It’s official: Jeff Schapiro’s bow tie cuts off bloodflow to brain
By Brian Kirwin | Friday, September 5th, 2008 | Catch-All
Jeff Schapiro, in the NEWS section for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, breaks an incredible story!
Someone who voted for Obama in the primary is actually voting for Obama in November.
Really? Stop the presses! Holy cow! Imagine a guy voting in a Democratic primary voting for a Democrat in the general election. I’m sure that never happened before! Call Jeff Schapiro! He’ll print it.
Schapiro interviewed the man, Rev. Robert Womer, who Democrats say is serving on a “grassroots leadership committee” for Obama-Biden. Funny how no thought of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE seemed to enter Schapiro’s mind as he dutifully reported the Rev’s active participation in partisan politics.
No. That would be news.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
6 Responses to "It’s official: Jeff Schapiro’s bow tie cuts off bloodflow to brain"
The article claims that these republicans are aiding the Obama campaign because, for the only reason listed, “they believe the GOP has abandoned fiscal discipline.” How laughable can an argument get.
The day you show me a fiscal conservative that whole-heartedly agrees with Obama’s fiscal policy enough to vote for him, is the day I will show you a liar.
Schapiro… Come on… Do you truly think showing us a fair-weather “Republican” minister is going to sway true conservatives?
Brian, so far as i know, the Rev Womer is free to participate in any political campaign, so long he does not use his (tax-exempt) pulpit as a vehicle for promotion. The point of the rest of your post isn’t even worth refuting for anyone who actually reads the brief article.
And Scott, fiscal discipline, fiscal conservatism, and the GOP are not synonymous. They may once have been, but Goldwater is ten years passed on now, and his doctrine looks to be splintering.
While Reagan and Bush may have promoted fiscal conservatism, neither practiced fiscal discipline. On the flip side, Clinton (who was hardly a fiscal conservative) did practice fiscal discipline.
You are correct, no true fiscal conservative (lower taxes, fiscal discipline, reduced spending and entitlements) would fully support Obama’s plan. But not all Repubs are fiscal conservatives, and on the issue of fiscal discipline, Obama’s numbers look better than McCain’s.
Jeremy, what’s it like rewriting history books?
Clinton fiscal discipline? He was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget through two government shutdowns. He attacked Republicans for wanted to cut government spending (remember the “Gingrich who stole Christmas” stories?)
Giving Clinton credit for fiscal discipline is like giving the Japanese credit for peace after WWII.
Actually, Brian, i don’t remember it. I was politically uninvolved until around 2000.
From the catching up I’ve done since then though, most sources (barring Cato and Heritage of course) seem to credit the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the resulting economic boost with the majority of the deficit elimination. That includes sources like the CBO and the Maestro himself. No doubt the belt-tightening done by the GOP Congress post-94 accelerated the process (Clinton aimed for 10 years, it happened in 4), but even there the beyond-forecast growth played a larger role.
Last i heard, Gingrichonomics wasn’t quite the household word like Rubinomics or Clintonomics. Or is this just a failure of the GOP at branding?
Rubinomics was a household word? In whose household? His?
If the tax increase of 1993 is what resulted in such a growing economy, why did America throw out the ones who supported it in 1994?
Any economist would point to the 1997 capital gains tax cut which resulted in a tripling of venture capital investments by 1998 and another doubling of that in 1999.
The economy averaged 3% growth rates after 1993 and 4% growth rates after 1997′s tax cuts.
Study the economy during Clinton’s presidency and look what happened between ’93 and ’97, and look what happened ’97 on.
Then tell me how Clinton’s tax increase in ’93 made the skies blue and the birds sing.
As Gold Five said – “Stay on target… Stay on target.”
I don’t disagree that the 97 Taxpayer Relief Act gave the economy a shot in the arm. But thats not what we’re talking about, what we’re talking about is the deficit. And by the time that cut was enacted, the deficit was already almost gone (from $290B in ’92 to $22B in ’97).
Just curious, where are you getting your numbers on VC investments? Not doubting them, but i’m curious on some of the correlations and interplay with tax revenues.
Leave your response