Tag Archives: Nancy pelosi

Santorum Ad Tells Us What the “DEAL” with Newt Gingrich is

Bookmark and Share Fresh off of his poor third place showing in Florida, Rick Santorum is trying to take advantage of Newt Gingrich’s big 15% second place loss to Mitt Romney in the Sunshine State by reclaiming the title of “conservative alternative” to Mitt Romney, the big winner in Tuesday’s primary contest [see the ad below this post].

The ad entitled “Deal”, is a very powerful condemnation of Gingrich which catches you off guard with opening arguments that would have you think the ad is comparing Santorum to his three Republican rivals, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It claims that the three politicians in question support legislative policies which are conservative anathema; Cap-and-Trade, amnesty, and the government bailouts. It would be bad enough for Santorum’s Republican rivals to have to wear all three of those issues around their necks, but the surprise comes when it is revealed that three politicians in question are not Romney, Paul, and Gingrich but rather President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Newt Gingrich.

The surprise comparison is twice as debilitating for Gingrich because while you might expect Mitt Romney to be accused of being too liberal, this ad avoids Romney and shockingly puts Newt Gingrich in an entirely differently league, one that puts him directly in the room with iconic liberals Obama and Pelosi.

The ad happens to be one of the most effective of this campaign cycle to date. It is produced well and is quite creative. It also presents Santorum’s case against Newt in a way that avoids being overly outlandish and to the point of being too hard to believe.

Yet while the ad is quite good, it is also indicative of the unfortunate position that Rick Santorum finds himself in. This ad pits him against Newt Gingrich, not frontrunner Mitt Romney, and it signals the fact that Santorum knows he is still competing in a primary within the primary………. the conservative primary within the Republican primary. It demonstrates that Rick Santorum is in a desperate fight to just get in to the race against Mitt Romney.

The good news for Santorum is that it is quite possible that conservatives have not yet ensconced themselves in Newt’s camp and Rick could still possibly win over a majority of them. One most notable conservative to recently go to Santorum’s side is Michele Malkin, a talking head with a considerably large conservative following. But at the same time it is a little late in this race for Santorum to hope his horse places or shows when the only ticket he can cash in on is the one to win.

But hope springs eternal and this ad is has a spin on it that forces me to give Rick Santorum a lot of credit, even though I believe it will help Mitt Romney than it will help Santorum.

5 Comments

Filed under politics

Incoming House Democrat Minority Contradicts Reality

Bookmark and Share    In a Tuesday afternoon presser the incoming leadership of the Democratic minority announced the new Vice Chairmen of the Democrat Policy Committee. On her last day as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi was joined by soon to be Minority Whip Stenny Hoyer and other ranking Democrats to elevate both Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida and Texas Rep Henry Cuellar to the position of Vice Chair.

During the show, Democrats promised to work with Republicans while simultaneously laying out the groundwork to obstruct them as each of those assembled called the Republicans and their legislative agenda “hypocritical” and full of “empty rhetoric”

For her part, Nancy Pelosi stated that the Democrat minority would “continue” to focus on the creation of jobs and to measure every initiative that comes before them on how it will effect jobs and our mounting national debt. But what she left out was the lack of focus on effective job creation and debt creation that she and her Party produced in the past two years of their reign over the House. She did however reiterate her dogged determination to block any repeal of the 2,400 page healthcare reform debacle that cost Democrats their majority in the House.

Members such as Democratic ranking budget committee member Chris Van Holland, Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and rabid New York liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, all echoed the same sentiments during the press conference but probably the best quote to come out of this performance in hypocrisy, came from incoming Minority Whip Stenny Hoyer of Maryland.  He stated that Democrats will make sure that Republicans keep their promises.

The statement summed up the quandary that Democrats will now find themselves in.

Among other things, Republicans promised to repeal Obamacare. Now, how effective can Democrats be if they promise to help Republicans keep their promise to repeal Obamacare, while at the same time promise to block any repeal of healthcare? It would seem that in addition to being  the real hypocrites, based upon their conflicting statements, House Democrats are  going to act in a way that will cancel themselves out  and become inconsequential to the legislative process over the next two years.

If anything, this press conference demonstrated that Democrats are as about willing to work with the Republican majority as they were when Republicans were in the minority, which is very little if at all.

After listening to the contradictions of Democrats, it is quite obvious that the loud message sent in the midterm election results of 2010, fell on deaf Democrat ears and it looks like the G.O.P. will have a great opportunity to prove which Party is truly willing to listen to the people.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Obama Tax Compromise Derailed & the Economy Holds It Breath

Bookmark and Share    A small band of liberal Democrats in the House and an even smaller band of House conservative Republicans, have successfully derailed President Obama’s great tax “compromise” which lies at the heart of an omnibus spending bill that among other things, will keep the government open through the new year. Thanks to a procedural hurdle, the rules under which the vote for this omnibus spending bill would take place can not be established and without such rules in place, the game can’t go on.

The procedural blockade to passage of the bill which would extend the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits can be overcome by a two thirds vote in support of suspending the rules. However; at this point in time, it is clear that such a supermajority does not exist and would fail.

Failure to pass compromise spending bill before the new year, would have a devastating short term effect on the national economy, tens of millions of American families, the day to day operation of the federal government, and President Obama.

