbishly implies that there must be something wrong with her husband.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/30/obama_tells_woman_her_husband_shouldnt_be_unemployed_according_to_him.html


During his Google+ hangout Pres. Obama tells a woman that her husband shouldn't be unemployed from the growth he has seen in the economy. Obama said he finds it "interesting" because he is getting "the word" that someone in her husband's job field "should be able to find something right away."

"It is interesting to me -- and I meant what I said if your send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there because the word that we're getting is that somebody in that type of high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away."

Gee thanks a lot for offering to help out Mr. President. I'm sure this "idiot" who somehow got an engineering degree has some sort of problem. Maybe you can get him a job in the government? :S What a condescending SOB.

Apparently after being destroyed by Romney is Florida, Newt didn't mention Romney in his concession speech AND did not call him privately to congratulate him.

What a miserable, classless sack the guy is. He deserves to lose and the Republican party deserves better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/newt-gingrich-loses-florida--and-reminds-us-why/2012/01/31/gIQAhkERgQ_blog.html

Looks like Mr. Obama is now endorsing the use of Super PACs not long after he spoke out against them. Is anyone really surprised he would compromise his own ethics to win an election?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-in-a-switch-endorses-pro-democratic-super-pac/2012/02/06/gIQAVqnWvQ_story.html

Boy, did he step in it or what?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/05/limbaugh-advertisers-jump-ship/?hpt=hp_t3

More Limbaugh advertisers jump ship

I've heard a lot worse, but coming from the President this really is disgusting. Does he have no respect for the office?



President Obama, in Los Angeles for a fundraiser, offered this observation on his wife's exercise routine, via the pool report:

“Michelle outdoes me in pushups as well,” he said, after saying that she’s taken some criticism on her technique “because she doesn’t go all the way down” – a line that he let hang, naughtily, provoking laughter from the crowd.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obamas-risqu-joke-125518.html

...to let ALL of President Bushs tax cuts expire? As a fiscal conservative the amount of debt combined with the skewed tax burden in this country are really starting to make me worry for the condition of the US when my sons generation has to start paying for things. The "poor" don't pay taxes, the semi poor don't either and the middle class as a tax source is shrinking. Let's be honest here. Only the rich pay a significant amount of taxes and even their money is being shielded by the lower cap gains tax rate. Half the population has no steak in our system because they don't or barely help pay for it.

Medicaid, Medicare, social security, defense,and now Obamacare. All of them could easily collapse in on one another, all of them need to be fixed, and our tax revenue is falling.

Generally speaking a low tax environment is good, but haven't we gone far past the point of diminishing returns? How are we going to pay for all these things without taxing the hell out of our kids in a presumably low growth economy. Where have all the true fi-cons gone?

Yikes! Ready for four more years? Romney needs to change something and fast.

Fox News Battleground Poll

Ohio Obama 49-42
Virginia Obama 50-43
Florida Obama 49-44

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/

Long term, wouldn't going off the fiscal cliff be the best thing for us? For years, politicians, mostly democrats, have spent without regard for the consequences. Well, if we went off the fiscal cliff we would finally have meaningful and important consequences to deal with.

Today, the President sent Tim "bank-bailout" Geitner to Capitol Hill to surprise Republicans with a request for $50B MORE in spending for next year coupled with NO immediate reduction in entitlement spending, and an increase in the tax rate for people making over $250k/year. The President is making it clear he is not serious about cutting spending. In fact, his "plan" (which isn't actually expressed on a document anywhere) would not cut entitlements at all until after the coming fiscal year.

SO, since Democrats cannot cut anything, and Republicans cannot raise any taxes, we should accept the consequences and go off the cliff, even if it means a new recession.

Besides, isn't there something to like on both sides?

If we fail to avoid the cliff, several things happen:

1. Military spending goes down. Democrats should like this.
2. Other government Agencies get slashed. Republicans should like this.
3. The tax holiday and unemployment benefits expire. Republicans should like this.
4. Taxes go up on EVERYONE. Since Republicans complain about people not paying tax, and Democrats complain about the rich not paying enough, shouldn't everyone be happy?

My point is we need to take responsibility for our spending. If we owe $20 Trillion, SOMEONE is going to have to see their taxes go up, and SOMEONE should expect to see their benefits go DOWN. Only a combination of the two will be adequate to address the problem. Additionally, I fail to see how Republicans should agree with a tax hike if spending cuts are not really on the table until "later". Well, we know how that usually goes. The cuts never occur.

So I'm calling for a stop in the talks now. It would be horrible short-term for me and my family since we are strictly middle class, but we cannot continue on this path. Let's jump!

A chart showing the consequences: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-going-over-the-fiscal-cliff-would-mean---/2012/11/11/5cc99fbe-2c2f-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_graphic.html

An article about the President's new call for spending: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fiscal-cliff-talks-bogged-down-by-dispute-over-cost-of-retirement-programs/2012/11/29/99022ac0-3a2e-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html?hpid=z1

I was just looking over the last few well-known mass shootings we've had in the US, and it got me wondering. Would any type of gun control, outside of outright bans and years of attrition, have stopped the shooters? Almost all mass shooters seem to have one thing in common: mental illness. Is it even possible to screen these people out during a background check without violating someones personal rights? What is the line between a little odd and dangerously crazy?

Out of respect for the victims of the most recent incident, lets try to keep it civil.