Posts Tagged ‘liberal elitism’

Obamas fly into Martha’s Vineyard on two seperate jets

August 19, 2011 Leave a comment

It’s almost as if they enjoy kicking the nation in the collective groin:

Mrs. Obama and her daughters arrived just before 2 pm Thursday on a U.S. government jet, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, which got its information from the local airport. The first lady’s office has been silent on her travel. President Obama arrived in the evening along with the family dog Bo.

The extra costs related to Mrs. Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on a specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her. She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.

Mrs. Obama’s separate jet travel sends the wrong message on a host of issues, from global warming to the budget deficit to the economy – in which currently so many people can’t afford to take a vacation at all.

I know I’ve been dismissing criticism of the Obamas trip to MV in recent posts, but I’ve also acknowledged that the optics are tough.  Stories like this only add fuel to the fire.

[Hat Tip: Memeorandum]





Wannabe populist President’s friends are all millionaires

April 29, 2010 Leave a comment

Finally, we have a President who understands the average American:

When President Barack Obama moved into the White House earlier this year, he took several of his fellow Chicago millionaires with him.

Newly released disclosure reports show virtually all of the top Chicagoans serving in the West Wing had assets valued at a million dollars or more at the end of 2008.

In several cases, the reports provide the first detailed look at the finances of some of the president’s top aides and friends from Chicago who have risen with him. They also show the salary haircut many have taken to be in the White House, at least until they return to the private sector.

Have the President and his cronies made “enough money”?  Probably not.  Sky’s the limit for them.

But for us rubes, we shouldn’t be so fracking greedy.  Hypocrites.

And here’s an interesting bit from the same article:

Obama’s personal wealth soared in the past decade. His annual household income fluctuated in the range of about $250,000 during the first half of this decade, before his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and millions in book royalties and advances that started rolling in during 2005.

Apparently the Bush years weren’t so bad after all.  But that doesn’t fit into the President’s “I’m here to rescue you from the economic devastation of the last eight years” narrative.   

Again.  Hypocrites.

Michael Moore: Hey, working class Michigan taxpayers should subsidize my crappy films

March 14, 2010 Leave a comment

A real working class hero that Michael Moore:

A Republican [Michigan] state senator is calling out filmmaker Michael Moore for requesting $1 million in tax subsidies for his movie “Capitalism: A Love Story,” in which the filmmaker decried the government bailout of Wall Street executives.

State Sen. Nancy Cassis, R-Novi, is asking Moore to withdraw his application from the Michigan Film Office, which would reimburse up to 42 percent for costs associated with filming in the state. […]

Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s Kathy Hoekstra broke the story last week that Moore applied for the tax subsidy[…]

 “He got caught in his own rhetoric and double standards,” Cassis said. “He decried capitalism and big corporations getting government handouts, and he asked for a handout himself from all the taxpayers of Michigan. He presented himself as a defender of the poor and downtrodden, and government should not be supportive of corporate welfare, but he himself is taking money from taxpayers.

She continued, “Michael Moore, if you stand by your position in ‘Capitalism: A Love Story,’ then withdraw your application from the film office for refunds at the expense of and subsidized by Michigan taxpayers.”[…]

“He put himself on the movie-making landscape by trying to get GM’s Roger Smith on the record,” Hoekstra said. “I find it ironic that he seems to be just as elusive as the subject of his breakthrough movie ‘Roger and Me.’”

More from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s Michael LaFaive:

“You cannot create jobs, you cannot enrich both Peter and Paul by robbing one of them,” LaFaive said. “And that’s what is occurring here. Mr. Moore should know better, since he so long has railed against this type of cronyism, these cozy relationships between government and the private sector.”

Michael Moore is your typical progressive–a bitter and self-loathing hypocrite.  Bitter that others actually risk their own resources and time to produce wealth for the benefit of themselves and their families. 

This degenerate spends most of his time tearing into our free market economic system and proponents of the same.  But apparently he has no problem with that institution when he can use it to line his own, fat pocket. 

[Via Sean Paige]

Jacob Weisberg: Our politicians are awesome, you voters are the idiots

February 7, 2010 Leave a comment

Continuing in the endless line of liberal brains whining about how we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us, Jacob Weisberg decides to jump into the pool.

So many things are wrong with our political system, so many different factors in Democrats failure to get things done.  But the most important factor? 

The American people are just too stupid:

[T]hat list neglects what may be the biggest culprit in our current predicament: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.

Anybody who says you can’t have it both ways clearly hasn’t been spending much time reading opinion polls lately. One year ago, 59 percent of the American public liked the stimulus plan, according to Gallup. A few months later, with the economy still deeply mired in recession, a majority of the same size said Obama was spending too much money on it.

There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind, of course, but opinion polls over the last year reflect something altogether more troubling: a country that simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, climate change, and a whole host of other major problems.


To change this story line, we need to stop blaming the rascals we elect to office and start looking to ourselves.

He then goes on to trash Scott Brown, tea partiers, Ronald Reagan, etc. 

There’s so much fail in this piece, although that’s to be expected.  For example, the polls he’s quoting on the stimulus were taken a year ago, when the country thought they could expect good things to come from the administration.  The stimulus turned out to be a disaster as unemployment ran up to 10%.  The American people soured on it.  Why?

How was the stimulus spent? 

— $233,000 to the University of California at San Diego to study why Africans vote. Jobs created: 12, but seven of those are Africans in Africa.

— In Nevada, $2 million in stimulus money built a new fire station, but because of budget cuts, the county can’t afford to hire firefighters to work there.

— Penn State University got $1.5 million to study plant fossils in Argentina. Of 5 jobs created, 2 belong to Argentines.

— Researchers the State University of New York at Buffalo got $389,000 to pay 100 Buffalonians $45 each to record how much malt liquor they drink — and how much pot smoke each day. Consumption is then reported via an automated phone hotline. Cost per job: almost $200,000.


Paying people to tell us how much booze they drank and pot they smoked?  Paying Argentines to plant fossils in South America?  And on and on. 

Yes, it’s all becoming clearer now. 

Here’s a clue for Weisberg.  Maybe it’s not so much that our elected leaders are doing something with their power, but what exactly it is their doing.  “Stimulus” sounds great, until the only people being stimulated are some random upstate stoners. 

Same thing with healthcare reform.  I’m sure if you polled some people at any given point in time, I’m sure they’d say that the system needs “reform”.  Supposedly, the Democrats had the “mandate” to do this from the 2008 election, complete with a Congressional super-majority and control of the White House.  It was the perfect storm to reshape healthcare into the liberal utopia the educated class had been dreaming about for decades. 

And what did the rubes get for their faith in these elected “rascals”? 

They got the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.  We got fake doctors in White House-issued lab coats promising a united front for reform.  We got unions and Obama campaign donors being exempt from a Cadillac-plan tax to fund reform.  But, hey—it’s good enough for us ignorant slobs.  For that, the American people would rather stick with the status quo.

The only issue that the Obama Democrats were intent on pushing, was that Republicans were the reason that healthcare reform was not sailing through a Democratically-controlled White House and Congress.

So why blame the politicians?  It’s us ignorant and amateurish buffoons that don’t know what’s good for us.