The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Lynn Woolsey: The Full Loaf!

Posted on | September 14, 2011 | 32 Comments

Watching Democrats lose a district they’ve held for 88 year? Classic! Watching Democrats make complete idiots of themselves? Priceless!

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) stressed that it was important for Democrats to not cave in on pieces of either Obama’s jobs plan or the [Congressional Progressive Caucus’s] job-creation agenda.
Half a loaf is not enough in the United States of America,” Woolsey said. “The whole proposal is what we must have now.”

Well, (a) I thought it was those “Tea Party extremists” who always refused to compromise, and (b) “The only good Republican is a dead one“? Thanks for the civility lessons!


32 Responses to “Lynn Woolsey: The Full Loaf!”

  1. Andrew Patrick
    September 14th, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

    I’m starting to think these liberal chaps aren’t gentlemen.

  2. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 12:27 pm

    Wasn’t there also a special election in Nevada last night? If so I’m guessing the Dems held onto that one?

  3. elaine
    September 14th, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

    When republicans won governorships in Virginia and New Jersey in fall of 2009, it was just a fluke that didn’t mean anything.

    When Scott Brown won, the dems blamed Cockley for being a weak candidate.

    When the republicans won in a landslide last fall, the dems said that it was just voter anger and had nothing to do with their policies.

    Now that an historically democrat seat has gone to the republicans in NY-09, the dems are still saying the dem in the race was a weak candidate, it’s not a repudiation of our policies, it’s Obama’s poor approval rating, it’s the quirky nature of that particular district’s demographics…


    Then you have Lynn Woolsey and Ken Ellison saying Obama isn’t left enough…

    You’d think at some point they’d get the message that America isn’t buying what they’re selling.  Yet, surprisingly, no…

    The CPC platform focuses on six areas for job creation and calls for a
    national infrastructure bank, green technology investment, new
    public-sector spending for job creation and closing tax loopholes and
    subsidies for big American businesses as well as discouraging large
    bonuses for CEOs of big corporations.

    Green technology investment.  You mean like the half a billion dollars taxpayers gave to Solyndra?  How’d that work out for us again?  Oh, yeah… 1100 workers pounding the pavement, and the taxpayers half a billion dollars that we don’t have poorer.

    New public-sector spending for job creation?  Because we don’t already have too many workers in the public sector, costing us money we don’t have for their unfunded, gold-plated benefits packages.

    BTW… does anyone even know what a national infrastructure bank is?

    The trouble with the dems — and this is why they keep getting their heads handed to them — is that the American public knows their policies don’t work.  Unfortunately, they cannot accept this truth.  So the finger pointing and dismissing the bad news will continue.  And the doubling down on stupid, too. 

    The only “big” wins for the dems in the past couple of years have been off-cycle elections where they had dems posing as fake Tea Party candidates to siphon off votes from the real conservative in the race.  That strategy won’t help them forever…

  4. A.Men
    September 14th, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

    Palin will win in 2012.

  5. elaine
    September 14th, 2011 @ 12:43 pm

    Hitler would win against Obama next year.  Lucifer himself would win…

    But, yeah… I’d like to see progressive heads explode when President Palin takes the oath of office…

  6. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 12:47 pm

    They have to say that if they want their donors to keep forking over the big bucks. Imagine if you were a rich Democrat donor pushing a leftist agenda, and all of a sudden your Congressmen or Senator said something like “the people are turning against our policies, so maybe we need to moderate some of them and maybe even drop some others”. You’re probably going to put your money towards a primary challenger that will walk the walk. Remember, Democrats don’t give a crap what the people want, as long as they have enough leftist bought and paid for judges and bureaucrats who are willing to disregard the will of the people.

  7. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 12:48 pm

    I wonder if this means the Republicans have a shot at carrying New York State in 2012. Is that too much to hope for?

  8. elaine
    September 14th, 2011 @ 1:43 pm

    Your premise is that democrat big donors are somehow further left than
    many democrat politicians?  While this may be true of the Hollywood
    crowd, I doubt it’s true of the vast majority of big dem contributors.  I
    could be wrong, though…  Some of the biggest dem donors are Jews. 
    And they’re getting turned off not only by Obama’s Israel policy, but
    also by the blatant anti-Semitism coming from members of their own
    party.  You don’t think that’s going to bite the dems in their
    collective butts?  You’ve got dems publicly saying that the Jews in Ny-09 and elsewhere care more about protecting their money than supporting the dem agenda.  On one hand, that’s a really anti-semitic thing to say, because it plays into the greedy, money-grubbing stereotype.  But it’s also a really stupid thing to say about anyone, because, DUH!  We all care about how much money the government is taking from us and how little we taxpayers have to show for it.

    When democrat strategists are telling their clients to skip running next year, it’s pretty clear those strategists know something the pundits, press, and politicians either don’t know or won’t admit knowing…  The liberal pundits, press and politicians can assure themselves all they like that NY-09 was just a fluke, but that doesn’t make it so; the dem strategists understand this.  They have to be pragmatists, unlike the rest of the party faithful.  Because for a strategist, it’s their livelihood if they’re right or not.  They don’t have the luxury of pretending there isn’t a problem.

    Getting back to the point, though… dems won’t be putting more liberals on the bench and installing more progressive bureaucrats if they can’t get elected to dog catcher next year.  And that’s how the race is shaping up…

    I’d say at some point pragmatism has to kick in for the politicians of the left.   If most Americans don’t agree with their message, they’re not going to get elected.  So what sense does it make to say things which will scare off more and more voters?   Further, a tried and true dem tactic over the years has been to pretend to be more moderate than you actually are.  (Hey, it helped put Obama in the big white, didn’t it?)  So I really don’t understand eschewing pragmatism and pretense and just going full-bore, Marxist crazy here.  That’s not going to win them any support in the middle.  Heck, it’s not even going to keep the less liberal members of their own party.

  9. Christy Waters
    September 14th, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

    Putting the American people in a half-nelson is not enough! We must go for the full nelson!

  10. elaine
    September 14th, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

    If high unemployment continues to be persistent, then, no… it’s not too much to hope for.

    For months I’ve been saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Stacy has a caption of that on his morning round-up post.  And it is.  That’s the whole ad campaign for the republican candidate.  “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?  If Obama gets re-elected, do you expect you’ll be better off in four years than you are now?”

    It’s not rocket science.  I keep saying regardless of what the polls say now, the only poll that matters is the one in November.  The polls now depend on who’s asking the questions, who they ask, and how they ask.  There’s plenty of room to fudge the outcome to get the result you want, and don’t think for a minute that the MSM and the left don’t massage that message every chance they get.

    That’s not only my opinion, I maintain it’s pretty common knowledge among the vast masses.  For the most part, we’ve all figured out how we’ve been played and we’re not letting it happen again.

    This is why the dems keep losing these races, yet they can’t see the problem.  Indeed, they refuse to see it when it’s right in front of their faces, hitting them upside the head with a two by four.

    They and their pollsters and the media will continue to tell us how popular Obama is, how much the American people agree with Obama’s policies, and how unelectable all the various republican candidates are.  For them, the Obama re-election is a shoo-in.

    But the funny thing about holding elections or playing games is that outcomes often are different than predictions.  I could be wrong… but the facts bear me out, that the American public has figured out that most dems aren’t nearly as moderate as they’ve claimed and that scares the living beejeezus out of most of us.

  11. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

    You are right to a great extent, but the problem with all that is that its the more leftist progressive Democrats, and more importantly, donors, who control the party. There is nothing moderate about George Soros, or for that matter, Richard Trumpka. Those are the guys who set the pace. Obama doesn’t want to risk a major primary challenge, for one thing, which would be exactly what he has to fear the most. Do you think Soros cares about splitting the party? Obama knows he needs not only their money, but their boots on the ground, at the phone banks, and knocking on doors, or he loses for sure.

    As for appointing more judges, they already have plenty of those. The trick is in getting their agenda imposed before the ones they already have leave the bench.

  12. McGehee
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:11 pm

    That would be a major turnaround from what I was seeing reported about it.

  13. Joe
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:12 pm

    Or Ladies. 

  14. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:13 pm

    Good, the Republican candidate won the Nevada election as well.

  15. Joe
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

    I was just about to tell you that, but you found out.  Weeee.  Thanks Obama for leading the Demcrat Party sooooo well.  Good to know that Republcans have a place on your coattails! 

  16. Robbyahm
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

    SOB’s 2, Hoffa 0

  17. rosalie
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

    If she’s going to run, she was very wise in waiting.  Look how things are getting among the candidates.  I think this will be her best shot at winning too.  She has a proven record of  working with both sides to get things done, but doesn’t do it to the detriment of her party. 

  18. Joe
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:34 pm

    It is not Doug Hoffman winning NY 23, but it is a good thing never the less. 

    And lets thank not only Tony Wiener, but Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Barack Obama for the hell of a job they are doing! 

  19. Anonymous
    September 14th, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

    Let’s not forget that the Copperheads control the Fourth Branch of government, and the Fifth, the bureaucracy. Exhibit A: the “politicized” Bush DOJ gave money to Obama by a 2-1 margin in 2008.

    Until we give the President the ability to actually fire bureaucrats, elections don’t matter nearly as much as people think.

  20. Anonymous
    September 14th, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

    Mr. Woolsey needs to pinch that loaf off and get on with the people’s business.

    BTW, has anyone even FOUND Weprin since he fled without conceding last night.  Check the airports, he could be heading for the Libyan desert…

  21. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

    That’s a great point. Another one is, any time a Democrat plays faithfully by the leftist playbook, he might not always win, but he can count on getting a cushy appointment for a six dollar figure a year salary or more at some lefty dominated think tank, law firm, etc. So while winning is the objective, its not the be-all and the end-all.

    And then there’s the fact that many of them, probably including Obama, are actually left-wing ideologues that really do believe in their idiotic policies.

  22. Joe
    September 14th, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

    Becareful about that elaine.  Obama is not going to be so easy to beat.  We need a strong candidate who is not afraid to be a conservative and explain why the conservative way is better. 

  23. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

    And a bare minimum of fucking idiots shouting “yeah” when somebody asks if a hospital should let an uninsured patient die.

  24. ThePaganTemple
    September 14th, 2011 @ 5:08 pm


    Promised Land

  25. Bob Belvedere
    September 14th, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

    Lucifer himself would win…

    Ah…er…Miss Elaine: who do you think won in 2008?

    Flashback to the 2008 Campaign Trail:
    BHO: Pleased to meet you.  Hope you guess my name.  But, let me be clear, what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game.

  26. Bob Belvedere
    September 14th, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

    S-O-B!  T-E-A!

  27. Bob Belvedere
    September 14th, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

    Dat loaf is moldy.

  28. Anonymous
    September 14th, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

    Or acceptable in polite society, no wait, not acceptable in any society.
    I can’t wait till they are all living under bridges, preferably having trouble getting WiFi signals.

  29. Anonymous
    September 14th, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

    If only we could get him to campaign for more of them.

  30. elaine
    September 14th, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

    The party that raises the most money isn’t guaranteed the political victory.  It doesn’t matter how far left Soros, Trumka, and their ilk are… the people who cast their votes are all that really matters.  If the people running the party are too far left for the average democrat, then the average democrat voter won’t support his party’s candidate.

    That’s what happened in NY-09.

    As for the federal bureaucracy, it needs to be trimmed.  Desperately.  We have too many people making too much money off the backs of the average taxpayer.  It used to be their benefits package could be justified because their salary was less than that of the average American worker in a similar job.  But now their salaries exceed that of the average worker by a great deal, AND they get the best pension and benefits package out there.

    In a struggling economy, we cannot afford this amount of largess, particularly when it comes at our expense.

    So you want to limit the influence of SEIU?  Cut the number of federal workers.  Anyone who’s near retirement age, buy them out and don’t replace them.  Put a moratorium on new hires.  Fire anyone who’s overstepped the mandate of their agency. (As the NLRB has recently done with the Boeing incident.)  Cut the staff of every politician in DC to a reasonable size.  (Michelle Obama has two dozen staffers?  Why?)

  31. Anonymous
    September 14th, 2011 @ 9:35 pm

    Many of the big Dem donors including the Wall Street crowd are very liberal. For many the bigger attraction is that they are big fans of crony capitalism and money equals access, if they think giving to Republicans will give them that access and they think the pubs could win they’ll give to them despite whatever misgivings they have about Republican policies.

  32. Tennwriter
    September 14th, 2011 @ 10:55 pm

    Great analysis and conversation you two.