Popular radio host Mark Levin truly destroyed the GOP and the Democratic Party in his speech at CPAC earlier today. In a truly amazing speech, Levin explained what’s wrong with America these days, who’s to blame for it, and what can be done to “save the republic” from progressives bent on destroying her.
From the very start of his speech Levin showed that he did not attend CPAC to defend the Republican Party. Better yet, he immediately lashed out at the party’s establishment.
We are here today, not because we are Republicans. In fact, many of us are here in spite of that fact. We are here today, because we are losing our republic, and we are the sunshine patriots who intend to secure it.
Levin continued to bury Democrats and Republicans alike for selling out the constitutional values and principles they’re supposed to uphold. One of his best attacks was aimed at Obama:
You Mr. Obama do not have any legitimate authority to fundamentally transform what does not belong to you!
Another great quote, this time about… well, I’ll let you guess:
The only dynasty I like is the Duck Dynasty!
Watch the video below. Before you tell me that you’re “too busy right now”: no you’re not. Levin explains exactly what the problem is and how actual conservatives (so I’m excluding the entire Republican leadership such as McConnell, Boehner, Bush, and all the others) can fight back.
The “Great One” killed it at CPAC! Right on Mark Levin, “Don’t damn care care how we do it…” We need a true Conservative PERIOD!
— bert robinson (@berticus33) February 28, 2015
How? By upholding the United States Constitution. That document is, quite simply, the best constitution of any country, anywhere in the world. If you want to improve the economy, protect individual liberty and defend traditional American values, all you have to do is uphold it.
Here’s the video. Watch it. Be inspired by it. Act on it.
Since Lisa Lerer works for Bloomberg.com — a serious news outlet — you’d think she’d make sure that her articles are factually correct. Sadly, not so. Case in point: her description of Senator Ted Cruz’s views on the legalization of marijuana:
Cruz expressed his support for marijuana legalization in Colorado, confirmed that he is, indeed, an American citizen, and compared himself to the online taxi company Uber.
No, Lisa, Cruz did not express his support for legalizing weed, he merely said Colorado has the right to do so. He expressly noted that he’s against it, but believes it’s a matter of states’ rights. In case you aren’t familiar with that concept, here’s some reading material for you. Hint: it has something to do with the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. You know, that old document that played a minor role in the creation of your great nation?
Just in case Madam Journalist didn’t actually pay attention to Cruz when he was speaking, here’s the video of his response to Sean Hannity’s Colorado-question.
Look, I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy. If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Lisa.
At the moment Senator Ted Cruz gave his well-received speech at CPAC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a proposal “granting the federal government the authority to regulate Internet broadband providers under the same law as public utilities.” The Blaze explains what this means:
Federal Communication Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler joins hands with FCC Commissioners Mignon Clyburn, left, and Jessica Rosenworcel, before the start of their open hearing in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015. Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile will have to act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under new rules approved by the FCC. The rules put the Internet in the same regulatory camp now as the telephone, banning providers from “unjust or unreasonable” business practices.
That’s the official line, at least. The unofficial truth is that the Internet will be less free than it currently is; the president will suddenly have the authority to regulate it as he pleases. What do you think that means for conservatives websites if the president is a Democrat? President Obama in charge of your Internet? If that doesn’t cause you nightmares I don’t know what will.
As Glenn Beck said shortly before the proposal was approved:
So they’ll say, “Well, we need something. We need some sort of regulation.” And you morons, you morons on the left, do you realize what you’ve just done? The next president that gets in — you put me into the Oval Office, you want me running your Internet?
Here’s the video of Beck’s radio show this morning. Watch it: there’s nobody else who understands as well as he does what this actually means. In short: we’re screwed.
After receiving a hero’s welcome at CPAC today, Senator Ted Cruz proved to the assembled conservatives that he is at least as passionate as they are. In his speech, the senator from Texas lashed out at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Washington D.C., his own party included:
Washington wants power over the Internet, the people want freedom online! And don’t believe President Obama when he promises that if you like your Internet, you can keep it.
