Tag Archives: Scott Brown

New York’s 9th Congressional District Special Election Tells Us Much Going in to 2012

Bookmark and Share   Today, some of the last waves of the 2010 midterm elections are about to sweep ashore the American political landscape. And much like the original tidal wave of victory that the G.O.P. rode to some of the largest gains of congressional seats in history, this last wave is expected to bring surprises with yet another Republican gain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those results are as follows:

Among Jewish Voters

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

Among Independents

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

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

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

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

  • Approve 31%
  • Disapprove 56%

Among Men

  • Approve 27%
  • Disapprove 63%

Among Women

  • Approve 35%
  • Disapprove 49%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Approve 26%
  • Disapprove 62%

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

  • Approve 30%
  • Disapprove 54%

Among Democrats

  • Approve 42%
  • Disapprove 40%

Among Republicans

  • Approve 13%
  • Disapprove 78%

Among Independents

  • Approve 13%
  • Disapprove 66%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Approve 22%
  • Disapprove 68%

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

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

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

2012 Presidential Election

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

Among Jewish Voters

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

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

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

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

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under politics

The Top Ten Political Events of 2010

Bookmark and Share     2010 saw its share of disasters and fighting. In Haiti a 7.0 earthquake killed 230,000, left 300,000 injured, and a million more homeless. In Afghanistan, America continued to fight for stability and in doing so, saw its highest casualty numbers of the war.

2010 also saw its share of corruption and scandal. Charlie Rangel was censured for his abuses, General Stanley McChrystal was relieved of duty after strongly criticizing Administration policies and officials in a Rolling Stones profile and former Senator and Democrat vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, finally admitted to being the father of an illegitimate child and by year‘s end would see the loyal wife he cheated on, die of cancer.

In politics, 2010 was certainly a year that produced plenty of suspense and surprise. It was a year that saw political power shift, military might flexed, history made, and environmental havoc wreaked. It was a year that challenged the popularity and abilities of President Obama, challenged the American people with economic austerity and the world with nuclear threat. The following 10 events are indicative of just how much so. They are happenings that have either been initiated by politics or had a profound effect on the politics that shaped, or will shape our world.

The order in which they are presented is based upon a combination of media attention, dramatic change, and a mix of both short and long term effects on our nation and the world. Two political eves which were runner ups to the list included Wikileaks and passage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.    Wikileaks founder Julian Assange proved that one man and a keyboard could make dozens of  many powerful world leaders cringe all at once?  And in doing so he has created some serious freedom of speech and information issues.  As for DADT, it was one of the most dramatic military policy changes in decades and whether you believe it to be a civil rights issues or a military decision, it was profound . 

Two other political  issues which fell short of the top 10 list included the nonevents which were the continued lack of a decision by the Obama Administration regarding how to try enemy combatants and if, how and when to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay.On these two issues, President Obama has proven to speak before he thought and in trying to placate his disenchanted liberal base, has not found a suitable way for reversing his original positions, positions which the truth of reality have forced the President to stall admitting that he was wrong to initially want.

But as for those events which involved the situations handled and decisions made or carried out by political figures, legislative bodies or voters, here are the top 10.

 

10. – End To Combat Mission In Iraq

On August 31st , the long war in Iraq was “officially’ declared over. In getting to this point, President Obama continued the Bush policy and timeline which brought us to that point. To his credit, President Obama did invoke the name of former President George W. Bush and offered him praise by stating that no one could doubt his predecessors “support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.”  In a prime time address to the nation, President Obama declared that “Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.” But to say the least, the page remains dog-eared, as approximately 50,000 troops are left in Iraq for the foreseeable future to advise and assist Iraqi security forces.  

9. Shelling of South Korea

On November 23rd, North Korea fired a barrage of artillery shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, killing two South Korean marines and two civilians and leaving dozens of families homeless. The unprovoked attack prompted South Korea to scramble F-16 fighter jets and return fire. It also forced Seoul to place its military on its highest non-wartime alert level. The attacks also proved, once again, how absolutely erratic and dangerous the North Korean regime is. In March, again unprovoked, North Korea fired on and sunk a South Korean ship. That event killed 46 sailors . It is said that the secretive and reclusive North Korean regime performs stunts like this and makes threats of even bolder military action, all in the name of posturing for negotiations. But at some point in time, violence can not be accepted in negotiations and if North Korea keeps pushing in this fashion, it will eventually force others to push back. Between these two incidents, its nuclear ambitions and its long range missile capabilities, Pyongyang proves to be a disturbing threat to peace and stability in the increasingly important region of Asia. With its burgeoning economies, the world can little afford war on the Korean peninsula. Nor could we afford the risk of drawing China and our Japanese ally into a war. If 2011 sees North Korea acting the same as it did in 2010, expect the current focus on the Middle East to shift further East.                            

 8. –Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

In 2010 it became more apparent than ever that Iran was close to becoming a nuclear power, a fact that could change the Middle East and life as we know it.  It became quite clear that Iran had the ability to enrich uranium and experts now believe that it could produce enough highly-enriched uranium for a bomb anywhere from within a few months to two years. As usual, talk seems to do little to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities and after 18 years of hiding their nuclear enrichment program, UN Security Council resolutions ordering Iran to suspend development have failed to stop Iran from moving ahead. If some kind of arrangement is not soon made to keep Iran from gaining the ability to develop nuclear weapons, the situation could fall upon Israel, the small nation which Iran’s President has promised to push off the face of the earth. But if Israel were to act, how would the surrounding nations of Islam deal with its aftermath?

7. –  The Ground Zero Mosque

Whether or not anyone has the right to build a mosque in the immediate area surrounding ground zero of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was never the question. But whether or not it is appropriate, is the question. Should a religious house of worship for Islam, rise from the rubble of the attacks that extremists waged in the name of Islam? For the left,….. the politically correct, sensitive left, it should be easy to understand that the answer is “no“. However, regardless of political correctness it is true that our Constitution permits freedom of religion and there exists no legal right to prohibit the building of a Mosque in an area that is zoned for such construction. This situation dominated the news and politics for months as it consumed headlines and our attention.  And till this day, many are still trying to find a compromise that would allow for the construction of this mosque, but in a location other than ground zero.

 

6. – Unemployment

In November it rose and as it went up, the hopes of our sluggish economy picking up steam anytime soon went down. Despite promises by President Obama that his stimulus package would soon get unemployment down to a still too high 8.00%, it is rising and worst of all, it comes during the holiday season, when employment usually ticks up, and unemployment ticks down. But although November was particularly bad, unemployment ruled the headlines and the economy throughout the year and has placed millions into dire straits and highlights deeper troubles within the economy. Through it all the political Party in power not only failed to effectively combat unemployment, they at times seemed to go out of their way to convince the American people that they aren’t even capable of doing anything about it. Nancy Pelosi called government spending a jobs bill and Harry Reid once even said that it was a great day in America because only 160,000 Americans lost their jobs during a particular month. The long standing high unemployment rate will keep on weighing down President Obama and until he understands how to allow free enterprise to create jobs and what the real economic engine of America is, he will continue to simply tinker with the numbers and miss his target of his still too high 8% unemployment rate .  Although, when compared to 10%, it would be an improvement.

5. – The Arizona Immigration Law

The bill simply enofrced fedral laws at the state level, yet the Obama Administration and liberal illegal immgration advocates lost control and flipped out.  They called it unconstitutional and subsequently took Arizona to court over itsx new law.  For months this story fueled itself with large protetsts by by pro-illegal immigration groups and  SEIU union members,  and counter protests that energized an already energetic TEA Party movement.

 

4. – Gulf Oil Disaster

It was the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history and it was the first real crisis of the Obama Administration. How did they handle it? Miserably. The first reaction to the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico was slow and initially directed toward blaming it on George Bush. But as time went on, and it was shown that haphazard application of regulations assisted the disaster, it was also discovered that BP, the owners of the facility gave President Obama a million dollars in campaign donations and shortly before the Deepwater Horizon blew up, receive a safety award by the Obama Administration. But the more egg that was on the President’s face, the more oil lapped onto the Gulf shore states, particularly Louisiana, a state that is in many ways still reeling from Hurricane Katrina. For months the oil gushed from the under see pipes that once flowed to the top of the Deepwater Horizon. In all, between April 20th when the rig exploded and July 15th when the gusher was finally plugged, a continuous flow of a total of 4,300,000 barrels of oil was said to have poured into the Gulf. The episode had a profound effect on the economies of the Gulf states, closed down the fishing and shrimping industries and left Americans lacking the confidence in President Obama’s ability to effectively handle crisis. 

   3. – 2010 Midterm Elections

Two years ago, left wing commenators and pundits claimed the G.O.P was dead and going the way of the Whigs.  But in what proved to be a tidal wave election of historic proportions, Republicans won a remarkable 691 state legislative seats, shattering the old record which was held by Democrats in the post Watergate election of 1974, when they picked up 629 seats. Along the way, those numbers allowed the G.O.P. to increase thier stregnth by winning control of 18  various state legislative chambers and control of both state legislative chambers in 26 states. In addition to that, Republicans elected 7 new Governors bringing the total up to 29 G.O.P. Governors and allowing for complete control of state government with majorities in the the statehouses and the upper and lower houses of as many as 21 states, a sign that does not bode well for Democrats in the upcoming redistricting process.  In all, Republicans now have the largest majority for the Party since 1928.   Beyond state government, Republicans picked up a total of 63 House seats and 6 U.S. Senate seats. The historic number of House pickups was one of the largest number of seats gained in an election in over a generation and give the G.O.P. one of it largest majority margins ever. The 2010 election produced a truly profound political change. It not only gave Republicans control of the House and many statehouses and legislatures, it also gave them the ability to determine the political landscape for the next ten years as they take a very large upper hand in redistricting. In the years to come, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama will surely learn to regret having misread the American people quite as much as they did during 2010.

 2. – Election of Scott Brown

This event seems to have faded away in the hearts and minds of most but truth be told, the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy as one of Massachusetts two U.S. Senators, was quite profound and a sign of just how dissatisfied with the direction of the nation, voters had become. In fact it was the beginning of the 2010 midterm elections and a sign of what was to come . After channeling voter anger and capitalizing on disenchantment with the President’s agenda, underdog Scott Brown made Massachusetts political history after by pulling off an upset victory and becoming the first Republican elected to the senate from Massachusetts since Edward Brooks was first elected to the position in 1966. But more than that was the legacy of Ted Kennedy which Brown had to in many ways, run against. Ted Kennedy was the third longest U.S. Senator in history. He held the seat for more than 5 decades and during that time became known as the Liberal Lion. But in the wake of the anti-liberal sentiments sweeping the nation, even Ted Kennedy’s legacy could not help Scott Brown’s liberal Democrat opponent, State Attorney General Martha Coakley, to pull this election out. The selection of Scott Brown was a true sign of things to come and proof that the national political map was going to turn not Republican red or Democrat blue, but TEA Party ‘Brown”. Eight months later it did. 

1. – Passage of Obamacare

The passage of health reform probably had more impact on politics than it did on healthcare. At least once it’s repealed in whole or found unconstitutional by the courts.  It certainly had a profound effect on the balance of power in America. After more than a year of closed door, partisan negotiations, the health reform bill was passed in the face of unprecedented political opposition to it which increased every day that the debate continued. It was finally approved after unprecedented amounts of kickbacks and political payoffs were offered to legislators in exchange for their vote for the unpopular bill and even though liberals did not feel it went far enough, and that moderates and conservatives believed it went too far. Yet on  Sunday, March 21st, Obamacare passed despite the fact that it actually raised healthcare premiums and after the House even considered passing it without voting on the measure, and instead, just deeming it passed. The entire process regarding the healthcare bill, from its debate to its actual vote, demonstrated all the worst of a legislative process which Democrats were abusing. It demonstrated how unwilling Democrats were to listen to the people and most of all, it showed just how antithetical to the Constitution and the American free enterprise system that the federal government has become. So much so that their attempt to take control of 1/6 of the American economy fueled the birth of a Taxed Enough Already movement that would be the downfall of Democrats and a wake up call for Republicans. The unsavory passage of Obamacare was an example of left wing liberalism being so extreme that it forced many Americans to see that government was less divided by left and right than it was between right and wrong. The result was an electorate that forced Republicans and Democrats to look at the Constitution of the United States and refer to it before they passed laws that went beyond the rightful power of the federal government. And on November 2rd, the result was a resounding rejection of Obamacare, Democrats and the Obama agenda. All in all, passage of the healthcare reform bill was in many ways historic. It was one of the most significant and sweeping social programs since LBJ and even FDR. It was also one of the most incoherent, convoluted, unenforceable and unconstitutional pieces of legislation ever to be made into law, and it prompted a most historic transfers of power in the House of Representatives.

With all that, 2010 ends on the same note that it began. It ends with us having hope, hope that our political leaders will act responsibly. Hope that our economy will improve and that rogue nations and regimes will see the light. As 2010 ends, we hope that 2011 will be a year where the lessons of years past are remembered and that we as a people, move in the right direction rather than the wrong one.

Bookmark and Share

16 Comments

Filed under politics

Sean Bielat vs. Barney Frank: A Race Between Right & Wrong

Bookmark and Share    Brewing in Massachusetts is a battle of symbolically epic proportions. In one corner sit’s the energetic Sean Bielart. In the other corner sit’s the slovenly Barney Frank. Perhaps here in the 4th Congressional District of Massachusetts, lies a election contest that epitomizes the differences between Democrats and Republicans more so than any other single race in America.

Bielat and Frank are diametrically opposed on just about every major issue that confronts America today. But in many ways, the Bielat-Frank battle is more than just a race between the left and the right. It is a race between right and wrong.

On the right side is a candidate who believes in a limited government that practices fiscal responsibility, sustainable job growth, states rights, reasonable debate and rational discussion. On the wrong side sit’s a candidate that practices, endorses and promotes endless and reckless spending, the growth of unsustainable government jobs, federal intrusion and obnoxious discourse that includes personal arrogance and sarcastic name calling.

Click Here to Visit Sean Bielat’s Website

In the right is Major Sean Bielat, a first time candidate, private businessman and Marine who believes in focusing on economic growth and fiscal responsibility, peace through strength and in a return to Constitutional values and citizen-legislators.

In the wrong is 15 term, entrenched Congressman Barney Frank, a career politician who went from the state legislature to the House of Representatives where he has spent nearly three decades recklessly spending our nation into oblivion, ignoring the dangers of his own legislation and legislative leadership, cutting backroom deals, belittling his constituents and colleagues with name calling, and trying to avoid the public scrutiny of the political scandals that he has been at the center of.

Now it can admittedly be argued whether or not government spending is right or wrong, or whether any position on any specific issue is right or wrong or liberal or conservative. But the assertion that Maj. Bielat is right and Congressman Frank is wrong, is based on much more than ideology. It is based on character, the Constitution and even experience.

While Rep. Frank has experience in only elected office, Maj. Bielat has experience in public service through the military and as Chairman of the NATO Industrial Armaments Group, a team that he led in studying the potential for use of advanced reconnaissance technology in urban warfare. Bielat has experience as a management consultant and as a program manager for iRobot Corporation where he led a $100 million, 100 person business that provides life-saving defense robots used to destroy roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maj. Bielat also has experience as a businessman and independent consultant who has helped clients and companies build market strategies that increase sales, production, and job growth.

While Barney Frank has well over 35 years of experience in government, Sean Bielat has decades of experience in the real world, the world that is effected by actions government takes and the decisions that aloof, Washington insiders and political powerbrokers like Frank make.

But right and wrong in Massachusetts’ 4th C.D. election is not solely based on experience, even though for many Bielat’s real life experience is much more refreshing than Frank’s experience as a Beltway liberal and Washington insider. Right and wrong here is also determined by the character of the men in question and the respect they show to the positions they hold and the people they serve.

In his service, Maj. Bielat has an unblemished record of serving the public in the Marines, honorably. And in the private sector, he has respectfully worked with and for the clients that he served.

Congressman Bawny Fwank

For his part, Congressman Frank has infamously responded to his constituents and colleagues with name calling and a  flippant air of arrogance which reflects his delusional sense of superiority over those who elect him and those who he serves with. And beyond his lack of respect for the people, is an even greater demonstration of arrogance and a mentality that exhibits Frank’s knack for believing that he is above the law and need not live by the laws he has a hand in establishing.

During his three decades as a Beltway insider, Frank has admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant, all while Gobie ran a prostitution ring out of Frank’s D.C. townhouse.

There were other legal troubles such as a brush with the House banking scandal in the early 90’s and the most recent ethical breach to have been discovered was one that involved his conflict of interest with his position as Chairman of the House Banking Committee and his long-term romantic relationship with Herb Moses, a Director with Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae happens to be under the jurisdiction of the banking committee and as Barney Frank’s boyfriend was pushing to have the federal government relax lending restrictions for unqualified recipients, Congressman Frank was rejecting calls to investigate the practices of Fannie Mae and to tighten lending restrictions.

Since then, it has become painfully obvious that the lack of action regarding just how far Fannie Mae could go in lending money to unqualified homebuyers, helped put Fannie Mae at the epicenter of the financial meltdown that has thrown the U.S. economy into disarray.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that by having as his boyfriend, a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from the laws that you are in the forefront of, is a conflict of interest. But few conflicts of interest result in the downfall of a world economy.

Barney Frank’s refusal to take appropriate action on the practices of Fannie Mae, something which Republicans warned of the need for in 2006, makes Frank one of the few people directly responsible for the banking crisis that tightened up the flow of money and resulted in one of the most sluggish economies in decades.

These are just some of the reasons why the race for Congress in Massachusetts 4th C.D. has become a race between right wrong and more than one between left and right.

Sean Bielat is in every way, shape and form the antithesis of Barney Frank.

While Frank spends, Bielat wants to save. While Frank talks down to voters, Bielat talks with voters and while Bielat understands the need to abide by the law, Frank believes he is above the law. Understanding that only gives rise to one question ……..  how long can the people of Massachusetts tolerate Frank? Frank’s efforts do not simply effect the people of one district in Massachusetts. His work is effecting the entire nation. His efforts have helped to give birth to rising deficits, greater debt, less consumer confidence, more unemployment and a loss of trust in the collective decisions that Congress makes.

What will it take to finally reject the politics of patronage and pranks? What will it take for voters to say that after thirty years, Barney Frank is too entrenched in the politics of Party and personal privilege to represent the true needs of the people who he is so far removed from?

Now more than ever is the time to retire the professional politics of Barney Frank. It’s time for a citizen legislator to take his place and represent the needs of the people, not the needs of his self and of his Party.

If there was ever a time and place for someone like Barney Frank to be issued his pink slip, it is now and in Massachusetts.

Ten months ago, like the warnings of Paul Revere during his legendary ride, voters of Massachusetts sent Democrats a message. At the time it was just a signal, a signal sent up into the air when Massachusetts chose to have Republican Scott Brown succeed liberal lion Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate. Since then that Republican ripple has turned into a total Republican romp that is turning this years election map “Brown”.  But the romp won’t be complete if the very same people who started the Republican revival, reward Barney Frank with another term in office. The statement for change will not be fully made if Barney Frank is allowed to continue the politics of his past into the policy making process of our future.

To ask for lightning to strike the same place twice is a lofty goal but given the dramatically disrespectful, disgraceful and despicable product of thirty years of scandals and mistakes, not only is asking for lightning to strike the same place appropriate, it is worthy of us planting mile high lightning rods and flying from their peaks, kites with keys attached to their tethers.

Click Here To Sign Up With Sean

For that reason, it is incumbent on those who are fed up with the way things are going in America, to focus their attention on one of the members of Congress whom best represents all that we hate about politics. Aside from Nancy Pelosi, that person is Barney Frank, a man who symbolizes all that is wrong with federal government and all that we want to change in American politics.

That is why I am asking that you take the time to assist the effort to defeat Frank. Take the time to donate whatever you can spare to the campaign of Maj. Sean Bietlat.  Send him a note of encouragement and do your part in insuring that this November, change is truly served by ridding our halls of government of those whom pollute the political atmosphere, corrode the halls of government and throw America deeper into debt and the hands of socialism. Show your support for real change. Show your support for Maj. Bietlat and your dissatisfaction with Barney Frank.

As for those of you who believe that it will be impossible to unseat Frank, under normal circumstances I would agree. The voter registration for the four counties contained in the 4th C.D. (as of October 2008), had the numbers at  at a total enrollment of , 2,072,793 with  751,174 registered Democrats, 206,326 registered Republicans, and 860,140 Unenrolled. With figures like that, it is easy to see why Frank usually has an easy reelection. It helps explain how in 2008, when President Obama had long coattails, Frank won with 68% of the total vote.

But 2010 presents us with a situation that is far from normal. Nothing is “usual” this year. This year Republicans are likely to win more seats in the House than they have had since 1946. I believe that the G.O.P will pick up as many as at least 62 seats in the House and are likely to pick up 10 seats in the senate. This would mark one of the quickest comebacks of a Party in our history. Less than two years ago, Democrats were discussing the death of the G.O.P.. Liberals were suggesting that Republicans were going the way of the Whigs. And at the time, it may in fact have seemed like that. But since then, Democrats have taken the optimism of the American people and turned it into hatred. Hatred for the system, the process and the establishment running the system. That is why we have seen the birth of the TEA Party, and record numbers of incumbents lose their bids for renomination. It was also the reason that blue Massachusetts went Brown for Scott Brown when it came to replacing Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

And in that election, just ten months ago, despite the overwhelming plurality of Democrats in Frank’s congressional district, Scott Brown beat his Democrat opponent Martha Coakley by more than 1,700 votes.

Combine that with a national trend for change that involves anti-establishment, anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat sentiments and the fact that Sean Bielat, a virtual unkown, has shrunk Frank’s lead in the polls to 10%, a difference that is closer than Frank has seen in most any of his races, and what you have is the possibility of pulling off what at one time seemed impossible.

That is why now more than ever, hope for ridding ourselves of Barney Frank must be kept alive and the enthusiasm to defeat him must be kicked into high gear.   But even if the effort behind Bielat falls short this time around, remember this.  Defeating Barney Frank could require a two step process, a process that requires us in 2010 to make it known that defeating Frank is not impossible and in 2012, when even more voters turnout to vote, actually doing it and replacing Frank with Bielat.

But whether we get rid of Barney Frank now or later, it’s up to you to begin the process.  Donate to Maj. Bielat’s campaign for commonsense and a constitutional citizen legislature.  As Bielat notes;

 Barney Frank can raise huge amounts of money, much of it from special interests looking for his help. Competing with Barney will be a David and Goliath struggle, but we can do it with your help”.  

Just think of how much more refreshing and functional government would be without Barney Frank looking down on you and think of just how much you will regret not having helped retire him after seeing how close Maj. Bielat comesthe dream of sending Frank home can come true.   With your help, that dream can become reality. Without your help, it will remain a goal out of our reach.

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

Pelosi “There Are Not Enough Votes” To Pass Senate Version Of Healthcare

Bookmark and Share    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has just announced that she does not have the votes to pass the senate version of the healthcare bill.

That declaration is not a total surprise.

The senate version of government run healthcare did not go as far as the House version did. It also contained language on a myriad of specifics, such as abortion, which never would have garnered enough support to win a simple majority to pass.

After the historic special election of Republican Scott Brown on Tuesday, and the loss of Democrat’s supermajority that it caused, one of the only possible ways for the behemoth Obama government run healthcare legislative initiative to see the light of day would have been for the House to pass the Senate version of healthcare reform in its exact, current form. That would have allowed the bill to go directly to the President’s desk and be signed into law before Senator-Elect Scott Brown could effectively stall all efforts on any other version of government run healthcare.

Given the astounding election results in Massachusetts, which was in large part due to voter anger at the partisan, duplicitous and covert way that Democrats are leading, for Democrats to have rammed the existing bill through in such a way would have only further diminished Democrats in the eyes of voters.

The mere fact that Nancy Pelosi announced that there are not enough votes to pass the Senate version of government run healthcare indicates that as unlikely as it was, Democrats were considering the last ditch effort to salvage their controversial, bribe ridden, government takeover of healthcare in America. The fact that Speaker Pelosi sees the writing on the wall and won’t even try a desperate attempt to override the will of the people is all a result of the undeniable message that was sent by generally liberal Massachusetts voters electing Republican Scott Brown to the senate seat that was held by the Kennedy family for nearly five decades.

In another sign of the clear message that has been sent by this first shot in a political revolution, came from the White House.

It is clear that President Obama has backed off of his healthcare power grab and decidedly continued to focus his attacks on the banking industry.

After inventing a new tax that would be applied to only those banks that his administration hand picks , President Obama has now declared new regulations aimed at limiting the risks that banks could take on trades. That is not exactly inappropriate. Depending on how such limits are applied and what those limits are, general rules regarding trade risks for banks are not innappropriate.

Ironically, it was Democrat regulations that helped lead to the bursting of the housing industry which led to the near complete collapse the economy.

Democrats, under President B.J. Clinton, forced banks to enter into high risk loans and mortgages through the Clinton era homeownership initiative.

Designed to better enable minorities and low income Americans to own their own, banks were forced to backed loans with unqualified, high risk clients. After many years, when the piper could not be paid, the housing bubble burst, mortgages began to be defaulted on in unprecedented numbers and banks began to stop lending. This dried up the worldwide flow of money.

So the President’s focus on this issue is admirable. Exactly how Democrats will try correct a problem that their policies helped create is another. How his new regulations will play out and if they will be the proper kind of regulations is another matter. But, one thing is for sure. Democrats and President Obama have gotten the message that voters sent on Tuesday and their push for an unwanted government takeover of healthcare is comatose and listed in critical condition.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Massachusetts Special Election Is Proving To Be Very Special Indeed

Bookmark and Share    I am not a big believer in miracles. Murphy’s Law….yes.    Miracles…..no.

That is why I find it hard to believe that Republican State Senator Scott Brown  is within striking distance of snatching Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat from incumbent State Attorney General, Democrat Martha Coakley.

The astonishment has little to do with the caliber of the candidates involved. Brown seems to be a right of center Republican with a good campaign and good ideas that are getting traction among Bay State voters. Coakley is not bad either…..for a liberal. She is nothing special and far to the left, but that is what Massachusetts often elects. This is a state where Barack Obama won with a plurality of 26%.

You don’t get much bluer than that.

My stunned interest in the Massachusetts special election comes from the fact that Democrats are finding themselves struggling to keep Ted Kennedy’s seat in their hands. How true that is questionable. The existing uncertainty stems from two separate, but both partisan, polls. One came from Public Policy Polling or PPP and the other from the Boston Globe. The Boston Globe had Coakley ahead by 15%. That sounds about right to me. But PPP, a Democrat polling outfit found Scott Brown ahead of Coakley by 1%.

This prompted me to examine the conditions which the two polls were conducted under

and upon my review, it was clear that the PPP poll was conducted under conditions that would make it more reliable.

The Globe called far more Democrats than the actual Democrat to Republican ration is. They also called only about 90 Independents while PPP called almost 300 independent voters. The Globe called a much smaller sampling of voters overall than did PPP, not just fewer Independents. And a smaller sampling makes for a greater margin of error. The Globe also used live callers. PPP used automated calls, which are more standardized and typically receive and record responses more accurately.

For these reasons, I believe the PPP survey is showing a more accurate picture than is the Globe. However I still find Brown’s  leads hard to believe.

It is not unfathomable, just hard to imagine, at least in Massachusetts.

When you look deeper though, you can see how Brown just might be closing in.

First of all, this a special election and they are a different breed. Special elections are not the draw that general elections are. Add to that the buyers remorse that Massachusetts voters seem to be suffering from and you have a Democrat electorate that is unenthused about this election. Many voters in the Bay State are not too happy with the “hope” and “change” that President Obama sold them in 2008.  Evidence of that exist in the fact that here, where President Obama won the presidential election with a 26% plurality in 2008, in 2010 his favorability ratings are now at 44%.

A majority of Massachusetts residents are also not happy with the existing version of the Democrats top agenda item, healthcare reform.

All of this is a burden upon Democrat Martha  Coakley that is suppressing her turnout in an already typically low turnout type of election. And don’t forget, this election is being held on January 19th. In Boston. Where the dead of winter, freezing temperatures do not exactly make a trip to the polls very convenient.

I’ll tell you right now, if in addition to cold temperatures, it snows on that day too, Scott Brown is probably in like Flynn.

Democrats are not excited. They are not excited by Moakley who has made a number of missteps. And they are not happy with Democrats in general. This same scenario played out in New Jersey and Virginia this past Fall when uninterested Democrats stayed at home while angry Tea Party protestors and Republicans went out to vote in droves.

Republicans are angry and anger is a great source of motivation. It will surely be enough to get a great many Republicans out to the polls regardless of how cold the winds blow or high the snow gets on January 19th.

Another factor at play here is the gap between Coakley and Brown among Independent voters. Independent voters are overwhelmingly moving toward Brown.

All of these factors, including a definite established trend of momentum swinging in Scott Brown’s  favor, are turning what was once seen as no-brainer for Democrats, into a nail biter. Such is why they will be bringing the big guns in…..B.J. Clinton.

Governor-deject Jon Corzine of New Jersey tried a similar tactic. He tried to run with President Obama. His billboards, his commercials, his literature, all had him standing with President Obama. President Obama even came to New Jersey on three separate occasions to campaign throughout the state with Corzine.

It didn’t work.

Democrats are just not happy. They liked the script that they heard in 2008, but the actual play sucks and they just don’t want to be a part of it.

Will Scott Brown pull this off in the end?

I honestly can’t say. There are just too many variables right now. But a trend is developing and the possibility is there And that in and of itself is a miracle.

The mere fact that the seat held by Ted Kennedy, for over four decades, may fall into Republican hands is something that no one would have believed just a few weeks ago.

What makes it even more surprising is Scott Brown himself.

As a state senator, his record seems to be solid and stable. He is somewhat conservative, especially by Massachusetts standards. He is well spoken and outgoing and dring.  That all would not  appear to be very unusual for a Republican candidate, but that is all that is usual when it comes to Scott Brown.

Back in 1982, at the age of 22, long before  he ever thought he might be Ted Kennedy’s successor, he appeared in Cosmo…..naked,……with staples in his bellybutton, under a heading declaring him to be the Sexiest Man of the Year. That is not exactly something  you would expect from a Republican and it may not be a side that we need to see in our representatives but it certainly proves that Scott Brown is not your typical Republican.

Nor is his family.

One of Scott’s biggest supporters is his daughter Ayla, who at a young age, has found herself a singing career.

In 2006, Ayla Brown’s talented voice got her a slot on the popular “American Idol” television show. She was a solid contestant who advanced on the show for several weeks until she was cut after making it to the final 16 contestants.

As is the case with many American Idol runner-ups, she still got her shot and soon found herself signing an exclusive record and distribution contract.

Ayla Brown with American Idol Host Ryan Seecrest

So as you can see, the Browns are anything but your typical, stodgy, conservative family. You might even say that they are unconventional. Which is exactly why this special election in dark blue Democrat Massachusetts might just produce some unconventional Republican red results. In the end , Massachusetts voters may end up preferring Senator Centerfold’s stimulus package to the one that his opponents party came up with in Washington, D.C..

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics