Karl Rove Declares War on Tea Party: Fundraising Drops by 98%

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

As so many people, including myself, have been pointing out, it seems that the establishment GOP is busily waging war against their own base.   The Tea Party movement had activated the Conservative base of the party in ways hadn’t been seen since the election of Ronald Reagan.  As such, the party establishment decided that the base must be “put in their place,” so they could return to voting for a “softer form of socialism.”   Karl Rove, know as the “evil emperor,” for his handling of the Bush presidency, was appointed to, or decided to, attack Tea Party oriented candidates all over the country.  He apparently saw the need to take the base of the party, and punish them for their disloyalty.

That apparently prompted a sharp response from the base.   Steve, from America’s Watchtower, has more…

 So now that it has been a full year since Karl Rove declared war on the Tea Party how are his three Super PACs doing? According to this article, not so well for since that time he has seen donations to his pet projects drop by 98%.

As Politico notes, though, “Rove added a third group to the network in 2013, forming the Conservative Victory Project to counterbalance the influence of Tea Party and conservative grassroots forces in GOP primaries.”

Since then, as Breitbart News reported, “Rove’s organization has been so tarnished among the conservative base that candidates fear donors will not contribute to any group associated with him.”

  This is great news indeed for it signals to us the possibility that the average Republican voter is finally waking up to the fact that all the establishment Republicans care about is staying in power and are no longer willing to simply vote for the lesser of two evils.

Absolutely!  Indeed, 2010 happened because Conservatives were no longer willing to vote for “demicans, or republicrats.”  We were, and still are, tired of candidates that talk conservative on the campaign trail, and then act like regressive Democrats once in office.  However, establishment GOP guys like Rove apparently think that the GOP can run candidates without voters.  They are frankly just p***ing on us, and we’re paying attention to that.  I’ve never seen the GOP having more contempt for actual Republicans.

Do they wonder why we call them the “stupid party?”

Share

MSM Death Watch: MSNBC Losing Audience, Now Behind CNN

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

In the decay of the MSM, MSNBC is now taking the brunt of the damage.  It would seem that covering for the Obama Administration and blaming every single issue on Earth on racism is causing people to tune out in droves.  Newsbusters has more…

The ratings from April through June brought good news for the dominant Fox News Channel, the resurgent Cable News Network and HLN — which was previously known as the Headline Network — but that period saw MSNBC deliver its worst quarterly prime-time showing among total viewers and adults from 25 to 54 years of age since 2007.

According to a report released by Nielsen Media Research, CNN reclaimed the runner-up slot from MSNBC for the first time since 2010. Also, the “Lean Forward” network fell 16 percent to third place in prime-time ratings and nine percent to come in fourth in its “total day” numbers.

The second quarter was an especially difficult time for Rachel Maddow, whose show’s average audience of 774,000 was the smallest since its debut in September of 2008. According to Joe Flint of the Los Angeles Times, a large part of the problem is All In With Chris Hayes, which airs before Maddow’s show and has yet to click with viewers.

During its first full three-month period on the air, All In generated the lowest-rated 8 p.m. hour in the 25-54 demo for MSNBC since the first quarter of 2006. In addition, the network’s 10 p.m. program — The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell — also had the lowest rating for that important demographic since the fourth quarter of 2006.

Of course, the same report also shows increases in Fox’s audience, and CNN as well.  I guess constantly lying doesn’t pay.  Then again, CNN did rise in the ratings, so I guess low information folks are just going elsewhere in order to remain low information.

Share

Americans Vote with their Remotes: Piers Morgan’s Ratings in the Tank

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Losing_share

It seems that Piers Morgan’s ratings are in the tank.  I guess all that gun grabber stuff isn’t exactly resonating with the viewers (or lack thereof).  Weasel Zippers has more…

Via TV By The Numbers:

The February 28th episode of Piers Morgan Tonight, which featured an exclusive interview with Gus Searcy, the mentor of Jodi Arias suffered a yearly low in the key 25-54 demographic with only 87,000 viewers.

The show is down 27% in total viewers and 38% in the demo from its debut in Jan. 17th, 2011.

Piers Morgan Tonight also had the lowest demo in its time slot and was even beat by HLN’s Dr. Drew (with 208,000).

And let me guess, they won’t admit, or maybe even realize, that the toxic content of the show is to blame?

Share

Media Distrust at an all-time High: A Look Inside the Numbers

Share

What happens when a poll is taken showing the level of trust in the media?  We see a clue to the outcome in november.  The Rand Paul Review has the following, from Gallup…

More broadly, Republicans continue to express the least trust in the media, while Democrats express the most. Independents’ trust fell below the majority level in 2004 and has continued to steadily decline.

Trend: Trust in Mass Media, by Party

OK then, we see that the Democrats in the sample trust the media to the tune of 58%.  That is predictable, as the media cheer leads for the Democrats.  Also, we see the Republican figure is remarkably low, at 26%.  In fact, I can’t understand why it’s that high, but that is the topic for another day.  The big number-the one that the media and the Democrats have to be concerned with-concerns the independents.  Independents are the swing votes.  The numbers of liberals and Conservatives remain mostly stable, but it’s the independents that are swayed either way.  If the independents are not trusting the media much more than Republicans, that means that the pro-Obama mainstream media propaganda isn’t striking a chord.   And if the propaganda isn’t sinking in, they might not be voting Obama in the fall.

And that, my friends, spells doom for the Democrats.

Share

What Has Happened To Our Middle Class?

Share

First let’s talk about the meme that the “rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. That the rich are getting richer is without a doubt true. So, I won’t even go there. But, what about the poor? Are they really getting poorer? That would be a difficult case to make in America.

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year. So, why does it seem that the percentage of our population that is classified as being poor never changes? Bruce McQuain ofQuestions and Observation uses a recent CATO Institute study to give us the answer.

The federal poverty rate is the percentage of the population below the federal poverty threshold, which varies based on family size.

A point that needs to be raised here is the poverty rate isn’t going to change no matter how much we spend because revisions to the threshold will always be such that about 15% of the population will be considered poor.

But are the people classified as being poor really poor?

Well, I’m not sure and neither is anyone else.  That’s because of the way poverty is measured in the US.  Essentially it is based solely on income.

The official poverty measure counts only monetary income. It considers antipoverty programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and school lunches, among others, “in-kind benefits” — and hence not income. So, despite everything these programs do to relieve poverty, they aren’t counted as income when Washington measures the poverty rate.

So guess what remains the same?  The poverty rate.  If “in-kind benefits” were included in income calculations for those receiving them, a lot fewer of them would be considered “poor”.   And since it’s only based on income, many elderly who receive retirement incomes below the “poverty” threshold are considered to be poor despite the fact that they own paid off assets like houses and cars and live comfortably on that retirement income.  But they pad the stats and help to continue to justify the programs and expenditures.

I don’t question that there are some Americans who have fallen through the cracks and are definitely poor by any definition. However, it is not 15% or anything close to 15%.

What about the middle class?

Rick Moran at American Thinker wrote last month: Middle class wages dropping faster under Obama than Bush. Although that is true, back in 2010 The Daily Reckoning quoted this from a Financial Times article:

“Dubbed ‘median wage stagnation’ by economists, the annual incomes of the bottom  90 per cent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973 – having risen  by only 10 per cent in real terms over the past 37 years. […] In the last  expansion, which started in January 2002 and ended in December 2007, the median  US household income dropped by $2,000 – the first ever instance where most  Americans were worse off at the end of a cycle than at the start. Worse is that  the long era of stagnating incomes has been accompanied by something profoundly  un-American: declining income mobility…

And, last year CNN Money put out this graph:

income inequality

From the CNN link they wrote:

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it’s not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

CNN being CNN, you won’t be surprised that they put the blame on the decline of unions. Do you agree?  I spent a lot of years in the corporate world of the mining industry. All of our mines were non-union and we worked hard to create an environment for are workers so they would not want to unionize.  There were five attempts to unionize our workers and each time they were voted down. In part this was due to the fact that we always tried to keep our wages and benefits a little better than our unionized competition. maybe the company I worked for was an exception. Maybe there is an element of truth that the decline in unions has  reduced the competition in the labor market. How much of a factor that would be, I have no idea. But, competition in the labor market doesn’t come solely from unions. Low unemployment causes competition for labor as well and over the last thirty years America has seen periods of low unemployment but there is no evidence that wages raised during those periods.

So, what is going on? Are the Occupy crowd correct? Are the one percenters nothing but a bunch of greedy bastards?  The CNN article linked above had this to say:

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans — those making $380,000 or more — have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust.

