Sunday, January 31

obama is no clinton

It's gotten so bad that I am now singing the praises of former President Clinton.

Obama, obviously, is no pragmatist when it comes to governing. He doesn't even understand the definition of the word.

Clinton, after Hillary's health care debacle lost him the Congress in 1994, got smart. He (reluctantly) went (kicking and screaming) bi-partisan and was able to claim that he had successfully balanced the budget (although Newt and GOP policies that accomplished it.)

Lessons learned after losing 'The People's Senate Seat' in Massachusetts? Zero. BO and his bitches Harry and Nancy keep chugging along, at the nation's peril, talking health care reform nobody wants and a new irresponsible and reckless $3.8 trillion budget that will make America a permanent non-power.

Obama is no Bill Clinton.

leftie somewhat right

From "The Atlantic":

Is the world as we know it coming to an end because Scott Brown, a Republican, won the special election in Massachusetts for the Senate seat of Edward Kennedy? You can actually make the argument. To wit: Brown campaigned as the "forty-first vote," meaning that with his arrival in the Senate, the Republicans would acquire just enough seats to defeat cloture of filibusters, by which, under Senate rules, they can kill any piece of legislation. The legislation on most people's minds these days is the healthcare bill, which Brown has specifically vowed to reject. But the threat, as everyone knows, extends beyond that bill to any bill that the Republicans choose to defeat. If the Republican Party were a diverse or open-minded one, the threat would be only theoretical, but in fact it has voted in lockstep against most major bills proposed by the majority, including the stimulus package earlier last year. Thus, Brown's self-designation as the forty-first GOP vote carries within it a threat to hamstring legislation across the board. And since the world needs American cooperation to cope with the expanding array of dangers it faces, a hamstrung United States means a hamstrung world. The most consequential business before the world is probably halting climate change, but for this to happen the United States must participate. The election of Brown, who opposes cap and trade, could kill that hope, and with it the hope of a serious global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. All of which is how his election could end the world as we know it.

Wednesday, January 27

sotu

When Presidents are introduced and walk out before the State of the Union, they are cheered wildly, regardless of party or person. George W. Bush, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, all got huge applause, but...

Barack Obama? It was a muted reaction tonight. Whatever applause he received was tepid and short-lived. There's no great affection for this guy. He's not respected by anybody. And he's just a year into his presidency.

Jobs. Finally he talked about the number one issue facing Americans. Barely talked about were national security, or terrorism, or Guantanamo, or granting civilian trials to terrorists like KSM.

Obama claimed cutting taxes for '95% of Americans,' but there's no evidence he did any such thing. If he's talking about the rebate checks that some American received, he's lying. Rebate checks don't qualify as 'tax cuts.' The government only cuts taxes when they change the tax rates.

Obama did look defiant in the face of multiple failures and election defeats, most recently last week in deep Blue Massachusetts. But he appears not to recognize the extreme opposition to the entirety of his legislative agenda, including government-run health care, cap and trade, card check, climate change and closing Guantanamo. None of these policies are popular.

I'll quote a text I received during Obama's speech: "He (Obama) just buried the Democrats if they choose to follow."

"democrats need to fight back"


I've taken to task a leftist writer friend of mine (above) that I have known for years who has a weekly column. Given the setting of this evening's SOTU, the matter of the nature of the Republican opposition to Obama is discussed.

Read his column first and you will see why I couldn't let it go unchallenged. (His stuff is in italics, mine not.) Or you can just skip down to where I lay into him and disrupt his leftist echo-chamber worldview.

I'm not going to watch the State of the Union address live. Instead, I'll record the PBS broadcast and check it out after I fire up the season finale of "Lost." It's not that I don't enjoy a good Obama speech, it's that the occasion and the venue have lost their luster. George W. Bush made a mockery of the address in 2003 when he represented the idea that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Niger as fact when he knew it wasn't, and "Joe the Congressman" Wilson cheapened the chamber when he screamed "You lie!" at President Obama a few months ago. The speech is like a WWE match now — you already know what's going to happen before it starts, but watching the guy get to the ring is always an adventure.

Plus, it's not like any of the Republicans in the room are going to be listening to what our president is saying since they already decided not to work with him. Remember when our economy was on the verge of collapse and every Republican in the House voted against the Recovery Act? That was a declaration of war against President Obama. Right off the bat, that showed they didn't respect the outcome of the landslide Democratic victory; and on every bill since, they've shown that they don't accept the fact that he and his party have a mandate to govern. I thought my head was going to explode on Sunday when I heard senators McConnell and McCain say they would only work across the aisle if the Democrats promised not to say no to every Republican proposal — as though they have some new ideas the voters didn't already reject in November of 2008. The Republican point of view was summed up perfectly on "Meet the Press" by the infuriatingly phony Peggy Noonan who said, "the 2008 election settled nothing, America is still in play." The proper response to this instant and consistent legislative hostility is to change the rules of the Senate so that bills can be passed by a simple majority, taking away the Republicans' ability to filibuster the Democratic agenda to death.

As for what we know about the things our president is going to propose tonight, they will work well to keep Democrats together. A freeze on discretionary spending is a nice bone to throw to the Blue Dogs yipping about deficits; and it will be good for President Obama to use that bully pulpit to stand up for the middle class while heaping scorn on Wall Street so progressives hear him sounding like candidate Obama the populist community organizer again.

But between now and the end of July, the Democrats need wins. They simply can't go into the fall with equal pay for women and the stimulus package as their only legislative accomplishments; not while unemployment is still high and Gitmo is still open. Their programs don't need to be designed perfectly, but the filibuster has got to go because their bills must pass — by any means necessary.

This isn't about my home state electing a Republican because he's good looking, but Scott Brown becoming the junior senator from Massachusetts actually makes my point for me. This guy ran on a campaign promise to filibuster health care reform and happily signs autographs with the number "41" because it takes 41 votes to block any legislation. Think about it, he is actually taking pride in the fact that his vote is critical in preventing the other 534 members of Congress from doing the job he and they are elected to do — pass laws that help solve our country's problems. It's almost like the Republicans are saying, "why should we allow potential solutions to these problems to be implemented so that the Democrats get all the credit if they work?" They'd rather undermine and sabotage the legislative agenda that voters from coast-to-coast supported, then try to run on a "give us a shot because the other side failed" platform. It's the most delusional plan since John Edwards' attempt to get a job in the Obama administration and, like the filibuster, it's all the Republicans have left.

Time is not on the Democrats' side. The Republicans have set up a false dichotomy in which the candidates in the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey and the special Senate election in Massachusetts were really running against the president, not their actual opponents — and that the election of Republicans anywhere is a rejection of Obama. He'll be carrying every Democratic candidate who runs this November and he needs to be able to shake off dead weight like Martha Coakley. Eliminating the 60-vote threshold to get a bill through the Senate while taking away the primary Republican weapon against their party would be a great start for the president and the Democrats in Congress. After all, being blamed for doing what you have to do to implement an agenda that doesn't work is much better than being blamed for not implementing an agenda at all.



It's as if this column was written in a reality where Democrats didn't have a super majority in Congress for a full year and the Presidency. If the Democrats could have only agreed amongst themselves Obama would have his h/c plan.

It's beyond me why it is expected that Republicans should vote for policies that they philosophically disagree with merely because the Democrats were too disorganized to agree with eachother.

If Obama comes out tonight and tries to blame Republicans, the minority party with no real power, he'll look weaker than he already looks.

Further, Obama never had the mandate he thought he had to take this country to the left.


Two Questions

1. It's fine for republicans not to vote for these bills when they come up, but when an overwhelming majority of voters from coast-to-coast supported the the democrats' legislative agenda, shouldn't the bills be able to get to the floor of the senate for a vote?

2. If a party's candidates run on a platform of legislative initiatives to solve the country's problems and the voters overwhelmingly support that party's candidates, how is that not a mandate to pass those legislative initiatives? IOW, if this congress and this president didn't have a mandate, then what is a mandate in your mind and how does a party or an elected official get one?




1. A majority of voters do not support the Democratic agenda. Obamacare polls at about 38%. Awarding terrorists constitutional rights and miranda rights is also unpopular and not exactly a winning issue for Dems.

2. Obama always had the roughly 1/3 of voters on the left, never had the 1/3 on the right. He essentially tricked the most of the 1/3 of those independents/moderates in the middle into thinking that he was a centrist who was genuinely interested in post partisanship and a new way of doing business in DC. Instead, according to a brand new poll, he is the most polarizing president in history and has been anything but transparent in the way his signature initiative, healthcare reform, has been undertaken. With carve outs and back room deals for special interests like labor unions and special deals for resistant congressional Dems, he has in fact made the appearance of the way DC works look even worse.

3. If Obama and Dems want to get serious they may find that Republicans will be interested in helping them if they moderate some of their policy proposals/positions and embrace some of the Republican ideas that we're constantly told don't exist such as portability of healthcare coverage across state lines, tort reform, a payroll tax holiday, and a new employee tax credit.


1. Legislation isn't passed on a "public opinion standard."

2. I don't care about polls questioning relative levels of polarization and you're crazy if you think millions of people were "tricked" into voting for democrats from the top to the bottom of their ballots.

3. Republicans aren't entitled to put qualifiers on their willingness to work across the aisle because when the voters had a chance to choose their agenda or the democrats', the voters chose the democrats. winning a congressional majority means the minority has to work with you, not the other way around.

And you didn't answer my questions:

1. When an overwhelming majority of voters from coast-to-coast supported the the democrats' legislative agenda, shouldn't the bills be able to get to the floor of the senate for a vote

2. If a party's candidates run on a platform of legislative initiatives to solve the country's problems and the voters overwhelmingly support that party's candidates, how is that not a mandate to pass those legislative initiatives? IOW, if this congress and this president didn't have a mandate, then what is a mandate in your mind and how does a party or an elected official get one?

when a huge majority of voters (not people polled, but people who went to the polls) support a legislative agenda, should those bills be able to reach the floor for a vote? it's a yes-or-no question...

does winning an election give a party or a candidate a mandate? again, yes-or-no question...



1. No

2. No


Then what is the point of campaign promises, campaigns, and elections? what is Congress supposed to do with itself?


You asked me if bills should reach the floor for a vote which is a way of asking if I think that the filibuster should be removed or reformed in some way as to not require a 60 vote supermajority to break a filibuster.

The parliamentary maneuver of a filibuster is an important part of the checks and balances we have in the current legislative system/process.

Your question is perhaps purposefully vague whereby it's assumed that because voters elected Obama that they now approve of everything he's doing. What exactly is the legislative agenda you imagine that a vast majority of people approved of? Whatever it is, it's certainly not what we've been getting. Campaigns and campaign promises are always just vague outlines of ideas. Its when the details are unveiled that the people truly get to see what they ended up voting for.

Take healthcare, sure a majority of people approve of healthcare reform and extending coverage to those who don't have it in some vague theoretical sense but the devil is in the details. When the actual bill started to take shape, when the specifics materialized, none of which Obama ever mentioned in his campaign rhetoric other than his broken promise of allowing C-Span cameras in on the negotiations, the voters started to recoil.

Thankfully the system includes checks and balances such as the filibuster. Sure, every last bill shouldn't be blocked, but the reshaping of 1/6 of the economy and the partial government takeover of health care should, it think its fair to say, have widespread approval and bipartisan consensus before its jammed through against the people's will.

In order to understand the nature of the Republican resistance to president Obama's agenda we have to go back to the $787 billion stimulus package.

Back in those days of early 2009 the Republicans were reeling, a broken defeated party rudderless. Obama could have divided and conquered the Republicans with the crafting of the stimulus bill by including at least some of their ideas. After all, Obama won what 56% of the popular vote? That means there is a good 44% of the people left out in the cold when their representatives, the Republican party, were completely shunned and cut out of the process entirely. Not a single Republican idea was even listened to in the crafting of the stimulus bill. The attitude was: "We won, you lost, now shut up."

The effect of this arrogant approach of acting as if the Dems had a 100% mandate when in fact the margin of victory was in single digits was to completely unify a weakened Republican party in opposition to a party and a President who seemed intent on running roughshod over the minority party and those great numbers of Americans whom they represent.

So the stimulus bill was jammed through and has yet to do much let alone keep unemployment at 8 % or whatever they kept telling us it would do, and the Republican party found their voice as the unified group standing against an Obama agenda that increasingly became one that the American people didn't think they were voting for.

The Republican opposition to the Obama agenda has not hurt them at all. In fact it has paid huge dividends. The elections in Virginia, and the liberal bastions of New Jersey and Massachusetts have been a clear message to the administration that the people don't want this Obama agenda now that we've graduated out of the vague platitudinous rhetoric of the campaign and the actual details of what he's trying to do have been unveiled for all to see.

From the tea parties, to the town hall meetings of August, to the elections of Republicans where Obama personally stumped for the candidates in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts with Ted Kennedy's seat, there is a broad based popular opposition to the Obama agenda that is undeniable.

Call it 'buyers remorse' or a matter of Obama's 'bait and switch' but I for one am surely glad that there are mechanisms to arrest the headlong rush to either side of the political spectrum by any particular party's interpretation of what they imagine that their "mandate" is. After all, it's not a mandate of heaven, it really should be a mandate of the people. And if anyone paid one bit of attention to the election of Scott Brown, a conservative Republican in the bluest of blue states which serves a microcosm of the country, the people are mandating or more precisely demanding that this agenda be stopped, slowed down or at the very least reshaped.

Circling the wagons and moving further to the left, like Obama did tonight in the SOTU, is completely politically tone deaf, and the results of the people's new "mandate", not the supposed mandate of two years ago, will be realized this November when any pundit who knows anything understands that the Dems are heading for widespread losses.

Labels: , , ,

the alternative

The GOP has detailed and actionable plans on the following:

Health care reform -- Universal and portable coverage by changing the tax code.

Medicare -- Keeping the program solvent for decades.

Social Security -- Permanent solvency.

Tax Reform -- Creating a simplified system that promotes work, saving and investment.

Is anybody reading or listening?

Tuesday, January 26

arizona senate

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/images/photos/2007/07/16/373s162.jpg

My friend JD Hayworth, the former Arizona Congressman, is challenging John McCain.

McCain, or 'Jackass' as I call him, has served four terms. He's done. His tired, old ass is finished.

Where's my checkbook?

50 minutes

interrogate

Americans need to know that the terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a.k.a., the Christmas day underwear bomber dude, was interrogated for 50 minutes and during that time he blabbed a lot about al Qaeda in Yemen to Detroit officials and then he stopped talking after he was read his Miranda rights by the Federal agents.

Yeah, he's not a US citizen but the Obama administration believes, for reasons that aren't quite clear to me, that non-citizens should have the same rights as you, me and my Mom.

If Obama was serious about combating terrorism, serious interrogators would have been questioning Abdulmutallab on the ground in Michigan, not some local cops with no working knowledge of al Qaeda, or Yemen or terrorism.

A serious President would have interrogated a terrorist 500 hours or whatever was necessary to glean actionable intelligence. Fifty minutes is insulting to the country.

Obama and A.G. Eric Holder are so bad on national security that the HIG interrogation teams promised last August still haven't been formed, trained and deployed. In fact, these teams don't even exist yet.

That is how little this President cares about national security, killing terrorists and saving American lives. He doesn't give a damn and it's an impeachable offense. Should we -- God forbid -- get hit again with another 9/11-style attack, Obama and Holder should fry.

sotu



The Teleprompter will be loaded with a speech about jobs tomorrow night during BO's first State of the Union address. That's good, because that's what he completely ignored in 2009.

The problem is that the administration isn't credible on jobs. This past weekend, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs -- the three morons -- all went on the Sunday talk shows and each gave different data on jobs created or saved last year. Classic.

This White House is comprised of a bunch of clueless amateurs. They have no idea what's going on, they have no idea what to do and that's another big problem, since they were elected to fix the economy.

Obama's proposed spending freeze is a joke, too, adding up to a pathetically paltry $250 billion in savings over 10 years -- or less than 3% of the roughly $9 trillion in new deficits the Magic Negro is expected to roll up.

Barack Obama, the most unpopular President in American history -- He's even worse than the anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter.

damn, i'm great



Obama told the folks in Elyria, OH last week that 'it's not about him,' yet he mentioned himself 132 times.

Monday, January 25

dumb as a rock

President Barack Obama, accompanied by Education Secretary Arne ...

Has there ever been a bigger fraud than this guy? A bigger phony? Obama needs a teleprompter everywhere, even at an elementary school. Sure, he was speaking to the media, but so what?

We're told this is the smartest guy ever to hold the office, but how smart can he really be? Is he that unsure of his speaking ability?

This is the great orator, the second coming of Reagan? Give me a break.

Friday, January 22

freedom week

A bad week for the Democrats is a great week for American freedom.

(1.) Massachusetts -- the election of Senator Scott Brown in the Bluest state in the country has changed politics in Washington DC, in terms of Obamacare, cap and trade and the 2010 midterm elections.

(2.) Chris Christie -- New Jersey's new Republican Governor, elected to shake things up in this Bluer than Blue state, was inaugurated on Tuesday.

(3.) SCOTUS -- rolling back the unconstitutional (and free speech restricting) McCain-Feingold campaign finance law goes a long way toward ensuring Constitutional rights for everyone, including those evil corporations.

(4.) Bob McDonnell -- Virginia's new Republican Governor will deliver the GOP response to the State of the Union address.

Freedom Week? Maybe we'll rename it Freedom Year.

mr. brown goes to washington



Scotty Brown goes to Washington.

Labels:

Thursday, January 21

bank restructuring

Our supremely stupid President has talked about the Great Depression so much over the past couple of years he's apparently decided he wants to send us back into one, which is exactly what might happen with his new lack-of-detail bank proposals.

Unveiled today, the White House seeks to impose new limits on the types of risk big banks can assume and place unspecified size limits on institutions. Is this how a free market economy functions?

The result of the idiot-in-chief flapping his gums about this nonsense? Global banking went into turmoil and the stock market dumped 200 points.

November can't come soon enough...

microcosm



In many mays Massachusetts is a microcosm of the US. Fully one half of Massachusetts voters are independent (unenrolled for us). Large urban areas, where most voters are reliant on government largess, tend to vote Democrat and those of us in between, trying to scrape out an honest living, vote Republican. Granted, that is normally not the case in Massachusetts, but in keeping with the microcosm of the country theme, the tide seems to be dramatically turning against Democrats and their arrogant attempt to jam through their big government deficit exploding policies.

Labels: ,

exactly

"Democrats look good when they're off in the distance second-guessing others and saying 'hope and change.' But then it's like head cheese - when you get a look at it up close, you're not eating it. Head cheese is the Democratic Party, and this presidency is not working." --- Dennis Miller

newsflash: obama sucks


Paul Krugman, the certifiable Left wing kook/economist now believes Obama isn't 'the one' and is "pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in."

Obama's supporters, the hard Lefty's who favored government run health care, climate change legislation, cap and tax and the rest of the White House's socialist agenda, are but a small minority.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are center-Right. We live in a Red country, which is why Democrats campaign as Conservatives. (Remember Obama promising tax cuts for 95% of Americans?) You Liberal nutbags badly misread the result of 2006/2008.

extremely american


FirstAmendment

McCain-Feingold was always unconstitutional and President Bush was a fool to sign it into law.

SCOTUS, with 5-4 ruling today, rolled back the limits on corporate spending on political campaigns. I say it's a great decision.

But guess who disagrees with me? Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He calls the decision 'un-American.'

What could be more American than free speech? Schumer and the rest of the Democrats are un-American. In fact, I'm going to exercise my free speech right now and say that America would be a better country if Congressional Democrats all dropped dead.

Wednesday, January 20

weak on national security

Dennis Blair, Obama's intelligence chief wasn't consulted about the Christmas Bomber guy, nicely illustrating the administration's cavalier attitude toward America's national security.

We've been blogging about national security in this space for five and a half years. Nothing else is as important, nothing else matters more.

The main job of our President is to keep Americans (and America) safe, but clearly, the Obama administration has dropped the ball on security. Shamefully for them, it isn't a priority.
"Blair told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that he was not consulted on whether Abdulmutallab should be questioned by the recently created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG, and charged in federal court.

"That unit was created exactly for this purpose," Blair said. "We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have."

And what's this? I actually agree with Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) on something?
"That is very troubling," Collins said. "It appears to me that we lost an opportunity to secure some valuable intelligence information, and that the process that Director Blair described should have been implemented in this case. And I think it's very troubling that it was not, and that three key intelligence officials were not asked their opinion."
Obama and Democrats don't get national security, which is one big reason so many of us on the Right believe them to be anti-American.

useful idiots

obama sings

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 19

'there's trouble everywhere...'

Massachusetts State Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, celebrates ...

Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) summed it up this way on his way to winning 73% of Independents.

"When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere and they know it."

And only the Fox News Channel (and CSPAN II) ran Brown's acceptance speech. Media bias, anyone?

a year ago

The very fact that the campaign for a Massachusetts Senate seat is competitive tells you everything about President Obama you need to know.

Whether Scott Brown wins or loses tonight, the Obama presidency and his ridiculously Liberal legislative agenda have been absolute disasters for the Democrats, and much more importantly, for the country.

Welcome to the backlash.

Monday, January 18

the anti-american democrats

"In just one year in power, the Obama administration has not merely tripled the deficit and circumvented the Constitution with their "czars" who rule by decree, but have moved to dictate the medical treatment of all Americans-- which is to say, they are moving toward getting the power of life and death, to add to all the other powers they have seized.

"The dangers are not only in domestic policy but even more so in the Obama administration's foreign policy. Their diddling around while fanatical leaders of a terrorist-sponsoring nation like Iran are moving toward producing nuclear bombs can take us and the world to a point of no return.

"No nation on earth will let three of its cities be annihilated by nuclear bombs without surrendering. The fact that the United States has never surrendered may make it difficult for Americans even to imagine that it could happen, much less what a horror it would be to live under hate-filled fanatics like the current Iranian leaders. But Japan had likewise never surrendered in its entire history until it was hit with two nuclear bombs.

"Unlike us, Iranian leaders -- going back to the Ayatollah Khomeini-- have said plainly that they are willing to see their country destroyed as the price of destroying the enemies of Islam-- which, in their view of the world, includes the United States.

"Perhaps serious sanctions might have been enough to stop the Iranian nuclear program a few years ago, by crippling their economy. But nobody in the West had the stomach for that.

"The longer we wait, the higher the price goes-- the price of either action or inaction.

"Just three years ago, the people currently at the top in Washington-- including President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton-- were ready to turn tail and run in Iraq.

"Former Ambassador John Bolton has written a book titled "Surrender is Not an Option." But that is an option for the kind of people at the top in the Obama administration.

"It would take a leader with extraordinary courage, pride in America and dedication to the values, traditions and the people of America, to stand up to enemies who could annihilate Los Angeles, Chicago and New York with nuclear weapons.

"Does this sound anything like the president who has gone around the world apologizing for this country and literally bowing to foreign leaders?

"The stakes in this fall's elections go far beyond the fate of either the Republican party or the Democratic party. The fate of America is on the line. The Republicans need to understand that-- and to understand that they are not simply "due" because of polls."

--- Thomas Sowell

special election

Scott Brown appears poised to win a Massachusetts Senate seat tomorrow, but don't forget the Democrats' penchant for cheating and stealing elections. Think Al Franken, think Christine Gregoire, think Al Gore (almost).

My guess is that unless Brown wins decisively the Coakley people will sue, present newly found (and highly suspect) absentee ballots and hold the process up until they get a favorable result.

Saturday, January 16

hope & shame

Labels: ,

pathetic animals


Coakley deserves to lose on this issue alone. I've never seen such pathetic and cheesy gutter politics. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn all rape victims away? Really ???!!! Who do they think will buy that? These people are desperate animals.

Democrats, do you approve of these tactics? If you do, you disgust me almost as much as this patently dishonest mailer a friend forwarded to me.

What's next? (in a dark & scary sounding voice) "Scott Brown is currently waiting in your bedroom closet and when you fall asleep he'll emerge and slit your throat?"

That's about as believable as the above mailer.

Here's to hoping that Obama brings some of that Chicago 2016 magic to Massachusetts when he comes here on Sunday in an all out panic to get Coakley elected. Coakley, by the way, thinks that Red Sox great Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan much in the same way John Kerry when asked to name his favorite Red Sox player said, "Manny Ortiz".

Labels: , , ,

Friday, January 15

+4

MOMENTUM: GOP candidate Scott Brown...

Scott Brown, the insurgent MA Senate candidate is up four percentage points going into the final weekend before next Tuesday's special election.

What kind of last minute mud, dirt, dirty tricks -- what manufactured 'January Surprise' will we be learning about in short order about the apparently squeaky clean Mr. Brown that will throw the election to the dim-witted, desperate, win-at-all cost Democrats?

Poor Martha Coakley. Maybe this is just karmic payback for that whole Gerald Amirault thing.

Wednesday, January 13

'relentless rhetoric'

After all those lofty words and soaring oratory, Obama is even less unifying than President Bush. And half of the country thinks BO is "too Liberal."

Hope + Change = Epic Fail.

'horrible woman'

For once, I completely agree with CNN's Jack Cafferty. Nancy Pelosi is a horrible woman. She is a piece of human garbage. As is Harry Reid. As is Dick Durbin. As is Barbara Boxer. As is John Kerry. As is Al Gore. As is John Murtha. As is Charles Rangel. As is Majority Leader-in waiting Chuck Schumer. As are most of the Imperialistic and not very 'Democratic' Party.

Tuesday, January 12

beat harry reid

www.Tark2010.org.

the people's seat

Labels: , ,

Monday, January 11

foxy sarah

Governor Sarah Palin a Fox News Channel contributor?

It's a shrewdly political move for both the former Alaska Governor and the cable network. Obviously, Palin's a slam dunk ratings winner and Fox's diverse viewership guarantees she gets to re-introduce herself to Conservatives, Democrats and Independents on her terms unlike 2008.

Win-win.

political wilderness



Only
36% of Americans approve of Obama's non-transparent handling of health care, according to a new CBS poll. A huge number disapprove, 54%.

#the41stVote

.1mass

From the Wall Street Journal:
"The mere fact that Democrats have to fight so hard to save Ted Kennedy's seat shows how badly they have misjudged America by governing so far to the left."
The Massachusetts Senate race is heating up with attorney general/union whore/high tax/rubber stamp Democrat Martha Coakley running ahead/behind Republican fresh face/state senator Scott Brown. (Above)

Now, a week from special election day and Brown leads by one percentage point in the Public Policy Poll, while Coakley leads by 15% in the latest Boston Globe survey.

In the mind of Democrats, Coakley and Brown are running for Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat, but as Brown has correctly pointed out, the people of Massachusetts own that seat, no one party, no one person or family.

Brown is on the air with television spots featuring JFK from his glory days, advocating tax cuts.

Coakley, during her days as Middlesex County (MA) district attorney, kept a man named Gerald Amirault in jail long after it had been established the charges against him were fictional.

She falsely imprisoned an innocent man, but believes that terrorists should not be held as enemy combatants? Coakley is more concerned with political correctness than national security? She sounds like those 60 other morons down in DC.

America will be better served with one less Massachusetts Democrat in Congress.

I sincerely hope that Scott Brown becomes the GOP's 41st vote in the Senate next Tuesday.

let's fly to copenhagen

Did you hear about all the wasted taxpayer money spent on the Copenhagen trip?

It was the "party of the year. The worst thing that happened was that they ran out of caviar."

Twenty one members of Congress, all expenses paid. Democrats Pelosi, Hoyer, Rangel, Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Butterfield, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Cleaver, Giffords and Republicans Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, and Blackburn.

Editor's Note: James Inhofe, a longtime global warming skeptic and a decent, conscientious public servant, went on his own dime, just to give "an opposing view."

From CBS News:
"Our investigation found out that the House delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737's and a Gulfstream Five. Up to 64 passengers -- travelling (sic) in luxurious comfort."
These leeches that call themselves members of the United States Congress, continue to suck us dry, wasting our money, eating, drinking and living it up on OUR tax dollars while accomplishing absolutely nothing. And when they aren't going traveling overseas in first class style, they are in Washington DC wasting our money on needless government spending.

My hat's off to CBS News and reporter Sharyl Attkinsson for doing this expose.

young turks

http://www.house.gov/ryan/images/biography/Paul107thfullsize.JPG

I've been going back in my archives to find the post in which I was extremely complimentary of Wisconsin's Republican Rep. Paul Ryan. (Above) I said he'd be a leader to watch in the GOP's future.

Anyway, here's a report that the Congressman paid a visit to New Hampshire in hopes of raising his national profile. He's not running in '12, but he's got plenty of time.

In fact, the Republicans have plenty of rising stars. I call them the Young Turks.

Look at Florida's Marco Rubio, a candidate for the US Senate; Republican Whip Eric Cantor; Scott Brown, the next Senator from Massachusetts; Indiana's Rep. Mike Pence; my Congressman Darrell Issa; Clint Didier, the former Redskins tight end; Danny Tarkanian; Carly Fiorina; staunch Pennsylvania Conservative Pat Toomey; stud Governors Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, John Hoeven and Sarah Palin.

Deep bench. All capable, good, decent, quality people. The GOP's future is bright.

Editor's note: My partner Jaz reminded me I left Governor Bobby Jindal off the Young Turks list. Thank you, Buddy.

fresh crop

It just keeps getting better and better, doesn't it? Byron Dorgan OUT not running for re-election in North Dakota. IN? 'Extraordinarily popular' third term Republican Governor John Hoeven.

Sunday, January 10

harry reid

The fact that the hateful liar Harry Reid is the Majority Leader of the Senate is enough of a national embarrassment. Now, he's on the record as saying something racial -- about Obama.

Those comments -- that Obama didn't talk with 'a Negro dialect' and was electable because of his 'light skin,' -- are a great example of the cynicism of Democrats.

Imagine if a Republican had said such things?

The supposed political 'party of the people,' the party of the little guy, the party that 90%+ of American blacks support every two and four years, that party is led by a guy who has a negative impression of 'Negro dialects' and dark skinned people.

Former Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott was forced to give up his leadership position for NOT saying something racial. Why should Reid be spared?

There goes that big double standard again.

Saturday, January 9

+1

Senator Scott Brown (R-MA)?

intellectual dishonesty

On issue after issue, global warming, jobs, national security, the economy, war, missile defense, foreign affairs, free trade, the census, they are liars and demagogues, these Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.

They are intellectually dishonest.

The country, the world will be better off when they are all permanently stripped of their power.

(And if Obama is a 'certified intellectual' then I'm Albert Einstein.)

Tuesday, January 5

oh, happy day

ABC News reports that "Democrats are dropping like flies."

Dodd out.
Dorgan retiring.
Ritter done.
Cherry, not running.
The prick Brian Baird, finished.

Maybe this was the game plan all along.
Ram health care through,
Against the wishes of 60%+ of the country, then quit...
It's all about power anyway.

The political deaths of anti-American zealots like Pelosi, Reid...
Would indeed be a great day for the Constitution and for America.

fail

Reading my Twitter feed on my Blackberry and there's this, from @jaketapper: "in his remarks after meeting, POTUS used a version of the word "fail" nine times in as many minutes - referring to the gov't he runs."

People are surprised by the fecklessness of this President, but why? What else could we ever have possibly expected from Obama, a total underachiever? A man of no accomplishments? A guy who has never run anything in his life? What preparation did he have to be President?

Nothing. Nada. He's a zero. People who voted Obama obviously didn't do their homework. Fail.

vendetta

Prosecutorial misconduct in the Blackwater case? Not a peep from the MSM about this.

Charges against five former Blackwater security guards were dismissed because prosecutors 'misused sworn statements the guards were compelled to make to investigators after the shooting, under the threat of job loss.'

Routine practice, yes, but these statements are inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

Ah, but what's a little 'reckless violation' of people's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when the Big Ass Federal Government is on a crusade to make a political point?

unverifiable trust

What's this?

Vice President Joe Biden, the guy who has been wrong about every foreign policy challenge America has faced in nearly 40 years, Joe Biden, quite possibly the dumbest man ever, urging the President NOT to modernize the US nuclear arsenal?

Of course, Biden's position is said to be about future leverage over Republican Senators about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), but, in the meantime, it folds perfectly into the ideology of this administration to wimp out of its Constitutional duty of properly defending the United States, while making concession after concession to Russia.

The White House caved early on with the missile defense shield to protect burgeoning democracies in Poland and the Czech Republic, then the administration agreed to cutting America's nuclear weaponry without getting verifiable numbers from the Russians.

Anybody remember the timeless wisdom of "Trust, but verify"? Those days are long gone.

Barack Obama is the enemy of the United States. He should be impeached for improperly discharging the duties of the Presidency and for choosing Biden as his second in command.

wasting intelligence

It's mind boggling. Intelligence served up on a silver platter. The father of a terrorist, comes to you and warns you about his radicalized kid. What do you do? Do you welcome the warning? Do you take action or do you do nothing about it because it's not that big of a deal, not that specific?

Obama did nothing.

Then, after the fact, the kid screws up his plans and the crisis is averted, what do you do? Ask him a bunch of questions and find out what he knows, how he knows, what's in the works for the future? Or do you read him his rights and give him a lawyer?

Obama read him his rights (even though he's not an American citizen) and gave him a lawyer.

This is the same type of stuff Clinton did that caused 9/11. Miranda rights, lawyers, criminal trials.

What other conclusion can I draw? Barack Obama is the enemy of the United States.

Monday, January 4

executive order 12425

Many of us believe President Obama is anti-American and that he is doing things that undermine our Republic. One of the recent actions?

Reversing a Reagan-era Executive Order related to Interpol, the international police force, "Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government."

An international police force given unprecedented authority to operate without restriction inside the United States? You'd think an independent press corps would be doing some vigorous reporting on this, wouldn't you?

Intelligent people simply can no longer creditably believe Obama has the best interests of the United States at heart. At best, the President is a globalist. At worst, he's an enemy of the Republic.

one more thing about 2009

1losers
What were you doing on Christmas Eve? Hanging out by the fire, opening presents, sipping an adult beverage, spending quality time with family and loved ones?

The criminals in Congress, on the other hand, on Christmas Eve, were busy lifting the $400 billion cap on potential losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the limits on what the failed companies can borrow. Thanks, Santa!

From WSJ:

"The government wants taxpayers to think that these are profit-seeking companies being nursed back to health, like AIG. But at least AIG is trying to make money. Fan and Fred are now designed to lose money, transferring wealth from renters and homeowners to overextended borrowers.

"Even better for the political class, much of this is being done off the government books. The White House budget office still doesn't fully account for Fannie and Freddie's spending as federal outlays, though Washington controls the companies. Nor does it include as part of the national debt the $5 trillion in mortgages—half the market—that the companies either own or guarantee. The companies have become Washington's ultimate off-balance-sheet vehicles, the political equivalent of Citigroup's SIVs, that are being used to subsidize and nationalize mortgage finance."

Their timing was all-too perfect, too. Had they not acted before 12.31.09, the Congress would have been needed to sign off on the exposure past $400 billion. This way, the Treasury Department has a permanent lock on the conservatorship of FM/FM, it helps them keep Democrats in Congress, risk taking increases again and Obama can count on the housing bubble blowing up again.

Best of all? Freddie and Fannie are immune from the TARP rules, but Freddie's HR director makes $2.7 million a year! How great is that?

And lest we forget, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the two jerks behind this entire mess who prevented GOP-led reform a decade ago, should still be in jail, by the way.

thank you, nancy pelosi...

... For making a big mess of the country since taking over Congress three years ago.

What happened to the stimulus passed a year ago that was supposed to save everybody and everything? Things are worse.

Case in point: The Democrats set aside $80 billion in stimulus funds for health care for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But the federal money to pay for those extra million Americans on Medicaid goes away in 2011.

Case in point: Since when do so-called 'stimulus' bills have matching requirements? You're asking cash-strapped states to spend a dollar for every dollar of stimulus they get back? At that point, states are doubly-deep in debt.

Case in point: Federal rules stimulus rules leave many states with one lone option: raise taxes in an economic downturn. Instead of stimulating the economy, putting people back to work and giving them aid during tough times, the Democrats crafted, voted on and passed legislation that does the exact opposite.

Has there ever been a more reckless Congress in our history?

Has there ever been smarter, more visionary Governors than Mitch Daniels (R-IN) and Rick Perry (R-TX)? They refused $7 billion worth of unemployment insurance stimulus dollars, knowing the boondoggle it would become.
Copyright 2004-2013, RightFromLeft.blogspot.com. All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0