He went on to lambast Obama for failing to call ISIS what they are: a radical islamist organization. Oh, and about those Christian Egyptians? They weren’t slaughtered because they happened to be Egyptian citizens, Mr. President, they were killed because they were Christians.
And Hillary Clinton? She “embodies the corruption of Washington.” That’s that. Goodbye, Hillary — good luck trying to convince the American people that you didn’t cover up what happened in Benghazi.
Tellingly, Cruz used the opportunity to explain what he believes has to be done to put America back on track.
“We need to take the power out of Washington and bring it back to the American people,” Cruz said. And then he went after his fellow Republicans. “Every single person here,” Cruz said, pretends to be ultra conservative now, but how did they actually vote in the past? “When have you stood and fought? If a candidate says they oppose a nuclear Iran, fantastic! When have you actually fought?” Cruz continued:
If a candidate says they oppose the debt ceiling and the debt that’s crushing our kids and grandkids, we should ask show me where you’ve stood up to stop it. If a candidate says they support the First Amendment or free speech or liberty, if a candidate says they support the Second Amendment—the right to keep and bear arms—we should say show me where you’ve stood up and fought to protect them.”
And then came the death blow: the question isn’t whether there are any Republican candidates for president who have stood up to Democrats, but “when have you stood up to Republicans?”
To finish it off, Cruz quoted his father, the well-known Christian preacher who escaped from Cuba and built a new life for himself in America:
I saw freedom taken away once, and I’ll die before I let it happen again.
The response from the audience, conservatives on Facebook (“he’s killing it!”) and on Twitter, clearly showed Cruz hit a nerve — well, more than one, actually. He received a roaring standing ovation and was immediately approached by everyone in the room.
All of this proves once again that conservatives are hungry for a Republican candidate who takes the fight to Democrats and his (or her!) own leadership.
Here’s the video! Enjoy!
Although Republican leaders love to talk tough when they’re the center of attention, they quickly side with Democrats when they think nobody’s watching. Case in point: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to cave on funding for the DHS:
McConnell announced [Tuesday] that the Senate would vote on a “clean” bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security past Friday, as well as a separate measure freezing President Obama’s November executive actions to shield certain illegal immigrants from deportation.
In other words, he’s going to give President Obama what he wants.
Luckily for conservatives, there still are some Republicans in Congress and the Senate who aren’t willing to let McConnell get away with it. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) responded angrily that he does not plan to vote for the bill, whether McConnell wants him to or not. “If I was a donor to some of these senators that just won election and was told things would be different in a new Senate, I’d be pretty pissed. We put Harry Reid back in charge of the Senate again?”
He went on: “It’s stupid. It doesn’t go anywhere. He knows that. Does he take us all for a fool that somehow that’s going to solve the problem that he was going to fight tooth and nail against?”
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) already let McConnell know that House Republicans will turn their backs on him if pushed: “The Senate majority leader’s plan to divorce the funding bill from the unlawful actions it is restricting is tantamount to surrender, and won’t meet with support in the People’s House.”
Although McConnell could ordinarily get away with giving into Obama’s demands once again, he probably faces a Republican revolt this time. The reason? Numerous conservative Republicans are gearing up for the presidential elections. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is one of them. And no, he isn’t planning to take any prisoners on what he hopes will be his way to the presidency:
Leadership’s current plan — to pass clean DHS funding and separate legislation barring executive amnesty — is a mistake. Congress is obliged to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in President Obama’s lawlessness, and that includes both our confirmation authority over nominees and the power of the purse.
Lately, Cruz has become one of the most outspoken and loved Republicans in the Senate. He and his supporters have a strong presence on social media, where one after another “Ted Cruz for president“-group is created. These groups have attracted a large following; see for instance the Facebook group Ted Cruz 45: more than 10,000 conservatives joined that group in a mere three weeks’ time. This proves that conservative voters are hungry for someone who is one of them, who is willing to stand for something and who is principled to his core.
The question now is whether Cruz, Salmon, Huelskamp and others can unite and fight back against McConnell’s plan together and prevent House Speaker John Boehner from following his lead. If they do, McConnell will be humiliated like never before. If not, well, then I guess that conservatives will have even more evidence that Republican leaders don’t care about them and their values. The good news? They can then proceed to open the attack on McConnell and Boehner in an attempt to remove them from power. After all, why would conservatives continue to settle for a Republican leadership that sells them out whenever it can?
This is by far the strangest column I’ve read on Senator Ted Cruz’s potential — he hasn’t even announced yet — candidacy. It’s written by Jennifer Rubin, who basically argues that Cruz is unpopular because he’s too “extreme.” He behaves, she writes, like an “angry young man,” and is not “presidential” at all.
The “evidence” she uses? He’s “only” polling at 5%, she says, at RealClearPolitics.
OK, so let’s look at RCP’s poll of polls. And what do we see?
Jeb Bush is supposedly leading the pack – which makes me laugh, honestly: the guy is as unpopular among the conservative base as a Republican could possibly be. He’s followed by Christie (9.4%), Huckabee (9%), Paul (8.6%), Carson (8.4%), Walker (5.8%) and Cruz (5.2%). Behind Cruz there are people like the new darling of the establishment, Marco Rubio (4.6%), Rick Perry (4.2%), and Bobby Jindal (2.8%).
What’s most remarkable about this is that Bush, Christie and Huckabee all have problems with the conservative constitutionalist base. Bush and Christie are seen as too moderate (or even downright progressive), whereas the only conservative part of Huckabee is his social conservatism. His record as Arkansas governor made Bill Clinton look conservative in comparison.
Sooner or later the base will turn against these three individuals. They may do fairly well right now, but some if not all of them will be ferociously attacked by conservative activists. That’s going to hurt their poll numbers going forward.
Secondly, although Bush doesn’t have national experience as such, he is a former president’s brother and another former president’s son. He’s known — very well known — and has a national network to work with. The same can be said for Huckabee (after all, he already ran for president twice) and Rand Paul (who simply took over his father’s network). Cruz doesn’t have that network yet, but has begun building it. Once that gains traction, he’ll almost certainly rise in the polls.
Thirdly, although Cruz is chastised by Rubin for being too unpopular to win the nomination because he only polls at 5%, why is it that Scott Walker is considered one of the frontrunners, while he polls… 5% as well? The difference between him and Cruz is 0.6%, which is easily within the margin of error.
Fourthly and most hilariously of all, Rubin writes that Cruz will probably have to follow in Rick Perry’s footsteps. Perry learned, she explains, to communicate his message in a slightly different (read: less polarizing and downright conservative) manner and that supposedly helped him. I quote:
Maybe the best thing for Cruz would be to run. There is nothing like the verdict of voters in those early states to sober up a politician. Losing is one thing; losing in embarrassing fashion is quite another. Perhaps — like Rick Perry — he needs that sort of humbling experience to redirect his focus and his approach to politics. If so, that would be to his and Republicans’ benefit.
If that helped Perry, as Rubin argues, how can she explain that he’s only polling at 4.2%, a full percentage lower than Cruz? He’s doing worse than Ted, Jennifer, and that while he actually ran for president once and, therefore, has somewhat of a national organization!
image illustration via shutterstock / Aquir
The interview above has caused something of a political earthquake in Britain. Boris Johnson is one of the Tories’ (Britain’s conservatives) rising stars and current mayor of London, but he was completely and utterly rattled during an appearance on the BBC Sunday. His questioner, Eddie Mair, asked him questions about past affairs (with women not his own), Johnson “making up” a quote when he was still working for the Times of London newspaper, and even his friendship with individuals who ran into trouble with the law.
Now, Johnson is a very talented politician, with great charisma. Still, he lost his cool here and may very well have dashed his chances of ever occupying ‘Number 10.’
Be that as it may, the question is why? Why did he fail to live up to the standard he normally sets for himself? Being as talented and experienced as he is, how could Mair take him by surprise?
He answered those questions himself at the end of the interview:
“I thought I was coming on to talk about the budget and housing in London and you, you… well, I don’t mind all these questions about that other stuff, but I think it’s more important if we look at the economy…”
In other words, he thought Eddie Mair, the BBC journalist, would treat him like he treats, say, Labour leader Ed Milliband. Nothing could be further from the truth. The media, in the United States as well as in Britain, are institutions of the political left. Any politician who lets himself be interviewed or questioned by such an outlet has to be prepared for an assault. Those who don’t, set themselves up for failure, as Mr. Johnson did yesterday morning.
Rather than moaning and complaining about the “unfair” treatment they receive, conservatives have to finally understand the game they are playing and its rules. Then, and only then, can they possibly hope to win this battle, be it either in Britain, on the Old Continent, or in the United States.
The media are still covering up for Obama by claiming that he did call the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a terrorist attack. Nothing could be further from the truth, and here are all the documents you need to prove it.
Here is the transcript. He talks about Stevens, then talks about the movie but says it doesn’t justify killing anyone…
He then moves to 9/11/01, at which point he says that no terror act shall go unpunished and what have you.
Then look at this from Jay Carney, his press secretary.
Q Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.
Q Yes, I just hadn’t heard you –
MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.
Q No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just –
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Next, let’s look at quotes from the media who reported on September 20th, that’s nine days after the attack, that the White House, for the first time called it a terrorist attack.
ABC News: “For the first time, White House press secretary Jay Carney publicly characterized the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a ‘terrorist attack’.”
LA Times: ” The White House for the first time Thursday described the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as a terrorist attack that may have involved militants linked to Al Qaeda.”
CNN: “The White House, for the first time Thursday, declared the attack that killed Stevens and three other people a terrorist attack.”
They’re so full of it, it’s a miracle they don’t choke (on their own lies). Next time you find yourself arguing with a “liberal,” use these links to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Obama and his friends are lying about the aftermath of the attack on the consulate.
Dan Balz wrote for the Washington Post today:
What is fascinating about the Republican race is that, in a matter of days and weeks, it has turned from the question of whether a stop-Romney movement would materialize to the reality that a stop-Gingrich movement now has taken shape.
That’s certainly true. It’s absolutely fascinating to see the establishment turn on Gingrich (and no, I’m not a fan of his either. For one thing he’s too erratic). Many thought that an anti-Romney movement was afoot. Well, perhaps it is. For now, however, the only anti-movement that is truly united and aggressive is anti-Newt, not anti-Mitt.
And then this:
Gingrich may lose this battle, and he could damage himself in the process. But he will not go quietly, and his old friends and enemies in the party know it.
I have no doubt that Gingrich won’t hold back anything. No, not even if you and I would prove to him that it’ll cost Republicans the elections. He often lets himself be led by his ego. Revenge and anger are two of his main driving forces.
Is that a problem for a presidential candidate in the most powerful country on earth? I believe it is. Especially a person like that should be cool and collected in all circumstances. Say what you will about Gingrich, but that he is not.
As our own Bryan Preston reported earlier today, Texas Governor Rick Perry has announced he’ll stay in the race. That’s somewhat of a surprise. Most people, including myself, had expected him to drop out after his poor performance in Iowa yesterday.
The question now is: who benefits from Perry’s decision? Well, the first answer is, of course, the governor himself. He at least gives himself another shot at winning. That’s worth something. However, there’s another “winner” and his name isn’t Newt Gingrich.
I am, of course, talking about Mitt Romney. The strategy of Mittens, as AllahPundit loves to call him, is based on “divide and conquer.” At the very moment the campaign develops into a horse race between two candidates, he’s somewhat vulnerable. After all, the conservative base isn’t exactly enamored by the man they consider to be a flip-flopper and “Massachusetts moderate” (at best).
The longer Perry stays in, the more the “conservative base” will be divided. And the more divided it is, the easier it will be for Romney to win this thing. In other words, he just gave Romney a wonderful (but belated) New Year’s present.
There is a “but,” though. If Perry pulls off an unexpected win in, say, South Carolina, he will suddenly pose a threat to Romney because he will then be able to present himself as the (social) conservative alternative.
I do not, for one second, believe that Rick Santorum can defeat Mitt Romney (and, let’s be honest, nobody does except, apparently, for his own staff).