Without passage of the bill, one of the most immediate effects will be a shutdown of the federal government which could come as early as this weekend. For some of us, the idea of a government shutdown is actually not bad news. Many of us see it as the only way for the government to save money and stop spending like there is no tomorrow. But beyond the prospects of a shut down, are the debilitating effects of the uncertainty that will be caused by a failure to pass the compromise on taxes that exists in the bill.

Failing to pass the compromise bill and the Bush era tax cuts will force businesses to continue holding off on hiring and investing. This will continue to keep money out of the economy and American workers out of work. In addition to that, while less money is coming in to our pockets, every American will have to dole out more money from their pockets to pay for what essentially amounts to a tax increase. This will all only exacerbate a still sluggish economy and spur on a economic reversal that would mire us in economic decline.

As for the President, he has put all his weight behind passage of this compromise based, omnibus spending bill. He has called in former President Clinton to urge fellow Democrats to pass it and has warned that without approval of it, millions of Americans will suffer great economic pain. Yet despite his efforts and dire warnings, the majority of dissenting voices come from members of his own Party. Those members are diehard liberals, loyal liberal Democrats who once saw Barack Obama as the savior of their Party but now see him as an ideological Benedict Arnold.

If President Obama can not find a way to get fellow Democrats on board with this omnibus spending bill, his already shaky house of cards will fall. It will be evidence of his losing support and confidence in all quarters and the fallout from it will only cause what support is left to hemorrhage.

Most dramatic of all the fallout will be that which comes with a government shutdown. Such an event will produce a total lack of confidence in President Obama. It will help enforce the impression that he is losing control of government and his ability to govern and as the establishment of the Congress approaches, President Obama will be severely wounded as he tries to work with a Republican controlled House of Representatives.

It is more than likely that the rules for the vote on this omnibus spending bill will be established before this weekend. The rules are essentially a blueprint for how the inevitable vote in support of the bill will take place. This will probably be resolved by allowing a bit more debate on the bill and giving those who oppose it, the chance to enter their objections in to the record. But the most pressing aspect of the rules for this vote will be how amendments to it are handled.

Right now the rules would force any amendment to it, to go directly to the Senate for a vote. Democrats who oppose the extension of the Bush era tax cuts on estate taxes , are particularly unhappy with such a course. They would rather see a full house vote on the spending bill that includes their amendments.

It is this hurdle which will be the hardest to overcome.

My prediction is that a couple of the rare ultra-left Democrats who are returning in January, will be promised some major benefits by outgoing Speaker Pelosi. Most interesting will be what if anything, conservative Congressman Mike Pence might be promised by incoming Speaker John Boehner. Pence is one of the handful of Republicans who have been quite vocal in opposing the Obama compromise due to its many spending measures. If overcoming the procedural hurdles comes down to or three votes, Republicans like Pence may be pivotal to allowing the bill to come to the floor for a full vote.

Either way, the situation is not a good one.

Our national economy is now holding its breath and as new polls show that only 35% of the voters believe President Obama deserves reelection and 53% believe we would be better off without him, the President faces one of the biggest hurdles he has encountered during his time in the White House. Can he prove that he can work with Republicans while also still having influence in his own Party? Or will he prove that he is unable to work well with either Party? At the moment it is not looking good for the President. He has pulled out all the big guns on this vote. He has even exhausted the credibility and reputation of former president Bill Clinton and tis deal still isn’t done. Maybe the only one left to turn to is Hillary Clinton. After all, many Democrat primary voters are still saying, it should have been Hillary in 2008. I can only wonder how many are thinking that it should be Hillary in 2012.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Pelosi; The Gift To Republicans That Keeps On Giving

Nancy Pelosi
Minority Leader To Be?

With the decision of Nancy Pelosi to maintain her role as leader of House Democrats, the 2010 midterms elections continue to produce good news for Republicans.

The move is quite frankly a foolishly detrimental one for her Party, a political entity which the American electorate adamantly rejected and which resulted in a record number of Republican victories from the local and state level, to the federal level in the House and Senate. Many of these victories were won in campaigns that made Nancy Pelosi the main issue. Nearly every Republican running for the House, publicly and loudly pointed out to their audiences that the very first vote that their liberal opponent had cast during the last Congress, was for Nancy Pelosi to become their leader. In many debate’s Republican challengers asked “will you or will you not vote for Nancy Pelosi as your leader”? To this, in order to save their reelection chances, quite a few had to answer “no”. Unfortunately for them though, the fact that they once did vote for her, didn’t save many of these candidates. But with approval ratings in the 20’s, it is no surprise that Nancy Pelosi was of no help to any Democrat.

That is why her desire to continue being the face of House Democrats is a bit surprising.

Obviously, the soon to be former Speaker is thinking more about herself than her Party. If she was sincere about wanting what is best for Democrats and what will best help promote the liberal agenda, she would have stepped aside and allowed a new face to be placed on the Democrat Party, a face that was not as disliked and as much of a drag on her Party and its policies.

