Saturday, December 09, 2006

Baker Re-Elected as State GOP Chairman

The word is that Senator Gilbert Baker was re-elected to the Chairmanship of the state party today. There was no serious opposition reported. The e-mail from the state party announcing the meeting to select a chairman also contained pointed endorsements for Baker's re-election from the only two GOP office holders left at the Congressional or State level- Governor Mike Huckabee and Congressman John Boozeman.

Word on the controversy with the Benton County delegation and on others issues has been widely reported in the mainstrea media.

Your comments?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very bad picture. The GOP did a great job, but it was a terrible year nation wide for the GOP. Had it of been a normal year the GOP would of had five more points. Sen Baker has done a great job. The GOP's campaign was better than that of 2004. Yet they still lost becuase of the year. It just was not the year for the GOP (2002 and 2004 were).

5:52 PM, December 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Something in the water? Mysterious ailment that predominately affected conservatives? Why did the GOP have "a terrible year?"

6:44 PM, December 09, 2006  
Blogger rob_star said...

It couldn't have anything to do with complete incompetence could it? No, it must be all of the failed policies of supply side economics (Which, if you are scoring at home, is now 0-4.) It couldn't be the growing perception that most Republicans are liars and thieves. No, it must be that nearly 60% of the population is now squarely behind, pardon the pun, of the Democratic/homosexual agenda. It must be a mandate, since according to this blog and others of its ilk, the Democrats nominated the most liberal ticket to ever run in Arkansas.

1:35 PM, December 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So losing every state-wide race and losing what little ground you had in the ledge deserves a vote of confidence eh?

Yes, it was a lousy year nation wide for the GOP because the nation is tired of Bush and company. So what did Baker do? He put all the GOP's chips on the one candiate with the strongest ties to the administration and left the rest hanging. Good job. Then he had that guy keep reminding people of his ties to Bush and Rove by having them come here over and over. Good job.

Congratulations to the Democrats- as long as their opponents are this "reality averse" they should return Arkansas to one party rule for quite a while.

2:12 PM, December 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob, you are such a moron, you are just a waste of time. However, I will take it to tell you exactly how ignorant and stupid you are.
First of all, the economy is great. A 4.5% unemployment rate is well below the normal rate (which is 5 to 6%. Any student of economics would know this. Which would help explain your ignorance). The national debt has been cut in half 2 YEARS BEFORE it was expected to be. How can this be? TAX CUTS WORK EVERY TIME THEY'RE TRIED (kind of like abstinence, something else you socialists can't seem to grasp).
Yes, the Socialist Party of Arkansas (formerly known as the Democrat party) did nominate the most liberal ticket. They all lied their way into office. And if you want to say that Republicans are the the most corrupt and are thieves, don't even get me started on the Democrats in the US Congress and the scandals they've been involved in! So, why don't you get a brain and get a clue. You're nothing but an ignorant, mind-numbed robot of the liberal socialist kind and you don't know anywhere near half as much as you just THINK you do.

2:24 PM, December 10, 2006  
Blogger rob_star said...

You are correct about the unemployment rate but the majority of the gains in that respect are in the low paying jobs segment of the economy, while at the same time we have been bleeding good paying jobs to China, India, Pakistan, etc.. If you had ever taken an economics class, you would know that the debt has actually grown to almost 9,000,000,000,000. I think what you meant to say was that the federal spending deficit has been cut in half. But again, if you had the intellect of a 12 year old you could look up the numbers and quickly figure out that these numbers are just slight of hand. What you do, and most presidents do just not as blatantly as this one, is you overshoot your estimate as to what the deficit will be. When the number comes in as a smaller figure, you say "Hey we cut the budget deficit in half, so what we are doing must be working." And dolts like yourself believe it because the numbers can't lie can they?

You are partially correct about the economy, if you disregard the 95% of America that makes less than $275,000 per year.

As for the 0-4 record of supply side economics let's take a look:

Coolidge tried it first and it lead to a little something called the "Great Depression" 0-1

Reagan tried it next and was semi-successful with it because he stole all the money from the Social Security Trust Fund to make up for the huge deficits, once that money ran out the economy sank under the huge weight of the debt accumulated under the policy. 0-2

Of course Bush I tried it but the nasty recession that was caused by Reagan cost him his presidency and probably spared us another depression. 0-3

All Bush II has done with his twisted version of the theory is wreck the middle class and squander billions of dollars in taxes as if he were a coke whore that won the lottery and only had two weeks to live. In essence what he has done is borrow trillions of dollars from our enemies and raised the future taxes of everyone in this country. Now if you are set to die anytime soon, you don't have anything to worry about but the rest of us do. 0-4

Now, I could go into more detail on each of these cases but since anon doesn't even know the difference between budget deficits and national debt, I figured I would keep it simple.

5:37 PM, December 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Coolidge tried it first and it lead to a little something called the "Great Depression" 0-1"

Dear Chrome-Dome,

Please get your liberal talking points correct. it was HOOVER who was solely responsible for the Great Depression. No one else had anything to do with it because when Coolidge left office the '20 were still roaring, REMEMBER! That's not like you deviate from your talking points, shame on you.

And since you are very astute at the subject of economics, please tell us what the biggest drain on the federal budget is year in and year out. Nevermind, I'll tell you. ENTITLEMENTS (MEDICAIRE, MEDICAID, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, ETC).

What party is most responsible (though not solely I'll admit) for the creation of these programs which consume the lion share of the budget each year causing the very deficits that you are so worried about? That's right, your beloved dummocrat party (mainly FDR and LBJ). So if you want to criticize the situation we have with our annual budget deficits then please do so honestly. I don't mind you criticizing the Rep party, they often deserve it. Just spread the criticizm around to everyone who deserves it, lest you want to continue looking dishonest and foolish.

1:39 PM, December 11, 2006  
Blogger rob_star said...

Hoover did nothing to help the people out and did a lot to kick the depression into overdrive but any real economist will tell you that the depression was kick started by Coolidge's tax policies. Nobody ever seems to take note that most of the country was already in the depression in the late 20's but the wealthy and middle class didn't seem to notice until the stock market crashed and they were broke too.

2:39 PM, December 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please explain how lowering taxes leads to a depression. What economic model or what economic logic says that when the people have more money in their pockets the economy cools?

Answer: You won't find such a model and you can justify it logically.

All economic models say that when you raise taxes the economy cools which is only logical since the people have less disposable income.

I don't know why the Great Depression came about, it's a puzzle to me. But I'll tell you what didn't cause it: the lowering of taxes.

Remember, that in 1916 the individual income tax became law with the passage of the 16th amendment. Then in the 20's legislation was passed authorizing the estate and gift taxes.

I would say that he single biggest factor that led to the great depression was the burden of those taxes on the economy between the years 1916 - 1929. Further, when FDR became president he raised the top marginal tax rate to above 90%. So FDR inherited the Great Dep but his policies perpetuated it. By 1940 the economy had not improved one iota. FDR nearly lost the election and he won by focusing attention away from the economy which had not improved during his first two terms. The only reason we came out of the great dep was WWII.

Kennedy lowered the top marginal rate to around 70%. When he did that the economy grew rapidly. Reagen then cut the top marginal rate to 28% and the last 26 years of American prosperity have been a direct result of that move.

Spending has been out of control during those 26 years due to both parties, but no one can question the expansion of the economy since Reagan's tax cuts.

5:38 AM, December 12, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home