As such, Romney’s victory in Iowa is very important indeed. It means that he’s now the true frontrunner, the guy to beat.
But who can defeat him?
Rick Perry will probably get out of the race after his abysmal showing yesterday. The Texas governor had a real shot when he entered the race last year, but blew it after stumbling in several debates. Conservative voters – correctly – concluded that he is not the man to take down Obama.
And Michele Bachmann? She should’ve finished in the top three in Iowa but finished sixth and is out.
Of course there’s also the racist and anti-Semitic Ron Paul. Racist and anti-Semitic. Enough said, you’d think.
As such, Republican voters only have one person left who could defeat Romney: Newt Gingrich.
Newt, however, should’ve performed better yesterday. If he wants to have a real shot, he’ll have to pull off an upset in New Hampshire. If Romney wins there as well, it’ll be very difficult for anyone to stop him, especially because the Republican establishment will then undoubtedly call for an end to the race in South Carolina.
To conclude: After yesterday, only one man truly has a path to the nomination. His name is Mitt Romney. All the others are in the very real danger of becoming stage props, nothing more.
Michele Bachmann has announced that she will give a press conference at 11 AM ET. She is dropping out of the race.
Bachmann’s campaign was, at best, erratic. A few months ago, she suddenly surged in the polls. Before we knew it, the congresswoman was considered “the anti-Romney candidate.” Right at the moment she surged, however, she began to make gaffe after gaffe. Voters and the media immediately understood that she was out of her league. This was not the American version of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.
Her performance in Iowa was nevertheless disappointing. Of all the active contenders she finished dead last (just before Jon Huntsman, who didn’t even campaign in Iowa). If she wants to continue her career in Congress, she’d better drop out. Every minute spent on the campaign trail after yesterday will only hurt her chances of playing an important role in the GOP in years coming.
As Bryan wrote immediately after the results were announced, she really has no rationale for staying in. She’d better go home, to Minnesota, and talk to her own voters back home, to ensure her another term in Congress.
In the meantime, since Rick Perry is also considering to quit, this could very well become a horse race between Mitt Romney… and Newt Gingrich. The latter will undoubtedly be thrilled with this news, because most of Bachmann’s supporters and those of Perry will undoubtedly side with him now.
The Daily Beast reports that Team Romney is beaming with confidence. For instance, staffers and even Mitt Romney’s wife Ann are talking about what he will do when, not if, he’s president.
“We’re in a completely different stage,” Stuart Stevens, Romney’s senior strategist and image consultant, argued to a couple of reporters in the back of a meeting hall in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Sunday evening, as his shirt-sleeved, blue-jeaned candidate mingled briskly with likely caucus-goers. “I haven’t seen polling on this, but most Republicans think Obama is going to lose. And most of these people”—he gestured at the crowd—“think Mitt Romney’s going to be the next president. So a lot of people are coming to see somebody who’s going to be the next president.”
The author of the piece then wonders whether the Romney-ites aren’t playing with fire. ‘But, wait a minute, wasn’t that dangerous talk before actual voters have actually voted? Wasn’t the former Massachusetts governor’s guru tempting the vengeful gods of politics by venturing into territory once occupied by Mark Penn? Hillary Clinton’s 2008 “chief strategist” preached the doctrine of inevitability, only to be accused of arrogance and proven beyond all doubt to be less than impressive in the prophecy department.’
Well no. These examples aren’t even remotely comparable.
When Clinton was running, those who hated her guts had to find the ‘anti-Clinton’ candidate. They found him in Barack Obama. This was a guy they could all unite behind.
In the case of Romney, however, the opposite is true: the conservative base has tried to find a good alternative (several times even), but has failed to do so time and again. Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry; they all surged in the polls, only to fall back to rock bottom once their records and knowledge were scrutinized.
What this means? Simple: Romney should be able to win. And once he’s the Republican nominee, he should very well be able to make life very difficult indeed for Obama, whose poll numbers aren’t exactly brag-worthy.
You’ve got to love Ron Paul. The libertarian congressman from Texas has always been the odd one out. Nobody has ever taken him seriously – and, considering his ideas, quite logically so.
Although every rational commentator finds it more than appropriate that Paul is pretty much ignored by the mainstream media – or was ignored by them – Paul himself sadly disagrees. He has pumped millions into Iowa, hoping to win this non-contested state; he’s airing attack ads aimed at Newt Gingrich, accusing his rival of “hypocrisy,” and his little minions are swarming all over the Internet in an attempt to sell his libertarian gospel to voters.
When you’re begging the media for attention, chances are they will eventually give it to you.
And that took Paul somewhat by surprise.
When he was asked by CNN about his racist email newsletter, Paul simply tore off his microphone and walked away, arguing that this was the umptiest time they asked about it, and that he had had enough.
Paul got testy at this point and responded “I never read it, I was aware of it ten years after it was written…CNN does this every single time.”
Borger asked rhetorically whether the repeated questions were “legitimate.”
Paul finished off the exchange with “When you get the answer, it’s legitimate you take the answers i give,” then he removed his microphone and left.
Well, dear congressman, guess what? You’re running for president. You’ve got to explain just about every single thing you ever did – or other people did in your name. The fact of the matter is that you made close to a million dollars off of your newsletter in 1993 alone. You can say you “read it occasionally,” but only the extremely naive would actually take your word for it. Especially because you failed to distance yourself from the racist content of these newsletters, until you were forced to do so by those darned, critical journalists.
The funny thing? Instead of “teaching the media a lesson,” you’ve actually taught observers all they need to know about you. Thanks, I guess.
When watching yesterday’s debate in Iowa, I was struck by Newt Gingrich’s strong answers. His rise in the polls came suddenly, surprising not just the other candidates but even Gingrich himself, yet he showed no sign of being nervous. He jumped on every opportunity to rip President Obama and to defend his record. It was the behavior and attitude of a guy with great confidence in himself and in his debating skills.
The former Speaker of the House compared himself several times to President Ronald Reagan yesterday (as he has done throughout the campaign). He worked with the 40th president, he argued, and learned a lot from him. In many ways, he’d like voters to believe, he even resembles Reagan.
Well, like Reagan, Gingrich is indeed quite feisty. He’s willing to take the fight to his opponents and their (progressive) ideology. However, there are also a few major differences, the most important of which are:
1. Reagan clearly had a conservative record, Gingrich does not.
2. Reagan was a very likable guy, Gingrich is anything but.
The second point should not be underestimated. Gingrich is a great debater, but it’s incredibly difficult to actually like him. That will be a problem in the national elections, when he has to take on a president who is liked (although voters don’t think too highly of his policies). Independents who aren’t sure whom to vote for always end up voting for the candidate they sympathize with most, which means that the Independent vote will go to Obama, if Gingrich is his opponent.
As we all know, you can only win when Independents are behind you. Gingrich, then, is destined to lose.
Yes, you read that right: the Democratic Party is a party of, by and for millionaires. You know whom I’m talking about: those money-hungry bankers who care only about their own wallets and who couldn’t care less about the financial well being of John Doe.
That is, at least, undoubtedly how Democrats would’ve lashed out at Republicans if the roles were reversed:
In what would be a major concession, President Obama and Senate Democrats will drop their insistence that a surtax on millionaires pay for extending the payroll tax cut, a Democratic source tells CNN. This would be part of a new Democratic offer.
Obviously, this is somewhat of a victory for the Republican Party. However, since Democrats let no opportunity to bash ‘the rich’ go wasted, we can now reach only one conclusion: their hatred for the rich isn’t heartfelt, it’s all part of the political game. They believed that jealousy was a winner electorally. Now that they realize that elections are coming up next year and now that Republicans actually seem to be able to withstand the left-wing pressure, they quickly cave in and do a completely turnaround.
Conservatives often accuse Republican congressmen and senators of having no spine. Well, Democrats aren’t much better. The only difference is that we should be grateful for that this time.
By the way: wouldn’t it be awesome if at least one Republican candidate (mind you: for congress, not for president of course) would attack Democrats for being in bed with Wall Street? That would be a pretty sight to behold, wouldn’t it?