Tag Archives: Barbara Boxer

Republicans Can’t Gloat, But They Can Listen To the Voters & Set an Example

Bookmark and Share    Two years ago I listened to Democrats tell me “Republicans have gone the way of the Whigs”, “this is the end of the Republican Party”, “the Republican Party is forever lost”, “they will never comeback”. These are direct quotes. They are the thoughts of euphoric liberals who saw, then President-Elect Barack Obama, as a messianic figure, a modern JFK and the “hope” of our nation. At the time, I could not help but think, first, these are the same people who think Joe Biden is a genius, and second, how naïve could these people be?

I for one understand the cyclical nature of politics and I also understood the nature of the Democrats slow rise to control between 2004 and 2008. So, confident in the principles that lie at the heart of the G.O.P., I knew the Republican Party was not dead. I knew that we would come back and I never abandoned the cause to bring ’em back.  I hoped for my Party to have learned a lesson and come to understand what they did wrong. I was also confident that, being dominated by liberals, the Democrat Party would prove incompetent. I stated such. I also stated that President Obama would be a reincarnation of the Carter presidency and prove to be a man controlled  by circumstances more than he controlled circumstances.

Between my two perceptions of the Parties, I knew the G.O.P. would be back. However, I never expected them to comeback quicker than any other time in American political history. Sadly, I cannot say that this record comeback was to my Party’s credit. It was solely due to the failure of Democrats. They performed in a way that demonstrated everything that people hate about politics. When it comes to partisanship, they defined it. When it came to pork, they stuffed their faces. On the issue of spending, one would have to work really hard to try to spend more than they have in just 20 short months. On negative issue, after negative issue, Democrats exaggerated the negatives. The closed door deals, the underhanded tactics, the passage of bills they did not read, the overreach of government, corruption, whatever people disliked about government and politics, Democrats did.

In the meantime, the G.O.P. had little chance to give the public reason to vote for them and offered little reason to do so either. What they did do though, was oppose all that Democrats did and all that the public disliked. For that reason, they were the beneficiaries of a protest vote against Democrats, not necessarily a vote for Republicans.

That is why I have penned the midterms of 2010 the Republican Rejuvenation. In 1994, the wave that swept Republicans into power was accurately called the Republican Revolution. And it was a revolution. People had approved of the ideas and direction that the G.O.P. was offering. But this time, the people are not that confident. So while this election has indeed rejuvenated the G.O.P., the rise back to power they have experienced is an opportunity, not a victory. It is a chance that is theirs to blow, or take advantage of.

It ‘s a chance to show leadership and prove that they understand that the leadership they must provide is that which leads us to a limited government that stays out of our lives, spends less of our money and more accurately reflects that which it was intended to when it was founded.

So now that the chance to prove ourselves is upon us, how do we as Republicans take advantage of the opportunity?

First; we must not act like Democrats. We must not be hypocrites and implement the same legislative tactics and sleights of hands that we denounced Democrats for using to pass legislation. Second; we must not approve increased spending which increases the overall federal budget and need to reduce spending and the deficit. Third; we must follow through on our promises and cut the size of government and repeal Obamacare and replace it, not with a more government, but rather a package of changes which help make healthcare more affordable through the free market, not through a behemoth new federal bureaucracy.

But this is not enough. Republicans must go the extra mile and prove that they have not only learned the ideological lessons which teach us that we can not compromise on big spending and big government, but that we also want less government when it comes to the personal lives of individual Americans. We must show that when we discuss less regulation, we also mean less regulation of the people and their personal lives. And beyond proving that we have learned our ideological lessons we must appeal to the nonpartisan nature of the average American and prove that we have learned how to provide leadership that is for country , not Party.

It is this cause which I feel the G.O.P. must act upon first.

When President Obama was elected, he proved himself to be quite partisan. It took him 18 months to meet one on one with Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It took him a year to start discussing healthcare reform with Republicans. He has recently stated that Republicans can join with Democrats but have sit in the back and described the loyal opposition as “our enemy“.. These are not the acts and words of a leader who wants to cross the aisle and deal with all Americans or hear all opinions. The American people are tired of partisan leadership and partisan gridlock. That is why with this new opportunity at hand, Republicans must show that they understand when partisanship and politics must stop and productivity and progress must start.

To do so, I call upon the new Republican majority to reach out to the Democrat minority and our President. Reach out to them, one on one and say. “let’s start the new Congress right. Let’s start it off on a productive note and let’s answer this question. What do we agree upon?”

I want the Republican leadership to find out what Democrats and Republicans can do together in the first 100 days and start off on the right foot. Let us change the tone in Washington that the American working class hates about the political class.

While there are priorities which the G.O.P. will have a responsibility to address with haste, certain national priorities and commitments they campaigned on, at the same time, there must be some significant issues which the left and the right can agree on. Let us find out what they are and act upon them, now, not later.

This new day in politics must produce a new way in politics. A way that unites more than divides and lifts us up as nation more than weighs us down. In this new day, Republicans have a chance to say “no” to what needs to be rejected, but the responsibility to produce that which should be said “yes” to. The opportunity we have been handed must be used to demonstrate that we are deserving of the peoples vote and that when applied to government properly, the core Republicans principles we stand for, are key to the formulation of the best policies for the American people. This opportunity we have is nothing to gloat about. We have no right to gloat. We did not earn this victory in 2010, we simply were the beneficiary of the Democrat’s losses. But if we do what is right, now, we can truly be deserving of votes later.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

What To Look For In The Early Election Returns

Bookmark and Share    For those of you who find yourselves viewing election returns with the same type of intensity that most watch the Super Bowl with, POLITICS 24/7  previously offered a comprehensive election night analysis and schedule along with projections. It seems to have been quite popular and so  for those who are most anxious, POLITICS 24/7 now focuses in on the earliest returns and what they are likely to tell us about how the rest of the night will shape up.

The very first returns that have the chance of being reported on will come out of Indiana and Kentucky. Here, parts of the state close their polls at 6:00 pm EST. As a result, it is possible for some media outlets to report the results of some of the first House races. But it is also possible, in fact likely, that the results in a few of those congressional districts where the polls do close, will be too close to call.

6:00 pm

But sometime between 6:00 and 7:00 pm look at Indiana-2 and 9, and Kentucky-3 and 6.

In Indiana’s 9th CD, a loss by incumbent Democrat Baron Hill will be a sign that Republicans are indeed on track to take the House and see significant gains across the board.

If the races in Indiana‘s 2nd district and Kentucky’s 3rd, are too close to call, rest assured that that this will indeed be a wave election. But if Democrat incumbents Joe Donnelly and John Yarmuth actually lose, to their Republican opponents, Jackie Walorski and Todd Lally, you can take it as a sign that the 2010 midterms are going to be a tsunami that will produce historic gains for the Republicans that approach 70 seats.

 

 

7:00 pm

After 7:00 pm EST, the races that will act as barometers and need to be watched include:

 Kentucky’s Senate race, South Carolina-5, Florida-8 & 22, Georgia-8 & 12, Virginia-5 & 11.

The GOP will be on track for 50 or more seats with Republicans wins in the Kentucky Senate race with Rand Paul, in addition to the following House races;

South Carolina-5 (Mick Mulvaney-R over John Spratt-D), Florida-8 (Daniel Webster-R over Allen Grayson-D), Florida-22 (Allen West-R over Ron Klein-D), Georgia-8 (Austin Scott-R over Jim Marshall-D) and, Virginia-5 (Robert Hurt over Tom Perriello-D)

While those wins will help verify that the G.O.P. is on track, the following results between 7 and 8 O’clock will be signs that Democrats are about to be crushed worse than expected;

Georgia-12 (Ray McKinney-R over John Barrow-D) and Virginia-11 (David McKinley-R over Mike Oliviero-D)

7:30 pm

Between 7:30 and 8:00 pm, the results to look at will come out West Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina.

Wins by John Kasich in Ohio’s gubernatorial race and Ohio’s 1st CD (Steve Chabot-R over Steve Driehaus-D) will show that the G.O.P. is on track and that trends are holding. But the races that will indicate that the Republican wave may bigger than anyone anticipates will come from West Virginia’s race for U.S. Senate and the following House races;

 WV-1, WV-3, NC-11 and OH-6

Any combination of two or more wins in these races will point to Republican gains in the House that will exceed 62 seats and if John Raese pulls it out and beats back popular Democrats Governor Joe Mancin for Senate in West Virginia, the G.O.P. will have the potential of taking control of the United States Senate.

8:00 pm

After the 8 o’clock hour, the outcome of the 2010 midterm will begin to be set in stone.

News out of Illinois of Republican pickups in the Senate by Kirk and the statehouse by Brady, will keep everything track in still make it possible for Republicans to take control of the United States Senate. From Pennsylvania, word of Pat Toomey defeating Joe SaysTax will be further evidence of the trend holding. Of course something else to watch for in these wins, will be the margins of victory. If any of these races produce leads of 5 or more percent, that will help prove that polling models are inaccurate and were unable to detect the undercurrent of voter sentiments. A sure sign that things will be worse off for Democrats than anyone anticipate, would be a Republican win over Democrat Patrick Duval in the race for Governor of Massachusetts.

The House races to look at here will be:

Connecticut-5, Pennsylvania-3 and11, NH 1, Illinois-14, and Mississippi-4

A majority of Republicans here are keeping the G.O.P on track for a big night. But if it is going to be a really big night for Republicans they will be winning the following races:

Pennsylvania-8 (Michael Fitzpatrick-R over Patrick Murphy-D), New Jersey-3, (Jon Runyan-R over John Adler-D)

Democrat losses of these two seats will be a sign that the anti-Democrat sentiments are seeping into some of the bluest states in one of the bluest regions of the country. Other such races include:

 Massachusetts-10, Illinois-17 and, Missouri-4

 And two seats that Democrats losses would mean that they are going to be dead in the water  would be:

New Jersey 6 and 12

Here Democrats Frank Pallone and Rush Holt are seemingly safe seats, but there are rumblings that could prove them not to be safe for big government, big spending liberals anymore.  That and extremely hard fought races by their Republican opponents Anna Little and Scott Sipprele makes these races worth watching.  Pallone and Holt may not lose but if they have a margin of victory that is less than 6 or 7 percent, Democrats will be living in fear from now to 2012.

 But aside from these races, keep your eyes out for the returns in

Massachusetts’ 4th CD and Michigan’ 15th

If long serving John Dingel goes down in Michigan, Democrats better hold on for a tougher ride than they expected, but if Barney Frank loses to Republican Sean Bielat in MA-4, Republicans may be on their way to taking 70 seats.

Defeating Barney Frank may be unlikely, but after Republican Scott Brown was elected to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate and a strong race by Sean Bielat, if there are going to be any miracles on election night, they will take place here in the Bay State.

9:00 pm

As the 9 o’clock hour rolls out look for the House to be officially declared to have changed hands and gone to Republican control. But during this hour, some of the House races that will give a hint as to the size of their majority, are;

Louisiana-2, Minnesota-1 & 8, Michigan-15, NY-2, 13, 19, 24, Rhode Island and Wisconsin 13

While many other seats are going to fall to Republicans after 9 o’clock, especially in New York, Colorado and Wisconsin and Michigan, of the seats mentioned above, if Democrats who are likely to win in these districts, lose any combination of 4 or more, Republicans are looking at House gains approaching 70 seats

10:00 pm

Long before this hour, we should have established that the House has gone to Republicans but we should also have a good idea on how the rest of the chips will fall. I anticipate that after this hour, the balance of power in the Senate will come down to California and Washington where Boxer and Murphy are at risk (Murphy more so than Boxer), and Alaska where write-n ballots will drag out the time it takes to declare Joe Miller the winner.

Sharon Angle is likely to win in Nevada but as for this race, look for the early numbers that come out of Clark County.

Clark County is the home of Las Vegas and most of the state’s population. Clark County is overwhelmingly Democrat, but it is the only part of the state that is. If returns out of Clark County are showing Harry Reid with a lead over Angle that is not higher than 8%, Harry Reid will have lost his bid for reelection.

Other races of special interest throughout the night will be Louisiana-2 where incumbent Joseph Cao is likely to lose to Democrat Cedric Richmond.  If Cao wins, this will be a sign that Democrats are underperforming among their base and minorities musch worse than anyone thought possible.  The same will be able to be said if Democrat Incumbent Loretta Sanchez loses to Republican Van Tran in California’s 47th congressional district. 

Also of interest will be Hawaii’s at-large seat in Congress and race for Governor.  Republicans have a decent but unlikely chance of keeping Charles Djou in office but an even less likely chance of keeping its statehouse in Republican hands aginst popular retiring Congressman Neil Abercrombie.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

POLITICS 24/7’s 2010 Election Night Schedule, Projections & Analysis

Bookmark and Share     In these closing days of the midterm elections, Democrats have been unable to do anything to stop the hemorrhaging of support that continues to drain away from them. At the same time, the wind behind the backs of the G.O.P. continues to build and with no resistance in sight, the momentum for Republican electoral victories is only strengthening. Two weeks ago, I feared that Republicans had peaked in the polls. That would have been a premature occurrence and not boded well. But since then, as GOP candidates continue to rise in the polls, it is clear that Republicans did not peak too early. All indications are that the momentum is still behind them and building. As such, history shows that many seats which are close enough to be considered tossups and those that have Democrats holding only slight leads, are more likely to fall into Republican hands then Democrat hands.

In addition to that and the massive swing of Independent and women voters to Republicans from Democrats, I believe that the anti-Democrat sentiment is currently running so unusually strong and deep that traditional polling models are not able to accurately enough read the depth of support for Republican candidates that exists out there. At least not as accurately as they normally can be.

The polls most reflective of final election results are those that are taken among people who are considered likely voters. But this year, there exists a group of voters which can not yet be identified by existing polling models. They fall in neither the category of “first time voters” or “likely voters”. It is the segment of the electorate which is also the most angry and the most likely to vote against Democrats. They are voters who became fed up with government as much as 5 to10 years ago and tuned out and stopped voting. But now, they have become so angered that they have come out of inactivity and are going to be some of the first people to cast their ballots against Democrats on Election Day. Existing polls are unable to account for this demographic and are allowing for results that do not contain the influence of these voters.

It is this unseen undercurrent of Republican support which I believe is going to help tip tossup races in favor of G.O.P. challengers and produce a number of surprises in races that are leaning toward Democrats. For instance, while I admit that Barbara Boxer is likely to be reelected, I have a feeling that Republican Carly Fiorna is poised to pull off one of the biggest upsets of the night and throw Boxer into a long overdue retirement from politics. The same undercurrent that I believe may sweep Fiorna into the Senate, will probably also be sweeping Republicans Dino Rossi of Washington and, I am going out on a limb by saying West Virginia’s John Raese, also to victory.

On the Senate side I believe that Republicans establish majority control by winning in:

Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

West Virginia and Washington are going to be too close for comfort though, and these results may not be official for quite a while, especially in Washington where mail in ballots are going to make recounts a tedious and time consuming process.

As for Alaska, this will probably be the very last race to be declared and won’t be done on Tuesday. Expect a careful and methodical recount of tons of write-in votes and court challenges. In the case of Delaware, I am probably one of the few people who is still not writing-off the ability for Christine O’Donnell and the voters of Delaware to make the professional pundits, political establishment and the media, look stupid, by pulling off an unlikely surprise upset victory over Democrat Chris Coons.

So while I an sure that  the G.O.P. will have a minimum net gain of 8 seats in the Senate, I believe that some combination of wins in Washington, West Virginia and/or California, will give Republicans control of the Senate with a total of 51 to 49 seats. But the very real possibility of  a 50/50 tie does actually exist here. If that happens, expect the GOP to end up taking control at some point during the course of the new year as at least one Democrat or two switch Parties ahead of their 2012 reelection bids in an attempt to avoid becoming  a casualty when President Obama is on the top of the liberal ticket.

On the House side, I expect Republicans to increase their existing numbers by a minimum of 58 districts that are currently held by Democrats, but project that they actually win 62 seats and have a good chance to gain as many as 68. This would bring Republicans from the current number of 178, to anywhere from 240 to 246 House seats. Such numbers would give the G.O.P. one of its largest majorities since 1946.

Many may believe that these figures are too high. As a skeptic, under normal conditions, I might believe so too. However, even though I am typically a pessimist and even though I usually prefer to lower expectations in politics, I am convinced that my projections are not exaggerated or overly optimistic and I believe there to be a greater chance for the higher estimate to come to fruition than there is for my lower estimate.

But the proof will be in the pudding and no matter how much statistical data and fine tuning of local factors that I combine together to reach my projections, only each individual voter ultimately knows what they will do with their private ballot. And Lord only knows the variables that things like the weather will add to the mix.

But signs of the final results will reveal themselves early on in the evening of November 2nd.

 `

6:00 pm: Parts of Indiana and Kentucky;

Polls close in parts of Indiana and Kentucky at 6:00 pm, but we may not hear any results until 7:00 PM when the rest of the polls in those states close  along with Virginia, Georgia, Vermont, South Carolina and parts of Florida.

 `

7:00 pm: Virginia, Georgia, Vermont, South Carolina, Parts of Florida, All of Indiana and Kentucky;

The hour between 7:00 and 8:00 pm may produce election results that provide us with a hint as to whether the 2010 midterm elections are going to be for Republicans a current, wave or tsunami.

South Carolina’s Niki Haley will hold on to the Governor’s mansion for Republicans but it is South Carolina’s 5th CD which may be one of the very first signs of just how an unusually large number of normaly safe Democrat seats and incumbents are about to fall like dominos. Here, if longtime incumbent John Spratt loses to Republican Mick Mulvaney, people like Michigan’s John Dingel and Massachusetts Barney Frank, better pull out the rosaries, find God, light a candle and say a few prayers because for the first time in their careers they will most definitely be vulnerable.

From Indiana, The GOP will gain a senate seat, replacing retiring Evan Bayh with Dan Coats and news that 8th and 9th district Republicans Larry Buschon and Todd Young defeat Democrat incumbents Trent Van Haaftern and Baron Hill will indicate that Republicans are on track to win 55 or more seats. Should they lose, the GOP will still be in line for at least 40 seats but significantly more than that may in fact not be realistic. In Indiana’s 2nd district, if returns are still too close to declare incumbent Democrat Congressman Joe Donnelly the winner, or if his Republican opponent Jackie Walorski beats him, do not be surprised by GOP gains of 60 or more seats.

In Florida, early indications that Republicans are on track for 40 or more seats will be seen in early returns that give the GOP wins in FL-2 with Republican Steve Sutherland, and in the 8th, where the unbridled liberalism of Allen Grayson, one of the most obnoxious and arrogant members of Congress, should be shut up and shot down by Republican Daniel Webster. But if the G.O.P. is going to be riding a tsunami to control of the House, Lt. Col. Allen West, my favorite candidate of all running for the House, will win in Fl-22, along with Republican Sandy Adams over Democrat Suzanne Kosmas in Fl-24.

 `

7:30 pm: West Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio

Races to look at as barometers between 6 and 8 pm include KY-3, where incumbent John Yarmuth should win by at least three or more percent. If his opponent, Todd Lally pulls off an unlikely win, this election will be a bigger landslide to the G.O.P. than anyone anticipated.

The same goes for KY-6 (Ben Chandler vs. Andy Barr), NC-2 (Bob Etherdige vs. Renee Elmers), VA- 5 (Tom Perriello vs. Robert Hurt), GA-12 (John Barrow vs. Raymond McKinney), OH-6 (Charlie Wilson vs. Bill Johnson), and WV-3 (Nick Rahall vs. Spike Maynard) and we should be getting news on SC-5 (John Spratt vs. Mick Mulvaney),

Perhaps the biggest news at this time will be the news that Rob Portman keeps Ohio’s senate in the Republican column and that John Kasich takes the Governor’s mansion away from incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland.  Kasich is anoother favorite candidate of mine in the 2010 midterm elections.  Like Marco Rubio, he is potential presidential material and no matter what a rising star on the national stage of conservativbe leadership.

At the hour of eight o’clock, the real dye will be cast.

 `

8:00 pm: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida CD’s 1 & 2, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas;

At this point in time, despite Linda McMahon and the Republican candidate for Governor losing their races in Connecticut, look for CT-5 (Chris Murphy vs. Sam Caligiuri), to switch and if CN-4 also falls, you will have further confirmation of the 2010 midterm elections being historic. During the eight o’clock hour, one of the most powerful indicators of just how big Republicans may win by, will play out dramatically in Mississippi’s 4th CD. If incumbent Blue Dog Democrats Gene Taylor goes down to Republican Steven Palazzo, President Obama might want to consider pulling a Charlie Crist and registering as an Independent because a loss by Taylor will mean that there is no place for Democrats to hide and no issue for them to hide behind.

Another race that could be indicative of the “big mo” behind the G.O.P. will be Maine’s 1st district where Democrat Chellie Pingree could be beaten by Republican Dean Scontras.

The state to produce the biggest switch to the G.O.P. this hour may be Pennsylvania where, Republicans Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey will take the statehouse and U.S. Senate and as many as 7 seats could go red. The five seats most likely to switch are PA-3 (Kathy Dahlkemper-D vs. Mike Kelly-R), PA-7 (Patrick Meehan-D vs. Bryan Lentz-R), PA-8 (Patrick Murphy-D vs. Michael Fitzpatrick-R), PA-10 (Chris Carney-D vs. Tom Marino-R), PA-11 (Paul Kanjorski vs. Lou Barletta).

The real kicker here will be the results of Massachusetts 4th district.  In order for these midterms elections to be a complete success Barney “Mac” Frank must be eliminated from public service.  Frank is a boil on the seat of government, a dangerous drain on federal integrity and resources, and a government official whose fingerprints are alover the housing market crisis and the subsequent economic coolapse that ensued.  His opponent Sean Bielat has made this the most competetive races Barney Frank has ever had  and proven himself to be an energetic, trustworthy leader for Massachusetts and fiscal responsibility in a limited government.  Bielat is not likely to win but he will come closer than anyone expects and as far as I am concerned, after the shocking election of Scott Brown to the the U.S. Senate, an election whicg created the trend of turning the political brown instead of red, I believe that potential for a an electoral riptide exists here and that Barney Frank could actually be carried away by the anti-establishment, anti-Democrat sentiment that swept Scott brown to victory.

In regards to the U.S. Senate, sometime between 8 and 8:30 we should be hearing that my favorite Senate candidate, Marco Rubio, has pummeled both Charlie “What Am I Now” Crist and Democrat Kendrick “I should have stayed in the House” Meek.

We should also hear that in addition to Joe “Says Tax” Sestak in Pennsylvania, we can say goodbye to Mr. Alexi Giannoulias, President Obama’s corrupt banker buddy and welcome his Republican opponent, Republican Mark Kirk, to the Senate from Illinois.

As far as the races for Governor go, after the 8:00 pm closures, in addition to Paul LePage taking Maine, Tom Corbet taking Pennsylvania, and Florida going to Rick Scott, the GOP will also increase the number of Governors in Illinois with Bill Brady.

`

8:30 pm: Arkansas

At 8:30 pm, Arkansas closes the book on the 2010 midterms with a stinging and embarrassing defeat of Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln and the flip of AR-2 from Democrat Joyce Elliot to Republican Tim Griffith.

A defeat of Democrats in AR-1 and 4 is not likely but possible. If they do fall to Republicans, this will be further evidence that we will be in the midst of a total shift in the tectonic plates of the political landscape.

Before 9:00 pm, we should already know that Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as majority leader is just a bad memory. But during the 9 o’clock hour, a flood of states will be delivering additional blows to Democrats.

`

9:00 pm: Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Between 9 and 10 pm, the G.O.P. will make big gains in the all important statehouses which will be instrumental in drawing preferential districts for the incumbent Party for the next decade and also in making big strides toward control of the United States Senate.

Republicans will pick up Governors in Kansas, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Wyoming, and have a good chance of taking Minnesota. Rhode Island’s gubernatorial leadership is likely to flip from Republican hands to Independent hands, but it is still somewhat of a tossup. And while I do not see us keeping Rhode Island, if by chance, Republican John Robitale defeats liberal Independent Lincoln Chafee and Liberal Democrat Frank Caprio, Democrats will need sedatives to get through the rest of the night because that will be indicative of a pending national whooping that will hit them so hard, FDR will feel it.

As for the Senate, say goodbye to Michael Bennet in Colorado, and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin.

House races to look at for signs of how substantial the night will be for Republicans, include; CO-7 (Permultter-D vs. Frazier), RI-1 (Cicilline-D vs. Loughlin-R), and especially NY-1 (Bishop-D vs. Altschuler-R), NY-13 (McMahon vs. Grimm-R), TX- 25 (Dagget-D vs. Campbell-R), and MN-8 (Oberstar vs. Cravaack). Any combination of three or more of these seats will be one of the final signs that Democrats are spiraling out of control in this election. From those states which wrap their voting up during this hour, at least 16 or 17 seats should switch from Democrats to Republicans. Some of the biggest gains are likely to come from New York where the GOP will pick at least 4 seats, (NY-1, 19, 20, and 29), but possibly as many as 6 with wins. A remarkable chance exists for Republicans to take back the 13th CD which is encompasses the Staten Island and Southwest Brooklyn section of New York City’s five boroughs. This seat has been the only one in which New York City sent a Republican to occupy. It was in Republican hands for decades but last year fell to Democrats after Congressman Vito Fossella received a DUI charge in Virginia and subsequently revealed that while he was away in Washington from his Staten Island family, he spent time with his mistress and illegitimate child in Virginia. The candidacy of Michael Grimm and the anti-Democrat environment we are in, makes this a good last chance to take this seat back.

The other New York race that is well worth watching is out on the Southern tip of Long Island where Tim Bishop, (D, NY-1) could find himself a victim of a trend that began on Long Island last November when one of its two counties was taken by surprise when Republican Ed Mangano came from nowhere to defeat a safe Democrat incumbent in a race that was largely seen as uncompetitive. Although that was Nassau County and NY-1 is in Suffolk County, there is not much that differentiates the one county from the other when it comes to political sentiments. In this congressional district, Republican Randy Altschuler is certainly giving incumbent Tim Bishop a run for his money and if there are going to be a lot of surprises on November 2nd, NY-1 is as a good a place as any.

`

10:00 pm: Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, Utah

It may not be made official for an hour or so but the biggest news of the night will happen not long after the stroke of 10 when Sharon Angle embarrasses Democrats by taking down their Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Further embarrassment will include the ridiculously lopsided loss of Harry’s son Rory Reid, who is running for Governor of Nevada. Hopefully the Reid family will take the message and crawl back under the rock they emerged from.

In this same round of poll closings Iowa will give the GOP a statehouse pickup in Iowa. House seats to watch include AZ-7 where a win by real life rocket scientist, Republican Ruth McClung could defeat incumbent Raul Grijalva. McClung is not favored to win but if she did, it would be indicative of 2010 being much more than a Republican wave election. Other races which are suppose to remain in Democrats hands but could be upsetting the establishment are AZ-8 (Gabrielle Giffords-D vs. Jesse Kelly-R), ID-1 (Walt Minnick-D vs. Raul Labrador-R), IA-3 (Boswell-D vs. Brad Zaun-R) NV-3 (Titus-D vs. Heck-R), ND-At Large (Pomeroy-D vs. Berg-R), and UT-2 (Matheson-D vs. Morgan Phipot-R).

`

11:00 pm: California, Washington and Oregon;

In this round of poll closings, the GOP will simply be putting the icing on the cake House, but could determine whether or not they take control of the Senate.

In California, Republicans may very well control in Sacramento with the defeat of Meg Whitman to Jerry Brown and while only a major last minute development can save her, Carly Fiorina will in my opinion fare far better and ultimately pack Boxer up with a victory of a percent or less.

Washington state is likely to produce an upset by sending Republican Dino Rossi to Washington and retiring incumbent Patty Murray by another slim margin of victory, but mail in ballots will prevent this from being confirmed for days, at least.

The most interesting House race to be watched will be in California where Democrat Loretta Sanchez is in the tightest race of her nearly two decade in office as she tries to beat off a challenge Van Tran. Vietnamese Tran, a California state legislator, is unifying the significant 15% of the district populations which is Vietnamese, along with a coalition of Independent Hispanics, African-Americans and Caucasians, along with a sizeable Republican vote. Together, these groups are countering the overwhelming 69% Hispanic makeup of the district. But that is a pretty solid voting bloc and if Van Tran can pull this one off, it will in large part be due to the strong undercurrent that is sweeping Democrats away. Sanchez should win this election the surprise factor has great promise in CA-47.

`

12:00 pm: Alaska, Hawaii

At this point, Republicans may be needing a victory by Joe Miller to take control of the Senate. But despite losing the GOP nomination in Alaska, Miller’s closets opponent in the race, Lisa Murkowski, is still a Republican and if her outside chance of successful write-in candidacy comes true, she is still likely to caucus with Republicans and in that regards, accomplish the same goal as far as who will control the Senate. Either way, expect Alaska’s results to no be made official for quite a while.

In Hawaii, CD-1 will be an attention grabber. Here, Republican Charles Djou recently won the seat in a special election. Yet observers favor his opponent, Democrat Colleen Hanabusa to take this seat back for Democrats. I think Djou can keep it, albeit by a small margin, but by a majority nonetheless. As for the governor’s race in Hawaii, while Republican Duke Aiona has made this race a tossup between popular retiring Congressman Neil Abercrombie, I fear Abercrombie is just to popular to defeat in Hawaii. The fact that Aiona has made this race as close as it is, is a tremendous credit to him, but in the end, I see Republicans losing the hold they had on the Hawaii statehouse with retiring Republican Governor Linda Lingle, to Neil Abercrombie.

Photobucket

No matter what, Republicans will be back in a position of power that will make it at the very least alter the Obama agenda and make it impossible for the President and Democrats to try to circumvent them. If the GOP happens to take control of both the Senate and the House, you can rest assured that President Obama is going to be a different President than he has been over these past 22or so months. Will he abandon his agenda and moderate in order to work with Congress or will he stick to his guns and risk an endless stream of rejection from Congress? When Bill Clinton was faced with the Republican Revolution of 1994, he was reduced to having to explain to a reporter how he would be relevant to the political process during the second half of his term.

Now, with the Republican Rejuvenation of 2010, President Obama may be faced with the same need to prove how relevant he will be. This will certainly be the case if Republicans can exploit the small chance of taking over the senate as well as the House. But Bill Clinton was able to prove that he was indeed relevant. He began to pay attention to the pulse of the people and began working with the G.O.P. instead of constantly working against them. This will be harder for President Obama to do though. The has publicly told Republicans to sit on the back of the bus and called Republicans “the enemy”. Still, unless President Obama wants to endorse gridlock and seek to get reelected by claiming that the GOP is still in the way of his agenda which has proven to be a failure, he will be forced to moderate. How he reacts to the new political in America will be quite interesting. If he is the politically charismatic genius that some claim, he could turn things around and resurrect himself among mainstream and moderate America and the powerful Independent vote.

As for Republicans, it must be remembered that they are not winning because people like, trust or want them. They are skeptical of the GOP and not fully convinced that they understand that the people do not want to compromise on the issues of big government, big spending and further encroachment of our constitutional rights. This means that Republicans must be unafraid of saying “no” to the President. They must not backtrack on attempts to repeal government healthcare, cut the size, scope and cost of government or cave in to political correctness and fail to live up to the promises made in 2010.

The final political effect of the 2010 election results will be seen in the 2012 race for President a contest that will begin on the Republican side on Wednesday November 3rd. On the Democrat side it may not begin start up quite as fast. President Obama will be spending some time outside of the country in the days to follow the election. And when he returns home he will be making every single policy decision with 2012 in mind and others. But others like Hillary Clinton may also be doing the same. People like her might feel that the devastating losses that Democrats will have suffered, will require them to save the Party from President Obama and the nation from his policies. Such thinking could be behind the resignation from her position as Secretary of State some time during the beginning of 2011.

 

   GOPElephantRight.jpg GOP Elephant Right image by kempiteStars01.gif picture by kempiteGOPElephantLeft.jpg GOP Elephant Left image by kempite

Republican House Pickups

Results bewtween 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm

  • Indiana 8                – Larry Buschon over Trent Van Haaften
  • Indiana 9                – Todd Young over Baron Hill
  • Florida 2                 – Steve Sutherland over Allen Boyd
  • Florida 8                 – Daniel Webster over Allen Grayson
  • Florida 22               – Allen West over Ron Klein
  • Florida 24               – Sandy Adams over Suzanne Kosmas
  • Virginia 2                – Scott Rigell over Glenn Nye
  • Virginia 5                – Robert Hurt over Tom Perriello
  • South Carolina 5  –  Mick Mulvaney over John  Spratt
  • Georgia 2                 – Mike Keown over Sanford Bishop
  • Georgia 8                 – Austin Scott over Jim Marshall
  • Ohio 1                        – Steve Chabot over Steve Driehaus
  • Ohio 15                     – Steve Stivers over Mary Jo Kilroy
  • Ohio 16                     – Jim Rannaci over John Boccieri
  • Ohio 18                     – Bob Gibbs over Zach Space
  • North Carolina 8  – Harold Johnson over Larry Kissel
  • West Virginia 1      – David McKinley over Mike Oliverio

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

**indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Georgia 12               – Raymond McKinney over John Barrow**
  • Indiana 2                  – Jackie Walorski over Joe Donnelly**
  • Kentucky 3              – Todd Lally over John Yarmuth
  • Kentucky 6              – Andy Barr over Ben Chandler
  • Virginia 9                 – Morgan Griffith over Rick Boucher
  • Virginia 11               – Keith Fimian over Gerry Connolly
  • Ohio 6                        – Bill Johnson over Charlie Wilson**
  • West Virginia 3      – Spiike Maynard over Nick Rahall
  • North Carolina 11   – Jeff Miller over Heath Schuler

 

Results bewtween 8:00 pm and 9:00 pm

  • Connecticut 4           – Dan Dibecella over Jim Hines 
  • Connecticut 5           – Sam Caliguiri over Chris Murphy
  • Illinois 11                   – Asam Kinzinger over Debbie Halvarson
  • Illinois 14                   – Randy Huttgren over Bill Foster
  • Illinois 17                  – Bobby Schilling over Ohil Hare
  • Maryland 1                – Andy Harris over Frank Kratovil
  • Massachusetts 10   -Jeff Perry over Bill Keating
  • New Hampshire 1   – Frank Guinta over Carol Shea Porter
  • New Hampshire 2   – Charlie Bass over Ann McLane Kuster
  • New Jersey 3            – Jon Runyan over John Adler
  • Pennsylvania 3        – Mike Kelly over Kethy Dahlkemper
  • Pennsylvania 7        – Bryan Lentz over Patrick Meehan
  • Pennsylvania 8        – Michael Ftzpatrick  over  Patrick Murphy
  • Pennsylvania 10     – Tom Marino over Chris Carney
  • Pennsylvania 11      – Lou Barletta over Paul Kanjorski
  • Tennessee 4               – Scott DeJarlas over Lincoln Davis
  • Tennessee 6              – Diane Black over Brett Carter
  • Tennessee 8              – Stephen Fincher over Roy Herron
  • Texas 17                     – Bill Flores over Chet Edwards
  • Florida 2                    – Steve Sutherland over Allen Boyd
  • Arkansas 1                – Rick Crawford over Chad Causey
  • Arkansas 2               –  Tim Griffin over Joyce Elliot

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

 **indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Alabama 2                         – Martha Roby over Bobby Bright **
  • Massachusetts 4             – Sean Bielat over Barney Frank **
  • Mississippi 4                    – Steven Palazzo over Gene Taylor **
  • New Jersey 6                   – Anna Little over Frank Pallone **
  • New Jersey 12                 – Scott Sipprele over Rush Holt ** 
  • Pennsylvania 4               – Keith Rothfus over Jason Altmire **
  • Pennsylvania 12            – Tim Burns over Mark Critz **
  • Texas 15                           – Eddie Zamora over Ruben Hinjosa
  • Texas 25                          – Donna Campbell over Lloyd Doggett **

 

Results bewtween 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm

  • Colorado 3                  – Scott Tipton over John Salazar
  • Colorado 4                  – Cory Gardner over Betsy Markey
  • Louisaina 3                 – Jeff Landry over Ravi Sangisetty
  • Kansas 3                       – Kevin Yoder over Stephene Moore
  • Michigan 1                   – Dan Banishek over Gary McDowell
  • Michigan 7                  – Tim Walberg over Mark Schauer
  • New York 19              – Nan Hayworth over John Hall
  • New York 20             – Chris Gibson over Scott Murphy
  • New York 23             – Matt Doheny over Bill Owens
  • New York 29             – Tom Reed over Matt Zeller
  • New Mexico 2           – Harry Teague over Steve pearce
  • South Dakota -AL    – Kristi Noem over Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin
  • Texas 23                     – Quico Canseco over Ciro Rodrigues
  • Wisconsin 7              – Sean Duffy over Julie Lassa
  • Wisconsin 8              – Reid Ribble over Steve Kagen

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

  **indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Colorado 7                 – Ryan Frazier over Ed Perlmutter**
  • Louisiana 2        – *Cao over Richmond **~(see note below)
  • Minnesota 1               – Randy Demmer over Tim Walz
  • Minnesota 7              –  Lee Byberg over Collin Peterson
  • Minnesota 8               – Chip Cravaack over Jim Oberstar**
  • Michigan 15               – Rob Steele over John Dingel**
  • New York 2                – John Gomez over Steve Israel**
  • New York 13             – Michael Grimm over Michael McMahon**
  • New York 24             – Richard Hanna over Michael Arcuri
  • New York 25             – Anne Marie Buerkle over Dan Maffei
  • New York 27             – Leonard Roberts over Brian Higgins
  • New Mexico 3           – Tom Mullins over Ben Ray Lujan
  • Rhode Island             – John Loughlin over David Cicilline**
  • Wisconsin 13             – Dan Kapanke over Ron Kind**

 

Results between 10:00 pm and 11:00 pm

  • Arizona 1                               – Paul Gosar over Ann Kirkpatrick
  • Arizona 5                              – David Schwiekert over Harry Mitchell
  • Arizona 8                              – Jesse Kelly over Gabrielle Giffords **
  • Idaho 1                                   – Raul Labrador over Walt Minnick
  • North Dakota -AL              – Rick Berg over Earl Pomeroy
  • Nevada 3                               – Joe Heck over Dina Titus

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

 **indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Arizona 7                              – Ruth McClung over Raul Girjalva **
  • Iowa 3                                    – Brad Zaun over Leonard Boswell
  • Utah 2                                    – Morgan Philpot over Jim Mathison

 

Results between 11:00 pm and 12:00 am

  • California 11             – David Harmer over Jerry McNerny   
  • California 20            – Andy Vidak over Jim Costa
  • Washington 3          – Denny Heck over Jamie Herrera

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

 **indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • California 18                   – Mike Berryhill over Dennis Cardoza
  • California 47                  – Van Tran over Lorretta Sanchez**
  • Washington 2                 – John Koster over Rick Larsen**
  • Washington 9                 – Dick Muri over Adam Smith
  • Oregon 4                          – Art Robinson over Peter DeFazio
  • Oregon 5                         – Scott Brunn over Kurt Schrader**

 

Results after 12:00 am

  • Hawaii 1                 – Charles Djou over Colleen Hanabusa
Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

The 2010 Midterm Elections Will Be Worse For Dems Than Expected

"Republican Party Elephant" logo

G.O.P.

Bookmark and Share    This November is going to be quite a dramatic reversal of fortunes for Democrats and while some on the left are trying to claim that the Republican hopes for retaking the House are unwarranted and deny that we are in a wave election, there is actually no realistic basis for such claims. The surging force behind Republicans in 2010 is undeniable.   As indicated by Gallup, the Republican Party is polling incredibly well among voters on a number of factors including  party identification, voter preferences among independents, and even candidate preferences, and the G.O.P. has also retaken the lead on the generic ballot.

Furthermore; Republicans are now either comparable with, or surpassing Democrats on everything from voter enthusiasm and an increased online presence, to fundraising and a growing number of boots on the ground, grass root volunteers. For one of the first times in recent history, young Republican voters are expected to turn out in larger numbers than young Democrat voters. College Republicans have even jumped to a point in popularity and fundraising that is allowing them to go national with ads and target several key states on 2010.

When it comes to the large gap in internet presence and fundraising that existed between the left and right in 2008, in 2010 the trend has totally reversed. The first signs of this became evident 11 months ago when Scott Brown raised nearly $10 million online in all of 18 days. Now, we have seen other examples of internet success in such candidates as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell who raised more than $1 million online in the 24 hours after their primary wins. All of this is a sign of two things. The G.O.P. has finally gained parity with the Democrats in the use of the internet and that the collective strength of the G.O.P.‘s grassroots is becoming increasingly more important than any strengths of particular candidates or their campaigns.

All of this points to a shifting of the political earththat is far greater than we saw in 1994.

Rarely has a political Party comeback as quickly as the Republican Party is poised to do this November. Normally, it takes much more than two years to bounce back from the type of  losses that they suffered first in 2006 and then again in 2008.

It is accurate to say though, that the climb back to power for the G.O.P. is based less on the voters goodwill towards Republicans and more on the ill will that they have come to feel towards Democrats. Which leads me to wonder about something.

 Between 2006 and 2010, neither Party seemed to be held in any great esteem, yet why was there not any great move to finally create that perennially promised, almighty, and perfect third Party that we always hear dissatisfied voters talk about?

Although there has so far been a strong ripple of anti-incumbent sentiment out there,  we did not see the rise of that much hoped for third Party alternative. We did however see a powerful anti-big government movement infiltrate the process and greatly influence the field of Republicans running in 2010.

I believe that this is all largely due to the efforts of the Democrat Party more than the Republican Party.

The Party in power has overreached the mandate they thought they had in 2008. They even misread their significant wins in 2008 and assumed that the nation was actually desirous of an aggressive big government agenda. But in fact, they weren’t. The reason for the 2008 victory, led by the top of Democrat ticket with Barack Obama, was a phenomenon similar to the one that is giving rise to the Republican resurgence of 2010. Voters were voting against the Party in power.

This is what happens when voters are dissatisfied. They seek change……..the very same theme that candidate Obama successfully banked on in ’08.

Another key to the Democrat victories of 2008 was the excitement over the novelty of the historic chance to elect the nation’s first partially black President.  And last but not least was the fact that the G.O.P. ran a weak nominee at the top ticket who failed to energize the base and failed to prove that republicanism under him, would be any different from the republicanism seen under G.W. Bush and the existing Republican leadership in Congress.

So change was born. But as we have come to see, the change that Democrats have run with, is not the change that Americans are satisfied with. As a result, the political pendulum is now swinging back in the opposite direction. But it is swinging with a vengeance. Between incredible Democrat overreach, and an explosion of exaggerated government growth, spending and deficit increases, Democrats have polarized the electorate far more than did the Republicans who after a few years in power, slowly but surely forgot their commitment to limited government and less spending.

But it is clear now that most Americans believe in the basic Republican ideology of less government, less taxes and less spending. That is why rather than seeing a surge for third Party candidacies, you have seen a rush towards cleaning out the Republican Party of those whom have drifted away from those principles and failed to stand up for them responsibly and consistently.

We are now seeing one of those rare occasions when a large majority of voters are actually pushing an ideology more than a candidate. That is what the TEA Party movement is all about. They are pushing a cause more than Party politics and as such they are helping to return the G.O.P. back to its true conservative roots by ridding it of so-called RINO’s.

But if the G.O.P. is to continue its rise back to power into 2012 and beyond, they will have to prove to the voters that some lessons have been learned. 

Given that President Obama will still be President on the morning after November 2, 2010, and that the Senate will likely still be in Democrat control, albeit with a new Majority Leader, the G.O.P. House will have to hold firm in rejecting any compromises that err on the side of increased spending, and increased government overreach.

This will prompt charges of being obstructionists and cries that attempt to describe Republicans as the “Party of no” by those on the left, but it is important to remember that those initiating such remarks are not likely to ever support Republicans anyway. But if the G.O.P. aggressively offers solid alternatives while rejecting the President’s, and the Senate’s big government, liberal agenda, people will maintain faith in the new face of the G.O.P. and that ‘Party of no” description will continue to fall on deaf ears.

When the G.O.P takes back the House, they will have to prove that they are actually ready to fight for the values that are providing them with the momentum that they currently have behind them. This will especially be the case in matters of spending and the budget, since the House, more so then the Senate controls the purse strings of the federal government.  If they flinch, and if they fail to keep their noses clean and deliver on their promised commitments, their will be little enthusiasm from the grassroots to maintain the level of support that they are currently placing behind the G.O.P..

Republicans will also have to remember a few things. First they must make sure that each issue is connected to government’s role in the everyday lives of Americans. They need to consistently demonstrate how big government is expanding its control over our personal lives but at the sake of properly dealing with its actual responsibilities such as providing a secure border and finally developing comprehensive immigration reform or balancing the federal  budget. And they must keep each of these messages simple. The same way Ronald Reagan did in both 1980 and 1984, as demonstrated in the following 1984 Reagan campaign campaign ad:

 

Keeping it simple brings it home and in 1984 Reagan brought it home with a sweep of 49 states to Mondale’s 1.

But before we get to presidential politics as it pertains to 2012, we have to establish the point from which the G.O.P. will start from after 2o10.  At the moment it looks like Republicans could far surpass the expectations of many in both the House and the Senate .

Based upon the circumstances that exist today and my own estimation of how things will play out in the individual landscapes of several hotly contested states, I see the senate tied at with 50 Republicans and the 48 Democrats plus the two left leaning Independents who caucus with the Democrats.  This includes Retaining seats in Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah while picking up seats in;

  • Arkansas   (John Boozman over Blanche Lincoln)
  • Colorado    (Ken Buck over Mike Bennet)
  • Illinois       (Mark Kirk over Alexi Giannoulias)
  • Indiana      (Dan Coats over Brad Ellsworth)
  • Nevada       (Susan Angle over Harry Reid)
  • North Dakota    (John Hoeven over Tracy Potter)
  • Pennsylvania     (Pat Toomey over Joe Sestak)
  • Washington     (Dino Rossi over Patty Murray)
  • Wisconsin      (Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold)

However; there are several possibilities which increase the likelihood of a Republican takeover of the Senate.

Any one of three races could keep Joe Biden from breaking any tie vote.  Delaware, West Virginia and/or California could very easily go Republican. 

With the surprise win by a rather large margin of Christine O’Donnell over heavily favored Mike Castle, it is not of the question to believe that under the existing anti-left atmosphere and prevailing momentum,  O’Donnell could pull off another surprise and take the seat away from the media annointed frontrunner Chris Coons.  But even more possible than a Republican upset in delaware are the possible ones that are in the making inCalifornia and surprisingly, West Virginia.

In West Virginia, popular Democrat incumbent Governor Joe Mancin was originally seen as a shoo-in. He is one of those truly rare relative moderate Democrats and as a long serving Governor of the state he has done well by its voters and bonded with them extensively. Especially after a string of mining disasters that hit this coal mining state pretty hard and very personally. But it would seem that winds of disenchantment with anything relating to Democrats are blowing so strongly against them that even Mancin’s personal relationship with voters is being severely curtailed when it comes to sending him to Washington, D.C.. For that reason, his Republican opponent John Raese went from nearly 33% at the end of July to 48% at the end of September while during that same time period, the popular Mancin went from 54% to 46% where he currently stands 2% behind underdog Raese.

The race is sure to be close and right now it can easily go either way but I believe the Republicans can pull this one off and at the moment I believe they will squeak it out.

In California, I can’t underestimate Barbara Boxer.

In her last race for the Senate, back in 2004, she beat her Republican opponent by 20% and became the holder of the record for the most popular votes in a statewide contested election in California. But this time around, things are not so easy and she wont be breaking any records with her popular vote this time around.

She currently has a disapproval rating higher than her approval rating, one of the largest newspapers in the state has refused to endorse because they believe that after 18 years in the Senate she has failed to distinguish herself in any meaningful way and that they see no reason to believe that she will do with another 6 years in office.

But this is California, a state that President Obama won by 24% or more than 3.2 million votes. But in addition to that, something else that could work in Boxer’s favor this time around is a statewide proposition to legalize marijuana. That ballot question could draw many Democrats who otherwise were not interested in voting this time around, to the polls and while there, they just might push the button for Boxer.

For her part though. Republican Carly Fiorina is holding her own, has all the money she needs to keep pushing her message and pulling out her vote and at the moment, while she is behind Boxer, by less than 6 percent, Boxer is still under the 50% mark, a place that no incumbent should be in this close to the election.

Anyone of these three seats could easily break for the Republican and give control of the Senate back to the G.O.P. and the possibility of this happening increases each day that we get closer to Election Day. But even if neither Delaware, California or West Virginia fail to Republicans, with a 50/50 split it is quite conceivable that any one of handful of Democrats could switch Parties or in the case of Independent Joe Lieberman, decide to causcus with the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

On the House side, Republican victories are even more lopsided than they are in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives Republicans could possibly end up with the largest number of seats they have held since 1946 when the GOP won 246 seats. Currently it looks like the G.O.P. can actually win at least 62 seats, thereby breaking the House down to 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats. This projection is much higher than most estimates being publicly announced which, for the most part range in the 40’s. But my projection still falls below that of Patrick Ruffini a reputable and leading G.O.P. strategist who has been in the trenches for quite some time now. Ruffiini believes that the figure will certainly be somewhere over 50 seats but believes a 70 seat gain is not out of the question.

No matter what, the results of the midterm elections will produce profound changes in the direction of policy and at the very least change the pace of the Obama agenda .

But there remains an aspect of the 2010 midterm elections which is being overshadowed by the anticipated turnover in Congress and it could have an more even more important long term effect on politics.

That is the 37 gubernatorial elections being held throughout the nation. Of them Republicans are expected to pick up at least 8 new statehouses bringing them from 23 where they are currently at, to 31, leaving Democrats with Governors in only 19 states.

That number is profoundly important because in 2011 the once every decade census data is poured over by the states and with they draw the new the state legislative a congressional districts lines from which Americans will elect their representatives for the decade to come. Having Governors in 31 states, will give the G.O.P. an advantage in drawing districts that it will be easier to elect Republicans in.

But in addition to that, Governors can play a crucial role in presidential elections.

There ability to coordinate their states for national candidates is invaluable and having that advantage over Democrats in almost a dozen states, will give whomever the Republican presidential nominee is a leg up over President Obama in 2012. Of course if 2010 proves to be as devastating for Democrats as it is looking, President Obama may not be the Democrat nominee. I feel that if Democrat losses are as profound as they are shaping up to be, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will resign her post and in time declare that she will offer a primary challenge to President Obama in order to save the Democratic Party and the nation from him.

Of course it only takes one world event to turn things around and in politics 5 weeks is an eternity. But if things continue going as they are right now, Democrats are going to descend into the political wilderness for years to come and President Obama is going to be a one term President who Republican can thank for bringing them back to power and whom Democrats will blame for squandering their opportunity to maintain control of Washington for years to come. 

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Arlen Specter’s Spectacle Stirs Sexist Sentiments

Bookmark and Share     Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter is losing it.

I don’t know if it’s his age, the Party switching, the stress of being a Democrat these days, the primary challenge to his nomination for his U.S. Senate seat, the strain of the tough challenge from Republican Pat Toomey that he will face if he does win the nomination or a combination of all the above, but Specter is losing it.

As a panelist on a talk radio program dealing with the state of political affairs in America, Arlen became frustrated. He was being pressed by another panelist, Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota.

As you will hear in the clip, Bachmann aggressively addresses Senator Specter’s statements. At one point the Senator tries to characterize Bachmann’s response to a question by claiming she did not answer it. When the Congresswoman addresses the charge, grumpy ol’ Specter tells her to not interrupt him. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. But then, after Specter repeats his claim that she did not respond to the question, as Bachmann reiterates the fact that she did, Specter again tells her to not interrupt but also says to her   “I‘ll treat you like a lady, so act like one”.

As the same line of debate continues, Specter again tells Bachmann to “act like a lady”.

Now I am not one to defend political correctness. I believe in respect and respectful characterizations and dialogue but I do not believe in the proliferation of P.C. liberalism that makes it an offense to be honest and deny that people who are overweight are heavy or fat, or that people with no brains are stupid or not smart. I reject the notion that terrorists must be called, as Reuters did after 9/11,  freedom fighters.

I am of the opinion that to a certain degree, political correctness assisted in making 9/11 possible and that it hinders efforts to combat future 9/11’s.

So I do not defend political correctness. However, Arlen Specter’s remarks were not just an example of some act of political insensitivity. It was simply arrogant, sexist and belittling.

A father may tell his 8 year old daughter to “act like a lady” while she is at the dinner table, but how many men or for that matter women, could get away with saying that to their spouse or co-worker? I know that if my father ever told my mother to “act like a lady”, if he didn’t immediately get a cup of coffee thrown at him, he would have had to think twice about drinking any cup of coffee she might have prepared for him.

The phrase and its use by the biggest political opportunist, this side of the Mississippi, was incredibly insulting and Specter’s repeated use of the phrase, at times, came across as though Michele Bachmann, a woman, was suppose to just sit there and be lectured to by Specter, a man.

Perhaps there is a generational gap and perhaps old Arlen didn’t mean his demand for Bachmann to be a lady as a way of telling the opposite sex to know their place among men. Perhaps. But if that is so, than Arlen Specter simply proved that he is out of touch. And does Pennsylvania or America really need another out of touch politician? Do we not have a President and ruling liberal party that is already out of touch , as proven by the voter backlash seen in Massachusetts?

In addition to this situation being another reason why Specter need not be elected to the US Senate, the episode also gives rise to the total lack of sincerity and the ever present double standard of Specter’s party affiliation, the liberal based Democrat machine. Had Dick Cheney ever told Nancy Pelosi to “act like a lady”, the deafening crescendo of voices calling for his resignation, or immediate forced removal from office, would have been so prevalent, that even the earthquake in Haiti would have been pushed off the front pages. But a male Democrat aims that same remark to a Republican woman and there is not a whimper from the left or the feminazi leadership that would be trying to castrate Dick Cheney and have his gonads hang from their ears like earrings as a sign of some feminist victory.

So what does this recent little tete-a-tete teach us?

First of all, Arlen Specter is a loser.

He is a bitter, confused, out of touch, party hopper who was a Democrat, became a Republican and then when he thought being a Democrat would offer him a better chance at reelection, went back to being a Democrat. Specter has no ideological center or loyalty and after three decades in the U.S. Senate, he has overstayed his welcome.

Although Specter has done some good over a political career that spans almost 50 years, it is a shame to see him cap it off on such a low note. But those low notes are his and his alone. If he were smart, he would cut his losses now. Apparently though, Specter is not very smart. Like many politicians, Specter’s need to retain power, clouds his judgment.

Telling Rep. Bachmann to essentially shut up and listen to him may not in and of itself , be enough to disqualify Specter from reelection but it does not help. In the past, I have given Specter some credit for his legal skills. They were the same skills that helped insure Justice Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court in the 90’s. But Specter has shown little of those skills since then. He has not influenced the Democrat Party that he now calls home and he has not been a particularly strong voice on anything during the last six years.

So it is time to go.

The incident also reconfirms that Democrats are hypocrites with a double standard that runs so deep, it undermines all they claim to stand for. Had Specter’s remark been made by any conservative to a liberal like, say …..Barbara “Call Me Senator” Boxer,  all hell would have broken loose. But as usual, liberals show their inherrent hypocrisy.  With them, sexism is fair game when it comes to Sarah Palin, but not when it come to Hillary Clinton

Liberals are just born hypocrites.  If you don’t believe me, look no further than the politically incorrect incident prior to Specter’s spectacle with Michele Bachmann. In that,  Democrat Majority Leader Harry “Soon To Be Out Of Office” Reid , credited the President’s viability as a candidate to his being  a light skinned black man man who can turn his Negro dialect on and off based on the crowds he appears before. Can you imagine how Democrats would have reacted to that if Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown said that?  Do you think a simple apology from him would have sufficed?

Not in a million years.

For her part, Congresswoman Bachmann characterized Specter’s attitude and words as “patronizing” and “sexist”

She also stated the following;

“But what was really stunning, again, about that whole interchange is it’s emblematic of what the message the voters sent on Tuesday evening. The voters repudiated the arrogance that’s come out of the Democrat Party.”

“And what I heard yesterday on the radio with Senator Specter was more of that arrogance. They haven’t sobered up yet as to the reality that the people are in charge, not this very liberal majority.”

To that, I say, thank you Congresswoman Bachmann.   You are so right and not only are you a lady, you’re a terrific one.  Unlike Arlen Specter who is no credt to his gender or his party, you make Republicans…….men and women…… proud!

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

What If George Bush Spoke of “Light Skinned” Candidates “With No Negro Dialect”?

Bookmark and Share  What if George Bush described Barack Obama as a candidate who was “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”?

Oh I think we all know what would happen………………All hell would break out!

Al Sharpton would be holding a 5 borough march throughout New York City, with the President hanging in effigy at the head of it. Oh, and special guest speakers at the end of the march….that would likely include Senator Schmuck Schumer, Governor David Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg, and a slew of congressional representatives like Louise Slaughter, Carol Maloney, Charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner and too many more to allow to speak on stage in one night.

They would be joined by Marches in Chicago led by Jesse Jackson, in several in California led by people like Maxine Waters, and Loretta Sanchez, as well as Barbara “Call Me Senator” Boxer and a host of her liberal underlings in the House.

They would all be calling upon him to resign from office. Some might even be trying to have him impeached.

All across the country, most of the population would be denouncing the President for his insensitive, prejudicial remarks. Most Republicans would also be chastising the President for his remarks and almost all would be distancing themselves from him and his remarks.

Back in 2002, incoming Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott

Attended a birthday party for long serving Senator Strom Thurmond. In a toast-like offering at the party he stated “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,”

 

Strom Thurmond, was a segregationist when he ran in 1948.

Lott’s choice of words were certainly inappropriate. They were also not intended to be a reference to segregation or racism. In an immediate apology, Lott tried to explain that he was not referring to the segregationist policy that Thurmond held over fifty years ago and dropped long ago, but rather his body of work over his lifetime.

The apology was not enough.

Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign. Former and always bitter Vice President Al Gore declared Lott’s remarks to be “racist.” And in an interview on CNN Gore stated that Lott should apologize for his comments or face censure by the Senate. The Vice President could not let it go and days later publicly stated…… “It is not a small thing … for one of the half dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines. That’s the definition of a racist comment,”

Now I don’t know about you, but I did view any direct reference by Trent Lott to race, dialect, color, segregation or anything divisive. Inferences were made by many like Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi and even Barack Obama before he was a Senator but unlike Harry Reid’s insensitive remarks, there was no mention of color or prejudices.

They all put word in Trentt Lott’s mouth and they defined what he said to mean something he did not mean.

And joining in the chorus of partisan pricks from liberal hangmen, was the media, which was all too happy to help Democrats tie the noose around a Republicans neck. They continuously hounded Lott and other Republicans. The Lott comment was headlines for days. And people like Harry Reid only fed the flames of partisan fury that burned like created by leading Lott to his lynching. This went on until Trentt Lott and Republicans understood that the dust up caused by the toast to a man on his one hundredth birthday was turning into a sandstorm that would not die down.

So several Republicans agreed to throw Lott under the bus, and Lott resigned.

Of the resignation, Harry “The Racist” Reid said;

‘He had no alternative,’ ‘Senator Lott dug himself a hole and he didn’t dig it all in one setting. He dug it over the years. And he couldn’t figure out a way to get out of it.’” (”Nevada Lawmakers Not Surprised By Lott Resignation,” The Associated Press, 12/20/02)

He also through this in;

“If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

Apparently, that is not really the case. Apparently Harry Reid believes that dark skinned black Americans who speak ebonics are less than Presidential.

Personally, I can’t argue with at least part of that sentiment. I mean I truly could not imagine myself electing Fifty Cent or Snoop Dog President of the United States.

That is not because of their color. It is because of the attitude they convey, the lack of respect they demonstrate, the vulgarity of their performances and language. This is not limited to African-Americans though. Eminem, the Caucasian rapper from Detroit also known as Mathew Matthers would also be a non starter for me. 

But I don’t think Harry Reid was talking about rappers or pop icons. Was he actually stating that politicians like maybe Jesse Jackson, Jr., spoke too black and had skin too dark to be elected President?  Was it a reference to someone else like maybe Maxine Waters or the African-American Mayors of Philadelphia, Baltimore or Detroit. Maybe he meant Southern Congressman John Lewis was too dark skinned? I don’t know, but he said it. I didn’t. I would not claim that those people can’t get elected because of their dialect or color. Congressman Joe “You Lied” Wilson didn’t say that. Mitt Romney didn’t say that.  Nor did Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin say that.

Harry Reid did!

So what’s the difference here? Why did Trentt Lott’s head have to roll for a toast to a hundred year old man who, at the time, was the longest serving senator in history? A toast which made no mention of race but which he still apologized for?

The difference is Democrats are pure hypocrites. The foundation of their political being, liberalism, is a hypocritical based ideology that proves to be full of double standards and incongruent logic.

Need more proof?

Compare the defense that Democrats been offering Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his remarks about color and speech to the general tone of the following remarks that Democrats made regarding then incoming Republican Senate Majority Leader Trentt Lott for his remarks about the decades of service that a 100 year old Senator gave to his country:

Then-Senator Joe Biden:

“What he said was insensitive as hell; it’s very offensive. Race is serious stuff. It’s not something you kid about.’” (Erin Kelly, “Del. Lawmakers, Civil Rights Leaders Condemn Lott’s Comments,” Gannett News Service, 12/13/02) 

Sen.Barbara Boxer:

‘His apology does not take away the sting of his divisive words, nor the pain inflicted on millions of African Americans under segregation,’ she said.” (Edward Epstein, “Bush Calls Lott’s Remark ‘Wrong,’” The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/13/02) 

Then Sen. Hillary Rodham:

“the GOP must decide whether Lott ‘represents the views of the majority of Republicans in the Senate and in our country.’” (Ron Kampeas, “Some Republicans Say Lott’s Apology Should End Controversy,” The Associated Press, 12/14/02) 

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski:

“Lott’s comments ‘demonstrate a glaring insensitivity to the pain African-Americans suffered as a result of segregation and discrimination.’” (Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Lott Repeats Apologies, Rejects Calls To Resign As Senate Leader,” The Baltimore Sun, 12/14/02) 

Sen. Debbie Stabenow:

‘Those kinds of comments have no place in our society and should be repudiated by every American,’ ‘At this point, the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate needs to think long and hard about the kind of values they want their leadership to represent.’” (Katherine Hutt Scott, “Mich. Delegation Members From Both Parties Criticize Lott Remarks,” Gannett News Service, 12/14/02) 

Senator Patty Murray:

“The comments by Lott, R-Miss., were offensive, hurtful and wrong. Worst of all, they do not appear to be isolated remarks. At a time when our country should stand as one, (the comments) serve only to divide. Americans deserve leaders who will stand up for the civil rights of all citizens.’” (Gregg Herrington, “State’s Two Democratic Senators And Gop Chairman Take Lott To Task For Remarks,” The Columbian [Vancouver, WA], 12/14/02)That’s just a small sampling.

So I ask you…………………….What makes it okay, or not a big deal for the Democrat leader of the United States Senate to make irresponsible, racially insensitive remarks while it is not okay and a very big deal if a Republican leader of the Senate has his words twisted into racially insensitive inferences that were not intended?

Why should Harry Reid not be forced to resign?

This is a moment of truth for Democrats. Now is the time for them to demonstrate whether they are the hypocrites that I have come to know them to be, or if they are a party with at least a scintilla of  integrity and with any sense of fairness and justice.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

The Political Landscape Is About To Change

Bookmark and Share    In 2010 a political earthquake will take place.

RepublicanRevolutionaries

It will not be akin to the magnitude of an 8.0 on the Richter scale but the political landscape will shift and it will not be to the left. This transference will probably be to an extent that will set the stage for a soon to come political U-turn away from the direction our nation is now going in.

Midterms elections almost always produce a backlash against the party in national control and as such in 2010, Democrats stand on ground zero, right at the epicenter of a political tremor that is about to make the land slide out from under their feet.

Liberals may not agree with trickle down economics but they can’t deny the trickle down effects of midterm elections and, after only seven or so months in control, the effects of their ultra-liberal leadership has already surpassed expectations with record levels of spending, deficits, taxes and regulations.

Their promotion of a second and now possibly third “stimulus package” has done little more than give the White House the opportunity to say that, at its best, the historic federal spending bill has helped to make things not as bad as they could be. That claim in and of itself is false, yet despite that far from glowing admission, Washington essentially borrowed nearly $10,000 from every American household to create jobs that have yet to materialize while at the same time the unemployment rate continues to exceed expectations as it soars to distressing heights.

On other fronts, President Obama has been on several foreign tours of apology to the world for our being the greatest hope of freedom the world has ever known and at home, under his orders, his uber-liberal underlings, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been hard at work trying to tax the air that we breathe with an ill conceived Cap-and-Tax bill and now a horrifically rushed measure to socialize medical care in America.

These highlights along with other areas such as slashes in our missile defense systems just as North Korea builds missiles that can hit American soil and as Iran kicks its nuclear ambitions and rocketry muscle into high gear, have all helped to lead 61% of all Americans to conclude that America is on the wrong track. In that same poll, a Rasmussen poll, 46% of the population disapproves of the President’s job performance and while 86% believe that the economy is the most important issue of the day, only 30% trust President Obama’s handling of the economy.

All of this indicates a boom and bust cycle for Democrats that is about to cause the political quake of 2010 and ultimately change the political landscape of Washington, D.C. and the direction of our nation .

The realization of just how antithetical contemporary liberalism is to the founding principles of our nation is slowly but surely beginning to settle in to the American psyche.

People who have never before been inclined to pick up a sign and protest in the streets are being inspired to do so today as it becomes clearer and clearer to them that the rights they have taken for granted for too long are being eroded at an unprecedented rate.

The result is not only a realization that the “change” the Democrat’s messiah, President Obama, offered is not exactly the holy grail that many had sought, it is also making many fear the results of the changes that are being made to the very fabric of our American society.

That realization is responsible for the reemergence of the type of conservative ideological vehemence and determination that helped bring Republicans to control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years in 1994. In fact the forces of true conservatism were so powerful at the time that, at that same time, the GOP also wrested control of the Senate and after two years in office, the White House press corps was forced to ask President Clinton if his administration was relevant anymore.

Today the signs of outright rage over years of encroachments on individual rights and personal wealth is at such a boiling point that even the establishment of the Republican Party is about to be purged.

Years of runaway spending and a political culture of corruption that both parties have participated in are inspiring a new generation of conservative leaders to challenge the status of quo of the G.O.P..

In Florida, the once promising governor, Charlie Crist has declared that he will run for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination to replace retiring and inconsequential Republican Senator Mel Martinez.

As governor, Crist has fallen far short of his predecessor, Governor Jeb Bush. He has proven himself to be a pseudo conservative and generic politician. He is far from being fiscally conservative, has endorsed all of President Obama’s bailout proposals and he has never taken a stand for state sovereignty over the encroachment of the federal government.

In other words he is simply a career politician with his finger in the wind as he tries to sail with the tide of beltway politics.

So in comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the nomination.

Marco Rubio is a young energetic man of Cuban immigrants who has served in the Florida state legislature and even at his young age rose to become the Speaker of The Florida House of Representatives. He is also a true believer in the principles that should make one a problem.

Rubio acknowledges that his state’s incumbent Governor has the inside track to the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate but outspent and outmanned Rubio is undaunted in his challenge to Crist for the nomination. His reasons are simple and in his own words he explains that he believes……. “that our country is at the proverbial crossroads and that our future will depend on which path that we choose. Some believe that the path to security and prosperity is a larger involvement of government in our economy, that what we need is a government that spends more money and uses the tax system to distribute wealth and pick winners and losers. That is the view of some of our fellow Americans and it is the view of the folks who are in charge today of Washington, D.C.. But the majority of us don’t agree with that view and we deserve a voice in American politics. And that’s why I want to serve in the United states Senate. Because I want to be a part of offering an alternative.”

Rubio is inspired to represent something more than himself. That is why instead of waiting to win the favor of Florida’s Republican political establishment he is challenging its leader, Charlie Crist.

The outright anger with the current state of affairs in America spans the nation and as the atmosphere of discontent compels conservatives to challenge the establishment in Florida we head north to Ohio where conservative John Kasich has cast his hook, line and sinker into the sea of discontent as he seeks the Republican nomination for Governor in 2010.

Kasich is a former congressman, one of the leading members of the Republican Revolution which took control of Congress in 1994.

After handily winning reelection to several terms, Kasich remained true to the conservative agenda that propelled him into office in the first place and rejected the notion of making his place in Congress a lifetime job. But after several years in the private sector the condition of his state and nation has forced him back into the political arena as he seeks to bring the same sense of fiscal responsibility and conservative activism that he brought to Congress, to his state.

“Let people have their power back and run America from the bottom up.“ Power flows from the individual to the government, not the other way around. The individual is paramount in our society. There should be no individual to lord over other groups of people. Individuals ought to be in charge. We ought to get back to the days when we ran this country from the bottom up” says Kasich.

And with that sentiment John Kasich will likely become one of the most influential, leading conservative Governor’s come 2011.

Heading West Chuck Kozak is another example of the renegade Republican forces that are emerging to challenge the status quo of politics and the G.O.P…

As political novice, Kozak enters the race for U.S. Senate in Nevada. This family man, veteran, volunteer, outdoorsman and highly honored attorney will be taking on none other than one of the three leading liberal faces of government, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Kozak seeks to restore a sense of Federalism to our nation by returning the 85 means tested federal welfare programs that remain, back to the states, and give each state the ability to establish an entirely new safety net system based on work instead of handouts. He also sponsors an optional 15% flat income tax, that gives taxpayers the opportunity to choose either that flat tax or the deductions and credits of the current system and he strives for a 20% reduction in the capital gains tax.

Also on his agenda is a focus on a reliance of the free the marketplace to produce new energy, while still using existing sources such as oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power, as well as the newer alternative energy sources such as wind and solar in order to assure a reliable, low cost energy supply to boost the economy.

This powerful innovative, conservative, constitutional, freedom based agenda is in sharp contrast to the ever emerging liberal, government controlled, socialistic list of plans that Kozak’s opponent, Harry Reid, is responsible for putting on the legislative docket and promoting.

In Pennsylvania the opportunistic, old guard, career politician Arlen Specter who spent his life masquerading as a Republican will be trying to convince Democrats that he’s as liberal as President Obama. His Arnoldian move has opened the door for Republican rebel Pat Toomey to accept the GOP mantle and carry a conservative agenda as powerful as Chuck Kozak’s over the finish line and finally put Specter’s games to rest.

Allover the nation, a new breed of conservative constitutionalists who understand what the Republican Party is suppose to stand for and are ashamed by the old guard’s retreat from that stand, are stepping forward to slowly but surely push aside the Republican leaders who have lost their steam and taken on a practice of political expediency that promotes their grasp on power more than the cause they should be using their power to advance.

In New Jersey conservatives are preparing to challenge the five Cap-and-Trade Republicans who sided with President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi on the issue of taxing the air that we breathe with the greatest transfer of wealth known to man. Those challenges include one to the Dean of New Jersey’s congressional delegation, Republican Representative Chris Smith.

In California where, next year, a fiscally responsibly, innovative Republican in the form of Ebay C.E.O. Meg Whitman, is likely to become Governor and also whisk Republicans in to control of one of their two legislative chambers.

Also in California, Chuck Devore, a state senator, has been slicing and dicing the demonically liberal and outstandingly obnoxious Barabara Boxer as he prepares to challenge her for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

Devore’s outspoken and aggressive attacks on Boxer are proven more and more deserving as she uses Capital Hill as a stage for grandstanding and dressing down members of the military and anyone who is not as rabidly partisan to the radical liberalism that she subscribes to.

One of his strongest issues is a plan to get dollars flowing into California’s coffers without soaking average state taxpayers. He is calling for an aggressive off-shore oil drilling program that would gain access to 9 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped into off of California’s coast waters.

Some of the challenges to the establishment of the Republican Party will not be the only reason for new life and new successes for the party. Some Republican victories in many areas will simply come by default as they win not because of themselves but because of the undeniably devastating performances of the Democrats that they will be running against.

Such will likely be the case this year in New Jersey where the race for Governor will probably be won by the guy who has screwed things up least. In this situation that would be Republican nominee, former U.S. Attorney, Chris Christie.

Christie is nothing special and leaves a lot to be desired but incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine has been a disgrace. With no accomplishments to run on, Corzine’s campaign has one issue that he is going with. It is the fact that he is of the same party as President Barack Obama. But without Obama on the ballot, that campaign issue will ultimately fall flat on the ears of voters who have been punished by Corzine with one of the worst economies in the nation and the greatest tax burden in the nation. That all amounts to a Republican win by default.

In New York where Governor David Paterson has led the state into dire straits and Democrat control of the state legislature has led to a point of chaos and confusion that has stalled legislative actions on everything, Republicans are on the verge of taking back at least one chamber of the state legislature and could have a potential Republican Governor in the form of conservative Congressman Peter King of Long Island. That is a long shot though. There is a better chance that former Governor George Pataki will run again or there is always the possibility of Rudy Giuliani entering the picture. Neither of those two would honor the conservative revolution that the state needs but both would be better than David Paterson or Andrew Cuomo if   he challenges Paterson for the nomination and beats him.

In Michigan the devastating ruin that liberal Governor Jennifer Granholm made of the state will usher in some much needed changes there too. And they will be quite the opposite to the change that President Obama is currently creating.

All together, the cumulative effects of all these pending races demonstrates that 2010 is shaping up to be the precipice of a pivotal political period. On that precipice are the fronts of two battles which are brewing at this very moment.

One battle is for the restoration of a Republican Party that realizes its roots and begins to once again represent its grass root followers. In this battle the Marco Rubio’s who represent the new breed of traditional conservative Republicans will fight the stagnant and unproductive old guard members of the party………the ones that produced the moderate and almost apologetic Republican candidacy of John McCain for President. The part of the party that has forgotten the principles and responsibilities that led to the Republican Revolution of 1994.

The second front will be the fight against incumbent liberal powerbrokers who now control government on the state and federal level because of those Republicans who strayed away from the principles they vowed to advance. On this front, the John Kasich’s, the Chuck DeVore’s and if he wins the first battle, the Marco Rubio’s of the new generation of Republican leaders will have to slay the loyal liberal opposition that is taking this country in the wrong direction that 61% of Americans believe we are heading in.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Barbara Boxer; The Leading Cause of Homosexuality Among Male Californians

boxerU4PrezBookmark and Share     As Barbara Boxer prepares to run for a third term in the United States Senate the Brooklyn born California representative appears to be pretty cocky these days and below, you will find a video that I threw together to demonstrate just how cocky she has gotten, and in it, you will find the proper response that one man should have had for Boxer.
 
Never one to mince words, Barbara Boxer first came to Washington, D.C. in 1982 after winning an election to the House of Representatives with the slogan “Boxer gives a damn”.

 Since that time she has continued to present herself as a sort of princess whose ring and posterior must be kissed. But after being elected to the United States Senate in 1992, even her little head got too big for her imaginary crown. Now, with Democrats back in the majority, she has really gotten , well to put it nicely, pretty arrogant.

A few weeks ago, Brigadier General. Michael Walsh of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was testifying before a Senate committee regarding the restoration of coastal Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Upon Her Majesties asking the General a question, he began his answer by respectfully addressing Boxer as “ma’am”.

Her Royal Highness immediately cut Gen. Walsh off and stated “‘You know, do me a favor, Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?” She added “‘It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you’.

Gen. Walsh graciously complied and replied “Yes, Senator”

Now it should be noted that even a real queen, not some San Francisco queen or the self perceived senatorial queen from Oakland California, but the Queen of England, is actually referred to as “ma’am”. It is the norm of protocol for anyone who has the privilege to meet the Queen, yet such a respectful acknowledgement is beneath the likes of Barbara Boxer.

But putting that little fact aside, the General was actually following the U.S. Army’s own guide to protocol which dictates that members of the U.S. Senate should be verbally addressed as “Sir,” or “Ma’am,”. There was no breach of etiquette here and in fact it is Her Highness the Royal Bitch of the West whom should be apologizing to General Walsh for talking down to him.

Interestingly enough, although Boxer has a problem being called “ma’am by a member of the military she has no problem being called “a cutie” by others.

Back on February 19th of 2007, then U.S. Senator Barack H. Obama came to California for a fundraiser hosted by Boxer. There before a crowd of 2,000 he took to the stage and proceeded to call the Senator “a cutie”.

The audience applauded wildly and to the side of the stage, the California Queen stood laughing and clapping.

I guess senatorial privilege allows for women in politics to be called cute without any offense but heaven forbid you serve the country in the armed forces and address the “cutie” as “ma’am”. Among them Boxer has no humility and as such she rages on as a liberal so rabid that her scorn requires a series of painful rabies shots.

At 4’11’ what Boxer lacks in size and class, she makes up for in attitude.

Her bitterness on all things political is consistently conveyed every time she pulls out, what colleagues have come to call, the “Boxer Box”, a box she uses whenever she approaches a lectern and speaks. Once on that crate, the words to come out of her mouth are always among the most partisan in Congress and they all lack a little something called intelligence and logic.

This point was recently hammered home when in a hearing of the committee she chairs, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, she decided to play the race card regarding the testimony being given by a black man at the committee’s hearing on energy policy.

Mr. Harry C. Alford, an African-American and President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, came before the committee to submit his testimony regarding the effects of energy policies as it pertains to the organization he represents.

He was presenting a perspective that was not based on race and a contemporaneous race based opinion but rather a case that highlighted factually rooted data and statistics that supported his claims. The conclusion of which was that Her Majesties energy proposals would have a negative effect on the commerce interests he represented.

The testimony inspired the egomaniacal political prostitute to whip out and place in the record a resolution from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as well as that of a group called 100 Black Men of Atlanta. The data in both these offerings were based solely on the unsubstantiated opinions of each group . There was no scientific evidence, no convincing statistical data to support the N.A.A.C.P.’s conclusion and most importantly, no logical reason for Barbara Boxer to interrupt Mr. Alford’s testimony to bring up the N.A.A.C.P. opinion.

The only reason the report was thrown in Mr. Alford’s face was because he was black. That fact forced the royal pain, Her Majesty the Queen of California, to try to pigeon-hole Mr. Alford by trying to discount his conclusions on energy reform policies by using the non-scientific opinion of another group representing Africa-American’s.

According to Boxer, the reason for submitting the inconsequential, non-scientific resolution from the N.A.A.C.P. into the record, during Mr. Alford’s testimony, was to prove that there was “diversity of support” for her position. The truth of the matter is that Boxer is a clueless, snotty race-baiting liberal elitist who was disgruntled by the fact that a man of color would contradict her opinion.

The out-of-the-blue timing for Boxer’s curt response to Alford prompted him to let the senator know that he found her actions to be condescending.

With sincere indignation, Alford added “you’re getting racial” in the climate change debate. “All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that,” he said. “You’re quoting some other black man — why don’t you quote some other Asian or some other… You’re getting racial here.”

He also smartly suggested that the little white woman before him was one of the last people on earth who should try to tell him, a black man, what black men thinks. “You’re speaking on behalf of the black community?” Alford asked. “Why are you doing the colored people association’s study with the black Chamber of Commerce?”, he added.

The unreasonable and irrational conduct demonstrated by Boxer, in this case, again proved that the diminutive little lady from California has more mouth than brains and more ego than logic.

A few years ago Boxer sparked nationwide outrage and loud denunciations when she refused to offer Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice an apology after scolding her during a debate over Iraq.

Boxer attacked Rice for being a childless woman and implied that because Rice had no children, she could not understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq and that Rice didn’t grasp the “price” of the war.

The incident was yet another example of Barbara Boxer’s utter lack of decorum.

As a woman, her lack of endearing qualities and shrill bitterness is undoubtedly the number one cause of homosexuality among male Californians . They are also qualities that give added reason for not missing that hag when her time in the Senate is up.

Hopefully, in 2010 Californians will precipitate that result. But we are talking California here.

This is the same state that considers Arnold Schwarzenegger to be a Republican. It is the same state that elected Gray Davis as their Governor only to recall him and replace him with “The Terminator.” So anything is possible in the state that is often sarcastically referred to as the land of nuts and fruits. And come 2010, you just don’t know what Californians will do. They might just find Barbara Boxer to be the most bitter nut in the land, say “Hasta La Vista Baby” and throw her out on her royal ass, or they could just coronate Her Majesty to a third term in the Senate.

Either way, from now on, I will show Barbara Boxer the same respect that she has shown to those who have had to come before her and seriously address the important issues that confront us. That said, seeing as how both Boxer and I were born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, I know how to give Boxer a well deserved and commonly used one finger, Brooklyn salute and I am sure that she understands what it means.

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics