Jen Kuznicki
When you are as well shielded as Debbie Ann Stabenow, you shouldn’t have to explain yourself in front of voters.
Let’s get this straight, Debbie Ann Stabenow is our employee. We hired her, and we can fire her.
She does not get to lie to the farming community, give away our tax dollars to failed green companies to help her cronies in Washington DC, and tell it is for our own good.
She does not get to use our seniors in ads to serve her own purposes when she knows her vote for Obamacare killed Medicare Advantage, and used over $700 Billion of promised Medicare funds to fund Obamacare, and then have the audacity to tell us the drop in funding won’t affect Medicare’s solvency.
She does not get to play venture capitalist with our money, and refuse to stop regardless of the results.
Stabenow is comfortable telling us in 30 second snippets what she is doing in DC, with our money and our Senate seat.
But she will not debate Pete Hoekstra because she realizes that if we knew exactly what she’s been doing in DC, we’d boot her out so fast, she wouldn’t know what hit her.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
One Response to Stabenow won’t debate because she doesn’t think she should have to.
My Tweets
Follow Me On The Web!
Considering the fact that no one really knew who Mitt Romney was or what he was about other than how he was portrayed by the President, the Super Pacs and the biased media do you think Obama would have consented to a debate if he did not have to?
Stabenow perceives that a debate will be harmful to her chances for re-election or that she will be re-elected regardless of any debates and doesn't need to spend the time explaining herself to a minority that will not affect her re-election anyway. I suspect the former.
Last night Romney attempted to make it clear that government should be investing in research and not companies. Even the former is often wasteful but when it comes to national security or the public health there is a reason under the very specific 17 enumerated powers (sub context to general welfare) to expend money. Any other expenditures are illegal but never seems to bother the congressional constitutional illeterates. If you really need to spend on the fringe of those limited powers do not re-interpret the document. Amend it! That is what that process was designed for and the left knows they are far more successful using the courts than amending a tightly constructed document.
Throughout history those in power have empowered those that keep them in power, hence the new term crony capitalism. It really is more like crony socialism, which is fascism, which is socialism for the wealthy by using other peoples money under a myriad of excuses that are essentially extra constitutional and illegal.
The only thing keeping our society civil is the faith we place in government and the farther we stray from constitutional original intent the more likelihood that we will someday become uncivil.