Coralville Courier

Johnson County Supervisor Vacancy: Reasons to request a special election

There is a vacancy for a Johnson County Supervisor seat.  A committee formed to fill that seat had the following options at their disposal:

• Fill by appointment
• Hold a special election

The committee chose to make an appointment.  The reason given for making an appointment instead of holding a special election was cost, which according to County Auditor Slockett would be about $75,000.

Below are some reasons why a special election is in the best interest of the people of Johnson County:

1. $75,000 of taxpayer money spent on a special election is how taxpayer money is SUPPOSED to be spent.  We pay taxes to have police and fire protection, clean water, good roads and yes, the exercise of our rights.  Taxpayer money spent on art instead of public safety is not proper management of our money by officials.  Taxpayer money spent on a special election and NOT on numerous but pointless 'surveys' telling us nothing at $15,000 a pop is how it SHOULD be. 
2. All members of the committee tasked with filling the vacant supervisor seat are liberal Democrats.  Comprised of county auditor Tom "DUI" Slockett, county recorder Kim "Was-on-steering-committee-of-the-Janelle-Rettig-campaign-for-supervisor" Painter and county treasurer Tom "Conflict? What Conflict" Kriz, conventional wisdom indicates they'll select liberal cohort Janelle Rettig to fill the seat.  Selecting Rettig puts another liberal Democrat on the board of supervisors, a local liberal Democrat machine decision.
3. The committee wanted to hold their first meeting regarding the vacancy before Larry Meyers was even memorialized.
4. When they put their eagerness in check and realized how bad that would look, they put the meeting off until the day after the memorial (the memorial was on a Thursday, they met Friday) - still curiously over-eager, but not so tasteless.  Then they met again the following Monday to formally announce their decision to appoint.  One could question if they had already decided on the appointment but didn't make if official at the first 'official' meeting because of how bad that would look in the public eye.  What do you bet there were some cell phone calls going on back-and-forth between committee members Slockett, Painter, Kriz and other local party elites.....  In violation of open meetings laws.....?  And just what was the hurry to announce appointment anyway? By law they had 14 days to make the decision on whether to appoint or have an election.  If the committee were truly interested in public input of appointment vs. election, they would have taken the full 14 days.  Did the committee even consider, "What do the people of Johnson County want?"  No, it appears they didn't. They rushed to an announcement of appointment in just six days and would have only taken five had it not been so obviously tasteless to do so.  And the key word here is 'announcement', not decided.  The decision to appoint was made much earlier.
5. County Recorder Kim Painter was on the steering committee to elect Janelle Rettig for county supervisor, whose campaign for 2010 was launched back in May.  For appearance sake, Painter's name was removed from the steering committee list once Rettig submitted her name for the vacant seat, but Painter has not recused herself from the appointment committee.
6. The annointment committee has used some very subjective and arbitrary rules in 'selecting' candidates to interview.  Sixteen people applied and the field was narrowed down to 8 for interviews.  If you've run for office before but lost, you were tossed out of the selection process so no interview for you.....  What kind of criteria is that?  That 'rule' eliminated five people and should have eliminated six, but the committee made an exception to include another Democrat and former county supervisor in the interview phase.  The other reason given by the annointment committee for rejection was:  If the appointment candidate had expressed they would only serve out Meyer's term and not run for re-election.  Two people were ousted based on that 'rule.'  Again, what kind of criteria is that?  And of course, Rettig made the cut and will be interviewed.  Three out of four Republicans applying for the seat were eliminated in the committee's *process.*
7. Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?
8. Demonstrating the Democrat machine impact, auditor Slockett has a personal Twitter account on the county auditor website pushing his personal political in advocating government-run healthcare.   He arrogantly refuses to take that link down despite public objection and requests to take it off the taxpayer funded county government website.
9. Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?
10. If public pressure gets to the committee and Rettig doesn't end up being 'The Choice', they'll simply choose another Democrat and then throw their support towards the effort of getting Rettig elected in 2010.  It's a get two for the price of one deal.  Put a Democrat other than Rettig in now to fill the vacant Meyers seat, which is up for election in 2010.  So is Sally Stutsman's seat, she is retiring.  So what you have is Rettig AND an appointee-turned-incumbent running in 2010 for two open seats.  From a liberal Democrat perspective, selecting option #1 (choose Rettig) puts another liberal on the board, but option #2 (choose another Democrat now, support Rettig in 2010) offers an opportunity to put TWO liberals on the board.  For some, this is the better strategy and you KNOW this has been discussed in the power circle.  Don't forget, all members of the committee are a part of that circle.
11. Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?   Will they do what's in the best interests of the people of Johnson County, or what's in the best interests for their party building?  
12. Rod Sullivan, a liberal Democrat, is a sitting member of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.  If you disagree with Rod, he swears at you, talks down to you and heck, he might even call you at your home to berate you.  He has worked with Rettig on a number of issues, to include taking $20 million out of Johnson County households and authorizing the government to buy unspecified lands for unspecified uses. During his turn as chairman of the board, the county budget skyrocketed and taxes went up all stemming in wants, not needs.  We don't need another tax and spender on the board and Rettig and Sullivan are two taxpayer spending peas in a pod.
13.  Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?
    
    If you have a problem with how things are being handled by an all liberal Democrat selection committee, then stop by at 421 Tenth Ave., Suite B in Coralville to sign a petition calling for a special election.

Local government thinks its omnipetent, Part I

Make no mistake, a Democrat machine has been built in Johnson County.  Everywhere you look, city leaders, city offices, county leaders, county offices - they're everywhere.

That's a problem.  Why?  Because our so-called leaders have gotten all too comfortable in their captains chairs, they've gotten used to being in office, they've become omnipetent.

Their mission has stopped being about serving the needs of the people of the community (and for some it never was), their mission has become one of exclusively serving the party that orchestrated their election.  Johnson County has become a Little Chicago of politics.

That's a big problem.

In a series of looks into the elected officials of Johnson County and area communities, here's one on County Auditor Tom Slockett.

Tom has been the county's auditor for over 30 years.  Talk about being 'established' and set in your ways.....  Oh, and what about that Founding Father desire of serving the public for a bit but NOT being a career elected official?  Who cares about the wisdom in that right?  Ladies and gentlemen, Tom has been arrested for drunk driving twice.  His party co-horts shrug that off and look the other way.   Change Slockett's party affiliation from a 'D' to a 'R' and he would have literally been tossed out of office.  Can you say, "Double-standard?"  Yes you can.... 

His office has had a number of election day snafus over the years.  Ask the question, 'at a rate higher than other counties?'  Hmmmmm?  Such snafus have not negatively affected Democrats, so it's shrug off and look the other way by the party in control - Democrats.  Gee, what a surprise. 

Tom has faced a number of grievances filed by employees for office conduct.  It's been shrugged off, look the other way by the party....  It's no coincidence that the turnover rate for employment in his office is curiously high.

Slockett has a prominent link to his personal Twitter account on the Johnson County Auditor website, condoned by members of the party.  That's right, a personal link on an official county government website. Appearance of partisanship?  Who cares! Listed right there on the front page along with links to voter registration information, county supervisor vacancy updates, various county election returns and other data, is Slockett's PERSONAL Twitter account spewing liberal Democrat points of view.  As of this writing, Slockett tweeted about his support for government-run healthcare.  Such commentary does NOT belong on a county government website.  Sheer arrogance is what keeps that online.  Email him, remind him that he is an employee of the people and demand that he take his liberal ideology off a county website.

As part of a county supervisor vacancy, Slockett is a member of a committee tasked with finding someone to replace the late Larry Meyers, who passed away recently after a battle with cancer.  That 'committee' includes County Recorder Kim Painter - liberal Democrat, and county Treasurer Tom Kriz - Democrat.  Those liberals-in-charge could have chosen to hold a special election, but Slockett pushed for the appointment option under the guise of saving taxpayers $75,000.  Funny, liberal officials have never been fiscally conservative before.......  Today the 'annointment' committee held a meeting and narrowed a field of 16 candidates for the supervisor seat down to eight.  In rejecting eight of the candidates, Slockett pushed to eliminate all people who had run for office before but lost, and eliminate those who indicated they would not run for re-election once the Meyers term was fulfilled.  How about that criteria huh?   Slockett's push eliminated possible representation on the board for North Liberty, rural West Branch, Penn Township and Tiffin.  Their voices on county affairs were silenced.  So much for having VALID selection criteria huh?