Maybe there is something to what the Occupy folks say. Corporations keep setting records for their profits and upper management is being well taken care of; but the rest of their employees are seeing their wages stagnate at best.

There is, however, well defined labor market prices. There are a number of companies whose business is to produce wage data for almost every class of worker for every region of the country. It is reasonable that no company wants to be the price leader in the labor market; yet they know they must be competitive. I recall a young women who I had recently promoted to the position of Chief Account back in the early eighties. She was doing a first class job, she was very efficient and, she put in all the hours necessary without any prodding from me. In her new position, she was privy to the salaries of all our staff. One day she came to me to complain that she had a college degree and was a professional accountant and she didn’t understand why a maintenance supervisor without a highschool degree was making more than she was. I had to explain the job market to her. I told her that I could replace her, if she left, with an equally qualified person at the same pay than I could if the maintenance supervisor were to leave. The maintenance supervisors position, due to supply and demand, commanded a higher salary. That is the way the world works. But, I am not willing to let our so-called “capitalist captains of business” off the hook. While making record profits, they are missing out on what i believe would be a good business decision by not reinvesting some more in their workforce. A thriving middle class would be could for all businesses. If they don’t want to be a price leader in the labor market, I think they should consider giving vacation bonuses or Christmas bonuses. More money in the pockets of the corporate workforce would indeed stimulate our economy and they would probably see their profits grow even more. If the current trends continue, the one percent will be fine and the rest of us will be on food stamps. That would make Obama happy.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

California Raises Taxes and Revenues Decrease: Who Saw That Coming?

Share

One of the greatest weaknesses of the statists is that their efforts at creating a fantasy world. more often than not, create the exact opposite of their stated intent.  They try to engineer unicorns that fart rainbows, and they create a stillborn jackalope.  You would think that they would learn from such infamous failures, but they seem to double-down instead.  The latest example of this comes from Califailure.   Knowing, and probably denying, the long history showing that tax increases  cause a decrease in revenues, they have stuck with the highest tax rates in the country.  Breitbart has the predictable results.  

State Controller John Chaing continues to uphold the California Great Seal Motto of “Eureka”, i.e., ‘I have found it’. But what Chaing is finding as Controller is that California’s economy as measured by tax revenues is still tanking. Compared to last year, State tax collections for February shriveled by $1.2 billion or 22%. The deterioration is more than double the shocking $535 million reported decline for last month. The cumulative fiscal year decline is $6.1 billion or down 11% versus this period in 2011.

While California Governor Brown promises strong economic growth is just around the corner, Chaing proves that the best way for Sacramento politicians to hurt the economy and thereby generate lower tax revenue, is to have the highest tax rates in the nation.

California politicians seem delusional in their continued delusion that high taxes have not savaged the State’s economy. Each month’s disappointment is written off as due to some one-time event.

During the last three years, how many times did we hear “unexpected” when confronted with negative economic news?  It got to the point where the message went out to stop using the word “unexpected.” Of course, the only people caught by surprise were government stooges and the MSM-we knew it was coming.  Just as it is with California.

But, the problems for Califailure continue.

Spectrum Locations Consultants recorded 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state in 2011, 26% more than in 2010 and five times as many as in 2009. According SLC President, Joe Vranich: the “top ten reasons companies are leaving California: 1) Poor rankings in surveys 2) More adversarial toward business 3) Uncontrollable public spending 4) Unfriendly business climate 5) Provable savings elsewhere 6) Most expensive business locations 7) Unfriendly legal environment for business 8) Worst regulatory burden 9) Severe tax treatment 10) Unprecedented energy costs.

Vranich considers California the worst state in the nation to locate a business and Los Angeles is considered the worst city to start a business. Leaving Los Angeles for another surrounding county can save businesses 20% of costs. Leaving the state for Texas can save up to 40% of costs. This probably explains why California lost 120,000 jobs last year and Texas gained 130,000 jobs.

So, part of the decrease is caused by people leaving…due to the causes  mentioned above.  Of course, even though this type of thing happens very consistently, do they learn?

Not so much.

California Governor Jerry Brown’s answer to the State’s failing economy and crumbling tax revenue is to place a $6 billion tax increase initiative on the ballot to support K-12 public schools. He promises to only “temporarily” raise personal income rates by 25% on any of the rich folk who haven’t already left.

Thereby chasing even more of them away.

Of course, for the moonbats that consistently induce failure, the downfall is always someone else’s fault.  Even though it’s predicted, and even when it comes to pass as predicted, there is always some other factor that caused the doom.  No matter what, it’s never their policies, and if you point out the truth, you’re a racist, or something like that.

Share

More Proof That Guns Save Lives

Share

Most Conservatives and Libertarians are aware of the truth that guns saves lives.  It’s been statistically proven again and again, and the left, and their allies in the MSM, simply decline to cover it.  Gatordoug, of the Daley Gator, has yet another example…

I know, I have defended my life with a handgun. Duane Lester has the story of someone else who saved life because they were armed. As you read this, remember that Sarah Brady and the gun banning Left would make it so that stories like this one, turn out much differently!

Monday afternoon was another normal day of cooking burgers and fries and hot dogs and Philly cheesesteaks for Tim and Debbie Patterson.

Then, about 2 p.m., they heard a scream.

Tim rushed out the back door of The Big Yellow mobile kitchen at the corner of Harrison and Fourth. He looked around the Goodwill parking lot full of cars, and heard another scream. Then, he heard a woman’s voice.

“Let go of me,” it shrieked.

Patterson charged around a car and stopped. A man had a woman’s head pulled back with one hand, and a knife to her throat with the other.

Patterson didn’t hesitate.

He drew his Kimber 1911 .45 with a six-shot clip.

“Drop it, or I’ll shoot you,” he shouted.

The assailant, wearing a hoodie that covered his face, glanced up. He immediately let go of the woman, dropped the knife, raised his arms in the air and fled.

Patterson, who called 911, checked on the victim and stood by the knife until police arrived.

As Gatordoug points out in his article, this scenario would have likely ended much differently if the statist gun grabbers had their way.  And, if you recall, the gun bans in Chicago and Washington DC were overturned by the Supreme in 2008.  The mostly unreported results of that decision were rather predictable…

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. 

Politicians predicted disaster. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision. 

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would “go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets . . . .” 

The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court’s “unwise” decision that there is a right for people “to keep guns in the home.” 

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. 

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982. 

So, you mean that once there were more guns, that the murder rate went down?  Well then, what of other crimes?

Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes. 

Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. 

Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns some criminals stop carrying theirs. 

The benefit could have been even greater. Getting a handgun permit in Chicago and Washington is an expensive and difficult process, meaning only the relatively wealthy go through it. 

Through the end of May only 2,144 people had handguns registered in Chicago. That limits the benefits from the Supreme Court decisions since it is the poor who are the most likely victims of crime and who benefit the most from being able to protect themselves. 

The linked article also notes that the decreases in the effected cities also exceed the national average several times over.

Freedom always seems to the solution.  Statists would protect us from ourselves, but as gun control shows, those efforts almost always create the exact opposite results.  But, that inconvenient truth seems to evade the statist mind

 

Share

MSM Death Watch: Olbermann Loses 30% of Audience in Second Week

Share

Apparently, hyperbole, lies, and insane ranting can only take you so far…

 The “Countdown” host, whose debut guest was far-left filmmaker Michael Moore, has lost nearly 30 percent of his viewers just two weeks into his new broadcast.

Business Insider reports:

In its second week on Al Gore’s Current TV Countdown With Keith Olbermann lost nearly 30% of its total viewers and 30% of its demo viewers, reports Deadline.

“Olbermann attracted an average of 93,000 viewers in its target 25-to-54 demo, down 29% from the first week. The total audience, at 253,000, was down 28.5%.”

It stands to reason Olbermann and Current executives might attribute the dip in ratings to the long July Fourth holiday weekend. Business Insider also reports Olbermann’s people will probably focus on the fact that, even with 30 percent less viewers, Countdown has so far brought in more viewers than the entire network had before the show’s arrival.

To be fair, Olbermann is on a tiny network that isn’t on every cable and  satellite  system, and many people may not know of it’s existence.  At the same time, if Olbermann was such the media “god” that he is thought to be, wouldn’t he would be pulling in the masses?  Think about it; if I started Conservative Hideout TV, and signed Glenn Beck to do a show, how long would it take to get a million viewers?  Probably not too long.

 

 

Share