From The American Thinker:
October 31, 2010
A real 'Yellow Dog' Congressman
Russ Vaughn
It appears New Mexico 2d District, first-term incumbent, Harry Teague, has given added meaning to the term, Yellow dog Democrat.
Apparently acknowledging that he has been hurting himself in televised debates with former 2d District Congressman, Steve Pearce, who is seeking to regain his old job, Teague cut and ran from a Thursday night debate televised throughout the state on KOB-TV, Albuquerque.
According to Rob Nikolewski at New Mexico Watchdog, Teague may have forfeited the election by failing to show, even after being warned by station management that his opponent still would be given thirty minutes of evening prime time to present his side. As Nikolewski summed up the effect,
It's widely acknowledged that Teague is uncomfortable in a debate format but to simply forfeit 30 minutes of airtime to your opponent in a closely-contested race seems to be border-line politically suicidal.
Teague, a country-boy, oil patch millionaire and one of the wealthiest members of congress, got creamed in earlier debates by the better-groomed, better-educated and more articulate former Air Force pilot, Pearce. But even if Teague recognized that his über-folksy manner and uncertain, stammering presentation, delivered in a whiny, quavering treble, was only hurting his cause, he still owed a duty to the voters to show up. While the earlier debates demonstrated that Pearce not only has a better command of the issues but also can more coherently voice his constituents' positions on those issues in Washington, this latest failure by Teague demonstrates that he lacks political courage. Of course, we already knew this from Hideout Harry's ducking town halls.
I must confess to a bit of relief though. It was both painful and horrifying to watch the debates and realize that this is how our district has been represented in congress for the past two years. It suddenly became clear why Teague was one of the first incumbents dumped by the Democrats in their reallocation of advertising funds to what they see to be winnable races.
We won't know until Tuesday if Nikolewski is right about the forfeiture issue, but Teague's constituents don't have to wait another second to know we have a Yellow dog congressman.
Posted at 09:19 AM
The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change
The United States Capitol Building
The Constitutional Convention
The Continental Congress
George Washington at Valley Forge
Sunday, October 31, 2010
A Real, Honest-To-Goodness, Yellow Dog Democrat
From The American Thinker:
October 31, 2010
A real 'Yellow Dog' Congressman
Russ Vaughn
It appears New Mexico 2d District, first-term incumbent, Harry Teague, has given added meaning to the term, Yellow dog Democrat.
Apparently acknowledging that he has been hurting himself in televised debates with former 2d District Congressman, Steve Pearce, who is seeking to regain his old job, Teague cut and ran from a Thursday night debate televised throughout the state on KOB-TV, Albuquerque.
According to Rob Nikolewski at New Mexico Watchdog, Teague may have forfeited the election by failing to show, even after being warned by station management that his opponent still would be given thirty minutes of evening prime time to present his side. As Nikolewski summed up the effect,
It's widely acknowledged that Teague is uncomfortable in a debate format but to simply forfeit 30 minutes of airtime to your opponent in a closely-contested race seems to be border-line politically suicidal.
Teague, a country-boy, oil patch millionaire and one of the wealthiest members of congress, got creamed in earlier debates by the better-groomed, better-educated and more articulate former Air Force pilot, Pearce. But even if Teague recognized that his über-folksy manner and uncertain, stammering presentation, delivered in a whiny, quavering treble, was only hurting his cause, he still owed a duty to the voters to show up. While the earlier debates demonstrated that Pearce not only has a better command of the issues but also can more coherently voice his constituents' positions on those issues in Washington, this latest failure by Teague demonstrates that he lacks political courage. Of course, we already knew this from Hideout Harry's ducking town halls.
I must confess to a bit of relief though. It was both painful and horrifying to watch the debates and realize that this is how our district has been represented in congress for the past two years. It suddenly became clear why Teague was one of the first incumbents dumped by the Democrats in their reallocation of advertising funds to what they see to be winnable races.
We won't know until Tuesday if Nikolewski is right about the forfeiture issue, but Teague's constituents don't have to wait another second to know we have a Yellow dog congressman.
Posted at 09:19 AM
October 31, 2010
A real 'Yellow Dog' Congressman
Russ Vaughn
It appears New Mexico 2d District, first-term incumbent, Harry Teague, has given added meaning to the term, Yellow dog Democrat.
Apparently acknowledging that he has been hurting himself in televised debates with former 2d District Congressman, Steve Pearce, who is seeking to regain his old job, Teague cut and ran from a Thursday night debate televised throughout the state on KOB-TV, Albuquerque.
According to Rob Nikolewski at New Mexico Watchdog, Teague may have forfeited the election by failing to show, even after being warned by station management that his opponent still would be given thirty minutes of evening prime time to present his side. As Nikolewski summed up the effect,
It's widely acknowledged that Teague is uncomfortable in a debate format but to simply forfeit 30 minutes of airtime to your opponent in a closely-contested race seems to be border-line politically suicidal.
Teague, a country-boy, oil patch millionaire and one of the wealthiest members of congress, got creamed in earlier debates by the better-groomed, better-educated and more articulate former Air Force pilot, Pearce. But even if Teague recognized that his über-folksy manner and uncertain, stammering presentation, delivered in a whiny, quavering treble, was only hurting his cause, he still owed a duty to the voters to show up. While the earlier debates demonstrated that Pearce not only has a better command of the issues but also can more coherently voice his constituents' positions on those issues in Washington, this latest failure by Teague demonstrates that he lacks political courage. Of course, we already knew this from Hideout Harry's ducking town halls.
I must confess to a bit of relief though. It was both painful and horrifying to watch the debates and realize that this is how our district has been represented in congress for the past two years. It suddenly became clear why Teague was one of the first incumbents dumped by the Democrats in their reallocation of advertising funds to what they see to be winnable races.
We won't know until Tuesday if Nikolewski is right about the forfeiture issue, but Teague's constituents don't have to wait another second to know we have a Yellow dog congressman.
Posted at 09:19 AM
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Concerns About Sharia Law In America
From Creeping Sharia:
Concerns About Sharia Law in America
Posted on October 30, 2010 by creeping
via Sharron Angle Was Right to Raise Concerns About Sharia Law in America.
…while Sharron Angle’s examples were off the mark, her central concern about the potential for the spread of Sharia law in the United States is a valid one.
Under Sharia law, women are inferior to men, ‘infidels’ are inferior to Muslims, criticism of Islamic law or the prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemy, and a Muslim’s conversion to a non-Islam religion is a capital crime.
Islamists are creating such communities with the blessing of the IRS!
Sharron Angle was right in saying that there are indeed communities being established within the United States by Islamic groups with the avowed purpose of using Sharia as the supreme law within those communities, irrespective of any conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or the laws passed by duly elected federal or state legislators. And the Islamists are creating such communities with the blessing of the IRS!
A case in point is the Gwynn Oak Community Development Corporation in Maryland, which received tax exempt status in February 2005. It was described, in a listing of nonprofit, tax-exempt groups, as a “multipurpose human service charitable organization” under the leadership of John Yahya Cason.
It turns out that John Yahya Cason was also the director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative. Cason explained that his tax-exempt “multipurpose” community organization had only one real purpose. It was to develop Gwynn Oak as a Baltimore neighborhood for Muslims with defined geographical boundaries and a clear set of moral norms and values based on Islamic law.
The reason for the community, Cason said, was that “Muslim communities are ruled by Western societal tenets, many of which clash with Islamic norms.” Thus, there is a need for communities with “the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure.”
As Sharron Angle herself said, we are not talking about “a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address.”
The liberal press may have a field day mocking Ms. Angle, but she is correct. We need to address the phenomenon of Sharia law becoming the basis for governing any community within the United States – even just one or a few to start – because mainstream Sharia law is inherently incompatible with the United States Constitution.
Like Angle, a few flaws in the article, but And then there is this from 2004, most of which has been flushed down the memory hole:
Plans for a Muslim Subdivision in IN (Indiana):
Oct 25, 2004
By Staff Writer
Northwest Indiana News
On October 25, 2004 Northwest Indiana News reported, “spurned by some Chicago suburbs, Muslims are planning a large scale subdivision near the Lake-Porter county line. Congregants of the Northwest Indiana Islamic Center have been quietly buying land adjacent to the center in Merrillville with the dream of building a large residential subdivision modeled after one of Northwest Indiana’s most prestigious communities, but centered around a mosque instead of a golf course clubhouse… Some Chicago suburbs, including Orland Park and Palos Heights, have found themselves at odds with growing Muslim populations, but Muslim leaders in Northwest Indiana said their favorable reception locally encouraged them to plan to build their own community on open fields in Merrilville. Even so, some Merrillville officials suggest the plan has obstacles to cross before gaining approval, including extension of water and sewer lines and concerns about increased traffic.”
Read the full story – A Muslim Mecca in Merrillville
The media and clueless, pandering, leftist politicians/comedians can mock Angle and those opposed to sharia law, but they don’t have the rucksack to mock or even question Muslims. Even when Muslims state their intentions plainly.
Concerns About Sharia Law in America
Posted on October 30, 2010 by creeping
via Sharron Angle Was Right to Raise Concerns About Sharia Law in America.
…while Sharron Angle’s examples were off the mark, her central concern about the potential for the spread of Sharia law in the United States is a valid one.
Under Sharia law, women are inferior to men, ‘infidels’ are inferior to Muslims, criticism of Islamic law or the prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemy, and a Muslim’s conversion to a non-Islam religion is a capital crime.
Islamists are creating such communities with the blessing of the IRS!
Sharron Angle was right in saying that there are indeed communities being established within the United States by Islamic groups with the avowed purpose of using Sharia as the supreme law within those communities, irrespective of any conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or the laws passed by duly elected federal or state legislators. And the Islamists are creating such communities with the blessing of the IRS!
A case in point is the Gwynn Oak Community Development Corporation in Maryland, which received tax exempt status in February 2005. It was described, in a listing of nonprofit, tax-exempt groups, as a “multipurpose human service charitable organization” under the leadership of John Yahya Cason.
It turns out that John Yahya Cason was also the director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative. Cason explained that his tax-exempt “multipurpose” community organization had only one real purpose. It was to develop Gwynn Oak as a Baltimore neighborhood for Muslims with defined geographical boundaries and a clear set of moral norms and values based on Islamic law.
The reason for the community, Cason said, was that “Muslim communities are ruled by Western societal tenets, many of which clash with Islamic norms.” Thus, there is a need for communities with “the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure.”
As Sharron Angle herself said, we are not talking about “a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address.”
The liberal press may have a field day mocking Ms. Angle, but she is correct. We need to address the phenomenon of Sharia law becoming the basis for governing any community within the United States – even just one or a few to start – because mainstream Sharia law is inherently incompatible with the United States Constitution.
Like Angle, a few flaws in the article, but And then there is this from 2004, most of which has been flushed down the memory hole:
Plans for a Muslim Subdivision in IN (Indiana):
Oct 25, 2004
By Staff Writer
Northwest Indiana News
On October 25, 2004 Northwest Indiana News reported, “spurned by some Chicago suburbs, Muslims are planning a large scale subdivision near the Lake-Porter county line. Congregants of the Northwest Indiana Islamic Center have been quietly buying land adjacent to the center in Merrillville with the dream of building a large residential subdivision modeled after one of Northwest Indiana’s most prestigious communities, but centered around a mosque instead of a golf course clubhouse… Some Chicago suburbs, including Orland Park and Palos Heights, have found themselves at odds with growing Muslim populations, but Muslim leaders in Northwest Indiana said their favorable reception locally encouraged them to plan to build their own community on open fields in Merrilville. Even so, some Merrillville officials suggest the plan has obstacles to cross before gaining approval, including extension of water and sewer lines and concerns about increased traffic.”
Read the full story – A Muslim Mecca in Merrillville
The media and clueless, pandering, leftist politicians/comedians can mock Angle and those opposed to sharia law, but they don’t have the rucksack to mock or even question Muslims. Even when Muslims state their intentions plainly.
Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will Be Fined Or Jailed If They Put Patients First
From Big Government:
Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients Firstby Dr. Elaina George
If Obamacare is completely implemented, doctors will no longer be practicing medicine. They will instead become the drones tasked with deciding who gets the meager healthcare crumbs doled out by the bureaucrats who have the ultimate power over patient life and death. Those who are deemed to have illnesses that require treatments which are not cost effective can expect a one way ticket to a hospice.
Like so many bills passed by Congress, there was a hidden provision in the Stimulus bill passed in 2009. It spends 1.1 billion dollars to create an important piece of the framework for the healthcare bill called the Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. It is based on the false premise that doctors in consultation with their patients don’t have the ability to make the right healthcare choices (see executive summary). The council consists of 15 people appointed by the President.
They all have one thing in common–they are all isolated from day to day patient care; and therefore, are insulated from the real practice of the art of medicine. It makes it easy to see patients as a cost center to be controlled. With views of members like Dr Emanuel, who champions the complete-lives system, it is hard to ignore the probability that senior citizens, those with chronic illness, and the very young will be on the outside looking in. This council is another example of the people of this country being told by the government that it knows what is best for us.
The framework set up by the stimulus bill merely set the stage for the implementation found in the healthcare reform bill. How can the government get doctors to participate in Obamacare thereby a) willingly destroying the doctor patient relationship, and b) betraying their Hippocratic Oath to provide treatments that they deem to be effective? Simple – fear and intimidation.
A second board created by the stimulus bill called The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology “will determine treatment at the time and place of care”. They are charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor. Now it becomes obvious why there has been a big push towards the implementation of universal electronic medical record use. It becomes a tool to completely control the physician and the patient. Those physicians and hospitals that choose to practice individualized patient care in consultation with their patients will be punished because they are not “meaningful users of the system over time.” Beginning January 1, 2013 penalties for doing the right thing for a patient will cost the doctor $100,000 for the first offense and jail for the second offense. This will have a chilling effect and may be the straw that completely breaks the foundation of good medicine – the doctor patient relationship.
46% of physiciansin a survey by The New England Journal of Medicine stated that they would leave the practice of medicine if Obamacare was implemented. This will only further decrease the quality of healthcare when the 30 million more people enter the system. Maybe that’s why there is a big push in the healthcare bill to increase the number of other providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. There is no question that rationing will become our future. If you add 30 million more people into a system with fewer resources how could you possibly avoid rationing? Perhaps those members of Congress who passed this nightmare don’t care since they made sure that it wouldn’t apply to them.
Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients Firstby Dr. Elaina George
If Obamacare is completely implemented, doctors will no longer be practicing medicine. They will instead become the drones tasked with deciding who gets the meager healthcare crumbs doled out by the bureaucrats who have the ultimate power over patient life and death. Those who are deemed to have illnesses that require treatments which are not cost effective can expect a one way ticket to a hospice.
Like so many bills passed by Congress, there was a hidden provision in the Stimulus bill passed in 2009. It spends 1.1 billion dollars to create an important piece of the framework for the healthcare bill called the Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. It is based on the false premise that doctors in consultation with their patients don’t have the ability to make the right healthcare choices (see executive summary). The council consists of 15 people appointed by the President.
They all have one thing in common–they are all isolated from day to day patient care; and therefore, are insulated from the real practice of the art of medicine. It makes it easy to see patients as a cost center to be controlled. With views of members like Dr Emanuel, who champions the complete-lives system, it is hard to ignore the probability that senior citizens, those with chronic illness, and the very young will be on the outside looking in. This council is another example of the people of this country being told by the government that it knows what is best for us.
The framework set up by the stimulus bill merely set the stage for the implementation found in the healthcare reform bill. How can the government get doctors to participate in Obamacare thereby a) willingly destroying the doctor patient relationship, and b) betraying their Hippocratic Oath to provide treatments that they deem to be effective? Simple – fear and intimidation.
A second board created by the stimulus bill called The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology “will determine treatment at the time and place of care”. They are charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor. Now it becomes obvious why there has been a big push towards the implementation of universal electronic medical record use. It becomes a tool to completely control the physician and the patient. Those physicians and hospitals that choose to practice individualized patient care in consultation with their patients will be punished because they are not “meaningful users of the system over time.” Beginning January 1, 2013 penalties for doing the right thing for a patient will cost the doctor $100,000 for the first offense and jail for the second offense. This will have a chilling effect and may be the straw that completely breaks the foundation of good medicine – the doctor patient relationship.
46% of physiciansin a survey by The New England Journal of Medicine stated that they would leave the practice of medicine if Obamacare was implemented. This will only further decrease the quality of healthcare when the 30 million more people enter the system. Maybe that’s why there is a big push in the healthcare bill to increase the number of other providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. There is no question that rationing will become our future. If you add 30 million more people into a system with fewer resources how could you possibly avoid rationing? Perhaps those members of Congress who passed this nightmare don’t care since they made sure that it wouldn’t apply to them.
Special IG For TARP, Neil Barofsky, At The Top Of Obama's Enemies List
From The American Thinker:
October 30, 2010
Special IG for TARP Neil Barofsky at the top of Obama's enemies list
Ed Lasky
Neil Barofsky is a lifelong Democrat who was appointed by George Bush to be the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). He has done superlative work over the last two years in uncovering vast waste of taxpayer dollars. He also has started looking into whether the car closings ordered by the Obama administration were influenced not by efficiency or economy but whether dealers were chosen to be saved based on their minority status. His latest report - buried by much of the media - was highly critical of how the Treasury was using suspect methodology to trump the success of the TARP program as it was being run by the Obama team.
Hence, the lifelong Democrat has now become a lifelong enemy of Barack Obama.
Barron's Jim McTague reports in "Running Afoul of Obama's Adding Machine":
... Barofsky dared give the Treasury a thrashing in print a week before the midterm election for its management of TARP. He said that the bailout was falling far short of many of its goals, like preserving home ownership and stimulating the economy.
Sigtarp faulted the Treasury for overreliance on self-reporting by TARP recipients on their use of government funds. The special inspector's office recommended direct Treasury oversight to assure that the cash isn't being wasted or stolen. And it faulted a recent Treasury projection showing that taxpayers likely will profit from their stake in insurance giant AIG. The Treasury employed pro forma accounting that projected future gains based on current prices for AIG stock and representations from AIG that it will exit the TARP program sooner than expected. Previous Treasury estimates, including one last March, used a different methodology-one approved by its auditors-- that predicted a $45.2 billion loss from AIG. Sigtarp said that the Treasury, in the name of transparency, should have compared the pro forma and audited numbers.
What happened next? The Obama team trashed Barofsky in a blog on its site written by Jen Psaki, a holdover from the Obama campaign who now serves as the deputy communications director and who, like her boss in the Oval Office, has never left the campaign rhetoric aside.
"Some people don't like movies with happy endings," she wrote. "How else to explain this week's report by Sigtarp? Rather than focusing on the growing evidence we've seen in recent months that TARP will be far less costly than anyone expected, Sigtarp instead sought to generate a false controversy over AIG to try and grab a few, cheap headlines."
The name calling and vilification continued for seven more paragraphs.
As McTague notes, the desire by the Obama team to use faulty methodology ("Enron-style Accounting") is not just apparent in their disparaging of Barofsky but in their entire approach towards governing: in their huge deficits, delusional projections regarding the costs of Obamacare, their views that green schemes are a job panacea, and that high taxes won't harm growth. This is an administration filled with ideologues who not only have scant real-world business experience (and those that do, such as Larry Summers, are bailing out of this Ship of Fools) but have an animus towards free-enterprise and a disregard for any hints of reality that might intrude on their fantasies.
Their rage is again on display in this unjust and intemperate attack on Neil Barofsky, a man who has served the people by prosecuting financial miscreants and drug dealers.
Barack Obama is notoriously thin-skinned - as is true of many narcissists. Obama loves the idea of government workers. He and Michelle have glorified in their speeches to college students the honor that comes from working for the people. We have Inspectors Generals throughout the government who are working for the people and saving taxpayers billions of dollars at very little costs (see my blog " The Unsung Heroes of the Federal Government"). Do you think Barack Obama respects those government workers?
After all, his team has dismissed and disparaged one Inspector General who had the temerity to take on one of Barack Obama's friends and political allies and also wanted to set up and have taxpayers fund a new $30 Billion Dollar lending program that was to be shielded from any Inspector General looking over its books (see "Obama, the Chicago Boys, and their 30 Billion Dollar Slush Fund").
The stimulus program is filled with waste; the latest example to come to light as a taxpayer rip-off is the $242 million weatherization program for Obama's hometown of Chicago that paid for shoddy and fraud-ridden work.
No wonder Obama abhors Inspectors General: they protect taxpayers and show us how poorly his administration is run and thus threaten the B+ average he humbly (for him) bestowed upon himself a few months ago. Well, the taxpayers will be grading him on a different curve come Tuesday.
And he won't be getting a B+.
Posted at 09:50 AM
October 30, 2010
Special IG for TARP Neil Barofsky at the top of Obama's enemies list
Ed Lasky
Neil Barofsky is a lifelong Democrat who was appointed by George Bush to be the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). He has done superlative work over the last two years in uncovering vast waste of taxpayer dollars. He also has started looking into whether the car closings ordered by the Obama administration were influenced not by efficiency or economy but whether dealers were chosen to be saved based on their minority status. His latest report - buried by much of the media - was highly critical of how the Treasury was using suspect methodology to trump the success of the TARP program as it was being run by the Obama team.
Hence, the lifelong Democrat has now become a lifelong enemy of Barack Obama.
Barron's Jim McTague reports in "Running Afoul of Obama's Adding Machine":
... Barofsky dared give the Treasury a thrashing in print a week before the midterm election for its management of TARP. He said that the bailout was falling far short of many of its goals, like preserving home ownership and stimulating the economy.
Sigtarp faulted the Treasury for overreliance on self-reporting by TARP recipients on their use of government funds. The special inspector's office recommended direct Treasury oversight to assure that the cash isn't being wasted or stolen. And it faulted a recent Treasury projection showing that taxpayers likely will profit from their stake in insurance giant AIG. The Treasury employed pro forma accounting that projected future gains based on current prices for AIG stock and representations from AIG that it will exit the TARP program sooner than expected. Previous Treasury estimates, including one last March, used a different methodology-one approved by its auditors-- that predicted a $45.2 billion loss from AIG. Sigtarp said that the Treasury, in the name of transparency, should have compared the pro forma and audited numbers.
What happened next? The Obama team trashed Barofsky in a blog on its site written by Jen Psaki, a holdover from the Obama campaign who now serves as the deputy communications director and who, like her boss in the Oval Office, has never left the campaign rhetoric aside.
"Some people don't like movies with happy endings," she wrote. "How else to explain this week's report by Sigtarp? Rather than focusing on the growing evidence we've seen in recent months that TARP will be far less costly than anyone expected, Sigtarp instead sought to generate a false controversy over AIG to try and grab a few, cheap headlines."
The name calling and vilification continued for seven more paragraphs.
As McTague notes, the desire by the Obama team to use faulty methodology ("Enron-style Accounting") is not just apparent in their disparaging of Barofsky but in their entire approach towards governing: in their huge deficits, delusional projections regarding the costs of Obamacare, their views that green schemes are a job panacea, and that high taxes won't harm growth. This is an administration filled with ideologues who not only have scant real-world business experience (and those that do, such as Larry Summers, are bailing out of this Ship of Fools) but have an animus towards free-enterprise and a disregard for any hints of reality that might intrude on their fantasies.
Their rage is again on display in this unjust and intemperate attack on Neil Barofsky, a man who has served the people by prosecuting financial miscreants and drug dealers.
Barack Obama is notoriously thin-skinned - as is true of many narcissists. Obama loves the idea of government workers. He and Michelle have glorified in their speeches to college students the honor that comes from working for the people. We have Inspectors Generals throughout the government who are working for the people and saving taxpayers billions of dollars at very little costs (see my blog " The Unsung Heroes of the Federal Government"). Do you think Barack Obama respects those government workers?
After all, his team has dismissed and disparaged one Inspector General who had the temerity to take on one of Barack Obama's friends and political allies and also wanted to set up and have taxpayers fund a new $30 Billion Dollar lending program that was to be shielded from any Inspector General looking over its books (see "Obama, the Chicago Boys, and their 30 Billion Dollar Slush Fund").
The stimulus program is filled with waste; the latest example to come to light as a taxpayer rip-off is the $242 million weatherization program for Obama's hometown of Chicago that paid for shoddy and fraud-ridden work.