Your Democrat leadership at work......

Johnson County Supervisor appointment smells of impropriety

So a committee of county officials - all Democrats - decided to appoint someone instead of holding an election to fill the vacant seat on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.

The committee, comprised of county auditor Tom "DUI" Slockett, county recorder Kim "Was-on-steering-committee-of-the-Janelle-Rettig-campaign-for-supervisor" Painter and Tom "Conflict? What Conflict" Kriz opted to appoint someone to the Supervisor seat vacated by Larry Meyers who died on September 22 after a battle with cancer.  The committee will make a final decision on the appointee on October 28.  The reason given for making an appointment instead of holding a special election was cost, which according to Auditor Slockett would be about $75,000.

Sixteen people have applied for the vacancy.

Has county government become a "Little Chicago" of politics?  Evidence exists of one party, their way or no way rule.  Do we have a machine in place?  Here are some reasons to reject what appears to be a tainted appointment process and demand a special election for the Johnson County Supervisor vacancy.

County Auditor Tom Slockett - Longtime Johnson County Democrat/Auditor and on the appointment committee.  Arrested twice for being drunk and getting behind the wheel, the most recent in 2007.  Often has 'issues' on election day.

John Deeth - He has become influential in Johnson County's voting process.  An employee of the Auditor's office, liberal Democrat, blogger and party activist, Deeth's bio is a concern with some incidents dating back to 2003 which we're currently investigating.  

Janelle Rettig - Longtime Democrat party activist, announced a bid to run for county supervisor 2010 earlier this year and has applied for the supervisor vacancy.

County Supervisor Rod Sullivan - Longtime Johnson County Democrat, activist, and former county party chair.  If your point of view is different than his, he sends you vulgar emails, calls you at home and threatens physical violence.  Has worked closely with Janelle Rettig on a number of projects/issues.

County Attorney Janet Lyness - Should Painter have some intellectual honesty and recuse herself from this appointment process, Lyness would step in on the committee.  She's a concern because she excused Johnson County officials from having a conflict of interest in the Conservation Bond issue in being members of the Johnson County Heritage Trust pushing an agenda of green space.

County Treasurer Tom Kriz - A do whatever the party machine says to do kind of guy......  Longtime party member and on the appointment committee.

All these people are part of the local Democrat machine.  It can be argued that these people in positions of power and authority do things how they want, as in party before the people's interests.  Are you OK with that?

A petition is being circulated requesting a special election be held. 

This story is developing......

Obama wins nobel prize for campaign talk

In an "unexpected" announcement, King Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

But what has Obama actually accomplished?

Never mind that the deadline for submitting a nobel nominee ended two weeks after Obama took office.  So what's the deal, are we to believe that Obama won based on campaign trail talk?

Gee, what an accomplishment! 

The award has truly lost its prestige, as Obama really hasn't contributed anything to global peace yet.  Can you say, "Rigged?"  Yes you can.

And peace?  Obama said he would end the Iraq war but he hasn't delivered as he promised on the campaign trail.  In Afghanistan, the president is seriously considering ramping up the U.S. troop presence there - a surge.  He's authorized predator drone strikes in Pakistan and helicopter attacks in Somalia. 

How is that different than Bush policy? The Nobel committee harshly criticized Bush when he was Commander In Chief, but apparently a different man using the very same strategy is OK huh?  Let's just call this the "Nobel-because-he's-not-Bush" prize.  Or how about the "Nobel-substance-free" prize?   It's an award based on campaign talk, not accomplishment.  The Nobel folks are a bunch of hypocrites and this 'award' is a total sham.

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.

Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan needs to step down

Johnson County supervisor and staunch liberal Rod Sullivan used vulgarities and threatened physical violence during an e-mail exchange with an Iowa City man according to reports in the Iowa City Press-Citizen.  He has apologized for his use of vulgarity in this instance, but it was a shallow apology and his behavior should continue to be questioned.  Why?  Because he's done this kind of thing before.  It's a habit, a very troubling one.  And if his email exchanges would not have become public knowledge, then it could easily be said that he wouldn't have apologized at all.  Links to the articles covering this issue are listed below.  It's an important story because:

1.  Rod Sullivan is an elected official, serving the people of Johnson County on the Board of Supervisors
2.  His conduct was extremely unprofessional
3.  Most importantly, he threatened physical violence

Background information before you read the articles

For many of you who frequent the Press-Citizen commentary boards, Rod Sullivan's behavior, his use of vulgarity and the threat he issued comes as no surprise.  Sullivan's comments are frequently pulled by the Press-Citizen comment board moderators, for abusing the publication's terms of service.  Violations would include use of vulgarity, hate speech, writing something libelous or slanderous, that kind of thing.

Having an online personality on the Press-Citizen allows you to respond to various articles, letters to the editor, opinion pieces and so forth on the online PC publication.  Enabling an online personality is free and you can make your online profile public or private. 

If a profile is checked as public, anyone visiting the article comment boards can click on a poster's icon, go to their page and review all the posts - reponses to articles, etc. - a person has written. The story title the poster responded to is listed and linked and a snippet of the comment made is displayed and clickable to read in full. 

If a profile is checked private however, then you cannot review that particular poster's comments from that person's profile page.  The posting activity of someone who has chosen to have a private profile is withheld from public viewing.  This is what Rod Sullivan did with his online personality.  He doesn't want you to see his responses all neatly packaged on his page. It should be noted that not only can you not see the summary of the various stories and related comments Rod Sullivan has responded to under the activity list, it also means you cannot see how often the line, "Rod Sullivan's comment has been removed for violating the terms of service," where the Rod's comment snippet would be if the profile were public.   It would be nice if the Press-Citizen would provide us a tally of just how often the Johnson County Supervisor's comments have had to be pulled.  Without question the number is high. 

Mr. Sullivan has a history of getting inflammatory online with those who challenge his stances and oppose his point of view.  You would be able to see some examples of that if Sullivan's profile page was public......

As a side note, Mr. Sullivan chastises people who use anonymous online personalities, how ironic given the man has a posting history he wants hidden from public view.  And gee, with people like Sullivan - a public official - issuing physical threats, it's no wonder people feel a need to have an anonymous online personality. 

This is not the first time Mr. Sullivan has treated a constituent who disagrees with him as he did as outlined in the stories below.  This isn't the first time Sullivan has called a constituent who disagrees with him at home.  His fellow members of the board know this. 

Mr. Sullivan needs to step down, his conduct is unbecoming of a Johnson County Supervisor.   Email vulgarity, angry telephone calls made to constituents at home, a threat of violence....  Do you see a pattern here?  To switch from using your county government email address to your own personal account when you want to get vulgar in correspondence is calculated.  What's next?  Do we wait and find out?

Resident says official sent vulgar e-mail
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009909230311

Official sent second vulgar e-mail
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20090924/NEWS01/909240322/Official-sent-second-vulgar-e-mail

Rod Sullivan's e-mails to David Dowell
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20090924/NEWS01/90923005/1079/Rod-Sullivan-s-e-mails-to-David-Dowell

Sullivan apologizes for foul language
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20090924/NEWS01/90924005/Sullivan-apologizes-for-foul-language

Download F_bomb_promo_from_rod_sullivan

 

A call to all patriotic lawyers

By Eric Blake

Are you passionate about the Constitution?  Do you believe that government is too big, out-of-control and in violation of our Founding Father's intent?

Then your pro-bono services are needed.  I'm sure the good folks of reason can pass the hat to cover some expenses.

We need to start contesting the intrusive legislation passed by our government at the local, state, and federal levels of what is sadly considered governance these days, or should I say Nanny-state governance?

Take the issue of 'public housing' for example.  Where in the Constitution does it authorize the government to buy housing?  It doesn't.  Why does government "OWN" houses?  It shouldn't.   

Government officials have conned us into allowing them to use OUR money to buy housing.  As well-intended as housing legislation might be, what government is doing is simply not authorized.   We've been duped.

Does this mean some doing what's right in terms of the Constitution people want less fortunate folks out in the street?  Absolutely not, but that's what we'll be accused of.  No, it simply means that government needs to be shown its proper focus and has no business being in the housing business. 

Forcing a hard working person to involuntarily cough up money to give to another person who may not be so hard working is unconstitutional.  It's a slap in the face to what our Founding Fathers laid out for us.  Robbing money from Peter's house to buy a house for Paul is a twisted notion.

People rightfully own houses and apartments, not government.  Businesses rightfully own houses and apartments, not government.  Churches, charitable organizations and non-profits rightfully own houses, shelter facilities and apartments, not government.  There, you were just given a handful of reasons why government has no need to be in the housing business.  Then there's that Constitutionality thing.....

Never mind the fraud, waste, abuse and con-artist laziness exercised by many government hand-out program recipients.  Never mind the lack of oversight and the too much on the government plate to efficiently handle case loads with any real sense of fiscal responsibility reality.......  Government truly has no business being in the housing business.  Government owned and managed housing is not something that is productive, it's an abuse.

Should the government help protect your home?  Sure.

Should the government provide access to clean water and sanitation?  OK.

Should the government own homes that belong in the hands of the people?  No.

So pick up the proverbial ball all you patriotic lawyers out there and run with it.  You took an oath right?  You know there's some unconstitutional stuff going on out there and our own government is doing the stuffing.  C'mon, make some phone calls, send out some emails, let's put our heads together and get to work!

Summing up that Obama speech to our kids.....

So President Obama did some lights, camera, action in the name of education.  Fine, he seems to like hamming it up for the camera.  Why he seeks so much face time is another story for another day.

As far as speeches go, it was on-topic and run-of-the-mill.  Nobody should have any objection to the speech itself.  If anything, one could object to how Obama wasted class time by telling students things they already know.

Prior to its delivery, the speech received a lot of criticism about the lesson plan and materials that accompanied it.  The original version of the plan distributed to schools recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."  Those letters were then to be "collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals," according to the plan.  Keep in mind that a presidential speech to school kids is not unprecedented, but a lesson plan - let alone a plan asking kids how they can serve the president - is.

Hmmmmm.....

As a result of that backlash, the Department of Education re-wrote the plan, scrubbing it of the 'how best to serve Obama' mantra.

Interesting.

With that original lesson plan in mind, parents expressed concerns with school officials across the nation as to whether or not schools were going to mandate students to watch the speech.

Other parents were justifiably concerned with the possibility that Obama would stray from the topic of education and get into issues such as health care reform or the economy. 

So in review, did area schools mandate the viewing of the speech?  All reports indicate, No.

Did the president stay on topic?  Yes

All-in-all the speech turned out to be harmless.  But the questions, concerns and criticisms of its production and need for it were many and for the most part valid.   It's no coincidence that the Department of Education changed the lesson plan and given Obama's history, whatever he does deserves some scrutiny.  Van Jones anyone?  Jeremiah Wright anyone?  And the list of questions but no answers from the White House gets longer......

Local liberal Iowaartist perpetuates misinformation

It's amazing how uninformed (manipulative?) liberals like Iowaartist can be.

Issue:  ObamaCare, a.k.a. HR 3200 and the advanced care provision

Iowaartist, a proponent of government-run healthcare and a frequent poster on the Iowa City Press-Citizen blog, posted a snippet from Amy Sullivan (the Democrat editor for Times Magazine) regarding the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.  Amy Sullivan, as perpetuated by Iowanotanartist, is making an uninformed and improper claim that the end-of-life advanced care provision in the 2003 prescription drug bill, is the same as the advanced care provision in ObamaCare.  To vote yes on a bill with that provision in 2003, but to oppose ObamaCare on that issue today Amy and Iowanotanartist imply, is to be a hypocrite.

What those two LEFT OUT, is that the two measures aren't the same. Not even close!  How convenient for Amy and Iowanotanartist. It's more evidence that liberals don't read the bills coming out of Congress.  Instead of debating the health care reform issue on the pros and cons......  Instead of looking at the merits and possible unintended consequences of reform proposals.....  Liberal parrots like Iowanotanartist go low road by perpetuating the falsely based assasination attempts on the character and credibility of those who oppose or raise specific objections to ObamaCare.

Grassley voted yes (much to the chagrin of conservatives) on the Medicare prescription drug bill.  His support for the provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 is consistent with his long-held views on advanced care.  With that in mind, MMA offers verified terminally ill patients a pain and care management evaluation and counseling about hospice care.  The language in the bill is specific and between the doctor and the patient - and again - is consistent with Grassley's long-held views on the matter.

So why does Grassley object to the advanced care provisions in ObamaCare?  It's simple.  It's because the language in the bill is NOT specific, nor is it between only the doctor and patient.  It's why the measure was dropped from the Senate version of HR 3200.  In ObamaCare, all physicians risk losing bonus payments from the government unless they report on whether they provide "advanced care planning" and adherence to that plan. It is NOT restricted to terminally ill patients and hospice.  It includes mere conversations about (not to be confused with official diagnosis) changes in health that MAY include skilled nursing, long-term nursing care and hospice.  ObamaCare is crafted to save budget dollars by spending less money on health care and provides incentive to doctors to do so.  Can you say, "Skip skilled nursing and go directly to hospice?"

ObamaCare is a bill that creates an entirely government-run system that will surely lead to rationing of health care just like has happened in other countries that have government-run systems. It’s easy to see why Iowans and others are legitimately concerned about what's in the ObamaCare bill.  It's easy to see why Iowans and others are getting so frustrated with dismissive liberal politicians (and their followers) who won't read the bills they support, won't be up-front in addressing legitimate concerns about ObamaCare and act like rulers instead of representatives of the people they serve.

Why misinform people when you could use facts instead?  Why is it that liberals feel the need to cheat in making their push to get ObamaCare passed?  It's because they can't defend it.  It's because this isn't really about health care, it's about more government control over our daily lives - and liberals want that.

Politicians acting like rulers, not representatives

Have a valid concern about health care reform?

Congressman Dave Loebsack doesn't care, he's going to vote yes in support of HR 3200 a.k.a., ObamaCare no matter what.  Why?  Because Nancy Pelosi told him how to vote.  It doesn't matter what the majority of Iowa's 2nd District wants their representative to do.  He isn't listening to reasoned complaints about a public option (government run care).  He is ignoring the documented history of rationed care in all the countries that have tried and/or are practicing socialized medicine.

Senator Tom Harkin doesn't care.  He wants to push forward with a total overhaul of our healthcare system despite the fact that most Americans are happy with their healthcare.  He isn't listening to valid suggestions calling for a more efficient and targeted focus on bringing down costs and expanding coverage.  He is ignoring proposals on tort reform to bring down costs.  He isn't listening to recommendations to help insurance to truly compete for business (thereby reducing costs and expanding coverage) by allowing insurers to cross state lines like auto and home insurance companies are able to do. 

No, let's not do things that make sense, let's build a new mouse trap!

Liberal idiocy.

It's party before country for these liberals.

That liberals are dismissive to concerns, that liberals are tone deaf to questions, that liberals are making things up about ObamaCare opposition is proof positive that this isn't really about healthcare, it's about more power and control over our daily lives.

Loebsack's town halls so far have pretty much been 2-1 grassroots against ObamaCare.  Don't buy into his claim that he truly wants to listen to all points of view.  He doesn't want to hear concerns from the opposition, his objective in these town halls is to put a positive spin on ObamaCare.  He's a used car salesman, on a mission from his boss to sell you a lemon.

Harkin's town halls have also been a grassroots majority against ObamaCare.  But like Loebsack, Harkin isn't taking a step back and reflecting on why farmer Joe, retail Bob, and retired billing clerk Sue are concerned, frustrated and upset.  Harkin isn't interested in reflecting, he doesn't care.  He just throws out a callous, "they're misinformed" and continues his push for government run health care.

Those are the behaviors of men acting like a ruling class, treating everyday Iowans like peasants.  The likes of Loebsack and Harkin aren't truly representing the people of Iowa.  Acting like knights or lords, they're arrogantly dismissing valid concerns of Iowans because those concerns don't fit the liberal agenda. 

John "Polly" Deeth eats and spews liberal garbage

This time Deeth's garbage is his take on how the opposition to ObamaCare operates.  He couldn't be further from the truth.  If he's trying to be funny, he's not.  Good political humor is based in the truth and Deeth's piece hasn't got it.

Here's some of what he wrote in an article titled: Health Care: Debating the Irrational Or: Barack Obama and Barnyard Animals

It's an old political adage, which I first heard in an LBJ joke. It's a close election in Texas and LBJ tells someone, probably John Connally, that they should start a rumor that the other candidate likes the sows in the barn a little too much.

Connally: "Jesus Christ, Lyndon! We can't get away with calling him a pig-f****r!"

LBJ: "I know. But let's make the SOB deny it."

And that's what they're doing: Calling Obama a pigf****r and making him deny it.

Deeth's garbage is just plain irresponsible.  His attempt to slam ObamaCare opposition is either intentionally misinforming or just plain ignorant.

Quick to imply that all ObamaCare opposition is mob rule, Deeth has the gall to compare health care opposition to the segregationists of yesteryear.  Never mind that such a comparison is completely absurd, never mind that it can't even be considered with any kind of justification some kind of twisted apples to oranges comparision.....  Deeth tried to put genuine opposition to government run health care in the same room with lunch counter racism - unbelievable!  Deeth saw an angle in some data and manipulated an issue with it.  That's low road stuff ladies and gentlemen.  It's garbage.  It's clear that Deeth has no clue what's in HR 3200, a.k.a., ObamaCare.

Truth be told, liberals like Deeth just don't like it that people are opposing ObamaCare.  They're not interested in debating the merits, they don't care about the pros and cons of ObamaCare.  They are pissed because there's any debate at all to begin with.  They don't like it that people are questioning instead of blindly accepting!  Why, how DARE people object to such a gift!

It would be easy to just dismiss Deeth and his rants, but that would be unacceptable.  His rude and baseless attack can't be let go, it HAS to be challenged.

In a very sad way it's funny how liberals like Deeth are liberal on everything except your liberty.

In parrot fashion, Deeth has joined his fellow liberals in dragging out their old and tired playbook.

Does the playbook say engage in honest and reasoned debate?

No.

It says use smear tactics (like comparing ObamaCare opposition to segregationists).  It calls for labeling and name calling instead of talking about the merits of an issue.  The liberal playbook scripts out the use of scare tactics and misinformation to distract voters from the substance of an issue.  The most important page:  Spend time, money and effort lying about what opposition is trying to do.

Every play in the liberal playbook is being used here out of desperation.  Liberals don't quite know how to handle the many grassroots objections to ObamaCare so they're flipping through their book looking for the right play.  Sadly, they don't have honesty in their gameplan.

Today's liberals don't know how to deal with ObamaCare opposition because they've never seen such genuine, heartfelt, civil unrest before.  People's frustration with arrogant, dismissive, and tone deaf politicians is very real and that fact has liberals all confused.

You see, Whenever liberals protest, it's trumped up, manufactured and exaggerated.  So according to their *logic*, what grassroots ObamaCare opposition is doing must also then be trumped up, manufactured and exaggerated. 

That the ObamaCare opposition is manufactured is garbage.  That it's mobbish is garbage, that it can be compared to segregation is garbage. 

To use Nancy Pelosi's line accurately, liberal protest is the stuff of 'astro-turf'.  Unions get involved, authoritative organizers send out instructions in emails, they bus people in, they pay rent-a-mobs.  They get people to wear lobbyist bought and paid for T-shirts and hold up professionally made special interest signs and so forth.

For some unjustifiable reason, liberals - and Deeth has ignorantly fallen into this trap - seems to think that protests can only be conducted in that fashion.  What an inaccurate and flawed way to think but it's what liberals do.  Pelosi invented the astro-turf line because that is what SHE would do, what liberals do - manufacture a fake grassroots protest in pushing an agenda.   

What ObamaCare opposition is doing doesn't even remotely fit the liberal M.O.  This genuine grassroots participation in the exercise of First Amendment rights - is giving liberals fits!  People who have never gotten political before, young people, seasoned citizens, farmers, doctors, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, people from all walks of life are showing up at town halls and speaking their minds! 

It's exposing liberal hypocrisy.  Remember, liberal loons like Deeth run around saying dissent = patriotism.  It's OK when they protest and oppose.  But somehow, when people of a different stripe like locals Deb Derksen, Lori Cardella, Deb Thornton, and Cyndi Michel do it.....  They're threats to democracy!  Those women are funded by lobbyists and are associated with special interest groups!  They are a threat to civil order! 

So do you see what Deeth attempted to do in his article ladies and gentlemen?  He's guilty of the very thing he accused ObamaCare opposition of.  Using old plays straight out of the liberal playbook, he threw out some labels, he smeared, he misinformed.  That's the stuff of garbage.

But most of you folks aren't buying it, you're not going to take liberal crap anymore and it's a pleasure to see!  Keep up the good work!