For generations, two parties have dominated the political scene in the U.S. This might not be true in the future if disgruntled conservatives have anything to say about it. The Republican Party would be wise to heed their words.

Disillusioned and angry, numerous conservatives have vowed to vote their beliefs and forget about falling into line like good, little Republicans. Their message is clear: Republican leaders must return to the principles of Lincoln and Reagan or find themselves out of a job.

In March 1975, Ronald Reagan spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference. The Republicans had just suffered the horrible post-Watergate election. Instead of suggesting that conservatives should abandon their principles and embrace liberalism in an attempt to stay alive, Reagan charged them to hold true to their values.

“A political party cannot be all things to all people,” said The Gipper. “It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”

In nominating Dede Scozzafava, the Republican leadership in New York’s 23^rd District stretched the tent too far and they’re reaping what they sowed. In droves both voters and prominent national figures endorsed a man no one has ever heard of—a man who has never held political office.

Conservative Party nominee, Doug Hoffman is an accountant, a family man, a veteran and a business owner. He’s not a politician. This fact alone makes him attractive to New York conservatives—including those on his staff.

“Doug would not stand by while the party supported a candidate that did not reflect Republican values,” says Paul Dopp, Coordinator of National Phone Volunteers for Hoffman’s campaign. “This race was my opportunity to help dispel the myth that standing for freedom makes you a part of small tent. Freedom is the biggest, most attractive tent on the planet. For over 200 years, millions born in other lands have sought to be part of that big tent. By standing for freedom, the Hoffman candidacy has brought a huge number of highly motivated people back into the process.”

Across the nation, others agree with Dopp’s observation.

Blakely Bunning, music teacher, wife and mother is one of those people. “I voted third-party last year, and I am very proud of it,” says Bunning. “I knew my candidate wouldn’t win, but I voted for him anyway. As corny as it may sound, once upon a time people actually died so I could vote. My great-grandmothers’ generation suffered and sacrificed so my gender could vote. I choose to honor those sacrifices by not compromising anymore.”

By not compromising conservatives in the Republican Party are faced with a heart-wrenching decision. Do they stick with a party that has the most chance of winning or do they unite for real change in a third party?

“It appears at this time that both current national parties are led by people that believe the law applies to the governed but not to them,” says Dopp. “The Republican Party replaced the Whigs because the Whigs could not bring themselves to take a moral stand against racial slavery. I expect that unless both parties return themselves to the founders’ principles, neither will exist in ten years.  I believe that it would be easier to salvage the Republican Party than it would the Democrat, but in truth we do not need either to have a functioning government. If they will not change, they will be replaced. “

Tea party activists, many of whom have never before been active in the political process, are claiming victory tonight whether Hoffman wins or not. A true conservative is on the ballot because real Americans took a stand and took action.

“The base is organizing apart from the party system,” says Dopp. “And the base will not accept compromise on principle.”

“We as Americans must not be afraid to vote for a third party,” says Scott Schechter, coach, husband and father. “It is obvious the Democrats and Republicans are tainted.”

According to Dopp, the Republican Party will be pulled right from the bottom up. Its current leaders spout conservative principles to retain power, but they are not to be trusted. If the leadership doesn’t respond, their continuous compromises will send conservatives to third parties en masse. It doesn’t have to be that way but what will it take to get through to leaders like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani?

“I would still vote for Republicans,” says Schechter, “but if and only if they believe in the principles and values I feel represent me the most.”

Monday night on Fox News’ Hannity, former Senator Fred Thompson, his wife Jeri and Doug Hoffman visited with host Sean Hannity about the close race for New York District 23’s House seat. Republican-in-name-only Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed her Democrat rival, Bill Owens. This leaves the question, what does the Republican Party stand for anymore?

“Ideology not connected with a party can’t always win,” says Fred Thompson. “It will lose a lot of the time, but a party not connected with ideology has no reason to win.” Perhaps today’s GOP leadership would be wise to check their principles and motives with those of President Reagan once again.

“I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party,” said Reagan, “when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents. Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”

Fly the banner of bold colors over the Republican tent or kindly step aside as conservatives take the country back.

I think it’s safe to say that I’ve been completely enthralled with watching what’s been happening in Upstate New York.  The 23rd district of New York has no one representing it in the US House of Representatives.  Which is why there’s going to be a special election on Tuesday, November 3rd.  As is usual with any election, there is a Democrat and a Republican running for the seat.  Only this time, both of those candidates were liberals.  Enter Doug Hoffman, a lifelong Republican who was sick of the closet liberals hiding in the GOP closet.  He entered the race as an Independent, for the Conservative Party.

Everyone knows that third party candidates don’t stand a chance of winning elections, right?  Right?  Maybe not.  Mr. Hoffman picked up steam quickly, even though the odds were stacked against him.  He was operating on a shoestring budget, and the Republican machine (specifically Newt Gingrich and the National Republican Congressional Committee) endorsed Ms. Scozzafava, the Republican candidate.

This has been fascinating to watch, because it’s the first time that we’re seeing Tea Party Principles being put into practice.  MSNBC can dismiss us with crude name-calling comments.  The Speaker of the House, the 2nd in line for the Presidency, can call the movement AstroTurf, not real grassroots activism.  The President himself can tell us to get out of his way.  The media can completely ignore a 9/12 March on Washington, which was attended by at least 8 people.  Or maybe over a million.  Counting is hard!

The race in New York is proof that us liberty loving Americans are not in the minority.  We are not Democrat haters who only care about having Republicans in office.  We are simply sick of our elected officials trying to run our lives for us.  They do not give us our rights, God does that.  The government can only protect those rights.  Doug Hoffman is an ordinary man, but he understands that the Constitutional principles of limited government.  After all, a government that can give you everything can also take it all away.  When Doug Hoffman began getting substantial numbers in the polls, it showed Washington that Conservatism is not a fringe movement.  It is a snowball, and baby, it has just begun to roll down the hill.

The Washington Elite are getting scared.  I think the liberals hiding in our GOP closet are the most terrified, and they should be.  Dede Scozzafava has certainly been acting like a scared mess of a person.  She called the cops on a reporter that had the audacity to ask her about some of her liberal positions.  She set up a ridiculous press conference in front of one of Hoffman’s campaign offices, which ended up as a horrendous photo-op that did her no favors.

Yesterday, October 31st, she finally picked up her toys and went home. She officially withdrew herself from the election, saying,

It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.

You know, I actually grew a little bit of respect for the lady.  She seemed to understand that due to some of her liberal positions, many of the Republicans voting in the election would be forced to choose between her or the more conservative Doug Hoffman.  She took one for the team when her numbers kept slipping, removing herself from the race and almost ensuring a win for Hoffman.

That respect lasted almost 24 hours, right up until  she endorsed the Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

Halloween is over.  I guess Dede Scozzafava has finally taken off her Republican costume.

The key word here is were. This baby was not murdered. Someone took the time to cut an air hold in the box, to tie off the umbilical cord so that she did not bleed to death, and placed her in a place where they had good reason to believe someone would find her and take her to safety. The mother obviously does not want to mother the child. But she made the CHOICE to still give her life. I do not blame the mother for doing what she did. I wouldn’t have made the same choice, but as a choice-preaching society, we must acknowledge that this mother made the right one. If she truly did not feel that she could care for her child, she should not be caring for her. This mother decided that she did not want to be a mother, so she placed her child in a public doorway where someone could get her to safety and she could eventually find new parents.

So many argue that abortion is a viable alternative for mothers like this one simply because…and I quote…”giving the baby up for adoption and the baby finding out later that he wasn’t wanted, that would be hard.” Well yeah, but life is hard. It’s hard to choose which school to attend, it’s hard to find a job, it’s hard to wake up in the morning when the alarm goes off. This mother made a hard choice. She may have done so in a fashion other than what we deem to be “ideal.” But had the same mother gone to Kansas and had her 5lb 7oz daughter aborted by the likes of the late Dr. Tiller for the purpose of avoiding mental or emotional distress, many people wouldn’t even bat an eye. The police certainly wouldn’t be asking for people to call a TIPS line to help identify her. They would respect her “choice.”

Baby Moses floating in a basket in the river.

I think it’s high time that we stop criminalizing people for having a conscience. Maybe some of us would have preferred that this mother take her child to a hospital or fire station “or other safe place” but I would argue that this is what her intention was. Even with the so-called “safe-haven” laws, mothers who choose this option are viewed as irresponsible and cruel. So a mother decides to drop her unwanted newborn off at a fire station and do “the right thing” only to see the story on the news the next day and hear stories and commits about how much of a low-life she is. She may not be prosecuted under the law, but she is prosecuted by the public eye. As the argument goes for the pro-choice community, no one just decides to abort their child in the blink of an eye. They supposedly do a lot of soul-searching before coming to that decision. I think that the argument actually holds water when you are speaking of a mother who does not want her child, but chooses to give him life anyway. After she has made such a hard decision, why would we try to give her a sort of scarlet letter and brand her a bad person? Why do we not applaud her for not killing the child or leaving him in a bathroom toilet somewhere? The Bible tells of the story of baby Moses. His mother, in a last-ditch attempt to save his life, placed him in a basket to float down the river, in hopes that he would be rescued. There was always the possibility that he would drown, but that was not the intention of his mother. She made a heart-wrenching decision so that he would have a small chance at life. How do we know that this mother was not watching the baby from afar, as Moses’ mother instructed his sister to do?

There are comments at the bottom of the story on the New York post calling this woman a monster and stating that she should be left in a pine box. Why do we have our priorities so backward in our society? Why is it that when a mother chooses life, yet makes the difficult decision not to raise her child, we demonize her. Why is it that if she chooses death for the child that we praise her “tough choice?” I want to issue a public THANK YOU to the birth mother of this baby girl. You may not be ready or willing to care for your daughter, but you did give her life, and for that you will always be a hero. You did not take the path that so many take when their children are unwanted. I am not surprised that you don’t want to make your identity known with the way society treats women who give up their children. I do not wish for anyone to raise a child they are not capable of raising, or even that they do not want to raise, but none of us has the God-given right to snuff out that life. You did the right thing. Your baby is safe and has a chance at a peaceful, healthy life.

Originally posted by Natalie on her blog.

In an article whose cattiness evokes scenes of a hair-pulling girl fight, Tina Brown tells Sarah Palin–hey, why can’t you just put on a smile, baby?  She recommends Palin take some tips from Hillary Clinton.  And no—apparently none of them involve foregoing your self-respect by standing by your rich, powerful husband after he demeans you and your marriage with repeated, sordid, globally publicized affairs.

Brown suggests Palin be more “cheerful” like Hilary Clinton instead of being “resentful” (which is SO unattractive) after Palin went head-on with her lewd adversary, David Letterman.  Remember, Sarah, women who express their anger aren’t pretty!!!  And nobody likes them!!! Expectation of cheery, agreeableness is, of course, one of the most plaguing stereotypes women in positions of authority face.  Although I wouldn’t assume a woman like Brown, who looks to the pantsuit as a symbol of female equality, would apply her feminism consistently.  No.  I’m not kidding—Brown for some reason incongruously discusses the choice attire of Clinton and other ladies in attendance at the swearing in of Melanne Verveer and what it “says” about them—then proceeds to remark on their “hunky” husbands. Because women who are perky and stylish get all the boys!

Brown’s article has all the intellectualization of a Myspace.com character assault, not once arguing against any substantive claim Palin has made, but rather offers a slew of insults.  She ended her piece by telling her to “shut up.” Other high points include:

-Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, doesn’t know what “real” femme power looks like.  She’s not a “real” power woman.

-She should leave the jokes to the comedians.

-She’s being a publicity whore.

-She’s faking her outrage because she is sometimes okay with sexual jokes about her daughters and only pursued Letterman for the hype.

-She’s ignorant and needs to read some books.

-People who support Sarah Palin are also ignorant.

-She should silence herself because nobody wants to hear what she has to say (note:  Feminists only celebrate liberal women aggressively vocalizing their views; all others are shrill harpies).

Brown’s primary beef is that she just doesn’t believe that dear liberal Letterman was actually referring to Palin’s 14-year-old daughter instead of her “barely legal” 18-year-old daughter–I guess this would make it more acceptable??  But that’s really not the point at all.  WHATEVER Palin daughter was being attacked in that particular reference was done so on the basis of alleged promiscuity–another infamous bane on femininity.  It doesn’t matter which daughter he was talking about (I personally don’t think Letterman cared, really), these are young girls being subjected to the most public kind of sexual harassment.  And here Brown is ready in offering an excuse, a poor one at that.

But really what should be universally outrageous was Letterman’s joke about Palin’s biggest problem in New York, which was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter—subtly likening the daughter (which ever one you like) to a prostitute.

Like the majority of faux feminists, Brown makes no admonishment of this behavior saying only that it wasn’t “his finest hour.”  Instead, she attacks Palin, predictably, I might add, and advises her to pipe down and wear more sensible pantsuits.   And when Palin, who has demonstrated incredible amount of professional poise despite endless personal attacks, finally draws the line when her children are brought into the fray, she’s accused by Ms. Brown of going on a disingenuous “tirade.”  Others blame Palin herself for the vulgar comments leveled at her children.  I fundamentally will never understand the selective feminist establishment which fawns over a woman who has piggybacked off her husband’s political career (Clinton) but is so resistant to extend even modest accolades to a self-made “every-woman” like Palin unless it’s in the most backhanded, indirectly insulting way.

That really is the at the center of it all.  Sarah Palin is not worthy of support from so-called “feminists.”  In fact, they often lead the charge, or have a good laugh at the sexist jokes.  Palin must stand alone to defend herself against degradation and sexually based assaults on herself and her children without any help from the traditional feminist community.  This is precisely what makes the story so interesting to conservatives and why Palin has come out so fiercely—we are tired of the hypocrisy and we won’t be silent to it anymore. With the relentless media vitriol and attacks on her family, I think Sarah Palin has shown enough grace under fire, thank you, Ms. Brown.  She has done nothing but be as nice as pie to the vicious critics.  I’m very pleased, in fact, that she is FINALLY aggressively defending herself in the face of nasty slander and setting an example to young women NOT to just take it all with a smile.

Nichole Hungerford is a student at the University at Albany pursuing a Master’s degree in philosophy.  She grew up in the beautiful Finger Lakes region of New York and attained a bachelor’s degree in anthropology and philosophy from the State University of New York College at Geneseo.  She maintains a tongue-in-cheek blog, Obama Porn–Arguably the two most googled words on the internet, where she posts impassioned political frustrations.  She is hopelessly enamored with the principles of limited government and free people and is an active member of the Capital District Libertarian Party in Albany, NY.

Related articles by Zemanta

• David Letterman Halfway Apologizes To Sarah Palin (socialitelife.celebuzz.com)
• Palin: Letterman owes apology to young women (msnbc.msn.com)
• Michael Steele On Letterman: “Time To Turn The Channel” (huffingtonpost.com)
• David Letterman Apologizes to Sarah Palin for A-Rod Joke (usnews.com)
• Smart Girl Politics Applauds Letterman for Finally Apologizing to Gov. Palin for Coarse ‘Joke’ (smartgirlpolitics.org)

David Letterman feels entitled.

He’s entitled to spew crude, sexually degrading invective to portray a teenage girl as a sexual object.

Maybe you saw it on one of the highlight reels, one awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game. During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.

The hardest part of her visit [to New York] was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter

He’s entitled to use a class and gender based slur to demean the most popular sitting governor in the United States.

[Sarah Palin] bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look

And he’s entitled to smugly repeat his rank insults while delivering a non-apology to Sarah Palin in painstakingly choreographed deadpan, milking each sexist remark one more time to the delight of a fawning audience.

What gives Dave Letterman license to repeatedly troll the gutter without ever dirtying his Worldwide Pants?

Liberalism.

Didn’t you realize? He can’t be sexist, he’s a liberal. He’s no misogynist – he votes Democrat. Like all liberals, Dave will tell you he loves women. He respects them. Isn’t he pro-choice? Isn’t he sufficiently appalled by breast cancer? Doesn’t he joke all the time about those brutish southerners who beat their wives with Confederate flags? Haven’t you heard? He’s a card carrying liberal. Liberal, I tell you. Liberal!

Among his liberal buddies, Letterman can get away with pretending that he intended to insult Sarah Palin’s 18-year-old daughter Bristol, not her younger child Willow. But Willow was at the ballgame, Bristol was thousands of miles away, and Letterman is the skeevy guy in dress shoes and a tan trench coat who bares it all to a 14-year-old girl on the subway, then swears to the cops, “But I thought she was 18,” as he’s being hauled off to jail.

“Look at my record,” Dave told his audience as he clarified his remarks about Willow. What he means is he’s on record as being liberal. He knows the secret handshake and everything! And as we all know, liberal men are inherently sensitive to sexism in our society.

You see, liberal identity is a bubble that protects those inside from accusations of sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. It’s considered a nearly unassailable defense against the indefensible. It’s a free pass, a blind eye, and a Get Out of Jail Free card all rolled into one.

Racially and sexually charged jabs are still acceptable in liberal circles because it’s mutually acknowledged that they know better. It’s not like they’re conservatives – you know, the real sexists – so they can say and do as they please without inviting the same consequences a conservative would incur.

And if the target is a conservative woman, well, even better because there’s no chance those pesky feminists will get their panties in a collective bunch. Melissa Clouthier explains why:

Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.

David Letterman is also no stranger to bigoted, elitist one-liners about the Palin family’s middle class roots, and by extension, all people of average means. In addition to the “slutty flight attendant” slur, Michelle Malkin dug up the following examples of Letterman’s oh so enlightened commentary about Sarah Palin:

“You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won’t give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you’ve had enough. We’re landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day.”

“She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, ‘I’m sorry, your table isn’t ready yet.” She looks like infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos.”

“[S]he looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out ‘44! 45!’ She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That’s who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores…”

But don’t forget, liberalism absolves Dave from responsibility for the classism he perpetuates when he derides Sarah Palin by comparing her to working class people. Everyone knows liberals are sensitive and open-minded, and that entitles him to say what he wants without ever expecting to be raked over the coals.

As many writers have observed, the feminist silence on Letterman’s sexually inappropriate remarks about Sarah and Willow Palin is predictably deafening. The unwritten rule is that feminism stands for liberal women – authentic women – not conservative women who are, by virtue of their conservatism, anti-woman.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) and Ms. Magazine both declined to send representatives to be interviewed for an On The Record segment about Letterman’s sexually derogatory treatment of the governor and her daughter. Instead, NOW opted to release a statement as critical of conservatives as it was of Dave Letterman.

NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren’t professed conservatives.”

NOW also managed to miss the real thrust of Letterman’s remarks about Sarah Palin:

Letterman also joked about what he called Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” — yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician’s appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men.

Yes, the media focus on Sarah Palin’s appearance often delves into sexist territory. But what about the use of the word “slutty,” NOW? Slutty doesn’t speak to “her sexual appeal to men.” It reinforces the belief that by being attractive and fertile, Sarah Palin invites attacks on her virtue as a woman. It says, you can’t be a beautiful woman, a good wife, a loving mother, and a career politician. Pick one.

The response that NOW should have given was instead delivered by a fledgling feminist organization called The New Agenda.

“Letterman’s apology talk last night was cheap,” said The New Agenda co-founder and President Amy Siskind. “True contrition would not invite the Palin’s on his show after publicly humiliating them and their 14-year old daughter. If Letterman’s apology is authentic, he should show it by devoting part of his show to address the national crisis of the sexualization of our teenage daughters.”

The New Agenda was also happy to publish my recent piece on Playboy’s conservative rape fantasy article.

Feminists, that is how it’s done.

Amy Siskind, founder of The New Agenda, took her message to The Huffington Post in a piece called, “Sexism Against Conservative Women Is Still Sexism.” Think it would be hard to argue with that simple concept? You’d be wrong. Here’s a tiny selection of what the HuffPo commenters had to say about Sarah Palin and sexism:

propitiousmoment: ” She wants to use her sexuality to advance her agenda … might I say, the classic definition of a bimbo.”

andyboy: “To defend a woman from a sexist attack simply because she is a woman is actually the essence of sexism.”

voltaireinexile: “She played the pretty-sexy-mama card all along, undermining what many women have fought so hard against –the objectification of women”

arnray: “Palin and the rest use their sexuality to numb the senses of the dullards and then cry foul when someone throws it back at them.”

Gainsbourg69: “When a woman wants to be considered more than just a sex object she should take steps necessary to avoid being labeled a sex object. Simple.”

Wilson201: “Palin marginalizes her own opinions by dressing the way she does just as Prejeans opinion is by posing barely clothed. If they wish to be taken seriously, then they should dress and behave properly.

Amy’s piece also attracted a host of comments insisting there’s nothing sexist about calling Palin a “slutty flight attendant” if the shoe fits. Right. Palin was practically begging for Dave’s insults just like Michelle Malkin invited the Playboy rape fantasy. Is it any wonder where conservative writers like Kathleen Parker, trying to curry favor with the media elite, pick up ideas like this:

I also think it’s out of line for a woman to sexualize her candidacy, which Palin did. Just ask Rich Lowry, who wrote that he had to sit up a little straighter when she winked during the vp debate. So, maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline.

It’s clear that sexually demeaning the women with whom we disagree is more mainstream than ever. It’s a cancer that’s metastasized throughout media, politics, and entertainment, rubber stamped by the liberal sentiment that calling oneself a feminist makes it so. And conservative women aren’t the only targets. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who discovered liberal-approved sexism firsthand during her campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Sexism, racism, and all the other -isms aren’t any more acceptable if you happen to dislike or disagree with the target. This shouldn’t need to be said. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a comedian or a liberal. Sexism always matters. And no political affiliation gives you license to hurl sexually inappropriate insults at women and girls without fear of consequences.

This article originally appeared on JennQPublic.com.

By: Kelli Krauss

General Motors is now owned by the government which has a majority 60 percent ownership. We the taxpayers will be pumping another 30 billion dollars into GM and this is on top of the 20 billion they have already received.

Upon the government takeover of the 100 year old car company, our President, Barack Obama said this, “I will not pretend the hard times are over. More jobs will be lost. More plants will close. More dealerships will shut their doors, and so will many parts suppliers. But I want you to know that what you’re doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation . . . so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things, that still builds cars, that still strives for a better future.”

We can’t forget what the President said while talking about possible tax increases in an interview with George Stephanopoulos “Everybody’s going to have to give,” Obama said. “Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game.”

On the eve of making a speech about sacrifice to GM employees, how some will lose their jobs but they need to look at the big picture and help the next generation, President Obama and his lovely wife, Michelle, flew to New York city for a “date night.” They had a cozy dinner, took in a Broadway show and then jetted back to D.C. Not a cheap trip when you tally up everything that had to be flown there and shut down for them. I bet there are a lot of GM employees that would have liked to take their wives on a “date night” to New York at the taxpayers expense.

Only a true elitist would say you sacrifice your job and income, but don’t forget to pay taxes on any income you do earn to pay for the bailout we are giving the company that demolished your job and to pay for my extravagant and overindulgent “date night.”

Let’s not forget how Obama scolded corporate executives when he said: “You can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas, or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.”

Give me a break! Now the defense will start. Hey, President Bush took vacations and went on trips!! Yes, yes he did, but not all the while lecturing the taxpayers on how they need to have “skin in the game” and to “sacrifice” their job and income for the next generation. I, as I am sure most people, do not begrudge the President and First Lady for wanting a date night, but was there not a suitable place in Washington, D.C. that night?

Then comes the argument that he promised his wife while campaigning that he would take her to a Broadway show. To that I say, could he not have said this, “No honey, you can’t go to that Broadway show. Times are hard and I need to set an example. But I want you to know that what you’re doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation . . . so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things, that still builds cars, that still strives for a better future. So they can be taxed and pay for a President’s extravagant date night.”