Mark Levin stands on moral pedestal after Trump’s ‘p***y’ comments, weirdly screams at Never Trump instead

Donald Trump

The 2016 U.S. presidential election gets weirder by the week, which in many ways is a good thing because the world is seeing everyone’s true colors come out. Audio from a 2005 conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush leaked late last Friday, which meant that “conservative” radio hosts weighed in today.

Mark Levin, for instance, thought the best thing to do in a post “grab her by the p***y” world would be to scream at the Never Trump movement like Grandpa Simpson.

Red State shared Mr. Levin’s opening monologue Monday night:

“This is a plebiscite against Hillary Clinton! Against Barack Obama! Against the centralized state! No, we don’t have the candidate that I wanted, but I can’t change that, now can I? No, I can’t.

So the moral high ground is not to duck the tough decision and stand on the sidelines while some of us make the tough decision. That’s not the moral high ground! The principled high ground is not to stand on the sideline and watch your country crater! And say, ‘I told you so, I told you so.’ No, that’s not the principled high ground, either. The real test of a human being is what they do when they’re challenged. When it’s not easy. When they don’t like the choices. But the moral and principled thing to not do is for conservatives to whine and complain, ‘Oh, woe is me,’ and just sit on your ass.”

Millions of people stayed home when Mitt Romney — a good and decent man — was the Republican nominee in 2008. I do not recall Mr. Levin ever screaming his lungs out and haranguing Republicans who sat “on the sidelines” in protest.

I voted for George W. Bush. I voted for John McCain. I voted for Mitt Romney. In each instance there were things about the candidates that bothered me, but I voted for them anyway.

Now, in 2016, guys like me are being rhetorically flogged by the likes of Mark Levin because we aren’t excited about someone who a.) was a Democrat for the vast majority of his adult life, b.) donated to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, c.) still does not publicly hold conservative positions on multiple issues (e.g., free trade), d.) literally bragged about trying to “f**k” a married woman, and e.) admitted that he has never asked God for forgiveness.

Question: At what point does a Republican candidate become unacceptable to the likes of Mark Levin?

Answer: Apparently, never.

The 2016 U.S. presidential election is the visible manifestation of our own cultural rotgut eating away at our insides. Myself and many others are in this world, but not of it. If the nation goes mad, then I am under no obligation to partake in the affair. I will not be guilted or shamed into voting for a candidate, nor will I care if self-righteous radio hosts try to blame me — a principled, law-abiding man who loves his country — for America’s decline.

Here is an uncomfortable fact: Mark Levin and many other “conservative” radio hosts sat in silence regarding Donald Trump during the Republican primaries. They did this because they liked making the Republican Party squirm. In fact, they liked it so much that they ignored all the warning signs that they were creating a Frankenstein monster. And then, when the monster broke free, they decided to blame the very people who were screaming, “Stop! This is madness!” from the very beginning.

If Mark Levin does not like the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, then his search for people to blame should begin with a look in the mirror.

Hillary Clinton calls millions of Americans ‘deplorables’ because Democrats can be ‘grossly generalistic’ without media destroying them


Imagine a situation where Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave a speech to donors and said, “I don’t hate all Muslims. I just oppose those who I lump into a cultural ‘basket of deplorables.'” How long do you think it would take before the collective might of the U.S. media crushed him under the weight of his own “grossly generalistic” words?

Answer: Mr. Trump would be mercilessly beaten day in and day out by pundits, political action committees, Hollywood celebrities, and campaign attack ads. There would be no respite from withering criticism until his reputation was ground into a million pieces and thrown into the dustbin of history.

Now consider Hillary Clinton’s “grossly generalistic” claim that roughly 50 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.”

CNN reported Saturday:

Hillary Clinton told an audience of donors Friday night that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into “the basket of deplorables,” meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.

In an effort to explain the support behind Trump, Clinton went on to describe the rest of Trump supporters as people who are looking for change in any form because of economic anxiety and urged her supporters to empathize with them.
“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

Republicans are never allowed to be “grossly generalistic.” Just ask Mitt “47%” Romney.

If a Republican makes a generalization about any issue that might make some minorities look bad, then he or she is a racistbigothomophobe. If a Democrat makes a generalization that makes millions of white people look like racistbigothomophobes, then we are supposed to accept the claim as a general truth. Classic!

Surprisingly, CNN pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll on Saturday showing that most people who are voting for Mr. Trump are doing so because they do not like Mrs. Clinton. She is such an unlikable and untrustworthy politician (Dare we say, “deplorable”?), that tens-of-millions of Americans will essentially vote against her instead of “for” Mr. Trump.


America, give or take a few percentage points each election cycle, is politically split. There are about 40 percent who will always vote for Republicans, another 40 percent who will always vote for Democrats, and then another 20 percent who are up for grabs even though they may heavily lean in one direction. Therefore, saying that “half” of Mr. Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables” is politically tone-deaf.

It will be very interesting to see how much this comment affects Mrs. Clinton’s support in the weeks ahead. Regardless, independent voters should ask themselves why it is that one political party gets to generalize about millions of law-abiding Americans, while the other is not allowed to do so with law-breakers and terrorists.

Trump vs. Hillary: America reaches its own video game ‘kill screen’

Pac Man Kill Screen

A funny thing happens in old video games when players reach a point that exceeds the cartridge’s available memory: the “kill screen.” The character may die, although sometimes users can continue playing a jumbled mess that ostensibly makes no sense. The reality that Donald Trump will square off against Hillary Clinton to be the next U.S. commander in chief is a clear indicator America has reached its own kill screen.

Hillary Clinton

Kill screens may be fun to watch — there is no doubt that cable news networks are thrilled with the 2016 election season — but on another level (no pun intended), they are sad affairs. If you do not believe the U.S. is at its own kill screen, then ask  yourself the following two questions:

  • What led to the rise in popularity of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist), and Donald Trump?
  • Will the election of Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump mitigate or exacerbate the nation’s underlying problems?

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue doing exactly what President Obama has done for eight years, which was a catalyst for Sanders’ groundswell of Democrat support.

Donald Trump’s popularity is based on the illusion that he is a political outsider who will “make America great again” via giant walls along U.S. border with Mexico and “great” deals with Congress. Ironically, the same people who have deified Mr. Trump regularly go apoplectic when “deals” are made in Congress. Unless Trump plans on becoming a dictator, his own supporters are in for a rude awakening if he wins in November.

Here is what the 45th president of the United States will encounter on Day One:

  • The U.S. is $19 trillion in debt, but there is no political will to get spending under control. This is due to economic illiteracy (thanks public education and academia), greed (it’s easy to rob from future generations when you know you’ll be old or dead when the bill comes due), lying politicians, and a whole host of other issues. There will be a day of reckoning.
  • The U.S. is culturally lost. Multiple generations have simmered in a stew of cultural relativism. Tens of millions of people have no idea why they believe what they believe — they just do. They have been taught to loathe the principles that made America the freest nation in the history. They have been conditioned to yearn for tyranny and not to care about it as long mindless viral videos, Facebook “likes,” and free pornography flows on their computers.
  • American media outlets are corrupt. The news long ago ceased to be about informing people and turned into a never-ending quest for “clicks” and “shares” and “tweets” and ratings. Journalists are usually more interested in showing they’re as witty and cool as John Stewart in his heyday than objectively reporting facts. Cable news shows are inspired by WWE wrestling matches and reality television shows, which is why the more appealing option is to just watch Food Network or turn off the TV all together.

In short, unless someone rewrites the U.S. “code” in the near future, we will soon disappear in the “integer overflow.”

Welcome to the kill screen. I look forward to seeing you after the “reset” button is pushed.

Cruz’s ‘Office Space’ attack ad against Clinton a work of genius

Hillary Clinton Office Space

For over five years this blog has focused on the intersection between politics and popular culture. On numerous occasions I have lamented conservatives’ inability to understand the “language” of popular culture and its potential to influence people. Now, at long last, there is a campaign that “gets it.”

The man who came up with the idea for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s new “Damn it Feels Good to be a Clinton” ad needs a raise. Period. It takes 1999’s cult-classic “Office Space” and parodies the “printer” scene to expose the corrupt nature of Hillary Clinton’s “home brew” email server as secretary of state.

In short, it is a work of pure genius. Some of the lyrics include:

“Damn it feels good to be a Clinton. A shameless politician always plays her cards right. Got a crew for the fight on the airwaves. Lapdogs in the press keep their mouths tight. ‘Cause a Clinton never needs to explain what, why it is what they done, or with who. A real Clinton knows that they’re entitled, and you don’t get to know what they do. … Damn it feels good to be a Clinton – a server full of secrets ain’t no thing. Damn it feels good to be a Clinton – nothing ever hits with a sting.”

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd’s response: “That was a little rough. That was a little uncomfortable to watch. That looked vicious.”

Chuck Todd

Do you know what was “uncomfortable to watch,” Mr. Todd? The PBS-moderated Democratic Party debate Thursday night from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff failed to mention breaking news from earlier in the day that State Department investigators subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last fall. (Note: Woodruff is a Clinton Foundation donor.)

It was “uncomfortable” to watch because it is sad to see the media protect a woman at all costs — even if a mountain of evidence indicates she should be prosecuted and thrown in a “federal, pound-me -in-the-a**” prison.

The Washington Post reported Thursday:

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

Yes, you read that right: Huma Abedin was simultaneously employed by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

No conflict of interest there, right? No problem with Mrs. Clinton emailing Mrs. Abedin the most highly-classified U.S. intelligence over a personal email server, right?

Objective observers know that if they did a fraction of the things Mrs. Clinton and her aide did that they would be wearing an ugly jumpsuit in a federal prison. But yet, Chuck Todd feels “uncomfortable” watching an “Office Space” parody that a.) skewers the former secretary of state for her corrupt behavior, and b.) nails the media for its, “Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along,” attitude.

Ted Cruz deserves credit for being one of the few Republican candidates in recent memory who has used popular culture to his advantage. His competitors would be wise to learn from his success.

Here is the original — a classic.

‘Trump Coalition’ skillfully explained by Limbaugh

Donald Trump has been the Republican front-runner since August. He has maintained his lead despite blistering criticism from Democrats, fellow Republicans, and cable news pundits on a daily basis. One of the few famous individuals who has a firm grasp of Trump’s appeal is Rush Limbaugh. On Thursday he offered one of the clearest, most concise and plain-spoken explanations of the “Trump Coalition” to date.

Limbaugh said:

The Tea Party was not the result of some strategic plan launched by somebody out of nowhere. It was a spontaneous eruption of mostly people that had never been professionally, formally involved in politics before. It dates to the Obama stimulus deal in 2009 but really began to coalesce with Obamacare. Those two things sent the big message to the Tea Party people, what would become known as the Tea Party people. That is, there was no longer any concern for what this government was spending. There was no longer any concern for the danger that that was going to cause. …

The Tea Party had a lot of Democrats in it. The Tea Party had a lot of minorities. The Tea Party had a bunch of people from a cross section, a demographic cross section. But you don’t know that because you were told it was nothing but a malcontent conservatives and disaffected Republicans and what have you, because it was easier to criticize ’em that way.

There’s so many missed opportunities for the Republican Party here. It’s actually frightening to make a list of ’em all. The Republican Party could be owning the show. …

I know the Republican Party mocked the Tea Party. They worked with the Democrats and the media to smear them, just like is happening now with the Trump coalition. The key point here is who they are. As I have been trying to say, the majority of Trump’s support base are not Republican conservatives. There are a lot of them, but it’s not the majority.

I was at the original tea party rallies in Washington, D.C., and Rush is 100 percent correct. I worked at a conservative nonprofit organization and got to meet the waves of people who were entering the political realm for the first time. They seemed to innately know that America was at a dangerous crossroads.

The tea party had many people just like me — individuals whose conservatism is shaped by an understanding of free-market economics, documents like The Federalist Papers, and a fidelity to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

However, the tea party also had plenty of people who have no time to be academics because they have two jobs to hold down, kids to get to soccer practice, and any number of other responsibilities. All they know is that powerful groups are trying to fundamentally transform America into something at odds with its founding.

Elitists in the nation’s capital scoffed at those they no-doubt viewed as “rabble.” I know because my job within Washington often brought me into contact with said elitists. One of my favorite stories involves getting into an argument with one well-connected Washington insider who said to me, “Do you know who I am?! I’m the maître d of the conservative movement!”

Ask yourself this question: How well has “the maître d of the conservative movement” and his friends done their job? I’d say, not too well.

The “Trump Coalition” is an odious group to Democrats and Republicans in Washington, which is ironic because they are responsible for its creation.

The “Trump Coalition” sees President Obama on the left saying things like the Islamic State group has nothing to do with Islam, and on the right they see Republican “leaders” who are really good at mumbling about the Constitution, but really bad at limiting the size of the federal government.

I wrote on Donald Trump in 2011 while people like “the maître d of the conservative movement” was heading panels at black tie events, which were little more than exercises in self-congratulation. It is now 2016, I left much of that world behind, and now sit with my popcorn as “the maître d” and his friends stew over the “Trump Coalition” they helped create.

Fiorina weirdly mocked for 3-page tax code idea: Carl Quintanilla thinks 73,000 pages is normal

CNBC debate

Last night I was talking to my sister about how strange it is for Americans to put up with federal regulations that would be worthy of a revolution in another place and time. She astutely pointed to CNBC’s debate on Wednesday as an example of normalized madness. In Carl Quintanilla’s world, it is perfectly acceptable to have a 73,000-page tax code. A woman who thinks it can and should be simplified to three pages is the one who should be ridiculed.

Fiorina: We now have a 73,000-page tax code. There have been more than 4,000 changes to the tax plan since 2001 alone. There are loads of great ideas, great conservative ideas, from wonderful think tanks, about how to reform the tax code. The problem is, we never get it done.

Quintanilla: You want to bring the 70,000 pages to 3. Is that using really small type?”

The premise of Quintanilla’s smarmy joke is that it is reasonable to have a tax code closing in on 100,000 pages long. Over 4,000 changes to said tax code over the course of two U.S. presidents is also considered sane.

Carly is the sane woman in an insane world, which sadly makes her insane.

Carly Fiorina

Who benefits from a 73,000-page tax code? Answer: It’s not “the little guy,” who Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all claim to represent.

The “little guy” is the one who does not have an army of lawyers at his disposal to cut through bureaucratic red tape. Bernie Sanders need complex rules and regulations because – for all his rhetoric about making “billionaires” pay for all the world’s ills — it is hard-working families who end up shouldering the costs.

Last year I hired a tax professional to make sure I handled my family’s payments properly. I was 95 percent sure I correctly filled out all my paperwork, but it is always written in a way where you never reach the 100 percent mark. Jargon only a professional tax-preparer can understand makes honest Americans wonder if they’re going to get a letter from the IRS ten months later demanding money.

My name is not Donald Trump. My name is not Hillary Clinton. I do not have the resources at this time to navigate an endless maze of tax laws. My guess is that most of the people reading this blog are in the same boat. Yet it is Carly Fiorina who is mocked for an idea that would a.) increase individual liberty while b.) making our lives exponentially easier each tax season.

Carl Quintanilla, we are all dumber for listening to you moderate CNBC’s Republican debate. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up, or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?

ReidLet’s play a little game, shall we? It’s called “Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up, or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?”. The reason behind this game is simple: the retiring senator, who laughed off his 2012 presidential election lie about Mitt Romney, is now upset that radio host Rush Limbaugh said what others were already thinking: it looks like someone beat Harry Reid up.

Here is what Mr. Reid told CNN’s Dana Brash on March 31 when asked if he regretted his lie about Mitt Romney not paying taxes: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Telling, isn’t it? The ends justify the means to Mr. Reid, no matter how low he has to sink.

Now, here is the Nevada senator complaining to CNBC’s John Harwood about Mr. Limbaugh’s commentary on his battered and bruised body: “It shows the credibility of Rush Limbaugh. He’s the guy that got all this started. Why in the world would I come up with a story that I got hurt in my own bathroom with my wife standing there? How could anyone say anything like that? I think a lot of people, as I read, they kinda don’t like me as a person. That’s unfortunate.”

Why would anyone not like Harry Reid — besides the fact that he made up a giant irresponsible lie about Mitt Romney during a presidential election?

Harry Reid looks like artificial intelligence out of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” took over his workout equipment and then beat the living daylights out of him. That is what Rush Limbaugh correctly pointed out when he said “I don’t believe for a minute that whatever happened to Harry Reid has anything to do with an exercise machine unless somebody repeatedly threw him into it.”

I worked in a gym for three years. I can not think of one exercise that Harry Reid would do (or has the capability of performing) that would leave him looking like an angry bouncer unloaded on him. The official story is that an elastic waistband snapped and sent him sprawling inside his own bathroom.

I ask again: Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?

There is one word to describe the rumors that are swirling about Mr. Reid’s battered and bruised body: karma. If a man makes up disgusting lies to smear political opponents, then he has zero moral authority to complain when the karma boomerang comes back and hits him in the face again…and again…and again.

Jeb Bush enters 2016 race, pretends as if another Bush is the best a nation of 300 million could do

Jeb BushJeb Bush is apparently running for president. In a nation of roughly 300 million people, he thinks that what America needs to right itself is … another Bush. If you peruse the internet for a bit, then you shouldn’t have too hard of a time finding partisan hacks who cheer on Mr. Bush while simultaneously skewering the rationale for Hillary Clinton’s upcoming presidential campaign.

Mr. Bush wrote on Facebook Dec. 16:

Columba and I are so proud of the wonderful adults our children have become, and we loved spending time with our three precious grandchildren.

We shared good food and watched a whole lot of football.

We also talked about the future of our nation. As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.

In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

I’m sure Mr. Bush is a nice man. My guess is that he’s a good husband and a strong father. However, if he were to win the Republican nomination, then I would have no choice but to stay home on Election Day. The pseudo-desire for a hereditary monarchy by Bush and Clinton supporters is bizarre and, quite frankly, culturally unctuous. Mr. Bush has every right to run for president, but should he? Could there be any clearer message to the world that America is out of ideas than running Hillary Clinton against Jeb Bush in 2016? It’s depressing, and I can not support it.

To make matters worse, it seems as though Mr. Bush wants to find a way to win that doesn’t involve exciting principled conservatives. Like John McCain, he seems to hold his nose at the thought of having to talk with the conservatives he needs to carry him over the finish line. When asked to vote for a Democrat or the guy who is a like the diet, sugar-free version of a Democrat, Independent voters are almost always going to break towards the real deal.

If Americans want to send a message to the world that our best days are still ahead us, then they can do so by telling Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to go home.

Obama’s sick psychological experiments on voters affect us all

Conservatives have known for a long time that liberalism warps the human mind and the human soul, turning individuals with unlimited potential into human gerbils whose only aspiration is to get their hands on the next government pellet. Now, as details leak out about President Obama’s 2012 campaign, it’s clearer than ever that he sees his supporters as a bunch of lab rats.

Ask yourself: Would the founding fathers ever favor a United States of America where career politicians are so hungry for power that they would assemble a “Dream Team” of behavioral scientists to figure out the best way to manipulate the minds of registered voters?

For their part, consortium members said they did nothing more than pass on research-based ideas, in e-mails and conference calls. They said they could talk only in general terms about the research, because they had signed nondisclosure agreements with the campaign.

In addition to Dr. Fox, the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia.

“A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. Fox said.

At least some of the consortium’s proposals seemed to have found their way into daily operations. …

“Mr. Jones, we know you have voted in the past” — acts as a subtle prompt to future voting, said Dr. Cialdini, a foundational figure in the science of persuasion. “People want to be congruent with what they have committed to in the past, especially if that commitment is public,” he said.

Got that? President Obama is watching you. Correction: President Obama has been studying you. His campaign has been sifting through your public data and putting together psychological profiles that could be unlocked, disassembled and then put back together into a reliable Obamabot. It’s downright creepy.

And yet, it gets worse. Your digital history is fair game, too.

What data did [Obama’s team use] — and were they tracking you across the web?

It’s still not clear. …

To pinpoint voters who might actually change their minds, the Obama campaign conducted randomized experiments, Slaby said. Voters received phone calls in which they were asked to rate their support for the president, and then engaged in a conversation about different policy issues. At the end of the conversation, they were asked to rate their support for the president again. Using the results of these experiments, combined with detailed demographic information about individual voters, the campaign was able to pinpoint both what kinds of voters had been persuaded to support the president, and which issues had persuaded them.

Avi Feller, a graduate student in statistics at Harvard who has worked on this kind of modeling, compared it to medical research.

“The statistics of drug trials are very similar to the statistics of experiments in campaigns,” he said. “I have some cancer drug, and I know it works well on some people — for whom is the cancer drug more or less effective?”

One official with knowledge of the campaign’s data operation said that the campaign’s experiments also tested how long the “persuasion” effect lasted after the initial phone conversation — and found that it was only about three weeks.

This is what we have wrought. No matter who you voted for, these tactics are scary. The government has grown so expansive and we have abdicated so many responsibilities to a ruling “elite” in Washington, that they will now go to any length to win. They will say anything, or do anything that experiments — on you — tell them to do, if it means another two or four or six years in power.

In President Obama’s mind, your free will is a cancer, and the “drug” is the “tested” combination of “experiments” that will get you to pull the lever for him. But it’s not just President Obama; these tactics will be used in 2016, 2020 and beyond by both parties. Republicans and Democrats will seek to play Jedi mind tricks on millions of our most gullible citizens. And as they perfect their craft they will “win” more elections — not because they are the better candidate, or the candidate the country needs — but because they are the candidate who could pull your psychological strings like a mad puppeteer.

Are Republicans any better than Democrats in this regard? No. If they are, it’s not by much. But the difference between conservatives and liberals is, the conservative casts a perpetually suspicious eye on all politicians and seeks to limit the power of the federal government; the left quixotically puts their trust in princes.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some reading to do on President Obama’s “Terror Tuesday Kill List.” For some reason I don’t believe his canvassers or experiments addressed that one.

Nailed on taxes, Harry Reid intellectually drools into live microphone

Want to see Harry Reid’s mind melt before your very eyes? Ask a question that simultaneously corners him into acknowledging the federal debt and his intellectual bankruptcy. You’ll be able to see the record in his mind skip on the needle a few times before he says “Next question.”

When Harry Reid isn’t worrying about the lack of sweatshops in the United States or surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq, he usually keeps his gaffes minimized to micro-bursts of stupidity behind the podium. It may be rather depressing to read through the writings of statesmen like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and then have to turn on the television and listen to Harry Reid … but alas, he is all we have.

Regardless, today a reporter actually had the nerve to hold his feet to the fiscal fire, asking why Democrats didn’t raise taxes on the “wealthy” when they controlled all three branches of government. Reid’s response: “Next question.”

TWS: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts…why didn’t Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?

REID: The tax cuts weren’t about to expire then. So that’s why we’re doing it now.

TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.

REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.

REID: And that’s why they were extended one year.

TWS: Why didn’t they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?

REID: (pause) Next question.

Watch the video and note the pause from Reid as the wheels turn in his head. He knows he’s nailed, but the synapses in his brain are firing so fast he can’t think of something to say (mainly because talking points weren’t given out for that question).

One theory as to why Reid personally wasn’t interested in raising taxes back then was because he was too busy apologizing for referring to President Obama as “light skinned” with “no negro dialect.”

The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect,”…

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,” Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.

As I said before, IRS data proves that the “rich” pay more than their “fair” share of the tax burden in the United States. We have a spending problem — not a revenue problem — and liberals don’t want to talk about that because math isn’t as sexy as class warfare.

Federal spending per household

Federal spending is out of control, and our good friends at Heritage have done us a favor by collecting the data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office before presenting it in a way that is easy to understand. How anyone can look at federal spending per household (adjusted for inflation) and not see that Harry Reid is a dishonest hack of the highest order is beyond me, but it’s up to conservatives to talk about these numbers in ways their friends, family and neighbors understand.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll watch Sen. Reid intellectually drool into the microphone five more times just because it gives me the giggles. And then perhaps I’ll cry, because Baby Boomers and jerks like him have stolen the wealth of future generations. It’s a shame too many young people haven’t realized the magnitude of what men like him have done.