Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Radio Host Mike Gallagher Blames Failure to Sell His House on Obama and Congressional Democrats

Bookmark and Share

Nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Mike Gallagher lamented this morning that his failure to sell his own house, that he recently placed on the market, was due to the psychological effects burdening the wealthy resulting from the class warfare propagated by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Gallagher was attempting to make the case that the economic policies of Democrats in D.C. have driven fear into the rich, which has translated into the wealthy being too scared to spend their money. As a result, wealth is not having the 'trickle down effect' on the nation's working class who rely on the nation's upper class for jobs.

As an example, Gallagher criticized the Obama administration for embarrassing the nation's business leaders:

"After the big corporate jet fiasco - where Obama decided to demonize executives who travel on private planes - but what about the mechanics? What about the flight attendants who work in that industry? What about the pilots? What about the people whose livelihood depends on those corporate jets? I mean - who do you think pays for corporate jets? That's the joke here - that's the consequence of class envy and class warfare."

Gallagher then explained how Democratic class warfare is impacting his own life, and his recent (unsuccessful) attempt to sell his house. The talk show host began by touting what a nice home has has:

"I decided to put my house on the market. Three weeks. And it's a house - and I'm not bragging - it's a house with a 'wow factor.' You walk into the house and you go, 'Wow.' It's got all the nice little bells and whistles, it's got the electric shades that go up and down, and the sound system, and the beautiful pool. I'm a lucky guy. Three weeks - not a single phone call."

Gallagher, who hosts a successful show with one of the Top 10 largest audiences in the country, admitted he was in a comfortable situation and did not need to sell the house. However, he still tried to connect the dots of Democratic economic policies with why the house wasn't selling:

"Now again, I'm not complaining - cuz I'm blessed, I'm fortunate. If I don't sell it, I don't sell it. Fine - I'll live in the house for the next few years and no big deal. But isn't it fascinating that this beautiful home - not one, not even a phone call! Who knows what the reason is. I think the reason is people are terrified. People are terrified. And they're not ready to buy a house and they're not going to build....so, you know, thanks President Obama. Thanks House and Senate Democrats - you're doing a great job."

Gallagher's big-picture criticism is on what he characterizes as the redistribution of wealth that is occurring under the current Democratic rule: "Socialism is here," he told call-in guest Pat Buchanan on last Friday's show. Gallagher believes the Democrats are causing people to be 'terrified,' particularly those wealthy people who could afford to purchase his beautiful home, because:

"Now the message is, because of all of the onerous spending orgy that our government is engaged in...'Wait a minute, I better not write that check right now. I can't - because the world is coming to an end - I can't afford it.'"

Dripping with irony, Gallagher, a fierce proponent of 'individual responsibility,' recently lambasted home buyers facing foreclosure who had purchased homes they could not afford and were seeking bailout money or to have the federal government intervene and stop foreclosures. Last week, Gallagher highlighted the story of a bus driver who had purchased an $800K home, which is now only worth $600K:

"I dare you to feel sorry for her...how about this, honey? Pay your mortgage!"

In short, Gallagher believes in individual responsibility and the importance of microeconomic behavior when it comes to people who can't afford their mortgages, but attributes (Democratic) macroeconomic governmental policies for his inability to sell his own house.

Gallagher, by the way, did not mention the listing price of his home on the air.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: What Euphemism For 'Tax Increase' Do You Prefer?
Next post: Minnesota Legislature Ranks Near Bottom in Proportional Representation of African-Americans

3 Comments


  • A big thanks to Smart Politics for criticizing the irrationality of Gallagher's commentary.

    On a personal note, it took me 7 painful months to sell a nice and sought after house in a booming market and prior to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The relief of selling the home even then does not appease any anxiety about the micro or macro future of things that we are all looking at now.

    There seems to be a real need for respectful and rational thought at both micro and macro levels and resistance to the rhetorical and ratings-motivated lures of talk show hosts. Credit, in my opinion, is due to Al Gore for writing The Assault on Reason (1) to call for rational argument and restoration of analysis, compromise and dialogue into political thinking and (2) for not getting sucked into the same shock-jock schtick associated with the kind of discourse he criticizes. A difficult feat...but he pulled it off.

    Althought they are at times entertaining, I feel that the rising presence and popularity of commentators like Gallagher on both the right and the left have taken a corrosive toll. In all things domestic and foreign, there are too many things that need serious and measured consideration. I'd rather spend 5 minutes listening to a debate between Noam Chomsky and a resurrected William F. Buckley than a week of sparring between Limbaugh and Moore.

    I recall the cult film the Blair Witch Project in which one of characters goes through the entire film looking at everything through the lens of her hand held camera in order to not acknowledge her fear and the very real dangers going on around her. Consequently, she is doomed but at the same she creates a narrative that provides entertainment for us, the viewer/consumer. The political talk show host banter so replete in popular culture provides us with a similar lens. Rather than approach issues through reasoned and respectful debate featuring the best insights from both the right and left, we're content patronise a kabuki theatre that reinforces emotions of how we feel the world ought to be rather than acknowledge the uncertain and not-so-simple way that it is. As long as we keep doing this, we, just like the hapless characters in a low budget horror film will get picked off one by one.

  • Bush has only been out of office for a few weeks, so blaming the Democrats for the current economic turmoil is plain ridiculous. The right-wingers that are playing the "Socialist" card whilst nitpicking Obama's spending bill(s) are equally ridiculous. Somehow it was perfectly okay to give Bush a blank check to spend whatever his heart desired on his little war, not to mention all the favoritism to his Haliburton cronies for defense contracts to support said war. Yet when Obama wants to spend some money on the needs of the common American people, heaven forbid! Healthcare for children? Safe infrastructure? *gasp* If the federal deficit isn't deepening in order to line the pockets of the already wealthy who haven't sold their palace(s) in three weeks, well, something is definitely amiss. Obama the Socialist MUST BE STOPPED!

    I blame the media for a large part (if not the majority) of the negativity that is currently plaguing the nation. Not only today, but back on 9-11 when the war first started as well. Fear mongering in the media is absolutely out of control. The blurred line between actual "news" and "news commentary/opinion" is only making matters worse. Where are people supposed to turn to find out the facts and not just propaganda and rhetoric on either side of the political spectrum? People choose their news source based on either the left or right and follow whichever news platform suits their political leaning. Long gone are the days of objective journalism, and the constant fear mongering on both sides isn't helping anyone.

  • When Obama says there's going to be a "catastrophe" (because, as several high-level advisors have admitted, they don't want to "let a crisis go to waste"), increases taxes on "the rich" by about 20% and promises more, threatened to filibuster changes to Fannie and Freddie to reduce risky loans, and reduces mortgage interest deductions, it is hard to make the case that Obama has nothing to do with an inability to sell a nice house.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting