2012: Palin v. Hillary!

A lot of speculation is going on over whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012, fueled by some of her recent statements (just Google it if you live in a barn).  I think it's the right time for her, but for it to be successful, history gives us some clues as to what needs to happen beforehand.

With the repudiation of Obama's agenda on 11/2, it is clear (to everyone except senior level Democrats) that Americans are sick of the spending binge, and recognize it as a failure.  They expected the President to focus on restoring the economy, while instead he chose to ram through a rotten Pork package (Stimulus 1), followed it up with a second attempt (Omnibus), then focused on Health Care for 18 months. During this time he made over 30 speeches, each one making it less popular, ultimately ending in the election of Scott Brown and the passage of Obamacare over the objections of the American people.  As I sit here today, I am amazed that this administration, Pelosi, and Reid thought this was good politics, or even good policy.  Just amazed.  I am further amazed that they continue along the meme that their 11/2 defeat was all a "communication" problem.  PLEASE!  For 2 years, Obama was on our TV's constantly, usually with the undying love and adoration of the mainstream media, pushing some part of his agenda.

What will Obama, et.al. do?

Nancy Pelosi's choice to remain Minority Leader signals that the Dem's House leadership clearly didn't get the message of Nov 2.  For the GOP, her continued leadership is a God-send.  A wonderful gift that will keep her front and center in the minds of Americans for the next two years and a great tool for 2012 GOP Congressional candidates ("Will you vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?").  Oh, and has anyone seen an actual budget for 2011 yet?  Dems are still working on it...

At the White House, it seems all disarray.  Obama goes overseas, where he continues his incompetence tour. Failing to sign a South Korean Free Trade Treaty, and getting continually scolded for our attempts to devalue the Dollar, as China does the same with the Yuan, risking a global currency war.  Like previous efforts at the Chicago Olympics, and the Global Climate Change Conference, this President seems to believe that his mere presence actually can cause the oceans to recede and the planet to cool.  Memo to Obama - your presence can not even get a bunch of Euro-weenies to agree to things they are already inclined to, and certainly your "Asian" life experience has NO meaning to our real Asian partners (and actual practitioners of Capitalism).

Back home, uber-campaign strategist David Axelrod (I guess he's looking forward to getting back to the campaign trail, since he likewise is an incompetent advisor on policy) signaled this week that the administration would likely agree on extending the Bush tax cuts (and preventing a huge tax increase) for ALL Americans for some time.  Once the Left challenged this, though, the president himself started backing away.

Against this backdrop of incompetency, we have to consider whether Obama has the political survival instincts of Bill Clinton.  The answer: No.

He will instead choose hand-to-hand combat against the GOP, clinging to his policies and far left ideology.  This will result in gridlock, a defunding of Obamacare, and numerous challenges to him.  Some Dems will recognize the potential for complete 2012 electoral disaster, and will start looking for a primary challenger.  They will hope to find it in Hillary Clinton.  Despite Hillary's statements that she will never run for president again, I can not believe that a desperate Democrat party, looking at even greater losses in the House and Senate in 2012, and faced with a strong case against Obama, will not look for Hillary first to save them.  So, condition number one to a Palin presidency is the Obama must face at lease a credible primary challenger in 2012  Hillary clearly would fill that bill, but others could, as well.  Already we hear talk of Evan Bayh (who retired rather than lose his Senate seat) and Jim Webb (who will probably lose his in 2012, so why not set the stage for even a 2016 presidential run with a 2012 dry run), and others being in the mix (Howard Dean is mentioned, though I think a credible run will come from Obama's right, not his left).

In the recent past, sitting presidents have only lost re-election when they have faced significant primary challenges.  Eugene McCarthy and RFK forced LBJ to not even seek re-election in 1968.  Jimmy Carter faced a challenge from another Kennedy, Teddy, in 1996. Bush 1 faced Pat Buchanan in 1992.  All lost re-election.  This is the surest sign that Obama is doomed.

Defeating an incumbent president is a challenge in any year.  Obama will be even tougher, regardless of how bad things get, because the Union money machine will crank away a get out the vote effort, and with Obama on the ticket again, blacks will vote in massive numbers again in 2012 for him.  The youth vote, so important in 2008, not so much (my prediction).

For the GOP to maintain the momentum built up in 2009-2010, it is critically important that the energy behind the Tea Parties remains on their side.  The surest way to make this happen, is for Sarah Palin to stay engaged in the movement and politically active.  It's not really going to be enough for Palin to become kingmaker.  She must get in the arena, and, 2012 is the perfect time.  Quite honestly, her supporters will demand this, and without her on the ticket in 2012, will those Tea Party patriots be engaged enough to offset the advantages the Dems start with (with Obama)?  I don't think so.

Palin's path forward provides the GOP with both opportunity and challenges.  The opportunity is really the reestablishment of the fiscal-social conservative block that was Reagan's.  Palin fuses both of these better than any current candidate.  Hey, I love Jim Demint, but he doesn't energize people like Palin.  Huckabee?  He's a populist, who would be bad for fiscal conservatives and would turn off tea partiers.  Romney - just a little too polished, and that Massachusetts health care is an albatross around his neck.  Goverrnors Jindal and Daniels - I just don't see it.  

The challenge - well, let's say someone viewed as an establishment candidate wins the GOP nomination in 2012 against Palin and it's perceived that the GOP establishment was complicit in her defeat.  Without her on the ticket, I could see a scenario where Tea Partiers and social conservatives say they are done and push a 3rd party/Independent run for Palin.   I think some things may help this along in the next two years.  Chief among them will be how the GOP handles control of the House, and the de facto agenda setting they will enjoy on Capital Hill the next two years.  If Tea Partiers are happy with the GOP's leadership, then they will be less inclined to support that third party run by Palin.  But, if the GOP stumbles and makes these voters angry, I expect you'd see massive support for a Palin 3rd party run.  My thought is you'd also see certain recently elected GOP senators/representatives jumping on.  Would it be too hard to imagine a Palin/Demint ticket?

Should that happen, we may finally see the end of the GOP.  I can't say that I would miss it, given the above scenario.

No voting until you pay for your own damn health insurance!

Ann Coulter has an interesting column today on why the youth of America must be stopped....

from VOTING!

Ann contends that since youth's brains aren't fully developed until they are in their mid-20's, perhaps we need to rethink our conception of when someone reaches adulthood.  According to Dartmouth researcher Craig Bennett, "The brain of an 18-year-old college freshman is still far from resembling the brain of someone in their mid-twenties.  When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think."

Given that the majority of youths aged 18-29 vote for Democrats in massive majorities (35 points for Obama in 2008, 16 points for Dems last week), I'd say that about sums it up.  Game, set, match - this demographic is stupid.  Too stupid to be trusted with the vote.

As Ann points out, we have already decided that they're too vulnerable to drink until they're 21, and they're too vulnerable to trust with their own health care until their 26, so, why do we allow a group who has only half a brain to vote?  Especially when they prove it every election year by voting for people who only put them further and further into debt, paying the bills now for what?  So their self-serving, boomer parents can enjoy their retirement in Florida?

So, let's repeal the 26th Amendment (after carving out an exception for those who serve in the Armed Forces) and end this scourge on the informed and intelligent American voter!

Michael Steele: Keep Him at RNC

The Daily Caller today pushes this story: Duncan being pushed to challenge Steele for RNC chair reporting on Republican insider attempts to unseat Michael Steele when his term as RNC Chair ends next year.

I don't have a vote, but, if I did, Mike Duncan, who presided over the downfall of the GOP from 2007-2009, is NOT the guy I would choose to lead the RNC. Haley Barbour, who had a much more successful tenure as head of the RNC, is a pretty good governor in Mississippi, and can take some credit, as head of the Republican Governor's Association, for the great wins by GOP gubernatorial candidates, would be a fat, white, Southern guy I could get behind.

But, personally, I think Steele should remain. Like him or not, he was part of the team that brought 63 seats to Congress and 6 new senators. So, he's the black guy who's currently brought the most change to Washington, and we owe him the chance to bring some more.

Obama: You're not Reagan

I haven't posted on the election results yet.

Suffice to say, it was a good night for the GOP.  Over 60 House seats were gained, and 6 Senate seats.  Liberals like to (wrongly, but more on that later) compare this to 1982, before the Reagan economic recovery got going, when the GOP lost 26 seats in the House, and none in the Senate.  They like to make this comparison because we all know how Reagan's presidency worked out, and that he largely did not compromise his principles after that defeat.  They're using this comparison because in the next sentence these true liberal believers like to claim that's why Obama should just keep on as he's been doing.

Of course, they miss some critical points:

1. The GOP just rode a massive wave of anti-Obama and anti-Liberal sentiment to take the 2010 victory.  1982 was not a repudiation of Reagan's policies.  It was anger at rotten economic times, and though Reagan had been in office for only 2 years, he and his party got the brunt of that anger.  26 House seats was actually about average for the party in power in an off-year election, and the loss of no senate seats really was an indication that, while the electorate was frustrated at what was then 3 years of "malaise" they really were not angry enough to turn 1982 into an all-out rout, which leads to...
2. The 1982 losses were quite small compared to 2010's losses.  While some want to lament the fact that the GOP did not reclaim the Senate (and blame, variously, Tea Partiers, Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, and others), in what should have been a year with the GOP playing defense, they took 6 seats, and coming to Washington will be future stars Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Rob "Way Better than Voinovich" Portman, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and some more establishment types.  This was a tsunami.  That it wasn't worse is only due to the stupidity of voters on the Left Coast, who seem to want to continue to live off the government dole in bankrupt states.  So, even in the sheer number comparison, there is no comparison.
3. State races.  The GOP now holds a majority of governorships and took several state houses, winning 600+ seats in state elections, 50% more than in 1994.  The down ballot massacre was on a par with what happened at the US House.  8 of 10 swing states now have Republican governors.
   
   But the most important reason is...
   
4. Obama and Reagan are not comparable.  Obama is a committed Statist who shares their desire to take total control of the US economy, and is doing everything possible (intentionally or not) to prevent an  actual sustainable recovery.  Reagan was a committed conservative, who understood that tax rates needed to remain low, spending needed to be brought into control (his one major failing was not getting Congress's cooperation on this) and that victory in the Cold War needed to be achieved through a demonstration of our willingness to go toe-to-toe with the Soviets in a battle of industrial might and resolve.
   
   The bottom line is that Reagan's policies were the right policies to restore our country, and Obama's are the result of clueless academic exercises and the pursuit of power at any cost.  Reagan was right, Obama is wrong.  The American people recognize and understand that at their core.                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Some Thoughts on Financial Reform...

I've gotten into a discussion with a fraternity brother over on Facebook regarding Financial Reform (and politics in general, he's left-of-center, though not annoyingly so).

So, thought I'd bring some of my discussion over here, largely so I could save some links.  But, you might find an education on the collapse of 2008 and the subsequent "reforms" of interest.

I think this commenter over at Seeking Alpha makes some very valid points re the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill. I also think Dodd's a crook, so count me all in on that one.

The Heritage Foundation has an analysis here. They also wrote an Op-Ed for USA Today.

Cato has some more, here  and here,

I hate to say this, but even Brookings (who tends to be center-left) is not enamored of this bill either.  But, this particular analyst thinks that something was better than what was in place, although even he concedes Congress punted the hard issues to regulators (let's see how THAT works out) and puts tremendous power in those regulators and the Treasury department's appointed officials.

The bottom line is this financial reform is pretty short on reform, especially of the entities that needed it the most, Fannie, and Freddie. As for me, I'm actually a heck of a lot more comfortable with the people who run these industries (and have actual financial interests in their success) making hard decisions, than regulators.

Cato's "How Did We Get Into This Mess."  It's a good read (12 pages).

Final Gallup Polling: Uncharted Territory

Dear Readers,

The final generic Gallup polling before Tuesday's vote is complete, and it has an unprecedented 55-40 (likely voters) spread in favor of the GOP.  The GOP even leads among registered voters, 48-44.  This is unprecedented. As Gallup says:

"It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained."

Got that?  Uncharted territory.

Back in April, I touted a Sean Trende article that suggested Dems could lose 100 seats and I said I would not be surprised to see an 80 seat swing.  At the time, I worried that the momentum of the Tea Partiers and those disgusted with the arrogance of Obama/Pelosi/Reid would last until November. It looks like I was wrong to worry.

If you haven't voted (I have!), get out on Tuesday and drag a few conservative friends with you.

Crazy Tea Party Quotes, deconstructed...

In a Facebook exchange, some liberal friends, they passed this link along, of the "14 Craziest Things Tea Party Candidates Believe."

The article was penned by the Dartmouth educated Gus Lubin.  If this article doesn't pretty much give up Gus's politics, his Ivy League education would be a clue, as would his following list on Twitter.  If you're following Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, and your only people on the right are Sarah Palin, you're not looking for balance, you're looking for confirmation of your own left-wing ideology and for something interesting to be posted by Palin.

Given that, this article is not surprising.  I don't read Gus's work.  I am sure it's fabulous, in it's self-absorbed, Liberal-self-love type of way (that's called foreshadowing), but, this is vapid.  That is not going to stop me from taking on each of these 14 statements, and try to prove why they're not batshit crazy, and demonstrate a nutty liberal statement in return for each of them.  I'll start with number one on their list, because it involves something all liberals enjoy - Sex with the one they love.

• Christine O'Donnell "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE ABSTINENT ALONE. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust."
  O'Donnell said this in a 1996 MTV documentary, "Sex in the '90's" where she was pushing her abstinence agenda, and masturbation was a part of that.  Central to the issue is Matthew 5:28, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who has looked a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  This was clearly the verse former president Jimmy Carter was referring to in his 1976 Playboy interview where he admitted to committing  "adultery in my heart many times."
  
  Thinking people would largely agree that O'Donnell's on pretty solid ground here in her statement in that most self-love (particularly among men) is focused  on some object of desire (and not usually a car).  And Carter hits the right note that it's really about what's in the heart.  For him, if he looked at a woman with lust in his heart, he felt he had committed adultery.  If I was rating this, I'd say the statement by O'Donnell is "Mostly True," because I think you could argue that if the object of your desire was your spouse, that's probably not adultery.  For info, in her video, Christine frowns on this, as she thinks it would detract from the relationship because it makes the other in the relationship less necessary.  Some men might find that attitude very endearing, some might find it annoying.  I shall stay agnostic.
  
  One thing O'Donnell doesn't hit in this quote is the issue of masturbation and sin.
  
  An argument can be made both for and against masturbation as a sin. A pretty good, fair take on the religious aspects of masturbation can be found at About.com's Christian Teens section. Regardless of the technicality of whether it's a sin or not, most people would agree that the objectification of women that is most commonly associated with males and masturbation is generally not a good thing, that the use of pornography and addiction that often results (in males) is destructive to relationships, and that for those with the willpower and ability to reject that which that detracts from their central relationships (with their spouse and their God above all) comes great personal satisfaction and rewards - and, I'd just guess (not copping to anything here) - an improved relationship with the significant other. I'm just sayin'.
  
  My bottom line on this is - if you're a Christian struggling with this issue - read your Bible, pray, and like so many things, this boils down to your personal relationship with God.  Like so many gray areas, there are places where we clearly cross a line into gray.  The O'Donnell's of the world (and many of your pastors) would suggest staying far off that line.  But, we're sinners and most of us will enter that area and cross it.  If we were perfect, there would be no need for a Savior.
  

Liberal Stupidity:

• I quoted the Carter Playboy interview above, but, I don't find Carter to be wrong, either, just as I don't find anything wrong with O'Donnell's statements.  Sure, the secular Left, who practices the religion of Government-love, finds this focus on a pure relationship among (married) loving couples old-fashioned and silly, but, no less a Leftist than Jimmy Carter shared pretty much the same view, so, this really isn't a Left-Right issue, it's a cultural one.

So, I'll use this goody from Nancy Pelosi on unemployment benefits:

"It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Huh?

, 

Rally for Stupid People (Who think they're hip and funny)

Yesterday, Jim Colbert and John Stewart, who you may know as two sometimes funny, often smarmy, always Leftist comedians, held the "Rally for sanity and/or fear" in DC.

As you would expect, at lot of mostly white, youngish men attended, and some older types who think they're really funny, but aren't really (to paraphrase, if they were half as funny as they think they are, they'd be twice as funny as they are) also came.

This video pretty much sums up this huge suck-up fest:

Weekend Election 2010 Thoughts

The Republican Governor's Association has done some pretty good ads this cycle. Here's another one:


Remember November: The Final Act from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Tonight, as I watch the final polls coming in, it is clear where the last minute direction is, and it's all in the GOP's favor. My guess is we're still going to see more than 70 seats in the House and the Senate go to the Republicans.

Why do these words bother liberals so much?????

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

In essence, this was the Founders way of saying, "This government derives its rights from the consent of the governed and what they want it to do." 

 

They meant that we had a Federal government, limited in its scope by what we the people granted it.  It is at the core of Federalism that the States, "or to the people" was included in this, the final act in the Bill of Rights. 

 

The AFL-CIO, in their blog entry, "'Tenthers' Would Abolish Wage and Child Labor Laws, Social Security, Medicare, and More" accuse conservatives of just that.  Moreover, they equate conservatives who see the 10th amendment as an important check on Federal power to "cultists."

 

Of course, their definition of "cultist" in this case is:

 

"Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

 

I wonder who the "charismatic leader" is in this case?  In the grammatical sense, they are putting the US Constitution in the role of leader here.  That being the case, I plead guilty.  I am a cultist when it comes to the Constitution.  Hey, AFL-CIO, I served over 20 years in the Navy and I took an oath (and oft-repeated it) to defend that Constitution.  I don't think you could get much more cultist than I was (and still am).  So, if it's "cultist" to love, defend, honor, and protect that document, so be it. 

 

What's that make you, leaders of the AFL-CIO?

 

 

WSJ Investigation: Biggest spenders in 2010 election cycle - unions, NOT Karl Rove

I've been following, with some interest, the Washington State senate race, featuring challenger Republican Dino Rossi, against the second dumbest person in Washington DC, incumbent Patty Murray.  I've mainly done this via Twitter, since the initial debate between them (which followed the Reid/Angle debate).

That has led to some discussions about the funding of these candidates.  Rossi has raised quite a bit of money to make himself competitive in a very blue state, and having been the victim of a stolen gubernatorial race, you can understand he doesn't want to risk another close election, if possible.  A lot of Rossi's recent money has come from the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads (that scorned upon, by Dems, Karl Rove group).  In fact, Rossi has collected $4.5M from these types of groups.  If you've been awake this week, you know Campaign Finance law allows these groups to not reveal their donors.  This is the crux of the Obamanut argument that "foreign" money is flowing into these groups.  It's, of course, a red herring, since these laws have existed since the passage of CFR and the Democrats made these very useful to them over the last three cycles.  They continue to do so today, as a matter of fact.  In fact, Patty Murray has raised over $600k from one single group, CNN reported "An organization called The Citizens and Strength and Security Action Fund has spent north of $640,000 on Murray' behalf but, as a 501(c)4 organization like Crossroads GPS and American Action Network, is not required to disclose its funding sources."  She's not exactly lilly pure.

From the administration's ridiculous attacks on right-leaning groups who take advantage of this part of law, the Wall Street Journal this week decided to actually do some reporting on who is donating, and how much.

That led to this article, which brings some interesting reality-based facts to the discussion.  Turns out the biggest spenders are Unions, leading the way is the service employees union.  The Chamber and American Crossroads, thankfully, are 2 and 3, followed by 2 more unions (see below).  Bottom line, unions are outspending these groups by 30%.




I don't have a HUGE problem with unions spending money on political campaigns.  I do, however, reject the notion that unions spending money on these campaigns represents the political opinions of their rank and file.  Typically, these groups are funded from union dues, which, in non-right-to-work states, are extorted from workers who work at companies covered under a collective bargaining agreement, with no opt-out provision.  I should point out that Republicans have tried repeatedly over the years, as part of CFR efforts, to insert provisions that would allow workers to opt out of having portions of their dues go towards political campaigns, or that would require unions to create PACS just as management employees have to, and make contributions to these voluntary.

Obviously, union leaders do not want this to happen, and for good reason.  Once their members realized 1) the amount of money being extorted from them for political purposes, they'd want it back, and 2) they would disagree with a lot of the spending done by their leadership, and seek to change it.  Either way, the net effect would be more responsiveness of union leaders to their rank and file, and less overall money available to union leaders to spend.

We couldn't have either of those now, could we?

Campaign finance laws are often byzantine and hard to understand.  They are, by and large, incumbent protection plans, regardless of which side you reside.  One thing almost all of us regular citizens agree on is that more transparency would go a long way to alleviating the problem.

On the Right, we want unions to play by the same rules as everyone else, and we would generally like to see monetary limits removed.  On the Left, they just seem ok with the right having to be transparent.

Year of the Woman? It already is.

Listening and reading the expected last ditch campaign tactics of the Left, that Republicans, and especially Tea Partiers are racist hatemongers got me thinking.

My thoughts wandered over to something else I heard recently a Leftist lament (this NPR report confirms the Leftist bent) - that this year there was such a dearth of female and minority candidates, that all the gains these groups had made, particularly women, in the "Year of the Woman" of 1992 were going to be erased.

2010 may prove to be a banner year for conservative women.  Already, Sarah Palin-backed candidates have won primaries in Alaska (Miller), Delaware (O'Donnell), Arizona (McCain), California (Fiorina), SC (Haley), Kentucky (Paul).  The Washington Post has a Palin Endorsement tracker, you can see how Palin's endorsements have gone.  Pretty good so far.  It's an easy case to make that the most powerful figure in the GOP today is Sarah Palin.  A woman.

Even in the Democrat party, the second most powerful person is clearly still Hillary Clinton.  If Hillary really wanted to be the MOST powerful Democrat, she would resign from the Obama administration, and focus on building her support for the 2012 primary season and positioning herself as the savior of the party.  Rush Limbaugh has begun Operation Reverse Chaos to bring Hillary back to her rightful place at the top of the Democrat Party.

The bottom line is arguably, the two most powerful politicians in this country are women.

WaPo finally reports on Bam admin's refusal to pursue New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation

You may remember this from the 2008 elections. A couple of New Black Panther Party members intimidate voters at a Philadelphia polling place.

 

The Bush administration's Justice Department initiated a case against these guys, which proceeded during the early part of the Obama administration, until it was dropped, mysteriously. Much prior reporting was done by Fox and Breitbart, but now the Washington Post has done some reporting on this, and the result - much of what the Obama DoJ told us about this case, and how it came to be dropped, was untrue.  As the WaPo article points out, the administration tried to make the decision to drop the case appear as though it was done at a low level, by career legal staffers, while the Post has found that at least the number 2 at Justice was involved in email exchanges about this case, and while they don't explicitly lay the dismissal at Attorney General Eric Holder's feet, he was clearly in the know.

What is clear from the Post's reporting is that the Obama DoJ and Civil Rights Division is not interested in protecting the voting rights of white voters.

"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," a DOJ lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."

I followed this story loosely as it unfolded, and just noticed this interesting tidbit about the men, one of whom, Jerry Jackson, who was a Democrat Party poll watcher:

"Jackson, 54, and Heath, 39 (better known as King Samir Shabazz not his old “slave name” of Maruse Heath), have criminal histories that between them include convictions for drug possession, robbery and simple assault, according to court records. Their local New Black Panther Party is part of a small, radical black nationalist organization with members in a handful of cities. It is not connected to the Black Panther Party of the 1960s."

 I want to know how someone with a criminal record that includes assault and robbery can get certified as a poll watcher????

I Worked So Hard to Get That Title...

A fun look at Barbara Boxer's hard work...

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

Wishing we had more "hobbyist" politicians, less career politicians

Listening to the podcast of the Tony Kornheiser shows this week, and I am forced to listen to MSNBC/NBC "reporter" Chuck Todd and Tony discuss the Rich Iott Nazi uniform to-do (previous post on this), the Carl Palladino dust-up, then some odd chatter about how Todd is upset that billionaires like Palladino take up politics after they've made money as some kind of "hobby."

I listen to Tony Kornheiser because he's generally funny, it gives me a fix of Redskins sports talk and insight into a group of people (Tony and his cohorts) who are so out of touch with current culture and politics that hilarity ensues (e.g. Tony doesn't know who Hilary Duff is, and his sycophants think she's in her 30's. For the record, she's 23).

Returning to the Todd discussion, let's put aside that Todd's a thinly veiled shill for the Democrat party (and a likely replacement for Baghdad Robert Gibbs) who fits right in at the rabidly Leftist MSNBC, and analyze the stupidity of their conversation just on the Iott issue then on their thoughts on "career" politicians.

Regarding Iott, clearly TK had no idea the details of this.  Tony prides himself on doing little research, so I don't blame him for accepting at face value that Iott was some kind of secret Nazi.  But, Todd is supposed to be a reporter (I know).  He could have pointed out, when Tony asked, that Iott had, indeed, portrayed Americans in reenactments and wasn't exclusively a Nazi reenactor.  Since that was buried in The Atlantic's hit piece about 23 paragraphs in, either Todd didn't have the attention span to get that far, or he just felt compelled to ignore it.  Either way, he's a putz.

Moron Todd and Tony lament the political climate where rich guys seem to think now that they've made their money, they need a new hobby and politics should be it (this is the argument Todd, mostly, tries to use to explain how Palladino got into the NY governor's race).  Of course, Todd goes off on Sarah Palin as an example of someone using her political notoriety to cash in.  While there may be some truth in that, they then decided to hold up as examples of billionaires who actually believe in public service, drumroll, please...Michael Bloomberg and John Corzine.  Bloomberg's an idiot who wants New York City to have a victory mosque 600 feet from Times Square and Corzine was a completely unaccomplished New Jersey Senator and so ruined NJ's economy as Governor that Chris Christie (a Republican) defeated him and is now being lauded for having the fortitude to clean up Corzine's mess.  Please, this is comical.

Todd further goes on to wish that there were more people who made politics their career, completely exposing why the left-wing media does not get the Tea Party movement (hey, Chuckles, the people want FEWER career politicians, you idiot!).

Let me list some families who have nothing but politics on their resume.  Most of these people are corrupt or incompetent, and I would like to seem them all retired:

• The Kennedy's (corrupt, incompetent, drunk, and morally bankrupt)
• The Dingell's (corrupt)
• The Clinton's (corrupt)
• The Reid's (incompetent AND corrupt)
• The Biden's (incompetent)
• The Rockefeller's (a waste of air)
• The Murkowski's (corrupt)
• The Bush's (ok, the ONE I would like to see seek national office, Jeb, has had his career ruined by his brother - but, most of the Bush's made some money elsewhere before entering politics, so they arent' really just politicians)
• The Carnahan's (incompetent)

I am sure there are more families where politics is the family business.  I am also sure they think it's their birthright, their entitlement, and they act like it.  They need to all be put out of business.

AARP Approved Beg Letter, modified to reflect reality

The AARP gave me a neat little template to send to my Senator requesting he send seniors a check for $250, since they're not getting a COLA this year (full disclosure: My parents are seniors).

I modified it as below and sent it to my Senator.  What do you think?


I am writing to urge you to provide relief to the millions of Social Security recipients who will not receive their cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2011 by repealing the recently passed Health Care Reform Act.

For over three decades, millions of older Americans have counted on annual Social Security benefit increases to help them afford their basic needs.  Unfortunately, the benefits they've earned will again be frozen next year, which will leave millions struggling to make ends meet.

Over the past two years, older Americans have paid more for utilities and food, have experienced a decline in home values, have tried to recover from deep retirement account losses, have experienced rising health and prescription drug costs, and faced longer periods of unemployment.

The AARP specifically focused on increasing prescription drug costs as a rationale for this needed increase.  Clearly, the passage of HCR has not done a thing to help seniors.  Indeed, it has increased their costs, as well as effectively eliminating the Medicare Advantage program, from which so many seniors benefit.

I'm counting on you to provide seniors with the immediate relief they need by repealing this onerous and costly bill.

Thank you in advance for your support on this important issue

Nazi! All Republicans might as well wear the uniform...(or should they?)

Apparently, Republican Congressional candidate Rich Iott, in the Ohio 9 race, is a Nazi sympathizer.

And, that's not just standard-fare Leftist characterizations of Republicans in a last-minute effort to win.  No, this comes from "respected" Atlantic senior Editor Joshua Green (ok, that was sarcasm - the Atlantic is a Liberal, bought-and-paid-for-by-democrats rag).

It seems that the Atlantic has actual photos of Iott in German SS uniforms.  This is their smoking gun.  Iott in German SS (Wiking Division) garb.  Therefore, he's a Nazi!

If I'm writing this, you know there's a truth in here somewhere.

The truth is that Iott is a WW2 re-enactor, and he sometimes plays the role of a member of the Waffen SS, Wiking Division.  He has also portrayed US infantrymen and other good-guy roles.  Hey, someone has to play the bad guys in these historical re-enactments, otherwise, I imagine they get kind of, well, boring?

I know these kind of guys, and Iott is also a Colonel in the Guard, and some guys have a thing for accuracy in re-enactments, and there are more than a few guys who have some deep respect for the German army.  This group has a point, these units were well-trained and skilled warfighters who taught much to the us, Brits and Russians, even after WW2.

The bottom line is this is a hit piece.  I started by saying it's not standard-fare name-calling, but, that's really all it is, with just a little more of prurient interest to move it along.

Nancy Kaptur (the D incumbent) is not interested in defending her record, can't defend her record, and Iott was closing the gap against her.  The Atlantic has decided, as I suppose it should, as a mouthpiece of the Left, to try to gin this up.

Here's hoping it backfires on these a-holes.  For more context, here's a good post from NRO's Battle 10.  Ann Althouse also has some great commentary.

Twitter Followers

Apparently, many of you are NOT using Twitter.  That's too bad, because I think it's one of the best social networking apps created (superior to Facebook, yes).

I don't pay a lot of attention to the emails I receive telling me who follows me, but tonight, I thought I'd take a look at my followers.  Many people will follow you after you follow them, so, I decided to check out who is following me without me having followed them first, just for fun.

Not too much interesting, except why is the Mayor of Newark following me?  And The Hill magazine?  The Deputy Commissioner of the Georgia Dept of Agriculture?

Of course, I followed a few famous people, and they followed me back (you can set Twitter up to automatically follow those who follow you).  John Boehner, Kelsey Grammar, Fred Barnes, The Heritage Foundation, Karl Rove, The Weekly Standard, Mary Katherine Ham.

Just some random thoughts...

Desperate Dems Despair

As the final month of the 2010 election season rolls on, we knew Dems, poised to lose 60-80 House seats and the Senate, would get desperate and start with the usual attacks:

- Republicans want to starve Granny by taking away her social security
- Republicans want to kill Granny by cutting her Medicare
- Republicans want to kill young pregnant womyn by making abortion no longer safe or legal
- Republicans want to give their fat cat rich friends and big businesses tax breaks at the expense of the working man...

We knew all those old, tired memes would come out, but, we didn't know that the Bam admin itself was going to get violent, to wit:

- Joe Biden will strangle any Republican who talks to him about balancing the budget
- Obama is going to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the Republican Congress

Maybe Christine O'Donnell can turn them all into actual donkeys...

I Have Done a Terrific Job...

New Republican Governor's Association Video.  Pretty nicely done: