What bothers me the most is not that these liberal leprechaun would try to convince people that their American version of socialism would make everything better, but that there are actually Americans who are really dumb enough to believe them.

But it is evidence of the fact that since the days of FDR, Democrats have come to believe not in strong economic policies for America, but rather in the kind of politics that can keep them in power by offering voters a choice between the truth of reality represented by the self determination which Republicans believe in, and the government fantasy version of reality that the left promotes. It is the kind of politics that is rooted in dependency and it is comprised of a formula which seeks to make people believe that things can be easier if they keep Democrats in power because Democrats will give the people a litany of wonderful things by declaring them rights.

They will give you government provided health care, education, food, salaries, and services, and all these gifts will make our lives easier, and better.

It is a vicious cycle which all began by exploiting dependency, a negative which Democrats now try to perpetuate. For Democrats, their formula for electoral success relies mainly upon making more people, more dependent on government goodies so that come Election Day, the voters will embrace rather than bite the liberals hands that the people have literally come to expect to feed them.

Pursuit of this political formula for electoral success has unfortunately had a big impact on many Americans. Without realizing it, many Americans have been brainwashed and come to embrace the liberal mindset which has successfully change the dynamics of American thinking.

Today, thanks to the left, the American constitutional paradigm which was a citizenry that granted limited powers to a federal government, has been forgotten and replaced with the thinking that starts from the premiss which has us now question how much power the government can give the people. It is really all quite insane.

Today we take taxes for granted so much that the debate is not how much the government should take. It is how much of what we earn can we keep. In this day an age we are grateful when a leader like Chris Christie comes along and proposes an across the board state income of 10%. Thanks to liberal propaganda and decades of liberal training, we actually believe that politicians are doing us a favor by lowering our taxes. But the truth is, that it is no favor! It is the only decent thing to do! Yet we have all fallen victim to a liberal agenda which has forced us to think backwards. Whether we realize it or not, liberal thinking has shifted our mindset and so today we thank a politician for allowing us to keep more of our own money, when what we should actually be doing is reprimanding them for not giving us back more of our own money.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that in America, the people do not exist because of government, government exists because of the people. Americans need to realize that we should not be grateful for how much the government lets us keep, it is the government that should be grateful for what we the people are willing to give to it. Until we all realize that, we will all remain slaves to our government, and nothing more than the real servants to those who are suppose to be the government servants………the elected officials who we thank for allowing us to keep more of our money, and appreciate for giving us the permit and permission s to build a deck on our own private property or to go fishing or camping.

I recently listened to the elf-like liberal Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis was discussing President Obama’s State of the Union address and he told the listening audience that he believed “the rich should pay more”. Other liberals phrase it differently. President Obama likes to say that “the rich should be forced to pay their fair share”. But what I need to know is what is fair and beyond that, who the hell has the right to tell us what is fair? Is Dennis Kucinich the Fairness Fairy?

Fairness is arbitrary and our Constitution did not address fairness. And as far as I known there is no twenty eighth amendment of the Constitution which defines fairness and articulates how government is suppose to legislate fairness. But the Constitution of the United States does address government’s place in our lives and in doing so, it clearly states that we are granted our rights from our creator. And just to make this clear, I need to tell you that the federal government did not create you or I. Barack Obama can not take credit for me. Nor can he legally take my rights away, even though several of his policies already have.

Another thing he should not be able to do is tell me how much I can earn, what I must do with my money, and who I must share it with.

Yet that is what the left has essentially lived for since the days of FDR.

They have lived for the opportunity to make me as good as the next guy by making sure that if the next guy is doing well, the government can redistribute his wealth to me. Is that a definition of fairness? Is it fair for me to profit from the work, ingenuity, work ethic, and committment of someone else?

These are the questions that President Obama and his Party have brought to the forefront in this election, more than any election we have seen in generations.

And while the economy is and should be one of the most important issues of the 2012 cycle, what America needs to really do is look at the dynamics behind the economy. Then they must decide if we want to fully invest ourselves in to reconstructing our national foundation in to one that is the world’s preeminent government sponsored welfare state, a state which is the key element to the survival of each individual American. Or do we want to strengthen the founding principles which were designed to get government and the federal bureaucracy out of the way so that we can practice the rights that we were endowed with by our creator and be free to dream well beyond the limits of the government bureaucracy?

That is the framework that this election must waged in. It is the question which the Republican nominee for President needs to condense every interpretation of each of their policies down to.

In 2012, the G.O.P. needs to remind people that dependency is not the American way and that our government was never meant to be the largest source of jobs in America. In fact the purpose of our government is not to create jobs, it was designed to make sure that American people could create jobs.

People must be made to once again learn how things really work in America.

They must be retrained to understand that government created jobs do not generate profits that sustain the costs of the salaries paid to each government employee. They need to understand that an employee of the EPA does not do create wealth, they consume wealth. The American people must be made to once again realize that when the government creates a job, the salary for that job comes not from any federal profit…..it comes from the taxpayers, and in order to keep raising the money required to pay that government salary, the government will need to continue taking taxpayers money.

However, in the free market, profits create salaries and the more profits there are, the more salaries there are.

But there is even more to it than that basic fact.

Voters need to be made aware of the fact that according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, civilian workers employed through the federal government have an average wage of $81,258. Yet at the same time, the average wage of the nation’s approximate 101 million private-sector workers is $50,462.

This means that taxpayers, the people who are making money through jobs that generate profits, are paying federal workers 25% more than they make. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is increasing federal spending through so-called economic stimulus dollars, that is creating an even larger federal workforce, one that for a while was outpacing private sector job growth. And that is a formula for further disaster.

Paying federal salaries, and more of them, that are higher than the salaries which provide the taxes that pay for those federal pay checks, is a formula that leads to paying out more than we take in. And that is just on government jobs. It has nothing to do with the other more traditional forms of federal deficit spending based on entitlements and federal dependency programs.

All of this presents the next Republican presidential nominee a with a multifaceted challenge.

They must not just provide solutions and frame them in a way that wins people over, they must also educate people. The next Republican presidential nominee must educate people on how America is suppose to work and they must teach them the reasons why the socialist model of contemporary liberal-progressivism does not work and how it is a system designed to keep the powerbrokers in power by making them the people we are dependent for our own survival.

In 2012 we make people understand that government is not a supernatural entity which can wave a magic wand over a problem and solve it without accountability and without there being future repercussions as Peter finally has to Paul.

Once people can be made to realize that, I mean really realize that, half the battle will be won.

Once that is achieved we then need to confront Democrats and tell them that if they want change the purpose of government, they, like President, should come right out and admit it.

When he was running for President in 2008, then Senator Obama declared that he wanted to “fundamentally change America”. But few took him at his word. And those that did, didn’t think he really meant he wanted to fundamentally change the constitutional responsibilities of government. But now it is quite obvious that that is exactly what he meant.

In 2012 we must challenge Democrats to be truthful to the American people and force them to come before voters and admit that they want the federal government to have more control over our lives. We must challenge them to be honest and admit that they do not like the fact that some people can be financially wealthier than others. We must make the left come before the American electorate and let them know the America that liberals envision, is one in which everyone is made equal by lowering the overall quality of life rather than providing the type of environment which creates more opportunities for people to improve their quality of life.

We know for certain that class warfare is the name of the liberal game in 2012. It’s nothing new. But what Republicans must do now is reeducate the American people and make them realize why it is class warfare. And we must then ask the American people to decide once for all, if they believe dependency on the federal bureaucracy is the best foundation for them to build their lives upon and for our nation to grow on, or is the independence behind our reason for being the more solid choice for the future of our nation and its people.

Related articles

• President Obama’s First Reelection Ad Raises a Question. How Dumb Does He Think We Are? (whitehouse12.com)
• Dennis Kucinich Wants Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Allen West To Liberals, President Obama: ‘Get The Hell Out Of The United States Of America’ (thinkprogress.org)

    A new Quinnipiac Poll shows that 52% of New Jersey voters disapprove of the job that President Obama is doing and 43% approve of his job performance.  It is his lowest approval rating in the Garden State yet.  A breakdown of the polls shows that  Democrats approve of his job performance 77% to 19% percent. Disapproval is 88% – 10%  among Republicans, and the most important and lethal number is his 60% – 34% disapproval rating among independent voters.

Quinnipiac also notes that there is a large gender gap as women have a 50% to 45% approval rating of the Presidents job performance, while men disapprove  60%  to 36%.

Still though, the poll finds that voters are split 47% to 48% on whether President Obama deserves reelection.

However; one should take note of the polling history pertaining to New Jersey’s 2009 gubernatorial election.

At this same point in that election, almost a year before it took place,  a similar Quinnipiac Poll found that New Jersey voters disapproved of Governor Jon Corzine’s job performance by 51% to  40%.  It was his fourth negative score that year. Democrats approved of the Governor 60% to  31, while Republicans disapproved 75% to 19%,  and independent voters gave him a thumbs down by 52% – 38%.

Those numbers are better than President Obama’s number are and Jon Corzine went on to be  soundly defeated by Chris Christie.

The only difference is that President Obama’s job approval among Democrats is higher than Jon Corzine’s approval was at this same point in his election.  That shows that New Jersey Democrats are still more enthusiastic about Obama than they were of Corzine.  But aside form that, President Obama’s disapproval among New Jersey Republicans, and more importantly, New Jersey Independent voters, is substantially higher than Corzine’s were.

All of this simply confirms that at the moment, President Obama is indeed in trouble.

These poll numbers come from a very blue state that is in the bluest region of the nation for…….. the Northeast.  If the majority of voters  in a state like New Jersey disapprove of the job that the President  is doing, than you can rest assured that similar sentiments exist throughout the region.  So it only follows that President Obama will have to actually spend time and money campaigning in state’s like, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and even New York.  That will give the President less time and resources to dedicate to winning battleground, or swing states, like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

The last time a Republican presidential candidate won New Jersey was in 1988, when George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis.

With 14 electoral votes, if New Jersey does not soon be safely in President Obama’s column, it will dramatically increase the number of electoral college equations needed for Republicans to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.  Following conventional wisdom, giving Democrats and Republicans the state’s they traditionally win and leaving states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and several others undecided, if New Jersey is a tossup,  President Obama will have 15 different ways to reach a winning combination of electoral votes.  Republicans would have 45 winning combinations available to them.  And for those who really like suspense, there would be 7 scenarios whereby there could be a tie in the electoral college.

On Tuesday evening, after delivering a keynote address on “Real American exceptionalism” for the Reagan Foundation at the Reagan Library, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie definitively any speculation about his entering 2012 presidential race as a presidential candidate.

The speech Christie gave was a plain-spoken, smooth flowing, hard-hitting, presentation that demonstrated the wealth of endless potential that could be unleashed in America by combining Republican principles with the type of frank and honest leadership that comes only from people of true integrity. Christie argued his case for the awesome power of the two when combined, by linking the history of Reagan Republicanism and Reagan’s leadership, to Obama socialism and Obama’s lack of leadership. He then essentially described how the two means do not lead to the same end. He made this point further by also contrasting between what is getting done in New Jersey under his management, with what is or isn’t getting done in Washington, DC under President Obama’s mismanagement.

The speech was, to use a phrase that Christie used, “a parable of principle“, which offered a roadmap to true American exceptionalism. As for the details of the speech, I am intentionally leaving them out. That is because I wish not to deprive anyone of the opportunity to hear them or read them yourself, in Christie’s own words. Hence the reason for the video and transcript provided for you within this post.

What I will tell you is that some of the most entertaining and heartfelt moments came during the brief question and answer period once the speech was over.

It was then that Christie laced his honesty with a unique mix of Jersey-style bluntness and endearing humor to stake out some well received positions and make viewers also understand why so many want him to seek the Republican nomination for President.

On that topic, while a Christie candidacy was first foremost on the minds of all who were listening, it was not the first question asked upon completion of Christie’s keynote address. The first question was on illegal immigration and his thoughts on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In his answer, Christie explained that while he believes that our borders must be secured, he did not believe that states and taxpayers had any responsibility to subsidize illegal immigrants. And going a step further, the never shy New Jersey Governor took a swipe at Texas Governor Rick Perry. “And I don’t think that’s heartless. I think it’s common sense”, said Christie.

The second question for the Governor came from a man who asked The Governor if he was considering a run for President. To this Christie joked, that he was disappointed in the audience gathered before him. He said that for that to be the second question and not the first, showed him that they were not demonstrating America exceptionalism. He continued by explaining that he was not running and cited a video prepared by Politico.com as the best and most explanatory answer he could offer. The video spliced together a dozen or so different interviews from the past year in which Christie stated that he is not running and why.

But almost immediately following that answer, a questioner from the balcony was given the mic. This person did not ask a question. In very heartfelt terms, she instead made a request of the Governor and said “Please reconsider. We can’t wait till 2016. Your Country needs you”. To this Christie explained that he understood but he joked that while he is flattered and that while no politician’s ego is so small that they would demand people stop asking them to become the leader of the free world, he must keep answering “no”. He went on to say ,“I’m just a kid from Jersey who feels like I’m the luckiest guy in the world to have the opportunity that I have to be the governor of my state.” He added “That heartfelt message you gave me is also not a reason for me to do it. That reason has to reside inside me.”

Christie’s appearance at the Reagan Library was truly powerful and ironically, he sounded like a presidential candidate. He subtly drew similarities between his leadership as a Governor and Ronald Reagan’s as a President. He also aggressively, but appropriately tore apart President Obama and successfully used the President’s own words against him. And he even took a shot at someone who would be opposing him if he were to run in the Republican primary. That combined with the sudden public leaks and comments involving what was the most recent flurry of speculation about Christie and the presidency, I have come to believe that history will reveal that in late September of 2011, New Jersey Governor Christopher J. Christie was about to run for President of the United States. But at the last minute, [fill in the blank] was the determining factor that caused him to change his mind and not announce his candidacy. Remember, you heard it here first.

That view may or may not be confirmed but upon the conclusion of Christie’s appearance at the Reagan Library, there are two things we all now know with certainty. One is that Chris Christie is authentic. He is the real deal. Love him or hate him, you can rest assured that you are loving or hating the real Chris Christie. The other thing that we now know definitively is that Chris Christie is not running for President in 2012. Vice President is another story that we will begin to write about after we finish the chapter that reveals who the presidential nominee is. So now, the only big name left available for speculation is Sarah Palin.

On a last note, I would like to make a personal admission.

As a resident of New Jersey who for the last twenty months has been living under the rule of Governor Christie, after listening to him at the Reagan Library last night, I can honestly tell you that for the first time in the fifteen years that this Brooklyn boy has lived the Garden State, I am proud to call it home, and for the for the first time in my life, I am truly proud to tell people who my Governor is.

The Final vote was as follows:

986 votes – 37.1% – Herman Cain

428 votes – 15.4% – Rick Perry

372 votes – 14.0% – Mitt Romney

289 votes – 10.9% – Rick Santorum

276 votes – 10.4% – Ron Paul

224 votes – 8.4% – Newt Gingrich

60 votes – 2.3% – Jon Huntsman

40 votes – 1.5% – Michele Bachmann

The testimony was called for after the Pentagon raised concerns that LightSquared was embarking upon a new wireless project which preliminary tests indicated would create a significant disruptions to the military’s use of critical Global Positioning System technology, which among other things, controls missile targeting.

When questioned extensively by members of Congress, General Shelton admitted that the White House pressured him to alter his testimony in order to make it more favorable for the Democrat donor’s company to move ahead with the project, despite how much it could possibly alter the military’s effectiveness. It is further alleged that the original testimony was leaked to LightSquared in advance of its delivery to the congressional panel it was meant for. Such a leak was a total breach of protocol in a process that only included the White House, the Office Management and Budget, and the Department of Defense .

This blatant attempt to influence Shelton’s original testimony and to involve LightSquared in the process in order to produce biased testimony designed to benefit another Democrat donor, is further evidence of the type of corruption that the Obama Administration is consistently engaged in. This time though, its crony capitalism went so far as to tamper with our nation’s defense capabilities. Such recklessness is more than just unforgivable, it is life threatening. But the Obama Administration seems not to have any regard for anything but its own political survival. And their history of politics before policy and campaign contributors before national concerns is extensive.

Who can forget the strange case of the Deep Water Horizon environmental disaster in the Gulf.?

After the President received more campaign donations from Bristish Petroleum than any other candidate in the nation he granted BP’s Deepwater Horizon a waiver that sheltered them from regulatory requirements. The Administration subsequently honored the Deep Water Horizon with a safety award. Now after hundreds of millions of gallons of oil have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government is blaming the operators of the Deep Water Horizon for cutting corners that led to the disaster. Ironically, the Bush Adminstration which was accused of being in the pocket of big oil interests, cited the Deep Water Horizon 6 times for safety violations.

Still though, President Obama likes to wage class warfare and hold oil companies up as greedy enemies of the people, and to claim that the big, bad Republicans are in bed with them. He loves claiming that Republicans are for big business while suggesting that he is not. Yet whose Administration is risking lives, the economy, and the environment for big business in return for big money contributions to his reelection effort?

Until now, President Obama’s Administration has escaped any aggressive scrutiny of its illegal conduct. The Democrat controlled Senate and House that he enjoyed for the first two years of his term, failed to thoroughly investigate any of the many puffs of smoke that indicated the fires of Obama related corruption. President Obama failed to face proper scrutiny in the case of BP. He failed to be properly investigated when his Administration was found to have been offering Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestack a job in turn for not challenging Senator Arlen Specter in a Democratic primary, or even when his Justice Department refused to investigate charges of black on white racism. These are just a few of the examples of corruption that has been ignored by the political establishment but this President has been virtually immune from the law in regards to a long list of other illegal activity. Such as:

• Seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress.
• Firing whistle-blower Gerald Walpin for doing his job as the Inspector-General in charge of investigating corruption, waste, and fraud in government programs.
• Collecting data on fellow Americans who oppose healthcare reform with flag@whitehouse.gov and now, through a new Obama campaign website, again collecting data on fellow Americans who disagree with the Administration
• Placing the U.S. Census Bureau under the supervision of the White House Chief of Staff, by law the Department of Commerce.
• His Justice Department’s smuggling of weapons, that the President signed off on funding for.
• Manipulating jobs by hiring and rehiring Census workers.
• Creating false districts and assigning stimulus funds to those districts.
• Violating tax codes by releasing private tax details to the public when attacking Koch Industries.
• Creating a taxpayer-funded position, Director of Progressive Media & Online Response, to promote Obama’s incumbent candidacy, in violation of the Hatch Act.
• Obama’s filming of a campaign ad in the White House in violation of FEC laws.

Now as the 2012 election begins to ramp up, any attempts to investigate the President’s questionable acts and his Adminstaration’s conflicts of interest, will be written off as politically motivated, Republican campaign tactics. In all honesty, such investigations would indeed be a distraction from the issues. But Republicans do not need to try and win in 2012 by creating any distractions from the issues. Right now, on the issues of most importance to voters, Republicans win. That is however a fact that the left will ignore when the “Solyndra” hit’s the fan. It is also a fact that should really not play a role in whether or not questionable conduct by the Obama Administration should be investigated. The law is the law and political considerations should not determine the level of scrutiny that legally questionable conduct is given. Not unless unbeknownst to me, there has been a constitutional amendment passed which grants a Commander-in-Chief immunity from such things as the Hatch Act, or tampering with sworn testimony.

Of course the President will defend his Administration by try to claim such things as being among the most transparent executive branches in history because of new procedures he enacted that releases the White House visitors logs and meeting with lobbyists to the public. But the loopholes in this policy are big enough to fit an undetected army of liberal interest groups though.

First of all, these logs are not made public until four month’s time has passed.

Then there are also reports of Administration officials scheduling meetings in the White House Conference Center which is conveniently not covered by the Worker and Visitors Entrance System (WAVES System) that collects the data for these logs. Furthermore, the White House‘s attempt to achieve “transparency“ through the WAVES System does not include records of meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops and restaurants near the White House. All of this essentially circumvents sincere disclosure laws and policies.

For those reasons, Congress should look into the passage of new lobbying disclosure regulations that have real teeth and are capable of exposing government influence of Congress and the White House in real-time.

In the meantime, President Obama is getting away with murder and while the G.O.P. does not need to take President Obama down via a scandal, they also have a responsibility to not cover-up the White House cover-ups.

In the race that pitted liberal incumbent Democrat Assemblyman David Weprin against retired businessman, Republican Bob Turner, Democrats struggled to find the issues that their candidate could run on to win voters over. Initially they did not even do that. At first it was assumed that as always, whichever Democrat they ran, would sail to victory and succeed sex texting addict Anthony Weiner. But then in August, Democrat polling showed something strange. It showed that Democrat Weprin was not getting the amount of support that Democrats usually get. This then suggested to them that they actually had a real and competitive election on their hands.

So they got to work and started to develop the issues they would campaign on.

What they found was that Weprin and Democrats had no positions on the issues that would excite voters and convince them that Weprin was their man. Even in a relatively liberal district like the ninth, there were no issues which Democrats held a popular position on.

There was the issue of gay marriage which Weprin recently supported the passage of in the New York State Assembly. But with a heavy Hassidic Jewish population in the ninth, legalizing marriage between two people of the same sex was far from popular.

There was the issue of our national debt. On that issue, Weprin held a typical Democrat line which supported big government and big government social programs. But even in a left leaning district like the one that spans the working class neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens, voters know that our debt has become a deepening crisis for our nation and as such, they understand that more government spending is not realistic. That left Weprin with the opportunity to use the traditional liberal language of tax increases to pay for all the spending. But in the middleclass communities of NY-9, tax increases, even for those who earn $250,000 or more, doesn’t really go over well. The ninth congressional district is comprised largely of those people in the middle……the ones who get hit from both ends and are not poor enough to benefit from government social programs, but are not wealthy enough to take advantage of the tax loopholes and credits that the political establishment has arranged for. So these people did not want to hear the Obama “make the rich pay their fare share” rhetoric. Many of them are afraid that a liberal definition of “rich” would include them.

There was the issue of immigration. However on that issue, Weprin has a liberal “Dream Act” position that does not solve the illegal immigration issue that impacts on his district’s residents. They do not want their money going to fulfilling the dreams of illegal immigrants. These people, many of which remember seeing the World Trade Center from their windows and worked within its shadows, want our borders secured.

So like many other issues, that was out.

There was Israel. After all, with a population of Jewish voters that is disproportionately larger than in many other districts throughout the nation, as an Orthodox Jew himself, Weprin could certainly and convincingly argue his support for Israel and ride high on the popularity of that point. Unfortunately though, being a Democrat, most voters linked Weprin to President Obama’s unfriendly policies towards Israel. And Weprin’s argument to voters that they should trust him on israel because he would fight for Israel from within, didn’t have wings.

Short of a total condemnation of President Obama by Weprin, the Jewish vote in his district simply viewed Weprin as a congressional rubberstamp for Obama’s polcies.

The further Democrats went down the list of issues important to the middleclass voters of the ninth, the more they realized that there were no issues which allowed them to present a position that they could derrive district-wide support for.

So what is a candidate with a competitive election ahead of him to do?

Why, resort to the liberal playbook, of course!

That meant scare citizens. That meant to try and distort the Republican position to preserve Social Security and Medicare for those on it and those expecting to soon  be on them.  It meant denying the Republican position to preserve those programs for future generation with reforms that will strengthen Social Security and medicare. It meant do your best to make vulnerable senior citizens believe that if a Republican won, they would deny them the money that many seniors have come to rely upon.

That was a good start but Weprin and his Democrat strategists and Washington puppet masters needed something else to attract some voters outside of the senior citizen demographic. That’s when the orders from Washington came down. And that is when the strategy to run against the TEA Party came into play.

So in early August Operation Old TEA Bag went into effect. That is when Weprin campaign spokesperson Elizabeth Kerr first argued the following:

“Bob Turner’s doing anything he can to distract voters from his plan to end Medicare as we know it, which would cost seniors in Brooklyn and Queens an extra $6,400 every year,” .

And from there, the tactics to scare senior citizens began

Then when the news that Standard & Poor’s had downgraded the country’s credit rating because of fiscal uncertainty came out and  dominated the headlines, Weprin’s campaign defined Bob Turner as a TEA Party extremist and charged that because of their “irresponsible demands”, “Republican Tea Party extremists” facilitated the downgrade and the fallout from it.

From that point on, the Democrat campaign for Congress in NY-9 began.

It was a constant barrage of trying to make the TEA Party the enemy that voters had to unite against.  It was a never ending campaign to define Bob Turner as the TEA Party candidate. In Between those lines of attack was tossed in the same old scare tactics intended to frighten senior citizens that predate the Reagan Administration.

For his part Bob Turner campaigns argued;

“Career politicians like David Weprin have taxed and spent this country into a crisis. They have jeopardized the entire social safety network by irresponsibly borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend,”

And as one Turner campaign aide put it;

“Businessman Bob Turner is running to protect Social Security and Medicare for every American over 55 years old and to put those essential programs on a sustainable path for everybody younger than that.”

But Bob Turner didn’t just defend himself against Operation Old TEA Bag. He spent most of his time denouncing the Obama policies that even urban, middle-class Democrats have lost faith in. Like the days of Ronald Reagan, Bob Turner found himself addressing a new generation of Reagan Democrats. Democrats who do not appreciate the condition of our nation and do not have faith in the direction their Party is heading in under a liberal President.

Yet as the campaign continued and the polls tightened, D.C. Democrats from the DCCC, DNC, and from the state and local Party apparatus, double-downed on their last hope……Operation Old TEA Bag. Even when only days before the special election was to take and polls showed that Turner turned the tables and was now ahead of Weprin, Democrats found themselves desperately trying to make a success of their fear campaign of senior citizens and their efforts to make the TEA Party the common enemy.

The plan was perfect. It even concluded on a  high note…….a recorded phone call from former President Clinton which tied the TEA Party and Medicare together as he stated “and he’ll oppose the TEA Party plan to destroy Medicare” [see the video below].  But ultimately, what Democrats thought was the perfect strategy, proved to be as unsustainable and useless as their economic policies.

Like driving a car on empty it was a last ditch, desperate attempt to run a camping not on any issues,  just on fear. The only problem is that in the end, senior citizens were less afraid of distortions about Bob Turner than they were of the truth about the current direction our nation is headed. In the end, the voters of the ninth district decided that the TEA Party was not their problem. Democrats were.

Unless  Democrats start singing a different a tune, they will still be the problem in 2012.  And just as Operation Old TEA Bag did not work for them in CD-9,  it will not work for them in the 2012 elections.from the top of the Democrat ticket , to the bottom of the ballot.  However, with little else left in their playbook, I expect the Democrats to do little else but resort to scaring senior citizens and trying to run against the TEA Party. 

In the video below the newly elected Congressman explains why he believes he won.

Turner is correct.

Normally winning the Democrat nomination for anything in this district is tantamount to winning the election. The only reason that was not the case this time was because voters are angry and wanted to let President Obama know that. Most important here is that this is a district heavily populated by a large Jewish constituency. Traditionally, the Jewish vote has mainly gone to Democrats but in this particular election, many Jewish voters came out to make it clear to President Obama that they oppose his policies involving Israel.

This will be a problem for the President in 2012. There is little he can do between now and then to reclaim favor among a substantial portion of the Jewish vote. Unless the President does a total 180 degree turn on many of his Israel related positions, he will have a hard time reaching the 270 electoral votes needed to win reelection. The Jewish community will not easily forget President Obama’s disrespect of Prime Minister Netanyahu when he withdrew from a meeting to eat dinner and left the Prime Minister  waiting for the President to finish his meal. And more importantly than that, Jews will not simply ignore President Obama’s request for Israel to return to its 1967 borders which prohibit Israel from properly defending itself.

As demonstrated in NY-9, the general anti-Semitic impression that the President’s actions and policies has generated within the Jewish community may not affect him very much in states with low Jewish populations like Utah, but many of those states are not expected to vote for President Obama anyway. But in a state like Florida which has one of the largest Jewish populations in the nation, the Jewish vote can make all the difference to President Obama’s reelection chances. There, without the Jewish vote, President Obama is sure to lose and without Florida, there are few if any realistic mathematical combination of state electoral votes that he can piece together to arrive at 270 electoral votes.

Yet Democrats are doing their very best to try to put a happy face on the message that the voters of New York’s 9^th congressional district sent them on Tuesday.

In interviews the morning after the special election in New York, Democrat National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who happens to represent a Florida district that is also heavily Jewish, used an interview regarding their loss of this seat and trying to make the case that it wasn’t a harbinger of things to come. According to Wasserman-Schultz;;

“It’s a very difficult district for Democrats”.

“It’s a very difficult district for Democrats”? —— What? ……. Is she joking?

The only way New York’s 9^th CD would be difficult for a Democrat to win is if the name of the Democrat on the ballot was Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden. Wasserman-Schultz’ claim that this is a hard distrcit for Democrats to win in is so ridiculous that she should be fined for being too stupid to talk.

The fact is, that if President Obama been able to give voters, including Democrat voters, a reason to believe in him, they will. But now that the recession we are in is the longest in our history, and everything from job numbers to retail sales continue to be down, Americans are growing impatient. They now want a change from the “change” that candidate Obama promised in 2008. And to make matters worse, President Obama’s latest attempt to save face and the economy with his speech to a joint session of Congress and his American Jobs Act, has done little more than reinforce voters negative impressions of him. General consensus is that his new plan is anything but new and in truth,  just a regurgitation of the policies and plans that have gotten us to where we are today.

This is why the special election in NY-9 was so “difficult for Democrats”.

It is why Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in a historic wave election that elected more Republicans to Congress than we have seen since the 40’s. And it is why Democrats are headed to a very rough 2012 election cycle.

Fortunately for Republicans, Democrats like President Obama and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz don’t want to hear the message that people of New York’s Brooklyn and Queens sent them on Tuesday. But like President Obama himself said, the election is not for 14 months and we can’t afford to wait 14 months to get this economy going. Well Mr. President, the voters also can’t wait 14 months for you to get their message. You should have gotten that message in November of 2010, but clearly you didn’t and so now, there is little expectation for you to get it now.

Mr. President, it’s time to stop shouting “pass this bill”. It’s time to shut your mouth, open your ears, and hear the voice of the voters who are telling you to change direction.

While the heavily Democrat district is normally not contested by Republicans in any meaningful way, ever since incumbent Congressman Anthony Weiner resigned from the seat a few months ago, a confluence of events and circumstance made this a seat a perfect opportunity for a Republican pick up. Between dissatisfaction with the economy, increasing dissatisfaction with the President and a heavily populated Jewish vote disgruntled by President Obama’s treatment of Israel, this special election became less of a referendum on either Republican Bob Turner and Democrat David Weprin and more of a protest vote designed to show the President Obama how unhappy voters are with him.

This forced the traditionally reliable voters of this Democrat district to ignore their usual ideological dislike of Republican policies, thereby eliminating their habit of voting for whoever Democrats run. But it is important to realize that this is not necessarily a referendum on President Obama regarding 2012. With over 14 months before the presidential election and without a Republican presidential nominee to contrast President Obama with, the core traditional base of the President’s Democrat vote is willing to send him a message. But once the presidential campaign heats up, the people who currently comprise CD-9 will still have strong Democrat tendencies that will force many to coalesce around the President’s reelection and the Democrat ticket.

But what this special election does show to be a very real problem for the President is the incredibly large number of Jewish voters who have real problems with the President and even such Democrat agenda items as gay marriage. In addition to being heavily democratic, CD-9 is also heavily Jewish and Democrat David Weprin is an orthodox Jew. Yet his natural constituency in the district still opposed his election as a result of President Obama. Going in to the election, polls showed that the issue of Israel was a significant one for CD-9 voters and the same polls showed that voters were quite dissatisfied with the President’s policies regarding Israel.

Another sign of just how focused the electorate was on the national atmosphere created by President Obama was demonstrated by the issues which dominated the election. Neither candidate campaigned on any of the many local issues. For instance, after Hurricane Irene passed New York, it left a great deal of damage, especially along the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Queens area of the district. Yet despite the timeliness of the campaign and the storm, it was not once mentioned.

So the electorate was indeed focused on President Obama. Still though, this was just a snapshot of the moment. As mentioned previously, it still may not be a long lasting referendum on the President. However; there is no denying that the President has a great deal of work to do to ensure that the traditionally democratic Jewish vote across the nation, does not vote the same way in the presidential election that they did in New York’s special election.

Meanwhile, the addition of Bob Turner to the existing Republican majority in the House of Representatives will not make any difference in national politics in the sense of being any kind of shift in the balance of power. Furthermore,this congressional seat may not exists after 2012. New York state’s loss of population in the most recent census means that the state legislature will have to erase two congressional districts from its ranks. Ever since Anthony Weiner resigned, CD-9 became an obvious district to eliminate and is likely to remain so when redistricting is completed.

Meanwhile, what this Republican special election victory in the unlikely Democrat stronghold of New York City does do is provide a significant psychological boost for the G.O.P. and a profound sense of dread for Democrats. This defeat will begin to put a great deal of pressure on the President by congressional Democrats who will be counting on him to have some coattails in 2012 that can help to just keep incumbents in office but to also elect enough new Democrats to take back control of the House and to maintain control of the Senate. After the drubbing Democrats because of President Obama in the 2010 midterm election, this 2011 special election serves as good reason for Democrats to be fearful of a 2012 election cycle with President Obama at the top of their ticket.

In Nevada voters in the second district will be filling the vacancy created by Joe Heller’s appointment to the U.S. Senate following Senator John Ensign’s May resignation. In that special election Republican Mark Amodei looks to be a slam dunk in what was once considered a tight race for Republicans to retain the seat, but is now considered an impossibility for Democrats to pick up.

But the real story of the day is shaping up to be the special election in New York’s 9^th congressional district. There, residents of a district which is comprised of portions of Brooklyn and Queens will be electing a successor to disgraced liberal Anthony Weiner who resigned after lying about sending sexually explicit photo’s of himself over the internet. The district has been held by Democrats for nearly a century and it has not even been considered competitive at any point in the last forty years.

Yet while Republicans have not exactly had great success in special elections to fill vacant congressional seats in New York state, NY-9 seems ready to make up for that.

Over the past two years, special congressional elections that the G.O.P. should have won with relative ease, were lost to Democrats due to poorly managed campaigns and a series of assorted Party related political anomalies and blunders. In May, New York’s Upstate 26th Congressional District should have gone Republican but instead was won by Democrat, Kathy Hochul.

In 2009, Republicans lost another Upstate New York congressional seat that they should have retained.

After nominating a disastrous candidate in liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava and seeing a strong Conservative Party candidate take to the field, Democrat Bill Owen won a seat that had been in Republicans for over 100 years.

But today’s special in NY-9 is a case that is quite different. This election is being fought not in the Republican friendly upper portion of the vast Empire State, it is being fought in the Democrat stronghold of two of New York City boroughs.

The ninth spans sections of Brooklyn and Queens and is a middle and lower middle class, blue collar district heavily comprised of Jewish and Italian-American voters as well as union members. It is a district that is ideally suited for liberal candidates, like the man who previously held the seat……Anthony Weiner. Yet despite its Democrat friendly makeup, NY-9 is in the midst of casting what can only be described as a protest vote that is about to elect businessman Bob Turner over long serving liberal Assemblyman David Weprin.

While Turner’s victory is not a sure thing, polls and the prevailing winds indicate that he is a likely winner.

According to the most recent Public Policy Polling survey the race stands as follows:

• Bob Turner (R) 47%
• David Weprin (D) 41%
• Christopher Hoeppner (S) 4%
• Undecided 7%

But the story here is not merely that a Republican is about to take a seat away from Democrats that hasn’t been in G.O.P. since the 1920’s, but rather that traditional Democrat constituencies are showing their dissatisfaction with President Obama and are sending a protest vote. That story is explained by a deeper look at the most recent PPP poll of the 9^th district. Republican Bob Turner has the support of as much as 29% of the Democrat vote, while Democrat David Weprin has only a 58% share. Right there you can see that things are out of whack. Democrats in New York City typically back their Party nominee in numbers approaching 80% or more.

When it comes to Republicans,Bob Turner is receiving 83% of the Republican vote and a mere 10% support Weprin.

But some of the most startling and important stats come from the districts heavy Jewish population and those voters who consider themselves to be independent.

Those results are as follows:

Among Jewish Voters

• Bob Turner (R) 56%
• David Weprin (D) 39%
• Christopher Hoeppner (S) 2%
• Undecided 4%

Among Independents

• Bob Turner (R) 58%
• David Weprin (D) 26%
• Christopher Hoeppner (S) 7%
• Undecided 10%

But perhaps the biggest story of all here is that this election is really not between Turner and Weprin at all. As it turns out the vote is between two sentiments,………………. are you happy with the way things are going a dn our President’s leadership, or are you dissatisfied by President Obama and his liberal policies?

The answer to that question is that voters are pissed at the President. And Democrat politicos know it. That is one reason why President Obama’s name is hardly mentioned by the Democrat candidates campaign but it is often brought by Republicans who are labeling Weprin as a rubberstamp for Obama’s failed policies. The reasons for that are made quite clear with the following additional Public Policy Polling data from the same poll that shows Turner ahead of Weprin.

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 31%
• Disapprove 56%

Among Men

• Approve 27%
• Disapprove 63%

Among Women

• Approve 35%
• Disapprove 49%

Among Jewish Voters

• Approve 26%
• Disapprove 62%

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s leadership on Israel?

• Approve 30%
• Disapprove 54%

Among Democrats

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 40%

Among Republicans

• Approve 13%
• Disapprove 78%

Among Independents

• Approve 13%
• Disapprove 66%

Among Jewish Voters

• Approve 22%
• Disapprove 68%

How important was the issue of Israel in deciding who to vote for Congress: very important, somewhat important, or not all that important?

• Very important 37%
• Somewhat important 32%
• Not all that important 29%
• Among Jewish Voters
• Very important 58%
• Somewhat important 30%
• Not all that important 11%

To make matters worse, in 2008 President Obama won the 9^th C.D. with 55% of the vote to John McCain’s 44% but when asked about the 2012 presidential election, President Obama is obviously in trouble.

2012 Presidential Election

• Mitt Romney 46%
• Barack Obama 42%
• Barack Obama 44%
• Rick Perry 43%

Among Jewish Voters

• Mitt Romney 52%
• Barack Obama 38%
• Rick Perry 47%
• Barack Obama 43%

The voters of New York’s 9^th Congressional District have not suddenly changed ideologies and gone from believing that government doesn’t do enough to believing that it does too much. They remain largely supportive of Democrat policies but the sentiment among voters here is that President Obama isn’t working and his policies are failing us. As such, they are taking their frustrations out on David Weprin. That is just one of the reasons why Democrats have not brought President Obama into this district. Apparently, they have learned from the 2010 special election to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate. In that race President Obama was brought in to energize the base and motivate independent Massachusetts voters to turn out and vote for liberal Martha Coakley. As it turned out, they instead stayed home while the rest of angry electorate came out to support Republican Scott Brown and reject Barack Obama.

Now as we head into the 2012 election, NY-9 is showing us that if anything, that sentiment which swept Scott Brown into office has not changed and may have in fact built even more momentum.

Republican Bob Turner can still lose this race. Special elections usually come down to the Get Out the Vote operation and in that area, Weprin and Democrats have that aspect of the election wrapped up. With quite robust Democrat organization abilities as compared to the meager Republican organization in new York City, combined with the assistance of organized efforts by unions, the Weprin campaign can out organize the Turner campaign. But at the same time anger is a strong motivational tool and the voters of the 9^thare angry at President Obama. That could make it so that there are very few voters for Democrat GOTV efforts to make sure go to the polls.