Of course it has yet to be seen if Nancy will be successful in her bid to be elected Minority Leader. Some Democrats that did squeak by in the 2010 elections, have promised their constituents that they would not vote for Pelosi. In order for that to happen, there must be an alternative candidate to support over her. So who may be so bold as to come forward and offer themselves as that alternative? Well Alabama’s Bobby Bright could be one. He was the first to officially come out in October and declare that he would not support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. But in August of 2010, after Bright publicly joked that Democrat’s chances in the midterm elections might be better if Pelosi would “get sick and die“, Democrats may not feel too confident in Bright’s ability to say the right things as their leader.

A more realistic challenger may be Heath Shuler, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. On Thursday, Shuler stated that if Pelosi does actually move to run for Minority Leader, he will challenge her. This should not be news. All through ought Shuler’s very tough reelection effort, he campaigned among his constituents by promising that if Democrats held the House, he would challenge Pelosi for the job of Speaker.

While Shuler is to date, the House Democrat to be most dramatic in his opposition to Pelosi, many others such as Kentucky’s John Yarmuth and Oklahoma’s David Boren are just some of the remaining moderate and conservative Democrats, who still exist in Congress and are also registering their opposition to Pelosi.

But Nancy Pelosi would not have announced the decision to seek her place as Minority Leader unless she had gotten a sense of approval, done a head count of her caucus and concluded that a majority of her colleagues would support her for the job.

This would indicate that the new Democrat minority in the House, is most definitely out of synch with the American people. While most Americans vehemently disapprove of her, the liberal dominated Democrat caucus approves of her. This only demonstrates that the new House minority is going to be an even more radically liberal body than it was this past session. After losing many Blue Dogs and moderates, it is only natural for the liberal establishment to become even more dominant than it was. But this is not good. It is not what the people wanted when they registered their objections to the current ways of the Democrat Party by electing a record number of more conservative Republicans to office.

This is a point which Rep. Shuler consistently brings up when he sates “I can go recruit moderate members to run in swing districts,” and then points out; “In that situation, I could do it better than she could, and that’s what it’s going to take. It’s going to take moderate candidates to win back those seats.

But if Pelosi does prevail, which is more than likely, the problem with her staying as one of the faces of the Party is the fact that Democrats will continue to be represented by another prominent member of their Party which is not too popular out of his home state.

The failure by Republicans to defeat Harry Reid in Nevada means that he will continue to be the face and voice of Democrats in the Senate.

This means that after a midterm elections which rejected the Obama, Reid, Pelosi agenda, Democrats are still going to be led by the architects of that agenda. This will not exactly help create the perception that Democrats have gotten the message that voters sent them on November 2nd.

This situation provides Republicans with an invaluable advantage, an advantage that Democrats could deny them if Nancy Pelosi realized that for the sake of the issues that she believes in, she should pass the baton to a new Democrat leader, one who does not carry the baggage that she does and one that doesn’t symbolize the failed status quo policies that voters just rejected. But when it comes to Democrats, I guess the lesson to be learned here is that you really can’t teach old dogs new tricks. Thankfully though, the American people apparently won’t let themselves be tricked again.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Christmas Comes Early as Keith Olbermann Gets Taken Off The Air

The low rated Olbermann

Bookmark and Share    Christmas really came to America early this year. Here we are in the first week of November, and Nancy Pelosi is out of power as the Speaker of the House, Republicans have won a majority of statehouses and state legislatures, and record number of House victories. Now we find out that Keith Olbermann, the only man who was found too stupid to deliver the news as a sportscaster and now host of MSNBC’s low rated Countdown with Keith Olbermann, has been suspended indefinitely without pay.

As ecstatic as I am, I am just amazed at the liberal logic which the corporate big wigs running NBC, used to suspend Olbermann.

According to Phil Griffin, president of the General Electric Co., owners of NBC stated “Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

Before we get into what that policy and those standards are, I must confess that I am shocked to learn that NBC News had any standards. I am still not so sure they do and in the end, “standards” had little to do with Olbermann’s “indefinite suspension”. NBC’s policy is what actually did him in.

It would seem that the NBC News does not allow its employees to participate in any political activity, including such practices as financial donations to political campaign. Fortunatley, or unfortunately, depending upon how you  look at it, Olbermann donated the maximum amount allowed by law to the failed campaign of Arizona’s Democrat senate candidate Jack Conway and two more Arizona congressional candidates.

In truth, I find the situation incredibly absurd and example of twisted liberal logic.

Here is MSNBC, an obvious and blatant corporate front group for the Democratic National Committee and the liberal cause, trying to claim that they do not allow their staff to privately exercise their rights as Americans but promote the blatantly partisan slander and bias by their on air gaggle of talentless mouthpieces. This is just another example of bass-backwards liberal thinking. Nonetheless, if Keith Olbermann signed on and agreed to this policy, he signed his right to privately support candidates away and is in violation of the so-called policy.

Or could it be that NBC finally found an excuse to ditch Olbermann and his extraordinarily low rated program that weighs the networks cable outlet down during, of all times, primetime. NBC certainly could not simply ditch Keith and risk alienating the six or seven loyal liberal viewers who comprise Olbermann’s audience, so they needed  to present a good rationale for getting rid of him. This was it.

Now leftists will shout “where the is the outcry against this action, that there was when Juan Williams was fired from NPR“. Well in the first place, people like Juan Williams, few like Olbermann. But the main reason for the lack of opposition to Olbermann’s “suspension” is due to the fact that Juan Williams was fired for making a point by offering a personal opinion on a media outlet separate from NPR. In response, NPR fired Williams claiming that the practice of offering an personal opinion was a violation of his contract. The uproar that ensued was based on the fact that if that was the reason Williams was fired, how come his NPR counterparts who famously offer their opinions, did not suffer the same fate as Williams? The reason clearly is because that Williams offered an opinion that did not conform to the liberal bias of NPR, while the opinions consistently offered by others at NPR are in synch with the station’s liberal ideology.

Even though I find the reason that NBC used to suspend Olbermann was twisted, if it is in fact their policy to prohibit their employees from exercising their rights when it comes to privately supporting the candidates they believe in, if this was indeed the reason Olbermann was taken down, I commend the network for applying their standard and policy to all their employees and didn’t give Keith a pass simply because he is as a liberal. However, as I stated previously, I think this suspension was motivated more by the lack of ratings than the donations Olbermann made to candidates.

Either way, I really have no desire to defend Olbermann. He consistently espouses a Marxist-liberal view which promotes federal control of people regarding everything from what they eat, to what their children learn and what they must purchase. So even if his rights were denied here, I’m sorry to say it but my only response is, good. It’s inline with the policies he promotes on MSNBC every week night.

Maybe if Olbermann ever said anything of merit or even that contained some semblance of fact, I would be less inclined to support NBC’s decision. But let’s face it, Keith Olbermann is a nothing but an arrogant idiot. His ignorance and downright hypocrisy is mind numbing. And for a man who claims to be of superior intellect he is incredibly dumb. Case in point is his violation of policy by directly donating money to liberal candidates. A smart person would have understood how simple it would have been to make his campaign contribution found its way to his candidates of choice and still avoid violating his station’s policy and jeopardizing his limited career. But Olbermann is not smart, he is just,…..well, he is just incredibly arrogant and stupid. I still want to know who slept with at NBC to get his job and who he was sleeping with to keep it, because that is the only possible explanation for him lasting as long as he has. And apparently, now he hasn’t even been doing that very well either. But up till now, it certainly hasn’t been ratings or popularity that kept him on the air. And I doubt very much it was his charm and wit which helped. That came from the writers who wrote his words for him.

No matter what though, I can honestly say that Santa came to town early this year.

Bookmark and Share

6 Comments

Filed under politics

This Halloween, The Ghost of Elections Future Appears

Bookmark and Share   I’m not much for Halloween. I never really was. Even as a child I felt kind of silly getting into costumes and I was even more uncomfortable going door to door trick or treating. I was uneasy knocking on doors and asking for things. As I grew up, that unease relaxed as I no longer felt the need to humor adults by doing it and showing some sort of glee for the Halloween tradition.

Not long after that though, I found myself almost liking going door to door, but by that time it was for far better reason than candy. It was for votes. When it came to getting petition signatures or getting out the vote, although I still wasn’t completely comfortable, I felt more confident with what to me was a greater purpose for bothering people than just asking for candy corn or Milky Way bars.

But as I grew older, I found myself amid my college crowd of friends and grown ups who were not wandering the streets in search of candy, but were still into the whole Halloween costume concept. Conforming to society based upon a certain degree of peer pressure which created a desire to not be the dork totally left out of the social scene during October’s last weekend, I again succumbed to the season traditional. But this time, as an adult, gone were the Planet of the Apes masks or Werewolf costumes. Being of a political mind, I normally resorted to what came natural to me ………. political oriented costumes.

One year, when I was a leader within a county Young Republican organization, my home state of New York was running a most horribly embarrassing candidate for Governor. He was a multimillionaire, originally from Canada, and his name was Pierre Rinfret. Pierre was a joke. He was abrasive, ignorant, agenda-less and just an all around mistake that was inflicted upon Party regulars by Party elders. In many ways, he was a lot like current New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Palladino. That year, angry and embarrassed by my Party’s decision, I ran a write-in campaign for governor which gave people a choice to write-in the name of my local Republican state senator instead of voting for Mario Cuomo or Rinfret. Then, the weekend before the election, came the YR’s Halloween Party. The costume I chose to don was my standard work attire and accessories …… a suit and tie and my attaché case. But in addition to that was a curly haired rainbow wig, a clown nose and a name tag that read “Pierre Rinfret – Bozo the Candidate”.

Since then I continued to try and avoid Halloween as much as possible, especially the costume thing. But whenever it was unavoidable, I chose to craft a costume of a political nature. The last time I could not avoid the festivities, I found a red velvet, …… make that imitation velvet, ….. ladies devil costume, got cheap, low healed, red ladies shoes, contoured the outfit with imitation breasts, and then bought a Hillary Clinton mask which I proceeded to alter with the addition of horns to its scalp. The heals were tough to pull off but the bitchy attitude and point I wanted to make were easy.

Now, as another Halloween approaches, I find myself faced with possibly being unable to get out of Halloween this year too. To be honest, as usual I really don’t want to go through the hassle of making an ass out of myself and looking like a fool, but apparently far too many of us adults like the practice. So if I absolutely can’t get out of this year’s particular commitment, once again, being consumed by the all important elections of 2010, which are just three days away, I have decided to go as the “Ghost of Elections Future”.

For this I will wear a simple, but macabre, grim reaper-like black robe and hood that hide as much of the face as possible and in both arms I will carry a tombstone …….. cheap Styrofoam tombstones that you can still find in any toy or party store. On these synthetic stones, I will imprint two names. One will bear the name “Reid” and the other will read “Pelosi”.

Now I know some of you will consider this ‘politically incorrect’ and see it as a breach of sensitivities. Some of the more liberal among us will accuse me of suggesting that Pelosi and Reid be killed. To be clear, that would be ‘dead’ wrong. I wish not for anyone other than Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and mebers of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to die. I wish no Democrats any ill will and to those who would try to claim my costume does convey such a sentiment regarding Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, I will say, get over yourselves and get real. It is a joke which does not suggest their deaths but represents the end of their political reign of ridiculousness in Washington. I will also remind them that as supporters of Pelosi and Reid, I would expect that they of all people should know a joke when they see it. After all, Pelosi and Reid are two of the biggest jokes we have seen in decades and after two years in complete control of government, this Halloween, it is easy to see that they were no “treat”, because with them in charge, we were all tricked.

So if you see the “Ghost of Elections Future” at this Saturday night’s biggest Halloween bashes, instead of getting insulted, just take it as a reminder of things to come and start getting ready for the scariest of all days for Democrats this year ………Election Day.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Dismissing the Tea Party & Mischaracterizing the Revolution

Bookmark and Share    There is nothing new about people’s dissatisfaction with government. It is almost as old as civilization itself. Throughout the world’s history, a form of the term ‘revolution’ has seeped into almost all societies of most every nation. Revolution is a natural result of the people’s dissatisfaction with their living conditions and the prospects of their future. Even if the angst that produces a society’s revolt does not quite reach the level of revolution, the words uprising, riot, or strike, often come in to play.

To one degree of severity or another, these are all simply the governed demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the ruling class. It is natural. But today in America, the word “revolution” has seen a revival of sorts. For the political right the word is one with positive connotations that represents the desire to bring about a shift in the current policy direction that the government taking us in. For those on the political left, the word revolution has negative connotations. It means a retreat from the policies that they prefer. But political savvy has the left taking things a step further.

Liberals are trying to do all they can to take the right’s use of the word “revolution” out of context and portray conservative’s desire for political revolution as one of physically violent change. Any honest observer and sincere activist understands, and deep down, knows, that such an interpretation is at the very least disingenuous and ultimately a blatant lie.

This is coming from someone who is a Republican dissatisfied with the leadership of his own Party and who joined in protest with those who call themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Having on several occasions, joined with crowds of Tea Party patriots in Washington ranging from as many as nearly a million to as few as 10,000, I can honestly tell you that participants in these events were among the most civil, thoughtful and nonviolent citizens our nation has to offer. I have never before been in the midst of hundreds of thousands of strangers who could allow a woman to leave her purse lying on a lawn, unmolested by the endless array of perfect strangers who gathered together in one place from all corners of the nation. These are people who understand and value honesty and civility. Integrity means something to them and they respect the rights of others as well as be among the first to lend a helping hand to those in need.

Recent reports studying the makeup of those who are part of the Tea Party movement, indicate that, contrary to liberal descriptions, they are better educated and have median to above average incomes. This is a stark contrast from the poor, uneducated, redneck, hicks that liberals and their media outlets make tea partiers out to be.

But the liberal mischaracterizations go well beyond that. They have joined together in an attempt to dismiss these people as irrational right wingers, hell bent on toppling government by any means possible. Democrats have taken it upon themselves to incorporate any violence against government into the roots of Tea Party or conservative activity. Nothing can be further from the truth but this does not stop the liberal propaganda mill from rolling out its attempt to discount the undeniable dissatisfaction that a large portion of our society has with the liberal led government of Democrats Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama.

Ironically, this politically motivated liberal description of the current right of center movement taking root in our nation is one that the left itself needs to answer to far more than the conservative entities that they accuse of violence.

A look at recent American history from the sixties to the eighties and even the current decade, is strewn with predominantly liberal based acts of political violence. From university riots and campus sit-ins to violence coordinated and sponsored by groups like the Black Panthers to the FALN, the Weather Underground, along with the antics of liberal affiliates like Code Pink, PETA, the Animal Liberation Front, and the hippy fests of liberals and anarchists who riot in any and every city where a G-8 summit is held, radical liberal elements have been the preeminent purveyors of widespread acts of violence in the name of political activity that our nation has known over the last 50 years.

More recently, there have been well documented cases of liberal leaning union thugs who have staged and even started violence at Tea Party events. In one case a teacher was found using Board of Education computers to send out messages urging fellow liberals to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings and produce inflammatory sights and sounds. And just a few days ago, in Louisiana, Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown were brutally beaten after leaving a fundraising event for the Governor in New Orleans French Quarter. Police confirm nothing as of yet, but while Alle lies in the hospital with a leg that has been broken in 5 places, there are reports that the couple were targeted because of their conservative political affiliation. One report even claims that the couple was attacked after the youths involved yelled “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on”.

From bombings and riots to kidnappings and assassination plots, liberal radicals have written the book on political violence.

Of course, a fair observation would be that none of these ad hoc entities are representative of the Democrat Party or the liberal political ideology. They are just the acts of violent fiends with no decency, respect or understanding of how civil discourse need not involve hate and violence. It could just possibly be that the reprehensible responsibility for violence in the name of politics is seen as actually being carried out by radical elements that may align themselves to an ideology but that no ideology legitimately aligns itself with. That logic would eliminate the ludicrous attempts at discounting the validity of either sides beliefs because of the out of bounds behgavior of a few.

Which brings us back to the propaganda of today.

Democrats from Nancy Pelosi, Bawney Fwanks, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangle and the countless others who are playing this blame game and trying to write off a movement that is so angry that they are striving for peaceful revolution, would be wise to not be so quick to dismiss and belittle the Tea Party movement.

The mere fact that enough angry voters have brought the thought of political revolution in America to the forefront is a cause for serious consideration.

For as much as the left despised all eight years of George Bush’s presidency, the concept of revolution was never part of the national debate. Change, yes, buy revolution no. Why is that?

First of all, despite all the noise from riotous anti-Bush protestors who largely demonstrated against the issues of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their numbers were not as great as those dissatisfied by the intended permanent transformation of American domestic policy that the electorate is presented with by the Obama Administration.

The domestic policy direction of President Obama is such a drastic departure from previously held interpretations of the American Constitution that tens of millions of Americans have begun to feel that the constitutional foundation of government is being undermined. Nothing makes people strive to keep something more than when they are confronted with losing it and such is the case with the Constitution of these United States under the current Administration.

From the sleights of hand in the legislative process and the countless appointments of unelected and unaccountable czars and the federal governments control and ownership of General Motors, takeover of healthcare and socialist designs on control of vast aspects of the American economy, to a White House that once asked citizens to report opinions that opposed President Obama to fishy@whitehouse.gov, Americans have seen shades of freedoms lost.

The changes and proposed changes of President Obama and his liberal-Democrat Party are so extreme that millions of once inattentive Americans have been shaken to the point of seeing an America that is quite different from the one that the U.S. Constitution intended and are accustomed to. It has forced many to stop taking things for granted. Even the U.S. Constitution.

Part of the existing problem is not change itself but rather the type, number and extent of change that this Administration is attempting to deliver. Many have come to believe that Democrats are doing exactly what White House chief of staff Rham Emanuel once described as the Democrat’s desire to never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis. They view such things as the passage of “urgent” legislation that have not been read as examples of that philosophy and they do not trust these actions.

Combine that and the continued lack of employment and economic growth, with a perceived arrogance of what is often described as the liberal elite who feel they know what is best for the people, despite what the people want, and you have a lack of faith in our leaders and a lack of trust in the direction they are taking us in.

Such a lack of confidence is not new but the seemingly endless amount of drastic reforms to every aspect of traditional life in America has created such a profoundly dramatic lack of faith and confidence that now, more than ever, the word “revolution” is becoming increasingly popular in the lexicon of contemporary American politics. And the popularity of the word’s use can not be credited to Republicans. The G.O.P. has lost too much trust to be the inspiration behind the average citizens to desire for political revolution.

The credit, or blame for all the talk of revolution falls solely upon the liberals in control and President Obama.

And they would be wise to not dismiss those who they inspired to peacefully revolt, as violent and dangerous radicals without merit. That type of disrespect and insincerity will only strengthen the opposition to the change President Obama seeks to institute.

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

Why Did They Vote The Way They Did?

Bookmark and Share  As riveting as last night’s government healthcare takeover vote was, part of the mystique behind Health Care Reformit involved hundreds of individual stories that involved political horse trading, private deals, favors, bribes and even extortion-like coercion. To actually pass this very unpopular and contentious bill took more arm twisting and bone bending than you would find in a chiropractors office. The President and Speaker Pelosi asked many Democrats to, what they commonly call—- “walk the plank”. Many of them did. They need the financial backing of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and they need the support of the leadership to pass legislation that is key to their districts. But some Democrats were also told that if they reach at least 219 votes, they could go ahead and vote against HR3692.

Traditionally, party leaders will let some legislators in their own party “off the hook” on some of the most controversial votes. This only happens if party leaders knows the bill can pass without that members vote. Some of that happened in last night’s election results.

Of the 39 Democrats who did vote against HR.3962, most are in swing districts that will be hard for Democrats to win reelection in.

Twelve of these 39 are freshman. When it comes to keeping their seats in 2010, they are some of the most vulnerable of Democrats and they have some of the most angry voters opposed to the government takeover plan. Which is why they are also some of those who were let off the hook.

Many of them took the same position that Ohio’s freshman Democrat John Boccieri stated in a press release, “While I fully support quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone, I am disappointed the House bill sadly does not go far enough to reduce the costs of getting there”. That position will allow these Democrats to remain competitive in relatively fiscally conservative districts.

The only exceptions is Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich is safe no matter what he does in his liberal district. He likely opposed the bill because under the instructions of President Obama, House Education and Labor Committee Chair George Miller successfully shot down a his amendment that would have allowed states to choose to improve the healthcare system by creating state-level single-payer healthcare programs of their own.

Based upon the makeup and history of their districts, the other 38 nay votes were obviously concerned with voter backlash. Moderate Democrats in swing districts did not particularly like the message that last Tuesday’s election results delivered. For them it was a warning shot right across their bow.

That accounts for the who and why some Democrats opposed HR3692.  But what of the lone Republican who voted for it?

Even though Louisiana’s freshman Congressman, Joseph Cao, is a Republican from a typically red states in the red South, his particular district is heavily blue. The former long time occupant of that seat was William Jefferson, the Congressman who was forced to resign after hundreds of thousand of dollars were found in his freezer and he was convicted of illegal financial schemes. Cao simply came into office because he was not a  felon. That kind of approval does not exactly indicate a groundswell of support and a loyal following. It also means that Cao will have a hard time getting reelected if he finds himself running against a Democrat opponent without a criminal record. The district is clearly left of center, so voter backlash is also what forced Louisiana’s Joseph Cao to offer up the sole Republican “yea” vote for government micromanagement of our health care.

Congressman Cao’s vote was one of the last to be recorded and it was only cast after the Democrats exceeded the 218 votes needed for passage. It was probably one of the most astonishing profiles in cowardice we have seen in year’s. There was never even a  hint that  such a break was being contemplated, so his lone Republican vote for the HR 3962 came as a surprise to GOP leaders.

Cao’s last minute “yea” vote was just an attempt to give liberals in his district one less reason to vote against him. But you know what? It won’t work. Liberals will almost always choose a Democrat who is honest about their liberalism over a Republican pretending to be liberal.   At the same time, the minority of  Republicans who do live in Cao’s district will not necessarily vote for a Republican whose vote is no different than a Democrat’s vote.

Ultimately the 39 Democrats who opposed Pelosicare,  or were excused from having to support it, may end up in good standing come next November.  They will be able to stand up and say that they did not burden Amercans with a cumbersome government takeover that will micromanage our healthcare needs and choices while placing unelected and acountable czars, diectors, commissions, committees, bureaus, panels, advisors and political appointed hacks between us and our doctors.  All while raising costs, increasing taxes and sending jobs overseas at a time when we have double digit unemployment and need them now, more than ever.

It is, the economy, Stupid.   But since liberals don’t get it, those Democrats who were not among the 39 that were let off the hook, may have a helluva  tough reelection ahead of them.  They won’t be alone though.  After proving to be the most spinless Republican in the House, Louisiana’s freshman Representative  Joseph Cao is likely to  find himself on the losing end of a vote.  The one for him.

The following is a list of those who joined Kucinich and Boccieri in their opposition to the government health management takeover package were as follows:

John Adler, NJ-3, Freshman
Jason Altmire, PA-4
Brian Baird, WA-3
John Barrow, GA-12
Dan Boren, OK-2
Rick Boucher, VA-09
Allen Boyd, FL-02
Bobby Bright, AL-02 – Freshman
Ben Chandler, KY-06
Travis Childers, MS-01
Artur Davis, AL-07
Lincoln Davis, TX-04
Chet Edwards, TX-17
Bart Gordon, TN-6
Parker Griffith, AL-05 – Freshman
Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, SD
Tim Holden, PA-17
Larry Kissell, NC-8 – Freshman
Suzanne Kosmas, FL-24 –Freshman
Frank Kratovil, MD-1 – Freshman
Betsy Markey, CO-4 – Freshman
Jim Marshall, GA-8
Eric Massa, NY-8 – Freshman
Jim Matheson, UT-2
Mike McIntyre, NC-7
Michael McMahon, NY-13
Charlie Melancon, LA-3
Walt Minnick, ID-1 – Freshman
Scott Murphy, NY-20
Glenn Nye, VA-2, Freshman
Collin Peterson. MN-7
Mike Ross, AZ-4
Heath Shuler, NC-11
Ike Skelton, MO-4
John Tanner, TN-8
Gene Taylor,
MS-4
Harry Teague, NM-02, Freshman

If any of these guys are in your state, you might want to call their office and thank them.  We are usually pretty quick to express or anger at legislators and our displeasure with them.  When one of them does something right, regardless of what their reason was, we should let them know, that their are many people who are paying attention and that their are some benefits when they do things right. 

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

Reform Bill Passes The House But It’s A Version That Will Not Fly In The Senate

Bookmark and Share    While last night’s rare Saturday session of the House of Representatives and their subsequent Government Health Care and Insurance Takeovervote on the big government takeover of the American health care system was at times suspenseful, ultimately it won passage. The vote was quite close though. In the end 39 Democrats opposed the bill and in what was one of the most cowardly acts of the entire health care reform debate, one Republican, freshman Joseph Cao of Louisiana, waited till the last minute and only after the bill had one more vote than it needed for passage, did he cast his vote for it.

By five votes, the House of Representatives approved an over 1 trillion dollar government take over of health management and health insurance that, if it comes to fruition, will change just about every aspect of life in America. H.R.3962, the deceptively titled Affordable Health Care for America Act is one of the most transformative pieces of legislation ever passed and second only to the liberal Tax-and-Trade energy bill that Democrats in the House passed earlier this year.

Alone, each measure amounts to some of the greatest transfers of wealth in the history of mankind. Together they will be the greatest transfer of wealth and the most obnoxiously large consolidation of  federal power and control that any generation in America has ever known. Together, the Cap-and-Trade bill and the government health management measure will tax the health out of our economy and the life out of the middle class.

To be sure, the passage of HR. 3962 is a victory for President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  That is undeniable and it should not be downplayed. To have actually been able to whip enough votes together to pass this reform bill, while a majority of the American people oppose it, means that the President still has great influence over his conference and Nancy Pelosi has proven herself to be masterful at her job. But the type of influence and mastery they exhibited here may not exactly be the type that America needs. First of all, it only extends to their conference. They were unable to persuade, scare, or extort Republicans to support them. That means that the President and Pelosi’s appeal and sphere of influence is limited to those who are already on their side. They fail to expand their appeal or base in Congress or, more importantly, among the voters. Although it seems like it was months ago, the elections held throughout America this past Tuesday proved that.

It is also important to recognize the type of  influence that Speaker Pelosi and President Obama wielded in the health care takeover vote. To pass the bill, an endless amount of deal making went into the process. And all of those deals were conducted under the table and behind closed doors. The horse trading that took place among a group of politicians, limited exclusively to Democrats, is what helped to account for the extraordinary size of the bill—–1,900 pages. It is also something that we will pay for dearly in the next few coming year’s. This bill was passed by the creations of favors that will allow Democrat committee chairman to reward “yea” votes on HR. 3692 by approving more pork in future spending bills than all the pig farms in the Midwest. Democrats will be approving some of the most harebrained legislation you’ve ever seen and they will do so because of three words—– “you owe me”.

House%20Floor%201The same goes for the President too.

For every arm Pelosi and the President twisted, two favors were offered. So many favors were offered in order to pass government managed health reform and insurance that much of the legislative agenda for this and next year, will be based entirely on the need to payback the favors promised to Democrats running for reelection next year. If you think the legislative agenda of Congress will be based on the needs of the people, think again. Our needs will be secondary and even tertiary when it comes to the needs of Democrats facing tough reelection bids and saying to Nancy,——- “you owe me this”.

Add to that the likelihood that both Pelosi and the President may have blown their entire wad of influence on this one vote though. They may have exhausted any chance of passing any other controversial bills in the next legislative session because they may have had to call in too many favors on this one vote. That may be the only silver lining here. The liberal leadership had to pull so many strings, that they may not have the ability to try to ram through anymore of their radically, transformative agenda for quite some time to come.

What’s more is that all the favors, arm twisting, finger bending, deceit and depletion of legislative resources could be for naught. No matter what happens, the favors and deals for those placed their support for Pelosicare on the record and now face some stiff reelection bids, will still have be paid back. And the truth is, that what passed in the House is not likely to pass in Senate.

Typically, the House is much more radical, more extreme than the United States Senate. The House of Representatives is based upon extremists elected from gerrymandered districts within the population that are largely created by drawn based upon ideological preferences. Most districts are either predominantly liberal or predominantly conservative. This means that a member of the House can more afford to take an extreme position. Their districts are largely drawn based upon people with extreme positions leaning one way or the other. There are exceptions of course. There exist a few handfuls of “swing” districts which are moderate. But such seats are in the minority.

The Senate however has no members elected from districts that are carved out to match specifically match their political and ideological personality. These people are elected from entire states. So Senators try to placate everyone. That is not conducive to taking extreme positions. Between that and rules that govern the Senate which are quite different than those governing the House and you have a legislative that, unlike the House of Representatives, tends to water down legislation and moderate the final results. The Senate is also a bit more shrewd than the House. They often take a wait and see approach.

Remember that historic Cap-and-Trade energy bill that the lower chamber of Congress passed many moons ago? The Senate has yet to act on it? In the case of health care reform, the Senate which reached established a bill of their own has waited to see exactly what the House version was before they move ahead with their own. They will now carefully review what is in the House bill and monitor the public reaction to it. But Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t have a great deal of time to put his finger in the wind. He is going to have to call for a vote on a final government health care over right away. The more time that the public has to understand what is actually in the bill recently passed in the House, the more support and will and the more intense the objections will become.

The one thing you can rest assured on is that Pelosicare, as it was passed in its current form, will not be what the Senate approves. If a bill calling for the government takeover of health care is to be passed by the Senate, it will be watered down significantly. The public option is a major hurdle.  A final senate bill could include an opt out clause or maybe the “trigger” that liberal Republican Olympia Snowe likes. If compromise on that one issue can’t be reached, the so called public option, which is anything but an option, could be scrapped altogether.  In any event, passage of any health management and insurance reform bill that the President wants is far from done. If any version of reform is to actually make it to the President’s desk, it will modified to one degree or another in the Senate. If it isn’t, the big government takeover of health management and insurance won’t even have 50 votes, which is 10 less than they actually need to pass it. The message sent in the wake of this past Tuesday’s elections assures us that many Senator’s do not want to be saddled with the existing bill as they come up for reelection and are at the mercy of their statewide constituencies.

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics