Conventional Wisdom

I find the proposed speakers lined up by the Democrats to address their convention bizarre, to say the least. I mean, do they really think any sane person regards Jimmy Carter as the grand old man of their party. He’s the guy who pulled the rug out from under the Shah of Iran, which swung open the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini and unleashed Islamic terrorism on the entire world.

He is also the fellow who was invited to dive into the deep pockets of his Arab friends in exchange for using his bully pulpit as an ex-president to condemn Israel in books and speeches for the past three decades.

As if Carter isn’t enough to besmirch any event at which he appears, even in a video, the Democrats have lined up a slew of women to confirm that the GOP has declared war on their gender. Frankly, I can’t even imagine how ignorant a woman has to be in order to convince herself that husbands and fathers as loyal and dedicated to their families as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are looking to victimize women.

What’s particularly weird about the lineup is that at least two of the featured speakers are lesbians. Understand, I’m not using that word as a pejorative. But for the longest time, we’ve heard liberal women say that where birth control and abortion are concerned, men have no right to voice an opinion. If they believe that, what right do lesbians have? Birth control and abortion are certainly two issues that have even less to do with them than with men.

What further astounds me is that these women have all rallied around Obama, the man who while serving in the Illinois legislature three times cast votes in favor of partial-birth abortion.

A partial-birth abortion, by the way, is a euphemism for an atrocity. It means that when a baby survives his or her attempted murder, the abortionist, instead of saving its life, kills it outside the womb.

The question that comes to mind is: what sort of people come up with such a benign-sounding term for infanticide? The answer: the same sort of creeps who came up with “Pro-Choice” to define abortion on demand.

I know that according to the left-wing lexicon, only conservatives can possibly be extremists when it comes to abortions, in much the same way that, according to Eric Holder and his boss, only white people can ever be racists. But what sort of woman could possibly condone the murder of a living, breathing baby? To me, those saber-toothed, snake-eyed, drooling, creatures we fortunately only come across in sci-fi movies and Bill Maher’s studio audience aren’t nearly as monstrous as these women.

The way this election is shaping up, I find it harder and harder to believe there are still millions of people who prefer Obama and Biden to Romney and Ryan. Even though I understand that Obama has seen to it that a great many Americans are receiving bribes from his goody bag, whether it’s his version of the Dream Act in order to woo Latinos; food stamps to woo the easily seduced; and free insurance for 20-something knuckleheads; there’s no getting around record unemployment and a national debt that will soon turn us into Greece.

Although I confess I was hoping that Marco Rubio would wind up as Romney’s running mate, my own mate favored Ryan from Day One. And as much as it hurts me to admit it, she was right. Ryan, however, lest anyone think my wife has all the political savvy in the family, was my clear second choice. Frankly, I couldn’t believe it when I heard people talking up Tim Pawlenty, Condoleezza Rice and Rob Portman. They’re all decent enough people, but they would have done nothing to strengthen the ticket.

Ryan, on the other hand, possesses a lot of the same virtues as Rubio. He’s young and amiable without seeming immature. He’s smart. For the women, who seem to put a great deal of store in this sort of thing, he’s attractive and looks a lot better than Obama with his shirt off. Moreover, he’s a hunter and by the time the vice-presidential debate is over with, Biden is going to look like a deer in someone’s headlights; and not just any deer, but a very stupid one. They’ll be able to drive him home from the event draped over a fender.

As a team, the one that Romney and Ryan most remind me of is Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. When RKO came up with the brainstorm to feature those two in a batch of hit musicals, it was said that Astaire gave Rogers class and that Rogers provided Astaire with sex appeal.

Fortunately, Ryan, unlike Rogers, doesn’t have to do everything his partner does and, moreover, do it backwards and in high heels.

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
  • MarioP

    REPLY TO CCNV 9/7/2012 (Part 1 of 3) (Ignore the original, unformatted reply.)
    CCNV,
    Thank you for your response. Unfortunately your last post threatens our debate to become ridiculous, as your ill informed logic draws to some outlandish conclusions.

    Obamacare:
    CCNV: “Socialized medicine has not worked in any country that has it.”
    Right from the gates you start your response with probably the most nonsensical statement. I’m not sure where you came to that conclusion, whether it came from living in an outdated, 30+ year old fantasy world, or whether you are completely detached from reality. In today’s reality the US is ranked way below the #1 nation in healthcare. Actually, some studies place the US as low as #37 based on various criteria. The nations with the best healthcare systems France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Japan, and others, all of which sport a system of at least partially, if not entirely, paid by the government. True, the top 1% in the US can afford that Cadillac US care every dunce points out when praising our healthcare system, but the rest of our citizens receive a mediocre care and at the highest per-capita price. (Wait, I thought private healthcare should be efficient and fiscally conservative, so why is it so costly? What?) Next time, before you start typing, please Google for your information, and don’t just blindly absorb it from the Right-wing-nut talkshow or just make it up.Your position about our healthcare is as ridiculous as claiming that because the top 1% of Americans are millionaires, the entire United States is filled with nothing but wealthy people. Yeah, that’s a pretty nutty and untrue belief. (Maybe you’ll redeem yourself in your other points.)

    TARP:
    CCNV: “Democrats passed legislation making the banks sell loans to people who could not pay for them.”
    (Uh oh, this statement also sounds very ill informed.) I’m assuming here you’re talking about Clinton and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) changes of ’95 and ’99, correct? If that is the case, then please consider the following facts. Clinton was just one Democrat, while the Congress was controlled by the GOP, so how did the “Democrats” pass the CRA legislation? If you recall, Bush Sr. left us with a burst housing bubble, and to stimulate the housing market the government needed to make take initiative. In ’95 the CRA changes relaxed lending regulations, and when those revisions didn’t perform as expected, in ’99 the feds encouraged banks to lend more, even to less qualified home buyers, by relaxing investment regulations on banks that did lend more. Finally, the CRA changes got the ball rolling. (This is where your one-sided story ends, while I continue to complete it.) By the early 2000′s, the housing market was in full recovery, and when Bush Jr. entered the Office, no further aid was needed for the lending sector. Welp, amazingly, in late 2003 with record setting home construction, sales, and loans issued numbers, W needs to fuel his “Home Ownership Society” and signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act (ADDA). (I’m guessing you’re aware of this act since your shady writing tactics suspiciously omit key details hurtful to your arguments, but in case you’ve never heard of ADDA, here is the breakdown.) The ADDA removed the final hurdle in purchasing a home by eliminating the requirement of having a downpayment. YES! After Clinton stimulated the housing market with reduced lending regulations, Bush Jr. and the GOP congress believed the government needed to go even further to fuel the housing bubble! (Please do yourself a favor and read the transcript of the speech Bush Jr. gave on December 16, 2003, the day he signed the initiative. Google “resident Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003″, and click on the first or second link.) Can you believe the Republicans thought we needed the ADDA, allowing even less qualified citizens to buy homes, even after we observed record setting housing numbers?! The government should have been considering curtailing the housing market to avoid a bubble, but instead Bush2 and the GOP congress threw more fuel at it. Wow, and you thought the Democrats caused the housing bubble, because Clinton and the GOP congress tried to stimulate the market when it was dead in the water. Ha!

  • MarioP

    REPLY TO CCNV 9/7/2012 (Part 2 of 3)

     Unemployment Benefits:
    CCNV: “Extention of unemployment benefits wouldn’t have been necessary if Obama opened up drilling to create more jobs…”
    OK, you’ve just opened up a new can of worms, which is the oil industry. Again, your sources are ill informed, at best. I wish every hard core Right winger would get the following statement tattooed on their palm. “The oil companies do not want an extensive drilling expansion that would lower the price of oil.” Yes, you hear me right. The oil companies are hiding behind environmentalists, quietly grinning, because the less they drill for new wells, the more they get paid for the oil they pump from their existing wells. They make higher profits by doing absolute NOTHING! What other industry has the luxury of not needing to invest in their business to increase profits? To help you understand this better, let me place you in the CEO chair of an oil company and you tell me which scenario would you prefer.

    a) You, the CEO, will decide to pay new permit fees to drill for new oil wells. To service these new wells, you’ll need to pay for new pumping equipment. You’ll also need to pay for new piping to transport the oil from the new sites. With the expanded oil infrastructure you now spend more capital on maintenance of the equipment. With the expanded infrastructure your risk of some kind of a spill or leak has increased, costing you more in insurance premiums. And what do you get for all this expanded infrastructure? You get to sell your oil for less money, because you increased the supply of oil. You end up spending capital to lower your profits.

    Or

    b) You, the CEO, will decide to do absolute nothing and watch the price of oil slowly creep up, at no cost to you. Why would you spend ANY money on infrastructure expansion, because all you have to do is maintain the current equipment and your profits will grow? Let the other guys spend their capital on expansions, because when they lower the price of oil with over-drilling, you’ll be pumping with your current, paid off, equipment, while they’re paying off their expanded rigs with smaller profits.

    I think the choice is clear what the oil companies want, and anyone believing that expanding the oil industry is a realistic scenario is smoking grass.

    Finally, you expect the laid off teachers, architects, marketers, engineers, businessmen, construction workers, and all the other jobless professionals to just somehow transfer their years of unrelated experience into the oil industry? How? If they were to switch their career paths, they would start as inexperienced employees with base salaries, which would not help our economy. It is far more beneficial to stimulate every sector of our economy, rather than just one.  

  • MarioP

    REPLY TO CCNV 9/7/2012 (Part 3 of 3)

    QE1 and QE2:
    CCNV: “Contrary to what was expected, mortgage rates spiked more than half a percentage point in a little more than a month after QE2 started.” 
    Uhm, really? And? So? Thank you for that irrelevant fact. Did the price of gumballs also increase when QE2 started? You’re spinning your facts into any possible QE2 negative to help your futile position. By definition, the purpose of quantitative easing is to stimulate an economy. So it really doesn’t matter what the mortgage rates do as long as the economy improves. When QE2 started in November 2010, the unemployment rate (UR) was at 9.8%, which increased from that June’s 9.4%. The government noticed the worsening UR and realized something needed to be done. Hence the QE2 was announced, and by the time it ran out in June 2011, the UR dropped to 9.1%. The 9.8% UR of November 2010 was the only hick up in the UR since the peak at 10.0% a year earlier, and the QE2 did its job to improve the economy. So your point about the QE2 and mortgage rates is a completely irrelevant fact.

    Bin Laden:
    Bush2 got the ball rolling on the intelligence, but he could not complete the job with the system he built. Obama finished the incomplete task, and therefore deserves the praise. 

    Iraqi War:
    CCNV: “Bush did the right thing to go over and remove Saddam Hussein and we should have stayed to keep peace in that area.” 
    Ok, this is the second asinine statement from you and I’m now confident to declare I’m having this debate with an irrational person. The fact is, the majority of Americans now realize Iraq was a waste of funds and lives that accomplished nothing worth cheering for! With the absence of the WMDs, the US became the laughingstock for the entire world. That $1T spent on Iraq could have been spent here in the US for needed programs, or returned to the tax payers. Instead we are still paying for all the injured soldiers who put their lives on the line for a non-existent goal. Even the majority of the conservatives now believe the invasion of Iraq was not the right action, and you’re still holding onto that outdated dream as if we were back in 2004. Google “cheney in 1994 on Iraq” and you’ll get a quick and informative video lecture from your hero.

    Auto industry bailout:
    CCNV: “Obama sold 40% of GM to the UAW and GM alone, their stock was $50 at the time of the bailout – now it’s $20.”
    Boy, you’ve really done it this time. You believe the GM stock was $50 at the time of the bailout? Every investor knows the GM stock was below $1 when the company declared bankruptcy in June 2009, and declaring bankruptcy mean the stock becomes worthless. Your GM statement is beyond spin; it’s a complete lie. Since GM went public two years ago, the company has turned profit every single quarter. 

    I’m now convinced spending more time in this comedy-act debate is a complete waste. You are extremely uninformed about the above issues, and you really need to rethink all your positions after you educate yourself. But I do thank you for keeping me entertained.

  • MarioP

    REPLY TO CCNC 9/7/2012
    CCNV,Thank you for your response. Unfortunately your last post threatens our debate to become ridiculous, as your ill informed logic draws to some outlandish conclusions.Obamacare:CCNV: “Socialized medicine has not worked in any country that has it.”Right from the gates you start your response with probably the most nonsensical statement. I’m not sure where you came to that conclusion, whether it came from living in an outdated, 30+ year old fantasy world, or whether you are completely detached from reality. In today’s reality the US is ranked way below the #1 nation in healthcare. Actually, some studies place the US as low as #37 based on various criteria. The nations with the best healthcare systems France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Japan, and others, all of which sport a system of at least partially, if not entirely, paid by the government. True, the top 1% in the US can afford that Cadillac US care every dunce points out when praising our healthcare system, but the rest of our citizens receive a mediocre care and at the highest per-capita price. (Wait, I thought private healthcare should be efficient and fiscally conservative, so why is it so costly? What?) Next time, before you start typing, please Google for your information, and don’t just blindly absorb it from the Right-wing-nut talkshow or just make it up.Your position about our healthcare is as ridiculous as claiming that because the top 1% of Americans are millionaires, the entire United States is filled with nothing but wealthy people. Yeah, that’s a pretty nutty and untrue belief. (Maybe you’ll redeem yourself in your other points.)TARP:CCNV: “Democrats passed legislation making the banks sell loans to people who could not pay for them.”(Uh oh, this statement also sounds very ill informed.) I’m assuming here you’re talking about Clinton and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) changes of ’95 and ’99, correct? If that is the case, then please consider the following facts. Clinton was just one Democrat, while the Congress was controlled by the GOP, so how did the “Democrats” pass the CRA legislation? If you recall, Bush Sr. left us with a burst housing bubble, and to stimulate the housing market the government needed to make take initiative. In ’95 the CRA changes relaxed lending regulations, and when those revisions didn’t perform as expected, in ’99 the feds encouraged banks to lend more, even to less qualified home buyers, by relaxing investment regulations on banks that did lend more. Finally, the CRA changes got the ball rolling. (This is where your one-sided story ends, while I continue to complete it.) By the early 2000′s, the housing market was in full recovery, and when Bush Jr. entered the Office, no further aid was needed for the lending sector. Welp, amazingly, in late 2003 with record setting home construction, sales, and loans issued numbers, W needs to fuel his “Home Ownership Society” and signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act (ADDA). (I’m guessing you’re aware of this act since your shady writing tactics suspiciously omit key details hurtful to your arguments, but in case you’ve never heard of ADDA, here is the breakdown.) The ADDA removed the final hurdle in purchasing a home by eliminating the requirement of having a downpayment. YES! After Clinton stimulated the housing market with reduced lending regulations, Bush Jr. and the GOP congress believed the government needed to go even further to fuel the housing bubble! (Please do yourself a favor and read the transcript of the speech Bush Jr. gave on December 16, 2003, the day he signed the initiative. Google “resident Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003″, and click on the first or second link.) Can you believe the Republicans thought we needed the ADDA, allowing even less qualified citizens to buy homes, even after we observed record setting housing numbers?! The government should have been considering curtailing the housing market to avoid a bubble, but instead Bush2 and the GOP congress threw more fuel at it. Wow, and you thought the Democrats caused the housing bubble, because Clinton and the GOP congress tried to stimulate the market when it was dead in the water. Ha! Unemployment Benefits:CCNV: “Extention of unemployment benefits wouldn’t have been necessary if Obama opened up drilling to create more jobs…”OK, you’ve just opened up a new can of worms, which is the oil industry. Again, your sources are ill informed, at best. I wish every hard core Right winger would get the following statement tattooed on their palm. “The oil companies do not want an extensive drilling expansion that would lower the price of oil.” Yes, you hear me right. The oil companies are hiding behind environmentalists, quietly grinning, because the less they drill for new wells, the more they get paid for the oil they pump from their existing wells. They make higher profits by doing absolute NOTHING! What other industry has the luxury of not needing to invest in their business to increase profits? To help you understand this better, let me place you in the CEO chair of an oil company and you tell me which scenario would you prefer.a) You, the CEO, will decide to pay new permit fees to drill for new oil wells. To service these new wells, you’ll need to pay for new pumping equipment. You’ll also need to pay for new piping to transport the oil from the new sites. With the expanded oil infrastructure you now spend more capital on maintenance of the equipment. With the expanded infrastructure your risk of some kind of a spill or leak has increased, costing you more in insurance premiums. And what do you get for all this expanded infrastructure? You get to sell your oil for less money, because you increased the supply of oil. You end up spending capital to lower your profits.Orb) You, the CEO, will decide to do absolute nothing and watch the price of oil slowly creep up, at no cost to you. Why would you spend ANY money on infrastructure expansion, because all you have to do is maintain the current equipment and your profits will grow? Let the other guys spend their capital on expansions, because when they lower the price of oil with over-drilling, you’ll be pumping with your current, paid off, equipment, while they’re paying off their expanded rigs with smaller profits.I think the choice is clear what the oil companies want, and anyone believing that expanding the oil industry is a realistic scenario is smoking grass.Finally, you expect the laid off teachers, architects, marketers, engineers, businessmen, construction workers, and all the other jobless professionals to just somehow transfer their years of unrelated experience into the oil industry? How? If they were to switch their career paths, they would start as inexperienced employees with base salaries, which would not help our economy. It is far more beneficial to stimulate every sector of our economy, rather than just one.  QE1 and QE2:CCNV: “Contrary to what was expected, mortgage rates spiked more than half a percentage point in a little more than a month after QE2 started.” Uhm, really? And? So? Thank you for that irrelevant fact. Did the price of gumballs also increase when QE2 started? You’re spinning your facts into any possible QE2 negative to help your futile position. By definition, the purpose of quantitative easing is to stimulate an economy. So it really doesn’t matter what the mortgage rates do as long as the economy improves. When QE2 started in November 2010, the unemployment rate (UR) was at 9.8%, which increased from that June’s 9.4%. The government noticed the worsening UR and realized something needed to be done. Hence the QE2 was announced, and by the time it ran out in June 2011, the UR dropped to 9.1%. The 9.8% UR of November 2010 was the only hick up in the UR since the peak at 10.0% a year earlier, and the QE2 did its job to improve the economy. So your point about the QE2 and mortgage rates is a completely irrelevant fact.Bin Laden:Bush2 got the ball rolling on the intelligence, but he could not complete the job with the system he built. Obama finished the incomplete task, and therefore deserves the praise. Iraqi War:CCNV: “Bush did the right thing to go over and remove Saddam Hussein and we should have stayed to keep peace in that area.” Ok, this is the second asinine statement from you and I’m now confident to declare I’m having this debate with an irrational person. The fact is, the majority of Americans now realize Iraq was a waste of funds and lives that accomplished nothing worth cheering for! With the absence of the WMDs, the US became the laughingstock for the entire world. That $1T spent on Iraq could have been spent here in the US for needed programs, or returned to the tax payers. Instead we are still paying for all the injured soldiers who put their lives on the line for a non-existent goal. Even the majority of the conservatives now believe the invasion of Iraq was not the right action, and you’re still holding onto that outdated dream as if we were back in 2004. Google “cheney in 1994 on Iraq” and you’ll get a quick and informative video lecture from your hero.Auto industry bailout:CCNV: “Obama sold 40% of GM to the UAW and GM alone, their stock was $50 at the time of the bailout – now it’s $20.”Boy, you’ve really done it this time. You believe the GM stock was $50 at the time of the bailout? Every investor knows the GM stock was below $1 when the company declared bankruptcy in June 2009, and declaring bankruptcy mean the stock becomes worthless. Your GM statement is beyond spin; it’s a complete lie. Since GM went public two years ago, the company has turned profit every single quarter. I’m now convinced spending more time in this comedy-act debate is a complete waste. You are extremely uninformed about the above issues, and you really need to rethink all your positions after you educate yourself. But I do thank you for keeping me entertained.

  • Concernedmimi

    It was really difficult to get past Clinton’s finger wagging; looking the American people right in the eye and not remembering him say; “I did not have sex with that woman”. The man has zero credibility!!! Just alot of hot air.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Mimi: For some unfathomable reason, Clinton remains popular with a lot of people.  But it’s not the sort of thing he can hand off to other politicians.  It’s as if he is forgiven for his sins because he speaks in a drawl.  But proof of my claim is that both he and Obama did a great deal of campaigning for Democrats running for office back in 2010, but in spite of their efforts in Ohio, Virginia and New Jersey, Kasich, McDonnel and Christie, all creamed the opposition.

      Burt

    • MarioP

      Clinton was not perfect, but no one is. It’s a lot easier to forgive a man for lying about an inter-marital relationship than lying about WMDs and needlessly sending thousands of our soldiers to their deaths. If your only complaint about Clinton is that one lie, you should only wish to have a Republican president as Clinton was. Lacking any substance, your post shows desperation for a convincing complaint of your opposition.

  • Deny916

    Excellent article Burt!  I couldn’t watch all that drivel either even if I had a puke bucket next to me!  Is it November yet????

    I can’t wait to see Biden draped over that fender either!  :)

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Deny: I really tried to watch the Charlotte convention as much as the one down in Tampa, but I just couldn’t.  I couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of Mayor Castro and Elizabeth Warren and a few seconds of Sandra Fluke.  I did force myself to sit through about half of Clinton’s marathon, but, knowing what he really thinks about Obama and Obama’s administration, I finally gave up.  I figured that as the Grand Old Man of the Party, he had to speak, but I didn’t have to listen.

      Burt

      • Mariop

        Burt, 

        At least you caught half of Clinton’s speech, which should have been plenty to show how wrong you are about so many issues, like believing a Republican president would have fixed W’s Great Recession in four years. Ha! Or how weak the GOP economic policies have been over the last half a century at creating private sector jobs. Duh! (These are facts I’ve been trying to convey to the Right for some time now.) Clinton’s lecture was full of data, but I guess you just dismissed it all as Leftist propaganda. Yeah, hard numbers are somehow twisted. The Right is a riot, because they reject the data and for what? For absolutely nothing concrete. No data, no facts, just their simplistic theories that seem to work only in their limited capacity minds. And when a theory proves faulty in practice, the Right blames the Left as if their idea was flawless and holy. The problem could never lie with the theory, oh no!

        Also, this question the Right is trying to sell… “Are you better off today than four years ago” … That slogan is a bit shortsighted and will expire way before the elections. Next week will be four years since the financial meltdown started, so the Right can’t be asking that question starting September 15th. Oops! What a blunder, yet again.

        But let me answer that question for you. Am I better off today than four years ago? Would I want to go back in time to the late eve of the Great Recession again? Would I want to face panic and potential depression, again? Or would I rather be living during the recovery phase? Hmmm… that’s a toughy…. But not really. Ha! What a primitive question; the Right just can’t get anything right.  Nada!

        • Count_E_Limerick

          Yup, the Fact Checkers took a day off today, so every word Bill Clinton said must’ve been true, since he only lies about sex – as do we all.
          From the end of Reagan’s recession – a necessary evil since he had to wring Carter’s inflation out of the system by pulling back hard on the reins of the money supply – until the slide in 2008, the US economy had 98 equal or up quarters in 100 quarters. Yes, 32 of those were under Clinton. Yes, Clinton could up the top tax rates while money was easy to come by, and while he opened new markets to US products. Yes, Clinton could take credit for conservative policies forced on him by Congress from ’94 on, even when his arm was twisted way behind his back.
          Yes, the economy that grew about 150% during the bo0m receded 10% during the bust – a sure sign capitalism doesn’t work, and that it’s all Bush’s fault. And here my peabrain thought economies always worked in cycles, and we were overdue.
          As Bill Clinton said, “Why don’t you put some ice on that?”

          • Mariop

            Thank you for your reply.
            Clinton had Republican congress to work with, and so did Bush2, yet Clinton did a significantly better job with the conservative congress than W did. Our nations has experienced the two worst economic disasters post completely Republican governments. Nine of the last ten recessions have started under a Republican president. So why would I vote for another GOP president? 

            One would think that if there truly was an autonomous economic cycle, both parties’ presidents would be rewarded with a recession, but that ain’t so. The Republicans cut crucial spending that handicaps the economy, and they expect the lower taxes to keep it stimulated, which never works. In addition, the Republicans constantly believe in deregulating our industries without oversight, which initially result in a boom only to come down crashing. The reason why the recessions start during Republican’s reigns is obvious, and so is the pattern. What our nation needs is a consistent and governed economy without these Republican booms and crashes, and then those cycles your peabrain identified would not impair the economy. 

            Since you brought up Reagan, let me present some facts about his recession. From the time the Skipper took office (January ’81) until his first budget was enacted (October 1 of ’81), the unemployment rate (UR) was stable and fluctuating somewhere in the low to mid 7%. Once Reagan’s first budget took effect in October, the UR hit 7.9% that month, a level the nation has not seen since Ford’s era. Coincidence? With Reagan’s first budget in full swing, the UR kept climbing for fifteen months, peaking at 10.8%, 0.8% higher than during our last recession. Yet I doubt you were upset with Reagan like you currently are with Obama, even though Obama’s inherited economy was significantly worse than Reagan’s. Reagan caused his recession, Obama inherited his, yet your anger is directed at the present commander-in-chief. Why is that? I doubt you even know, because your twisted information comes from sources with very self-benefiting and narrow sighted agendas.

        • Deny916

          Are you going to blame Bush even when Romney gets in office!

          Blaming Bush is getting w-a-y old after 3 1/2 years of obama’s crap!

          • MarioP

            How long did it take to repair the economy the previous time a Republican president with a Republican Congress mangled it? The Great Depression started in 1929. The unemployment rate didn’t drop below 10% until 1942, and only after the US entered WWII. So four years from the second worst economic disaster isn’t bad, right?

            Today you call the nation’s second most popular president a hero, yet there were clowns back then criticizing FDR for his accomplishments. Today, you are one of those clowns, a clown that also supported the least popular president of  nearly a century. Good move and judgment, bozo!

      • Deny916

        Oh Burt I so totally understand!  I have worn out the mute button on my remote already.  I was just so happy football was on yesterday!  I swear that you could have blindfolded all the guys and I STILL would have watched the game!  I just couldn’t even think of watching Clinton sucking up to obama…too much to handle!  Tonight it’ll be re-runs of “The First 48″.  AT least that show has some substance!

        Great article.  I really enjoy reading your stuff!

  • Artlouis

    How about inviting Clinton in to give the keynote? At a convention whose theme seems to be the War on Women? That would be like FDR asking Tojo to sub for him in one of the fireside chats designed to boost the war effort.

  • Concernedmimi

    Beautiful prose, Burt;  something the democrats are immune to. It’s a shame how many political illiterates still exist that actually vote in elections that don’t know the liberal spin of (investment = spending) (pro-choice = pro-infanticide) and all the free STUFF they are getting today will be laid at the feet of our children and grandchildren to pay for later. Can hardly wait for Bill’s speech tonight. Maybe he will be escorted by Monica (since Hillary can’t make it) and they will talk about family values.

    • BurtPrelutsky

      If Monica shows up, maybe I’ll tune in.  I had every intention of sitting through the entire convention, but I couldn’t even manage to make it all the way through the speeches by Castro and Mrs. Obama.  Some people lack a tolerance for milk, others for alcohol.  With me, there’s only so much BS I can tolerate before my allergies kick in.

      Burt

      • MarioP

        No Burt, you’re mistaken about your intolerance. You lack the tolerance for intelligence. If it wasn’t for these simpletons, you would not see a single positive comment on this trashy website.

        • CCNV

          No, MarioP, you’re mistaken. I’m pretty sure ALL of us are positive about our comments on this website.

          • Mariop

            My mistake; I didn’t make my previous comment clear enough, so let me try again.

            What I meant to say was that if it wasn’t for the easily influenced readers on this website, there would not be a single praise Burt would receive. I do see the horde on here is falsely positive about their political party, but if they only knew the facts, they would surely be negative about their stance.

            BTW, did you all happen to catch the lesson Professor Clinton presented last night? That speech should have set you all straight. Any independents watching the DNC have now made up their minds. It’s unfortunate for the Right that  there isn’t a single powerful and effective leader like the Left has. But hey, that’s to the Left’s benefit. Hurray!  

          • CCNV

            What little I heard was a room full of liars sounding like physiced woodpeckers. So many blathering idiots and not one word was said. Who knew you could fit so many blowhards into one room?

          • Mariop

            CCNV,

            If the Democrats are “blathering idiots”, then what does that make the Republicans who run  worse economies than those idiots? The Reps must be complete morons and you’re the only competent leader who can run our nation with your sole brilliance. You genius you!

          • CCNV

            Hell, even I know when the money is gone it’s time to stop spending! You idiots keep printing money! WTF?

            Again, I ask, name 5 things (not counting government handouts, failed stimulus, corp/bank bailouts and taxes (obamacare)) that the idiot you worship has done to HELP the American people.

          • Mariop

            CCNV,
            Here are more than the five requested achievements Obama enacted to help the nation. I’ll list some of them that you, for some unknown reason, consider a failure. You obviously do not understand the benefits the average American acquired from these achievements, so let me help you see the light for the first time.1) Obamacare. Because the unemployment rate is high, more unemployed citizens can take advantage of needed medical services. Others, who are employed, do not need to worry about loosing health covered when changing or losing jobs, filing for divorce, having pre-existing conditions, outgrowing their dependent coverage, or are going through other hardships in life that would prevent them getting health coverage. So yes, Obamacare is a major positive for the general public. Preventative procedures are also covered for EVERYONE, so potential problems can be identified early and do not balloon into major medical bills for the government and the health industry.

            2) TARP: Obama bailed out the failing banks. Can you imagine how much FDIC insured cash would have to be forked out by the feds if the banks were to close doors? The TARP was a LOAN, not free money, and many banks have already repaid it. FDIC payments would have been free money. With this move the populous, and the world investors, did not lose confidence in the US banking system, like they all would have had the banks failed. So again, TARP is a major positive for not just the general public, but the rest of the world.

            3) Stimulus/Recovery Act: Obama infused funds into public projects and private developments. This helped the devastated construction industry hammered by the housing bubble. Jobs were saved, public infrastructure was revamped, and new developments were given a boost. I see that as a major benefit to the ENTIRE nation.

            4) Extension of the unemployment benefits: The jobless, who had a hard time finding new jobs after being laid off, were given the opportunity to stay out of poverty. Money was again infused into the general public, money that not only helped people to keep some sort of a normal lifestyle, but the money was spent by the public here in the US, on US businesses. So both the public and businesses benefited from this move.

            5) QE1 and QE2: The stock market, and people’s 401K’s, have rebounded from the market crash. Retirees can now retire and not have to wait longer until their retirement portfolios rebound. The retiring public and investors benefited.

            6) Bin Laden: Nothing else needs to be said.

            7) Iraq War: It’s finally over.

            8) Libya: Dictator that should have been dealt with decades ago, has been eliminated without losing a single US life.

            9) Banking Reform: To avoid another devastating banking crisis.

            10) Border Security: Obama has doubled the number of border patrol agents from the 2004 number.

            11) Auto Industry Bailout: Saved over 1M jobs, and kept the automobile profits in the US. Again, this bailout was in a form of a loan, being repaid with stock, etc.

            Enough? All these moves have prevented the nation from enter a depression. 

            Ok, now it’s your turn. What do we have Bush2 to thank for?

          • CCNV

            Obamacare. A trillion dollars more than claimed; death panels; socialized medicine has not worked in any country that has it.
             
            TARP. Democrats passed legislation making the banks sell loans to people who could not pay for them. TARP wouldn’t have been necessary if that legislation wouldn’t have been passed. Obama gave most of the money to banks who supported his campaign.
             
            Stimulus and economy. You mean all those “shovel ready” jobs? Less people employed now than when he took office. Money that was passed out went to companies like Solyndra and other ‘green’ companies, creating further loss of jobs. Obama cut NASA and defense spending which created even MORE unemployment.
             
            Extension of unemployment benefits. Wouldn’t have been necessary if Obama opened up drilling to create more jobs and spent less on funding of frivolous green projects. Taxes and EPA has created hardships with stringent regulations; thus, more companies have to send stuff overseas to be manufactured. More loss of jobs.

            QE1 and QE2: Contrary to what was expected, mortgage rates spiked more than half a percentage point in a little more than a month after QE2 started. When the program ended, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was about 30 basis points higher than it was when QE2 started. : This all goes back to Barney Frank and pals (i.e., Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie).  Enough said.

            Bin Laden: Bush got the intelligence ball rolling in order to even find bin Laden. Obama has the gall to take credit for it.
             
            Iraqi war: Bush did the right thing to go over and remove Saddam Hussein and we should have stayed to keep peace in that area. Moving all troops home is going to make Iraq worse than it was before.
             
            Libya: Quadifi was taken out by the Muslim Brotherhood so they could have a radical government in that country. We will end up being there too.
             
            Banking reform: Banks were given billions to help with mortgage principal. To date, $700,000 was used for the principal and the rest was used for short sales.
             
            Border security: Where? The Canada/US border? Obama stood in the way of enforcing federal laws on the US/Mexican border!
             
            Auto industry bailout: Obama sold 40% of GM to the UAW and GM alone, their stock was $50 at the time of the bailout – now it’s $20. That’s a LOT of help, isn’t it? Chrysler isn’t doing too well, either. The UAW and their retirement benefits and their overpaid people will still destroy the auto industry in this country. The auto industry lost a million jobs due to the closing of production facilities. Oh, and the Chevy Volt…has already been pulled from production.

            This isn’t about Bush’s administration. Bush has been gone for 4 years.

            I rest my case.

          • MarioP

            CCNV,

            In order to widen the text column, please see my reply above to your last post. Search of the following text at the start of my reply:

            REPLY TO CCNC 9/7/2012

  • GlenFS

    To a leftist and their media, opposing such atrocity is extreme, hateful and antiwoman.

  • Wheels55

    Ryan and Rubio represent true hope and change. The problem is that message isn’t selling any more. People need to wake up and smell the debt.

  • Rick Johnson

    Biden, draped over a fender? Oh, man – I love it!

    • GlenFS

      Catch and release, no doubt.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Thanks, Rick.  I liked it, too.

      Burt

  • PVMan1

    Ahhhh! One of my favorite quotes last night…”Women are NOT a special interest group.”

    Then the constant comparison of how hard almost each speaker say their parents worked to make what they do now possible…but now, with Oblah-blah’s CHANGE, this generation doesn’t have to worry about personal responsibility because government is there…cue Life of Julia.

  • Tsav672000

    Anything not far left is now considered extremist. I love how they are trying to parrot that Ronald Reagan would today be a democrat. Dumbest thing ever. 

  • CCNV

     Burt, your comment about “Americans receiving bribes from his goody bag” sums up his entire campaign. Even though Republicans/Conservatives have been extremely vocal about the current administration destroying America, the morning the libs/dems wake up and find they have finally gotten what they wanted, then and only then, will they shout “WTF”!?