No wonder Obama abhors Inspectors General: they protect taxpayers and show us how poorly his administration is run and thus threaten the B+ average he humbly (for him) bestowed upon himself a few months ago. Well, the taxpayers will be grading him on a different curve come Tuesday.
And he won't be getting a B+.
Posted at 09:50 AM
Connecticut: Obama Interrupted By Liberal Hecklers At Blumenthal Rally
From Breitbart and Freedom's Lighthouse:
11:51 PM (2 minutes ago)Obama Interrupted By Liberal Hecklers At Blumenthal Rallyfrom Freedom's Lighthouse by Michael
Popout
President Obama is interrupted by a group of liberal hecklers while speaking at a rally for Richard Blumenthal. He finally responds to the hecklers at about
2:19 into the video, and is visibly upset.
H/T: Breitbart
11:51 PM (2 minutes ago)Obama Interrupted By Liberal Hecklers At Blumenthal Rallyfrom Freedom's Lighthouse by Michael
Popout
President Obama is interrupted by a group of liberal hecklers while speaking at a rally for Richard Blumenthal. He finally responds to the hecklers at about
2:19 into the video, and is visibly upset.
H/T: Breitbart
Watch Out, Corruptocrats: Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Discusses Looming Congressional Investigations
From Gateway Pundit:
Watch Out, Corruptocrats… Rep. Steve King Discusses the Looming Congressional Investigations
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 30, 2010, 9:17 AM
Look Out ACORN… Head For the Hills, Corruptocrats… You may find yourself spilling the beans before a Congressional panel before you know it.
The former community organizer may have a difficult road ahead of him in the 2012 elections, not just because of his disastrous policies, but because his favorite organizers are about to be investigated. I spoke with conservative Rep. Steve King (R-IA) this week and he admitted that ACORN has a big target on its back.
ACORN is the largest radical leftist group in America today.
This radical group worked closely with the Obama camp during the election but, the community organizing group was not open about the relationship. The photo below was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election:
One of Barack Obama’s first big “community organizer” jobs involved ACORN in 1992. He worked along side ACORN before he became an elected official. Obama also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. Obama worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN in 2008 for voter registration efforts.
And, ACORN even canvassed for Obama in 2008.
In 2009 Obama promoted a top ACORN operative, Patrick Gaspard, who’s organization was fined $775,000 for election violations, to a top post in the White House. Gespard is helping shape domestic policy today.
Barack Obama was not honest about his relationship with ACORN.
Obama’s ACORN group was banned from receiving federal funds in September 2009 after the group was busted on tape promoting the child sex slave trade.
But the days of corruption may be over for these Obama-linked community organizers. Rep. Steve King says that ACORN and its remnants will be investigated in 2011.
I spoke with Rep. Steve King on Wednesday.
Sorry about the poor quality. This was recorded from my cell phone.
Rep. King spoke for several minutes between stops in Iowa. King also spoke about corruption of the current regime in Washington and the activity planned by Congress in 2011.
On Obamacare- Rep King says it’s got to be pulled out by the roots.
“First, I already introduced an amendment to repeal it. We’re going to elect a large freshman class. You’ll find that a lot of democrat representatives will lose their seat because of it. The first bill coming out of the new Congress will be HR 1 to repeal Obamacare. We will send this to the president’s desk where he will veto it. Then we will put language in each and every bill to halt payment for Obamacare. Then in 2012 we can elect a new president who will repeal Obamacare. We must elect a president in 2012 who will repeal Obamacare.”
Will there be any investigation into the dishonest accounting practices used by democrats that helped them ram their bill through Congress?
There will be several investigations. With Obamacare, they did some things to jigger the numbers. They put it off until 2014 to help pay for it. There’s also a $500 billion cut to Medicare. Every one today admits that it’s a Trillion dollar bill. The cost to our freedom in America will be far greater than the cost in money.
Question: Can you talk about any of the investigations?
“ACORN will be investigated. This group admitted to producing over 400,000 false voter registrations… If we lose democratic elections in America we lose our country. We need to go ahead and investigate ACORN. We need to defund them but we should go ahead and investigate them.”
Any other investigations?
“I would also like to investigate the Pigford Farms legislation. I believe almost all of the legitimate claims have been compensated. More than 92,000 blacks have signed up for reparations from the Obama USDA after the Pigford case was extended this past year. That’s five times the number of blacks who were actually farming during the time period in question and would possibly qualify for the reparations.”
Any other investigations:
“I should hold back right now.”
What about Obama? He said this week he’ll be fighting Republicans “day and night”?
“This president is not about bipartisanship. He’s a sharply partisan president. He’s a committed left-wing ideologue. He believes Franklin Roosevelt did not spend enough money in the 1930′s . He will spend money as fast as he can get his hands on it to spend it… Like a gambler he’s just going to keep digging. I think this president will fight us every step of the way.”
Watch Out, Corruptocrats… Rep. Steve King Discusses the Looming Congressional Investigations
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 30, 2010, 9:17 AM
Look Out ACORN… Head For the Hills, Corruptocrats… You may find yourself spilling the beans before a Congressional panel before you know it.
The former community organizer may have a difficult road ahead of him in the 2012 elections, not just because of his disastrous policies, but because his favorite organizers are about to be investigated. I spoke with conservative Rep. Steve King (R-IA) this week and he admitted that ACORN has a big target on its back.
ACORN is the largest radical leftist group in America today.
This radical group worked closely with the Obama camp during the election but, the community organizing group was not open about the relationship. The photo below was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election:
One of Barack Obama’s first big “community organizer” jobs involved ACORN in 1992. He worked along side ACORN before he became an elected official. Obama also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. Obama worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN in 2008 for voter registration efforts.
And, ACORN even canvassed for Obama in 2008.
In 2009 Obama promoted a top ACORN operative, Patrick Gaspard, who’s organization was fined $775,000 for election violations, to a top post in the White House. Gespard is helping shape domestic policy today.
Barack Obama was not honest about his relationship with ACORN.
Obama’s ACORN group was banned from receiving federal funds in September 2009 after the group was busted on tape promoting the child sex slave trade.
But the days of corruption may be over for these Obama-linked community organizers. Rep. Steve King says that ACORN and its remnants will be investigated in 2011.
I spoke with Rep. Steve King on Wednesday.
Sorry about the poor quality. This was recorded from my cell phone.
Rep. King spoke for several minutes between stops in Iowa. King also spoke about corruption of the current regime in Washington and the activity planned by Congress in 2011.
On Obamacare- Rep King says it’s got to be pulled out by the roots.
“First, I already introduced an amendment to repeal it. We’re going to elect a large freshman class. You’ll find that a lot of democrat representatives will lose their seat because of it. The first bill coming out of the new Congress will be HR 1 to repeal Obamacare. We will send this to the president’s desk where he will veto it. Then we will put language in each and every bill to halt payment for Obamacare. Then in 2012 we can elect a new president who will repeal Obamacare. We must elect a president in 2012 who will repeal Obamacare.”
Will there be any investigation into the dishonest accounting practices used by democrats that helped them ram their bill through Congress?
There will be several investigations. With Obamacare, they did some things to jigger the numbers. They put it off until 2014 to help pay for it. There’s also a $500 billion cut to Medicare. Every one today admits that it’s a Trillion dollar bill. The cost to our freedom in America will be far greater than the cost in money.
Question: Can you talk about any of the investigations?
“ACORN will be investigated. This group admitted to producing over 400,000 false voter registrations… If we lose democratic elections in America we lose our country. We need to go ahead and investigate ACORN. We need to defund them but we should go ahead and investigate them.”
Any other investigations?
“I would also like to investigate the Pigford Farms legislation. I believe almost all of the legitimate claims have been compensated. More than 92,000 blacks have signed up for reparations from the Obama USDA after the Pigford case was extended this past year. That’s five times the number of blacks who were actually farming during the time period in question and would possibly qualify for the reparations.”
Any other investigations:
“I should hold back right now.”
What about Obama? He said this week he’ll be fighting Republicans “day and night”?
“This president is not about bipartisanship. He’s a sharply partisan president. He’s a committed left-wing ideologue. He believes Franklin Roosevelt did not spend enough money in the 1930′s . He will spend money as fast as he can get his hands on it to spend it… Like a gambler he’s just going to keep digging. I think this president will fight us every step of the way.”
West Virginia Senate Race: Manchin Scandal Brewing?
From The American Thinker:
October 30, 2010
Manchin scandal brewing?
Thomas Lifson
News of an ongoing federal investigation of West Virginia Governor and Senate-candidate Joe Manchin breaks in a Huntington News editorial:
A growing number of media outlets across West Virginia are beginning to cover the federal investigation involving Governor Manchin and his administration. This is a significant development in and of itself.
After all, many media outlets are reticent to cover a potentially criminal matter in the midst of a candidate's campaign for Governor, lest they look like they are "attacking" the candidate unfairly. Plus, we live under the dictum that a man is innocent before proven guilty. That is especially true if there are not any indictments in the matter as yet.
Yet for all that, another stream of truth enters this churning river of an election season, and it deserves to be aired out, too.
The editorial carries with it a scent of "Yeah, he's not guilty (so far) and we probably shouldn't mention it, but we're warning you voters that you could be embarrassed if you elect this guy to the Senate and he goes down under a federal investigation."
The editorial continues:
Given West Virginia's national embarassments over the years from high government officials being caught in criminal acts, voters clearly wish to have no repeats on that score.
This is a last minute development that could push the race to Republican candidate Raese.
Hat tip: Richard Baehr
Posted at 11:28 AM
October 30, 2010
Manchin scandal brewing?
Thomas Lifson
News of an ongoing federal investigation of West Virginia Governor and Senate-candidate Joe Manchin breaks in a Huntington News editorial:
A growing number of media outlets across West Virginia are beginning to cover the federal investigation involving Governor Manchin and his administration. This is a significant development in and of itself.
After all, many media outlets are reticent to cover a potentially criminal matter in the midst of a candidate's campaign for Governor, lest they look like they are "attacking" the candidate unfairly. Plus, we live under the dictum that a man is innocent before proven guilty. That is especially true if there are not any indictments in the matter as yet.
Yet for all that, another stream of truth enters this churning river of an election season, and it deserves to be aired out, too.
The editorial carries with it a scent of "Yeah, he's not guilty (so far) and we probably shouldn't mention it, but we're warning you voters that you could be embarrassed if you elect this guy to the Senate and he goes down under a federal investigation."
The editorial continues:
Given West Virginia's national embarassments over the years from high government officials being caught in criminal acts, voters clearly wish to have no repeats on that score.
This is a last minute development that could push the race to Republican candidate Raese.
Hat tip: Richard Baehr
Posted at 11:28 AM
Friday, October 29, 2010
Soros (Nazi Collaborator) And The Collapse Of The Left
From The American Thinker:
October 29, 2010
Soros and the Collapse of the Left
By J.R. Dunn
Now let me get this straight: George Soros, Media Matters, and the White House, in some unclear capacity, have unveiled their master plan to destroy the right: isolate and nullify Fox News by getting people fired from NPR.
NPR pink-slipped Juan Williams for the equivalent of stating that when he sees it's raining out, he gets his umbrella. NPR president Vivian Schiller, evidently divining that disparaging fears of Muslim terrorists wouldn't play well in a country that has suffered three serious terrorist attempts in a little over a year, added that this was merely the latest of a series of Williams outrages, but she produced no examples. (Schiller now says that she "regrets" how the firing was handled.)
Obviously, there has to be another reason, and when we look around, we find none other than the Prog Twins, Soros and Obama. (Not to forget David Brock...or is that the stupidest statement I ever typed?) Obama has been having bad dreams about Fox, so Soros contributes a cool $1.8 million to NPR for the purpose of hiring one hundred investigative reporters to learn the truth about Bigfoot. Another $1 mil went to Brock's Media Matters for the purpose, I imagine, of mixing more mud to fling -- they don't do anything else. Then, as soon as the checks cleared, Williams finds himself out on the street.
This is not a coincidence, comrades. This is the Alinsky isolate-and-destroy method in textbook form. A kindergarten textbook, granted -- the idea appears to be to prevent any further liberal contact with Fox, limiting the network to unbalanced right-wing voices, and then to sit back and wait for an aroused public to march on the Fox offices with pitchforks and torches. Of course it would happen just that way -- nobody would ever listen to Beck, Hannity, or Palin if NPR didn't encourage them.
The success of this plan can be gauged by the fact that everybody but Muslim Brotherhood front groups have condemned NPR; Williams has accepted a $2-million contract with Fox, where, as the last of the level-headed liberals, he's likely to feel much more at home; and Soros has found himself under far more public scrutiny than he's used to.
This is one of those schemes that couldn't possibly work even if successful. No matter what the direct outcome, Fox would still be a monster network and NPR a nostalgia chain for an ever-shrinking band of true believers. As it is, we have Williams and Fox attaining close to saintly status while Soros looks like a cranky, half-crazy old Hungarian (granted, he looked like that before, too), and Obama...well, he looks like Obama.
I'm sure some people are whispering that there's a lot more to it, that some deep plan has been put into play about which we'll know nothing until it's too late, that Soros was emptying Fort Knox and Obama was driving trucks full of ballots out of Chicago's cemeteries while everybody was watching Williams burst his chains like Houdini. I do not believe this.
We have seen Obama and crew in operation for two years now, and it is low comedy. We now know why Christopher Buckley supported him -- so he'd have plenty of material. For exhibit A, I present ObamaCare, which, with an overwhelming majority in both House and Senate and the support of the media and the medical trade groups, the administration was unable to pass without infuriating the entire country, demolishing Medicare, delaying the recovery, and unleashing the Tea Parties. I rest my case.
As for Soros, while working on the upcoming Death by Liberalism, I came across a project that he sponsored along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called the Project on Death in America. It was supposedly intended to familiarize Americans with death, since no one in this country has ever heard of it or knows anything about it. (This little conceit is quite popular on the left -- see Jessica Mitford's The American Way of Death.) In actuality, Soros targeted two perfectly legitimate medical innovations, palliative care and hospice care, in order to ram through his vision of legal euthanasia. He put tens of millions into the effort, recruited medical personnel across the country, and nicely tarnished the entire field of end-of-life care, all with next to no attention from our alert media.
And then, after the better part of a decade, with no warning, he dropped it. The entire program. Cut off all funding, left his hired medical types high and dry, hid most of the documentation, and instead involved himself in attempting to chase George W. Bush out of office. After several weeks of research, I was left with this: "A lot of questions remain about this program..." Namely, what the hell Soros thought he was doing.
I'm aware that Soros is the great bête noire of conservatism. An unstoppable, sinister force involved in everything and active on infinite levels of chicanery. But if that's the case, if Soros is the real-life version of a Bond villain, then why is the left in such desperate straits? Why are they on the verge of being cast out of the political universe? Why is Soros himself publicly admitting that he "can do nothing against the Republican avalanche"?
It's my contention that Soros is yet another example of that common leftist phenomenon, the rich dilettante who shows up with buckets of money and a plan, throws no end of funds at every crank initiative from legalizing pot to building a mosque atop Mt. Rushmore, and at last departs into private life much poorer and in no way wiser. The only difference with Soros is that he has a lot more money that will take much longer to burn through.
Obama, of course, speaks for himself. Here we are emerging robust and healthy from the second Great Depression, with historically low unemployment, no foreclosure problem, terrorism ended, Iran tamed, the entire world running on wind power, and all the wealth spread around a bit. Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, those oceans haven't begun dropping yet. But he'll be able to get that now, at least if Fox doesn't get in the way.
So here we are mere days before the Apocalypse, when the floor of the Capitol opens up to swallow the last howling Democrat -- and what's the grand plan of this pair of masterminds? Getting Juan Williams fired.
But now Soros has control of that mighty weapon of public opinion, NPR? Let's look more closely at that. A very conservative friend of mine had an older and rather ambiguous brother who would show up, turn on the radio, tune in NPR, and then walk around smirking at everybody and chuckling loudly every time an announcer said "Karl Rove." That was his method, evidently, of striking a blow for liberation from the Bush tyranny. And that is all that NPR amounts to. That is what NPR is for, with its cute Garrison Keillor Hallmark Card homilies and shows with half-clever titles like "All Things Considered." It is "Doonesbury" for the ears, a network for people who are not well-educated, not well-read, not very radical, and not very courageous, but who would like to think of themselves as all those things. In other words, NPR is a lapel button, a ritual gesture along the lines of wearing a rising doughnut t-shirt or driving a Prius.
If Soros thinks he can do something with that crowd, he's welcome to it. Putting NPR up against Fox is like sending Hello Kitty out to stalk the Predator. My recommendation would be to defund the sucker, let Soros take over, and allow him to spend his last years discovering exactly what a financial black hole the network actually is. More than likely he'll simply dump it the same as everything else as soon as his next brainstorm hits.
The whole story, to my mind, is yet another sign, along with the midterms, fleeing czars, and collapsing programs, of the bankruptcy of the left. Keep in mind that a decadent, deteriorating system doesn't simply flop over into terminal sloth. There's no lack of energy and initiative, but it's all of the wrong kind. Resources and time are wasted on weird little projects that accomplish nothing and wouldn't help even if successful, while the real problems grow larger, fiercer, and closer to intractable.
That's what's happening here. The left has been in the driver's seat for four years. The record is clear. Not a single one of their programs has taken off. Their congressional vanguard, including such grandees as Boxer and Feingold, is in deep trouble. They haven't been able to raise a finger against the Tea tsunami. But they got Juan Williams fired! That's one for the progs! I predict a lot more of this kind of thing. Mara Liasson, another NPR figure guilty of torturing innocents in the Fox dungeons, has been targeted by Media Matters. Over at Wired, there were a lot of calls last weekend for the termination of military writer Noah Schachtman for the thought crime of pointing out that the Wikileak Iraq documents contain a lot of material verifying the WMD narrative. They've reached the point where they're eating their own. This could work out very nicely.
The left may well be reaching the end of its string. It's happened before, and somebody -- usually a Republican -- has always been around with a shot of Dr. Goodtime's zap juice to enable it to stagger around for another decade or so. But this round may be different. For the first time, we have a public both aware and aroused. Political questions are out in the open. There's no telling what will happen when the whole things shakes out. But I have a feeling the changes may be deeper and more thoroughgoing than anyone now expects.
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.
October 29, 2010
Soros and the Collapse of the Left
By J.R. Dunn
Now let me get this straight: George Soros, Media Matters, and the White House, in some unclear capacity, have unveiled their master plan to destroy the right: isolate and nullify Fox News by getting people fired from NPR.
NPR pink-slipped Juan Williams for the equivalent of stating that when he sees it's raining out, he gets his umbrella. NPR president Vivian Schiller, evidently divining that disparaging fears of Muslim terrorists wouldn't play well in a country that has suffered three serious terrorist attempts in a little over a year, added that this was merely the latest of a series of Williams outrages, but she produced no examples. (Schiller now says that she "regrets" how the firing was handled.)
Obviously, there has to be another reason, and when we look around, we find none other than the Prog Twins, Soros and Obama. (Not to forget David Brock...or is that the stupidest statement I ever typed?) Obama has been having bad dreams about Fox, so Soros contributes a cool $1.8 million to NPR for the purpose of hiring one hundred investigative reporters to learn the truth about Bigfoot. Another $1 mil went to Brock's Media Matters for the purpose, I imagine, of mixing more mud to fling -- they don't do anything else. Then, as soon as the checks cleared, Williams finds himself out on the street.
This is not a coincidence, comrades. This is the Alinsky isolate-and-destroy method in textbook form. A kindergarten textbook, granted -- the idea appears to be to prevent any further liberal contact with Fox, limiting the network to unbalanced right-wing voices, and then to sit back and wait for an aroused public to march on the Fox offices with pitchforks and torches. Of course it would happen just that way -- nobody would ever listen to Beck, Hannity, or Palin if NPR didn't encourage them.
The success of this plan can be gauged by the fact that everybody but Muslim Brotherhood front groups have condemned NPR; Williams has accepted a $2-million contract with Fox, where, as the last of the level-headed liberals, he's likely to feel much more at home; and Soros has found himself under far more public scrutiny than he's used to.
This is one of those schemes that couldn't possibly work even if successful. No matter what the direct outcome, Fox would still be a monster network and NPR a nostalgia chain for an ever-shrinking band of true believers. As it is, we have Williams and Fox attaining close to saintly status while Soros looks like a cranky, half-crazy old Hungarian (granted, he looked like that before, too), and Obama...well, he looks like Obama.
I'm sure some people are whispering that there's a lot more to it, that some deep plan has been put into play about which we'll know nothing until it's too late, that Soros was emptying Fort Knox and Obama was driving trucks full of ballots out of Chicago's cemeteries while everybody was watching Williams burst his chains like Houdini. I do not believe this.
We have seen Obama and crew in operation for two years now, and it is low comedy. We now know why Christopher Buckley supported him -- so he'd have plenty of material. For exhibit A, I present ObamaCare, which, with an overwhelming majority in both House and Senate and the support of the media and the medical trade groups, the administration was unable to pass without infuriating the entire country, demolishing Medicare, delaying the recovery, and unleashing the Tea Parties. I rest my case.
As for Soros, while working on the upcoming Death by Liberalism, I came across a project that he sponsored along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called the Project on Death in America. It was supposedly intended to familiarize Americans with death, since no one in this country has ever heard of it or knows anything about it. (This little conceit is quite popular on the left -- see Jessica Mitford's The American Way of Death.) In actuality, Soros targeted two perfectly legitimate medical innovations, palliative care and hospice care, in order to ram through his vision of legal euthanasia. He put tens of millions into the effort, recruited medical personnel across the country, and nicely tarnished the entire field of end-of-life care, all with next to no attention from our alert media.
And then, after the better part of a decade, with no warning, he dropped it. The entire program. Cut off all funding, left his hired medical types high and dry, hid most of the documentation, and instead involved himself in attempting to chase George W. Bush out of office. After several weeks of research, I was left with this: "A lot of questions remain about this program..." Namely, what the hell Soros thought he was doing.
I'm aware that Soros is the great bête noire of conservatism. An unstoppable, sinister force involved in everything and active on infinite levels of chicanery. But if that's the case, if Soros is the real-life version of a Bond villain, then why is the left in such desperate straits? Why are they on the verge of being cast out of the political universe? Why is Soros himself publicly admitting that he "can do nothing against the Republican avalanche"?
It's my contention that Soros is yet another example of that common leftist phenomenon, the rich dilettante who shows up with buckets of money and a plan, throws no end of funds at every crank initiative from legalizing pot to building a mosque atop Mt. Rushmore, and at last departs into private life much poorer and in no way wiser. The only difference with Soros is that he has a lot more money that will take much longer to burn through.
Obama, of course, speaks for himself. Here we are emerging robust and healthy from the second Great Depression, with historically low unemployment, no foreclosure problem, terrorism ended, Iran tamed, the entire world running on wind power, and all the wealth spread around a bit. Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, those oceans haven't begun dropping yet. But he'll be able to get that now, at least if Fox doesn't get in the way.
So here we are mere days before the Apocalypse, when the floor of the Capitol opens up to swallow the last howling Democrat -- and what's the grand plan of this pair of masterminds? Getting Juan Williams fired.
But now Soros has control of that mighty weapon of public opinion, NPR? Let's look more closely at that. A very conservative friend of mine had an older and rather ambiguous brother who would show up, turn on the radio, tune in NPR, and then walk around smirking at everybody and chuckling loudly every time an announcer said "Karl Rove." That was his method, evidently, of striking a blow for liberation from the Bush tyranny. And that is all that NPR amounts to. That is what NPR is for, with its cute Garrison Keillor Hallmark Card homilies and shows with half-clever titles like "All Things Considered." It is "Doonesbury" for the ears, a network for people who are not well-educated, not well-read, not very radical, and not very courageous, but who would like to think of themselves as all those things. In other words, NPR is a lapel button, a ritual gesture along the lines of wearing a rising doughnut t-shirt or driving a Prius.
If Soros thinks he can do something with that crowd, he's welcome to it. Putting NPR up against Fox is like sending Hello Kitty out to stalk the Predator. My recommendation would be to defund the sucker, let Soros take over, and allow him to spend his last years discovering exactly what a financial black hole the network actually is. More than likely he'll simply dump it the same as everything else as soon as his next brainstorm hits.
The whole story, to my mind, is yet another sign, along with the midterms, fleeing czars, and collapsing programs, of the bankruptcy of the left. Keep in mind that a decadent, deteriorating system doesn't simply flop over into terminal sloth. There's no lack of energy and initiative, but it's all of the wrong kind. Resources and time are wasted on weird little projects that accomplish nothing and wouldn't help even if successful, while the real problems grow larger, fiercer, and closer to intractable.
That's what's happening here. The left has been in the driver's seat for four years. The record is clear. Not a single one of their programs has taken off. Their congressional vanguard, including such grandees as Boxer and Feingold, is in deep trouble. They haven't been able to raise a finger against the Tea tsunami. But they got Juan Williams fired! That's one for the progs! I predict a lot more of this kind of thing. Mara Liasson, another NPR figure guilty of torturing innocents in the Fox dungeons, has been targeted by Media Matters. Over at Wired, there were a lot of calls last weekend for the termination of military writer Noah Schachtman for the thought crime of pointing out that the Wikileak Iraq documents contain a lot of material verifying the WMD narrative. They've reached the point where they're eating their own. This could work out very nicely.
The left may well be reaching the end of its string. It's happened before, and somebody -- usually a Republican -- has always been around with a shot of Dr. Goodtime's zap juice to enable it to stagger around for another decade or so. But this round may be different. For the first time, we have a public both aware and aroused. Political questions are out in the open. There's no telling what will happen when the whole things shakes out. But I have a feeling the changes may be deeper and more thoroughgoing than anyone now expects.
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.
Obama's Plight
From The American Spectator:
Obama’s Plight
By Philip Klein on 10.29.10 @ 6:09AM
Whether you prefer to believe expert predictions that it will be a "maelstrom," a "bloodbath," or merely a "blowout," Republicans are poised to make substantial gains in Congress next Tuesday and deliver a severe blow to the Obama presidency in the process.
Just two years after sweeping into power on a platform of hope and change, Obama finds himself and his agenda a political liability to Democratic candidates throughout the nation. Though he took office with a 67 percent Gallup approval rating in January 2009, it stood at 44 percent in the most recent survey and has dipped as low as 41 percent. And though he built his candidacy by positioning himself as the anti-Bush, by a 48 percent to 43 percent margin, Americans now think that George Bush was the better president, according to a new survey by Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. The same poll found that 56 percent of the nation wants Obama fired in 2012.
It's true that as sharp as Obama's decline has been, the speed of his reversal of political fortunes should serve as a warning to Republicans who are feeling emboldened right now. Just as Obama's meteoric rise has been followed by a precipitous fall, he could conceivably make a triumphant comeback two years from now.
That said, the two most recent examples of presidential comebacks following defeats in the midterm elections are Bill Clinton after Republicans took back Congress in 1994 and Ronald Reagan after Democrats gained 26 seats to build on their majority in 1982. But there are a number of reasons why Obama's situation is different.
Clinton was able to mount a political comeback by abandoning his ambitious liberal goals such as health care legislation, bringing up small symbolic issues as in school uniforms and successfully portraying House Republicans as extremists.
Yet while Clinton was willing to sacrifice his agenda for his short-term political benefit, Obama is an ideological liberal who is committed to imposing his policy vision on America regardless of its popularity. Unlike Clinton, Obama successfully passed his unpopular national health care plan, which will continue to disrupt the lives of individuals and businesses over the next two years.
In addition, Republicans have learned a lot of lessons from the experience of 1994, and it's unlikely that Rep. John Boehner, if he should become House Speaker, will make himself as easy a foil for Obama as Newt Gingrich was for Clinton.
As with Clinton, there are clear parallels between Obama's situation now, and the political difficulty Reagan found himself in 1982. After running on a promise to restore the nation's economy, the country was mired in a deep recession with high unemployment despite passing his landmark tax cuts. Reagan's Gallup approval rating stood at 42 percent in October 1982 (and would reach as low as 35 percent that following January). In 1983, however, the economy improved, and it was booming by 1984 -- fueling Reagan's landslide victory over Walter Mondale.
As with Reagan, Obama's political fortunes will largely hinge on whether or not Americans feel the economy has recovered by the time of the next election. In Reagan's case, he took office with an inflation rate of nearly 12 percent. The Federal Reserve Board's tight monetary policy choked off economic growth early on, but by the end of 1982, the worst was over, inflation was down to under 4 percent, and Reagan's tax cuts had a chance to work.
Obviously, it's difficult to predict where the economy will be two years from now. But unlike Reagan, in Obama's case, the Federal Reserve Board is largely out of ammo in terms of boosting the economy by lowering interest rates further, and instead is expected to try inflating the economy by printing money and purchasing bonds. Meanwhile, the White House has reported that as of September, 70 percent of the economic stimulus package had been spent. With the renewed attention to federal deficits, it's doubtful that Obama will be able to sign another large economic package.
In addition, the Obama administration has added a raft of new regulations to businesses, including those in the national health care law. The regulatory environment could even worsen further if Republicans take back Congress, because then the administration will become more dependent on federal agencies to impose aspects of Obama's agenda that he can no longer hope to pass legislatively. It also remains an open question as to whether Obama will be able to get his proposed tax increase by allowing the Bush era rates to expire at the end of the year.
While Obama may have difficulty digging himself out of his political hole on his own, there's always the chance that he can get help from Republicans. Even if Obama is vulnerable in 2012, the GOP will have to find a strong nominee to challenge him, and right now, the prospective Republican field is uninspiring. There's also the distinct possibility that Republicans will show themselves to be weak at governing, disappointing their base as well as independents who gave them a chance to prove themselves.
Letter to the Editor
Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Obama’s Plight
By Philip Klein on 10.29.10 @ 6:09AM
Whether you prefer to believe expert predictions that it will be a "maelstrom," a "bloodbath," or merely a "blowout," Republicans are poised to make substantial gains in Congress next Tuesday and deliver a severe blow to the Obama presidency in the process.
Just two years after sweeping into power on a platform of hope and change, Obama finds himself and his agenda a political liability to Democratic candidates throughout the nation. Though he took office with a 67 percent Gallup approval rating in January 2009, it stood at 44 percent in the most recent survey and has dipped as low as 41 percent. And though he built his candidacy by positioning himself as the anti-Bush, by a 48 percent to 43 percent margin, Americans now think that George Bush was the better president, according to a new survey by Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. The same poll found that 56 percent of the nation wants Obama fired in 2012.
It's true that as sharp as Obama's decline has been, the speed of his reversal of political fortunes should serve as a warning to Republicans who are feeling emboldened right now. Just as Obama's meteoric rise has been followed by a precipitous fall, he could conceivably make a triumphant comeback two years from now.
That said, the two most recent examples of presidential comebacks following defeats in the midterm elections are Bill Clinton after Republicans took back Congress in 1994 and Ronald Reagan after Democrats gained 26 seats to build on their majority in 1982. But there are a number of reasons why Obama's situation is different.
Clinton was able to mount a political comeback by abandoning his ambitious liberal goals such as health care legislation, bringing up small symbolic issues as in school uniforms and successfully portraying House Republicans as extremists.
Yet while Clinton was willing to sacrifice his agenda for his short-term political benefit, Obama is an ideological liberal who is committed to imposing his policy vision on America regardless of its popularity. Unlike Clinton, Obama successfully passed his unpopular national health care plan, which will continue to disrupt the lives of individuals and businesses over the next two years.
In addition, Republicans have learned a lot of lessons from the experience of 1994, and it's unlikely that Rep. John Boehner, if he should become House Speaker, will make himself as easy a foil for Obama as Newt Gingrich was for Clinton.
As with Clinton, there are clear parallels between Obama's situation now, and the political difficulty Reagan found himself in 1982. After running on a promise to restore the nation's economy, the country was mired in a deep recession with high unemployment despite passing his landmark tax cuts. Reagan's Gallup approval rating stood at 42 percent in October 1982 (and would reach as low as 35 percent that following January). In 1983, however, the economy improved, and it was booming by 1984 -- fueling Reagan's landslide victory over Walter Mondale.
As with Reagan, Obama's political fortunes will largely hinge on whether or not Americans feel the economy has recovered by the time of the next election. In Reagan's case, he took office with an inflation rate of nearly 12 percent. The Federal Reserve Board's tight monetary policy choked off economic growth early on, but by the end of 1982, the worst was over, inflation was down to under 4 percent, and Reagan's tax cuts had a chance to work.
Obviously, it's difficult to predict where the economy will be two years from now. But unlike Reagan, in Obama's case, the Federal Reserve Board is largely out of ammo in terms of boosting the economy by lowering interest rates further, and instead is expected to try inflating the economy by printing money and purchasing bonds. Meanwhile, the White House has reported that as of September, 70 percent of the economic stimulus package had been spent. With the renewed attention to federal deficits, it's doubtful that Obama will be able to sign another large economic package.
In addition, the Obama administration has added a raft of new regulations to businesses, including those in the national health care law. The regulatory environment could even worsen further if Republicans take back Congress, because then the administration will become more dependent on federal agencies to impose aspects of Obama's agenda that he can no longer hope to pass legislatively. It also remains an open question as to whether Obama will be able to get his proposed tax increase by allowing the Bush era rates to expire at the end of the year.
While Obama may have difficulty digging himself out of his political hole on his own, there's always the chance that he can get help from Republicans. Even if Obama is vulnerable in 2012, the GOP will have to find a strong nominee to challenge him, and right now, the prospective Republican field is uninspiring. There's also the distinct possibility that Republicans will show themselves to be weak at governing, disappointing their base as well as independents who gave them a chance to prove themselves.
Letter to the Editor
Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Meanwhile, Other Industrialized Nations See Their Economies Thriving
From The American Thinker:
October 29, 2010
Meanwhile, other industrialized nations see their economies thriving
Rick Moran
The recession that plunged the world into a downturn in 2008 and 2009 has been over for a while, and recovery - at least in countries not led by Obama and the Democrats - are thriving.
Germany's unemployment rate just hit an 18 year low:
The number of jobless fell by 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 3.153 million, figures from the Labor Office showed on Thursday, while the headline level dipped to 2.945 million, confirming figures announced a day earlier.
The headline reading fell below the 3 million mark - a key political threshold - for the first time since November 2008, to its lowest point since October 1992.
On an adjusted basis, the jobless rate held steady at 7.5 percent, while economists had forecast 7.4 percent.
"Although October's decline in unemployment turned out weaker than expected, the underlying trend in the German labor market clearly remains one of rapid improvement on the back of strong economic growth," said Aline Schuiling from ABN Amro.
Meanwhile, we have anemic growth and no job creation. Even in the quasi-socialist governments of western Europe, there is an understanding of how to get an economy moving after a painful recession.
There is also leadership - something that is sorely lacking in the United States at this time.
Posted at 09:11 AM
October 29, 2010
Meanwhile, other industrialized nations see their economies thriving
Rick Moran
The recession that plunged the world into a downturn in 2008 and 2009 has been over for a while, and recovery - at least in countries not led by Obama and the Democrats - are thriving.
Germany's unemployment rate just hit an 18 year low:
The number of jobless fell by 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 3.153 million, figures from the Labor Office showed on Thursday, while the headline level dipped to 2.945 million, confirming figures announced a day earlier.
The headline reading fell below the 3 million mark - a key political threshold - for the first time since November 2008, to its lowest point since October 1992.
On an adjusted basis, the jobless rate held steady at 7.5 percent, while economists had forecast 7.4 percent.
"Although October's decline in unemployment turned out weaker than expected, the underlying trend in the German labor market clearly remains one of rapid improvement on the back of strong economic growth," said Aline Schuiling from ABN Amro.
Meanwhile, we have anemic growth and no job creation. Even in the quasi-socialist governments of western Europe, there is an understanding of how to get an economy moving after a painful recession.
There is also leadership - something that is sorely lacking in the United States at this time.
Posted at 09:11 AM
Missouri: Curtman's Closing Argument
From Gateway Pundit:
10:34 AM (13 hours ago)Curtman’s Closing Argumentfrom Gateway Pundit by Guest ContributorPopout
By: Reboot Congress
I haven’t met any Missourian that better captures the Tea Party values than Republican candidate for state rep, Paul Curtman. The minute plus video above is a distillation of those values. Paul has a way of boiling it all down to sound-bites. If he looks familiar, it’s because you’ve probably seen this video of him:
10:34 AM (13 hours ago)Curtman’s Closing Argumentfrom Gateway Pundit by Guest ContributorPopout
By: Reboot Congress
I haven’t met any Missourian that better captures the Tea Party values than Republican candidate for state rep, Paul Curtman. The minute plus video above is a distillation of those values. Paul has a way of boiling it all down to sound-bites. If he looks familiar, it’s because you’ve probably seen this video of him:
California: More Than $120 Million Spent On Initiatives
From Big Government:
Over $120 Million Spent on California Initiativesby Chuck DeVore
California’s progressive-era experiment in direct democracy was supposed to elevate the voters above the special interests, allowing voters make law themselves through the statewide initiative process. That this process is now virtually owned by the special interests is yet another example of the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences in government.
A brief perusal of the California Secretary of State’s initiative campaign finance disclosure website shows that some $120 million dollars has been raised by 53 groups supporting or opposing California’s nine November ballot initiatives. By comparison, California’s two major candidates for governor have raised or given to their campaigns $176 million to date, exclusive of independent expenditures and political party spending on both sides.
Initiative spending
What’s common about most of this spending is that it is fairly transparent in that we know the identities of the people, the labor unions and the companies writing the checks. Sure, there are cut-out committees that ship money to each other in an attempt to obfuscate their spending, but, with a spreadsheet and enough patience, a person can figure out who is funding whom.
For instance, you can crack open the disclosure page for the biggest No on Prop. 23 committee and see that they’ve raised more than $23 million. This includes $1 million from Hollywood director James Cameron, $700,000 from America’s richest man, Bill Gates, millions more from rent-seeking Silicon Valley venture capitalists who hope to grow wealthier off the economic pain of average Californians. You can also see that the National Wildlife Federation gave $3 million. Sadly, here is where campaign disclosure gets weak, because the National Wildlife Federation doesn’t have to disclose its donors since contributions on an initiative are considered nonpartisan and thus, not subject to the stringent disclosure rules as money destined to directly influence a partisan campaign.
This oversight is especially egregious when it comes to Prop. 22, a densely written amendment to the California constitution (already the third-largest in the world) that consumes eight pages of fine print to accomplish its purpose: constitutionally lock in redevelopment agency protections to protect them from pressure to reform.
California’s redevelopment agencies are supposed to target so-called “blight.” What they often do instead is use eminent domain to take property from one set of owners and give it to another so as to increase the tax base for a city.
Redevelopment abuse is rampant. It has also resulted in some $100 billion of bonds being issued in California without a vote of the people consuming 12 percent of property tax revenue that’s being diverted from local schools to pay the principal and interest on the development debt.
With so much money and power at stake over the passage of a proposition, it would be nice if the voters and the press could understand who is supporting and opposing the measure. The opposition is easy enough to determine. There is only one committee opposed to Prop. 22. They’ve raised a little over $1 million and their donors are readily seen online.
In distinction, the supporters of Prop. 22 present an opaque picture. Their one committee has raised almost $4 million. Of their 425 contributors, one can see quite a few developers (as one would expect with redevelopment) and bond underwriters and attorneys (debt is big business, after all) – but the largest share of money, $1.67 million, comes from something called the “League of California Cities (Non-Public Funds)” account. The trouble with this account is that we know nothing of where the money originates. The League also gave another roughly half-million dollars for Prop. 22 from their PAC. At least the origins of much of that money is known: mostly trash haulers and other municipal services providers – although I’m sure it was a pure “coincidence” that PG&E donated $150,000 to the League’s political fund on the same day as their deadly San Bruno pipeline explosion.
The League of California Cities is a statewide lobbying group that many California cities pay dues to. As a lawmaker, I’ve tangled with them before, once having one of their lobbyists flat out lie to kill one of my bills (I came back the second year and got my bill to reform local licensing of family daycare centers passed.) After the League killed my bill for a year, I became more curious about where and how the League of Cities got its money to lobby, after all, it’s not like individual mayors and city council members were opening their own wallets to fund expensive Sacramento lobbying operations. This leaves one logical conclusion, the League of Cities mainly uses taxpayer dollars to lobby government – in other words, government lobbying government.
For that reason, I authored AB 1992 in 2008. AB 1992 would have made it abundantly clear that taxpayer funds were not to be used for political purposes. The League of Cities killed the bill in committee. During the hearing on AB 1992, League representatives explained that money for their “Non-Public Funds” account came from things like advertising in their magazine, Western City, as well as conference sponsorships and the like. But, the leaves open the question: who is paying the $1.67 million of freight on the League’s effort to pass Prop. 22?
Restrictions on campaign finance are contrary to our First Amendment free speech rights – that said, we should know who’s paying for the speech. California needs to amend its campaign disclosure laws so we know the origin of the money used to influence the voters in what remains America’s largest and most powerful state. We also need to tighten up the laws governing the ability of government to lobby government using taxpayer dollars.
Over $120 Million Spent on California Initiativesby Chuck DeVore
California’s progressive-era experiment in direct democracy was supposed to elevate the voters above the special interests, allowing voters make law themselves through the statewide initiative process. That this process is now virtually owned by the special interests is yet another example of the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences in government.
A brief perusal of the California Secretary of State’s initiative campaign finance disclosure website shows that some $120 million dollars has been raised by 53 groups supporting or opposing California’s nine November ballot initiatives. By comparison, California’s two major candidates for governor have raised or given to their campaigns $176 million to date, exclusive of independent expenditures and political party spending on both sides.
Initiative spending
What’s common about most of this spending is that it is fairly transparent in that we know the identities of the people, the labor unions and the companies writing the checks. Sure, there are cut-out committees that ship money to each other in an attempt to obfuscate their spending, but, with a spreadsheet and enough patience, a person can figure out who is funding whom.
For instance, you can crack open the disclosure page for the biggest No on Prop. 23 committee and see that they’ve raised more than $23 million. This includes $1 million from Hollywood director James Cameron, $700,000 from America’s richest man, Bill Gates, millions more from rent-seeking Silicon Valley venture capitalists who hope to grow wealthier off the economic pain of average Californians. You can also see that the National Wildlife Federation gave $3 million. Sadly, here is where campaign disclosure gets weak, because the National Wildlife Federation doesn’t have to disclose its donors since contributions on an initiative are considered nonpartisan and thus, not subject to the stringent disclosure rules as money destined to directly influence a partisan campaign.
This oversight is especially egregious when it comes to Prop. 22, a densely written amendment to the California constitution (already the third-largest in the world) that consumes eight pages of fine print to accomplish its purpose: constitutionally lock in redevelopment agency protections to protect them from pressure to reform.
California’s redevelopment agencies are supposed to target so-called “blight.” What they often do instead is use eminent domain to take property from one set of owners and give it to another so as to increase the tax base for a city.
Redevelopment abuse is rampant. It has also resulted in some $100 billion of bonds being issued in California without a vote of the people consuming 12 percent of property tax revenue that’s being diverted from local schools to pay the principal and interest on the development debt.
With so much money and power at stake over the passage of a proposition, it would be nice if the voters and the press could understand who is supporting and opposing the measure. The opposition is easy enough to determine. There is only one committee opposed to Prop. 22. They’ve raised a little over $1 million and their donors are readily seen online.
In distinction, the supporters of Prop. 22 present an opaque picture. Their one committee has raised almost $4 million. Of their 425 contributors, one can see quite a few developers (as one would expect with redevelopment) and bond underwriters and attorneys (debt is big business, after all) – but the largest share of money, $1.67 million, comes from something called the “League of California Cities (Non-Public Funds)” account. The trouble with this account is that we know nothing of where the money originates. The League also gave another roughly half-million dollars for Prop. 22 from their PAC. At least the origins of much of that money is known: mostly trash haulers and other municipal services providers – although I’m sure it was a pure “coincidence” that PG&E donated $150,000 to the League’s political fund on the same day as their deadly San Bruno pipeline explosion.
The League of California Cities is a statewide lobbying group that many California cities pay dues to. As a lawmaker, I’ve tangled with them before, once having one of their lobbyists flat out lie to kill one of my bills (I came back the second year and got my bill to reform local licensing of family daycare centers passed.) After the League killed my bill for a year, I became more curious about where and how the League of Cities got its money to lobby, after all, it’s not like individual mayors and city council members were opening their own wallets to fund expensive Sacramento lobbying operations. This leaves one logical conclusion, the League of Cities mainly uses taxpayer dollars to lobby government – in other words, government lobbying government.
For that reason, I authored AB 1992 in 2008. AB 1992 would have made it abundantly clear that taxpayer funds were not to be used for political purposes. The League of Cities killed the bill in committee. During the hearing on AB 1992, League representatives explained that money for their “Non-Public Funds” account came from things like advertising in their magazine, Western City, as well as conference sponsorships and the like. But, the leaves open the question: who is paying the $1.67 million of freight on the League’s effort to pass Prop. 22?
Restrictions on campaign finance are contrary to our First Amendment free speech rights – that said, we should know who’s paying for the speech. California needs to amend its campaign disclosure laws so we know the origin of the money used to influence the voters in what remains America’s largest and most powerful state. We also need to tighten up the laws governing the ability of government to lobby government using taxpayer dollars.
Missouri: Russ Carnahan--Our Leprechaun In Washington, D.C.
From Gateway Pundit:
Russ Carnahan: Our Leprechaun in DC
Posted by Guest Contributor on Friday, October 29, 2010, 10:43 AM
By: Reboot Congress
In 2008 many American financial institutions were insolvent. Russ Carnahan voted to bailout these banks even though they were no longer economically viable. GM and Chrysler were on the verge on bankruptcy. Russ Carnahan voted to bail them out, too, even though they were no longer economically viable. Russ Carnahan voted for the stimulus. The same stimulus that would provide $107 million to Russ’s brother Tom’s wind farm. Of course, wind farms aren’t economically viable either, so that $107 million is a preemptive bailout to help stave off the economic realities of the market place. Russ Carnahan treats the public coffers as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to be distributed to favored businesses. He’s our leprechaun in DC. That’s why it is important to vote him out of office and vote in Republican Ed Martin next Tuesday.
Russ Carnahan: Our Leprechaun in DC
Posted by Guest Contributor on Friday, October 29, 2010, 10:43 AM
By: Reboot Congress
In 2008 many American financial institutions were insolvent. Russ Carnahan voted to bailout these banks even though they were no longer economically viable. GM and Chrysler were on the verge on bankruptcy. Russ Carnahan voted to bail them out, too, even though they were no longer economically viable. Russ Carnahan voted for the stimulus. The same stimulus that would provide $107 million to Russ’s brother Tom’s wind farm. Of course, wind farms aren’t economically viable either, so that $107 million is a preemptive bailout to help stave off the economic realities of the market place. Russ Carnahan treats the public coffers as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to be distributed to favored businesses. He’s our leprechaun in DC. That’s why it is important to vote him out of office and vote in Republican Ed Martin next Tuesday.
Florida: Marco Rubio Is The Second Hispanic Democrats Are Trying To Keep Down
From Big Govenment:
Marco Rubio is the Second Hispanic Democrats are Trying to Keep Downby Ken Klukowski
It’s been revealed that the Obama White House is trying to beat Marco Rubio to keep Hispanic-Americans from having a choice when it comes to political parties. This is the second time Democrats have done this, and the fact that they’re willing to take down another minority candidate to do so shows that it’s the Democrats, not Republicans, who are trying to keep minorities down in America today.
With the White House’s approval, President Bill Clinton tried to convince Congressman Kendrick Meek—an African-American Democrat—to drop out of the U.S. Senate race in Florida, and support independent (and former liberal Republican) Charlie Crist.
They did this for one reason: They want to deny minorities a choice, deceiving them into thinking that only the Democratic Party cares about minorities. They are happy to take down minority candidates—even Democratic candidates—to perpetuate this falsehood.
This is the second time Democrats have done this to a Hispanic. In 2001, Miguel Estrada was nominated to a seat on the nation’s second-highest federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Estrada was an American success story, a child immigrant from Honduras who didn’t speak English, who went on to be a top graduate from Columbia, then Harvard Law School, later clerking for the Supreme Court and serving under the U.S. solicitor general in both Democratic and Republican administrations. He’s a partner at Gibson Dunn, one of America’s top law firms.
Anyone who has seen Miguel Estrada argue before the Supreme Court can tell you he’s one of the best appellate lawyers in the country. He smoothly parries the toughest questions put to him by the justices, and does so with wit and ease. He’s simply brilliant.
Nominated to the D.C. Circuit while in his early forties, Democrats quickly realized that Estrada was being groomed for the U.S. Supreme Court. (Four of the nine justices were previously D.C. Circuit judges.) As I discuss in my book The Blueprint, another Hispanic who was a Senate staffer, Manuel Miranda, saw a Democratic strategy memo wherein Senate Democrats wrote that they would block Estrada to make sure a Republican president would never have the opportunity to nominate the first Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Democrats’ plan to keep Hispanics down worked. Estrada never got an up-or-down vote despite the fact that he would have been easily confirmed. Then Democratic President Barack Obama appointed the first Hispanic to the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This, despite the fact that Estrada is manifestly well-qualified; Justice Elena Kagan testified during her own confirmation hearings that Estrada would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.
There’s one more twist to this story, too. As shown in The Blueprint, it looks like Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin were pushing this race-motivated attempt to destroy Estrada. If Sharron Angle beats Harry Reid, Schumer and Durbin will fight it out to become the next Senate Leader for the Democrats.
Now Democrats are trying to do the same with Marco Rubio. The son of immigrants, Rubio’s final campaign ad about the generational choice Americans must make, telling his own moving story of parents who risked everything to provide a better life for their children, is magnificent. It’s the perfect picture of the American dream, as their 39-year old son is on the verge of becoming a United States senator in an inspiring example of how you can achieve anything in America, regardless of skin color, heritage or wealth.
The fact that the White House would push a black man to drop his own Senate bid shows where the Democratic Party truly stands on empowering minorities. They wanted the black man to drop out, and support the white man who’s not even a Democrat, in order to stop a Hispanic man just because that Hispanic-American happens to be Republican.
It’s still not clear whether the Democrats’ plan has backfired, as Democratic strategists are trying to use this disgraceful story as a signal to Florida Democrats that they need to vote for Crist. He may not be a Democrat, but at least he might stop a minority from rising to power outside the Democratic Party.
The candidacy of Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio sends a clear message to minority Americans, whether African-American or Hispanic: Give Republicans a chance, and they will give you a choice. Should he prevail on Tuesday, Senator Rubio will take that message to all immigrant and minority communities.
Marco Rubio is the Second Hispanic Democrats are Trying to Keep Downby Ken Klukowski
It’s been revealed that the Obama White House is trying to beat Marco Rubio to keep Hispanic-Americans from having a choice when it comes to political parties. This is the second time Democrats have done this, and the fact that they’re willing to take down another minority candidate to do so shows that it’s the Democrats, not Republicans, who are trying to keep minorities down in America today.
With the White House’s approval, President Bill Clinton tried to convince Congressman Kendrick Meek—an African-American Democrat—to drop out of the U.S. Senate race in Florida, and support independent (and former liberal Republican) Charlie Crist.
They did this for one reason: They want to deny minorities a choice, deceiving them into thinking that only the Democratic Party cares about minorities. They are happy to take down minority candidates—even Democratic candidates—to perpetuate this falsehood.
This is the second time Democrats have done this to a Hispanic. In 2001, Miguel Estrada was nominated to a seat on the nation’s second-highest federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Estrada was an American success story, a child immigrant from Honduras who didn’t speak English, who went on to be a top graduate from Columbia, then Harvard Law School, later clerking for the Supreme Court and serving under the U.S. solicitor general in both Democratic and Republican administrations. He’s a partner at Gibson Dunn, one of America’s top law firms.
Anyone who has seen Miguel Estrada argue before the Supreme Court can tell you he’s one of the best appellate lawyers in the country. He smoothly parries the toughest questions put to him by the justices, and does so with wit and ease. He’s simply brilliant.
Nominated to the D.C. Circuit while in his early forties, Democrats quickly realized that Estrada was being groomed for the U.S. Supreme Court. (Four of the nine justices were previously D.C. Circuit judges.) As I discuss in my book The Blueprint, another Hispanic who was a Senate staffer, Manuel Miranda, saw a Democratic strategy memo wherein Senate Democrats wrote that they would block Estrada to make sure a Republican president would never have the opportunity to nominate the first Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Democrats’ plan to keep Hispanics down worked. Estrada never got an up-or-down vote despite the fact that he would have been easily confirmed. Then Democratic President Barack Obama appointed the first Hispanic to the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This, despite the fact that Estrada is manifestly well-qualified; Justice Elena Kagan testified during her own confirmation hearings that Estrada would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.
There’s one more twist to this story, too. As shown in The Blueprint, it looks like Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin were pushing this race-motivated attempt to destroy Estrada. If Sharron Angle beats Harry Reid, Schumer and Durbin will fight it out to become the next Senate Leader for the Democrats.
Now Democrats are trying to do the same with Marco Rubio. The son of immigrants, Rubio’s final campaign ad about the generational choice Americans must make, telling his own moving story of parents who risked everything to provide a better life for their children, is magnificent. It’s the perfect picture of the American dream, as their 39-year old son is on the verge of becoming a United States senator in an inspiring example of how you can achieve anything in America, regardless of skin color, heritage or wealth.
The fact that the White House would push a black man to drop his own Senate bid shows where the Democratic Party truly stands on empowering minorities. They wanted the black man to drop out, and support the white man who’s not even a Democrat, in order to stop a Hispanic man just because that Hispanic-American happens to be Republican.
It’s still not clear whether the Democrats’ plan has backfired, as Democratic strategists are trying to use this disgraceful story as a signal to Florida Democrats that they need to vote for Crist. He may not be a Democrat, but at least he might stop a minority from rising to power outside the Democratic Party.
The candidacy of Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio sends a clear message to minority Americans, whether African-American or Hispanic: Give Republicans a chance, and they will give you a choice. Should he prevail on Tuesday, Senator Rubio will take that message to all immigrant and minority communities.
Alaska: Write-Ins Flood Alaska Senate Race In Response To Potential Court-Ruling That Lists May Be Required To Be Provided To Voters Of Write-In Candidate Names
From Big Government:
AP: Write-ins Flood Alaska Senate Race Listby Publius
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – The number of write-in candidates for Alaska’s U.S. Senate seat has swelled to about 150 amid an effort by conservatives to target the write-in candidacy of GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
The number by Thursday’s write-in deadline had grown from just a handful earlier this week.
Murkowski mounted her bid after losing the primary to tea-party backed Joe Miller, and some conservatives have urged Alaskans to make their own write-in runs
Those conservatives include Dan Riehl, who issued a call on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website to “highlight the chaos brought about by Lisa Murkowski’s seemingly unending quest for power” with her campaign.
It’s not immediately clear how many of those running did so because of the effort, though the write-in list includes people who’ve openly supported Miller.
AP: Write-ins Flood Alaska Senate Race Listby Publius
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – The number of write-in candidates for Alaska’s U.S. Senate seat has swelled to about 150 amid an effort by conservatives to target the write-in candidacy of GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
The number by Thursday’s write-in deadline had grown from just a handful earlier this week.
Murkowski mounted her bid after losing the primary to tea-party backed Joe Miller, and some conservatives have urged Alaskans to make their own write-in runs
Those conservatives include Dan Riehl, who issued a call on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website to “highlight the chaos brought about by Lisa Murkowski’s seemingly unending quest for power” with her campaign.
It’s not immediately clear how many of those running did so because of the effort, though the write-in list includes people who’ve openly supported Miller.
Arizona: Representative Social Democrat Progressive Arizona-Boycott Supporter Raul Grijalva Staffer Admits Stealing Opponent's Signs
From Freedom's Lighthouse and KGUN Channel 9, Tucson, Arizona:
3:28 PM (7 hours ago)Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva Staffer Admits He was Going to “Throw Away” Yard Signs of GOP Opponent – Video Reportfrom Freedom's Lighthouse by BrianHere is a video report out of Tucson, Arizona station KGUN on a campaign staffer for incumbent Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva reportedly taking some yard signs belonging to GOP candidate Ruth McClung and “putting them in his car.” The staffer reportedly admitted to the local TV reporter he was “going to throw them away.” McClung is challenging Grijalva in Arizon’a 7th Congressional District, once thought to be a shoe-in for Grijalva. But McClung is running strong. Right now, we have this race rated as a “tossup.”
Below is video of an interview McClung did with local station KGUN. She does not comment on this story, but the interview gives you a good idea of how capable this 28-year old is, and why she is running so strong against Grijalva.
http://www.kgun9.com/global/Category.asp?c=172043&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5241495&flvUri=&partnerclipid=
3:28 PM (7 hours ago)Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva Staffer Admits He was Going to “Throw Away” Yard Signs of GOP Opponent – Video Reportfrom Freedom's Lighthouse by BrianHere is a video report out of Tucson, Arizona station KGUN on a campaign staffer for incumbent Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva reportedly taking some yard signs belonging to GOP candidate Ruth McClung and “putting them in his car.” The staffer reportedly admitted to the local TV reporter he was “going to throw them away.” McClung is challenging Grijalva in Arizon’a 7th Congressional District, once thought to be a shoe-in for Grijalva. But McClung is running strong. Right now, we have this race rated as a “tossup.”
Below is video of an interview McClung did with local station KGUN. She does not comment on this story, but the interview gives you a good idea of how capable this 28-year old is, and why she is running so strong against Grijalva.
http://www.kgun9.com/global/Category.asp?c=172043&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5241495&flvUri=&partnerclipid=
U.S. House Of Representatives Projections Updated: GOP Moves Up To +64
From Freedom's Lighthouse:
U.S. House Projections Updated: GOP Moves Up to +64
In this afternoon’s update of our U.S. House Projections, we now have the GOP set for a 64-seat net gain in the upcoming Midterm Elections. That is an increase of three seats from yesterday’s update, the result of us moving four “tossup” races into the GOP column, and one “tossup” to the Democrats.
Race Rating Changes since last update:
GA2 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
OR5 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
HI1 = “Tossup” to “Dem Gain”
CT4 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
CT5 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
The 64-seat projected net gain is our largest so far. There seems to be some movement toward the GOP in these closing days of the campaign. We’ll have to see if that continues through the weekend, or if it begins to move back toward the Democrats in the last four days. With 33 races still rated as a “tossup,” the further potential for GOP gains is really staggering. Republicans need a net gain of 39-seats to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives. A gain of more than 39-seats is now virtually assured.
Check out all of our projections for the 148 races we list as “competitive races.”
2010 Competitive U.S. House Races – Projections
Updated: 10/29/10 – 3:15 PM CT
Current
179
256
GOP
Projected
243
192
+64
District
Republican
Democrat
Projection
AK – AL
*Don Young
Harry Crawford Jr.
GOP Hold
AL – 2
Martha Roby
*Bobby Bright
GOP Gain
AL – 5 (incumbent Griffith defeated in primary)
*Mo Brooks
Steve Raby
GOP Hold
AZ – 1
Paul Gosar
*Ann Kirkpatrick
GOP Gain
AZ – 3 (Open)
*Ben Quayle
Jon Hulburd
GOP Hold
AZ – 5
Dave Schweikert
*Harry Mitchell
GOP Gain
AZ – 7
Ruth McClung
*Raul Grijalva
Tossup
AZ – 8
Jesse Kelly
*Gabrielle Giffords
GOP Gain
AR – 1 (Open)
Rick Crawford
*Chad Causey
GOP Gain
AR – 2 (Open)
Tim Griffin
*Joyce Elliot
GOP Gain
AR – 4
Beth Anne Rankin
*Mike Ross
Dem Hold
CA – 3
*Dan Lungren
Amerish Bera
GOP Hold
CA – 11
David Harmer
*Jerry McNerney
GOP Gain
CA – 18
Mike Berryhill
*Dennis Cardoza
Tossup
CA – 20
Andy Vidak
*Jim Costa
GOP Gain
CA – 44
*Ken Calvert
Bill Hedrick
GOP Hold
CA – 45
*Mary Bono Mack
Steve Pougnet
GOP Hold
CA – 47
Van Tran
*Loretta Sanchez
Tossup
CA – 50
*Brian Bilbray
Francine Busby
GOP Hold
CO – 3
Scott Tipton
*John Salazar
GOP Gain
CO – 4
Cory Gardner
*Betsy Markey
GOP Gain
CO – 7
Ryan Frazier
*Ed Perlmutter
Tossup
CT – 1
Ann Brickley
*John Larson
Dem Hold
CT – 2
Janet Peckinpaugh
*Joe Courtney
Dem Hold
CT – 4
Dan Debicella
*Jim Himes
GOP Gain
CT – 5
Sam Caligiuri
*Chris Murphy
GOP Gain
DE – AL (Open)
*Glen Urquhart
John Carney Jr.
Dem Gain
FL – 2
Steve Southerland
*Allen Boyd
GOP Gain
FL – 8
Dan Webster
*Alan Grayson
GOP Gain
FL – 12 (Open)
*Dennis Ross
Lori Edwards
GOP Hold
FL – 13
*Vern Buchanan
James Golden
GOP Hold
FL – 16
*Tom Rooney
Jim Horn
GOP Hold
FL – 22
Allen West
*Ron Klein
GOP Gain
FL – 24
Sandy Adams
*Susan Kosmas
GOP Gain
FL – 25 (Open)
*David Rivera
Joe Garcia
GOP Hold
GA – 2
Mike Keown
*Sanford Bishop
GOP Gain
GA – 8
Austin Scott
*Jim Marshall
GOP Gain
GA – 12
Raymond McKinney
*John Barrow
Tossup
HI – 1
*Charles Djou
Colleen Hanabusa
Dem Gain
ID – 1
Raul Labrador
*Walter Minnick
Tossup
IL – 8
Joe Walsh
*Melissa Bean
Tossup
IL – 10 (Open)
*Robert Dold
Daniel Seals
Tossup
IL – 11
Adam Kinzinger
*Debbie Halvorson
GOP Gain
IL – 14
Randy Hultgren
*Bill Foster
GOP Gain
IL – 17
Bobby Schilling
*Phil Hare
GOP Gain
IN – 2
Jackie Walorski
*Joe Donnelly
Tossup
IN – 8 (Open – Ellsworth seat)
Dr. Larry Bucshon
*Trent Van Haaften
GOP Gain
IN – 9
Todd Young
*Baron Hill
GOP Gain
IA – 1
Ben Lange
*Bruce Braley
Tossup
IA – 2
M. Miller-Meeks
*David Loebsack
Dem Hold
IA – 3
Brad Zaun
*Leonard Boswell
Tossup
KS – 3 (Open)
Kevin Yoder
*Stephene Moore
GOP Gain
KS – 4 (Open)
*Mike Pompeo
Raj Goyle
GOP Hold
KY – 3
Todd Lally
*John Yarmuth
Tossup
KY – 6
Andy Barr
*Ben Chandler
Tossup
LA – 2
*Joseph Cao
Cedric Richmond
Dem Gain
LA – 3 (Open)
Jeff Landry
*Ravi Sangisetty
GOP Gain
ME – 1
Dean Scontras
*Chellie Pingree
Tossup
MD – 1
Andy Harris
*Frank Kratovil, Jr.
GOP Gain
MA – 4
Sean Bielat
*Barney Frank
Dem Hold
MA – 5
Jon Golnik
*Niki Tsongas
Dem Hold
MA – 6
Bill Hudak
*John Tierney
Dem Hold
MA – 10 (Open – Delahunt retiring)
Jeff Perry
*William Keating
Tossup
MI – 1 (Open, Stupak Retiring)
Dr. Daniel Benishek
*Gary McDowell
GOP Gain
MI – 7
Tim Walberg
*Mark Shauer
GOP Gain
MI – 9
Andrew Raczkowski
*Gary Peters
Tossup
MI – 15
Rob Steele
*John Dingell
Dem Hold
MN – 1
Randy Demmer
*Tim Walz
Dem Hold
MN – 6
*Michele Bachmann
Tarryl Clark
GOP Hold
MN – 8
Chip Cravaack
*Jim Oberstar
Dem Hold
MS – 1
Alan Nunnelee
*Travis Childers
GOP Gain
MS – 4
Steven Palazzo
*Gene Taylor
GOP Gain
MO – 3
Ed Martin
*Russ Carnahan
Dem Hold
MO – 4
Vicky Hartzler
*Ike Skelton
Tossup
MO – 5
Jacob Turk
*Emanuel Cleaver
Dem Hold
ND – AL
Rick Berg
*Earl Pomeroy
GOP Gain
NE – 2
*Lee Terry
Tom White
GOP Hold
NV – 3
Dr. Joseph Heck
*Dina Titus
GOP Gain
NH – 1
Frank Guinta
*Carol Shea-Porter
GOP Gain
NH – 2 (Open)
Charles Bass
*Ann Kuster
GOP Gain
NJ – 3
John Runyan
*John Adler
GOP Gain
NJ – 6
Anna Little
*Frank Pallone
Tossup
NJ – 12
Scott Sipprelle
*Rush Holt
Dem Hold
NM – 1
Jon Barela
*Martin Heinrich
Tossup
NM – 2
Steve Pearce
*Harry Teague
GOP Gain
NM – 3
Tom Mullins
*Ben Ray Lujan
Dem Hold
NY – 1
Randy Altschuler
*Tim Bishop
Tossup
NY – 4
Fran Becker
*Carolyn McCarthy
Tossup
NY – 13
Mike Grimm
*Mike McMahon
Tossup
NY – 19
Nan Hayworth
*John Hall
GOP Gain
NY – 20
Chris Gibson
*Scott Murphy
GOP Gain
NY – 22
George Phillips
*Maurice Hinchey
Dem Hold
NY – 23
Matthew Doheny
(Doug Hoffman on ballot as Conservative Party nominee, but campaign suspended; calls on supporters to vote for Doheny)
*Bill Owens
GOP Gain
NY – 24
Richard Hanna
*Michael Arcuri
Tossup
NY – 25
Ann Marie Buerkle
*Dan Maffei
Tossup
NY – 27
Leonard Roberto
*Brian Higgins
Dem Hold
NY – 29 (Open – Eric Massa resigned)
Thomas Reed
*Matthew Zeller
GOP Gain
NC – 2
Renee Elmers
*Bob Etheridge
GOP Gain
NC – 7
Ilario Pantano
*Mike McIntyre
Tossup
NC – 8
Harold Johnson
*Larry Kissell
GOP Gain
NC – 11
Jeff Miller
*Heath Shuler
Tossup
OH – 1
Steve Chabot
*Steve Driehaus
GOP Gain
OH – 2
*Jean Schmidt
Surya Yalamanchili
GOP Hold
OH – 6
Bill Johnson
*Charlie Wilson
GOP Gain
OH – 12
*Patrick Tiberi
Paula Brooks
GOP Hold
OH – 13
Thomas Ganley
*Betty Sue Sutton
Dem Hold
OH – 15
Steve Stivers
*Mary Jo Kilroy
GOP Gain
OH – 16
Jim Renacci
*John Boccieri
GOP Gain
OH – 18
Bob Gibbs
*Zack Space
GOP Gain
OK – 2
Charles Thompson
*Dan Boren
Dem Hold
OR – 1
Rob Cornilles
*David Wu
Dem Hold
OR – 4
Art Robinson
*Pete DeFazio
Dem Hold
OR – 5
Scott Bruun
*Kurt Schrader
GOP Gain
PA – 3
Mike Kelly
*Kathy Dahlkemper
GOP Gain
PA – 4
Keith Rothfus
*Jason Altmire
Dem Hold
PA – 6
*Jim Gerlach
Manan Trivedi
GOP Hold
PA – 7 (Open – Sestak Senate)
Patrick Meehan
*Bryan Lentz
GOP Gain
PA – 8
Mike Fitzpatrick
*Patrick Murphy
GOP Gain
PA – 10
Tom Marino
*Chris Carney
GOP Gain
PA – 11
Lou Barletta
*Paul Kanjorski
GOP Gain
PA – 12 (Special – Murtha Death)
Tim Burns
*Mark Critz
GOP Gain
PA – 15
*Charlie Dent
John Callahan
GOP Hold
PA – 17
David Argall
*Tim Holden
Dem Hold
RI – 1 (Patrick Kennedy retiring)
John Loughlin, II
*David Cicilline
Tossup
SC – 1 (Open)
*Tim Scott
Ben Frasier
GOP Hold
SC – 5
Mick Mulvaney
*John Spratt
GOP Gain
SD – AL
Kristi Noem
*S. Herseth-Sandlin
GOP Gain
TN – 4
Dr. Scott DesJarlais
*Lincoln Davis
GOP Gain
TN – 5
David Hall
*Jim Cooper
Dem Hold
TN – 6 (Open)
Diane Black
*Brett Carter
GOP Gain
TN – 8 (Open)
Stephen Fincher
*Roy Herron
GOP Gain
TX – 17
Bill Flores
*Chet Edwards
GOP Gain
TX – 23
Francisco “Quico” Canseco
*Ciro Rodriguez
GOP Gain
TX – 27
Blake Farenthold
*Solomon Ortiz
Tossup
VA – 2
Scott Rigell
*Glenn Nye
GOP Gain
VA – 5
Robert Hurt
*Tom Perriello
GOP Gain
VA – 9
Morgan Griffith
*Rick Boucher
Tossup
VA – 11
Keith Fimian
*Gerald Connolly
Tossup
WA – 2
John Koster
*Rick Larsen
Tossup
WA – 3 (Open)
Jaime Herrera
*Denny Heck
GOP Gain
WA – 6
Doug Cloud
*Norm Dicks
Dem Hold
WA – 8
*Dave Reichert
Suzan DelBene
GOP Hold
WA – 9
Dick Muri
*Adam Smith
Tossup
WV – 1 (Dem inc. district – Inc. Mollohan defeted)
David McKinley
*Michael Olivario, II
GOP Gain
WV – 3
Elliot Maynard
*Nick Joe Rahall, II
Dem Hold
WI – 3
Dan Kapanke
*Ronald Kind
Tossup
WI – 7 (OPEN – David Obey Retiring)
Sean Duffy
*Julie Lassa
GOP Gain
WI – 8
Reid Ribble
*Steve Kagen
GOP Gain
TOTALS
148 Competitive House Races
24 GOP Seats
124 Dem Seats
GOP Gain – 67
Dem Gain – 03
Tossup – 33
Net GOP Gain
+64
U.S. House Projections Updated: GOP Moves Up to +64
In this afternoon’s update of our U.S. House Projections, we now have the GOP set for a 64-seat net gain in the upcoming Midterm Elections. That is an increase of three seats from yesterday’s update, the result of us moving four “tossup” races into the GOP column, and one “tossup” to the Democrats.
Race Rating Changes since last update:
GA2 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
OR5 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
HI1 = “Tossup” to “Dem Gain”
CT4 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
CT5 = “Tossup” to “GOP Gain”
The 64-seat projected net gain is our largest so far. There seems to be some movement toward the GOP in these closing days of the campaign. We’ll have to see if that continues through the weekend, or if it begins to move back toward the Democrats in the last four days. With 33 races still rated as a “tossup,” the further potential for GOP gains is really staggering. Republicans need a net gain of 39-seats to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives. A gain of more than 39-seats is now virtually assured.
Check out all of our projections for the 148 races we list as “competitive races.”
2010 Competitive U.S. House Races – Projections
Updated: 10/29/10 – 3:15 PM CT
Current
179
256
GOP
Projected
243
192
+64
District
Republican
Democrat
Projection
AK – AL
*Don Young
Harry Crawford Jr.
GOP Hold
AL – 2
Martha Roby
*Bobby Bright
GOP Gain
AL – 5 (incumbent Griffith defeated in primary)
*Mo Brooks
Steve Raby
GOP Hold
AZ – 1
Paul Gosar
*Ann Kirkpatrick
GOP Gain
AZ – 3 (Open)
*Ben Quayle
Jon Hulburd
GOP Hold
AZ – 5
Dave Schweikert
*Harry Mitchell
GOP Gain
AZ – 7
Ruth McClung
*Raul Grijalva
Tossup
AZ – 8
Jesse Kelly
*Gabrielle Giffords
GOP Gain
AR – 1 (Open)
Rick Crawford
*Chad Causey
GOP Gain
AR – 2 (Open)
Tim Griffin
*Joyce Elliot
GOP Gain
AR – 4
Beth Anne Rankin
*Mike Ross
Dem Hold
CA – 3
*Dan Lungren
Amerish Bera
GOP Hold
CA – 11
David Harmer
*Jerry McNerney
GOP Gain
CA – 18
Mike Berryhill
*Dennis Cardoza
Tossup
CA – 20
Andy Vidak
*Jim Costa
GOP Gain
CA – 44
*Ken Calvert
Bill Hedrick
GOP Hold
CA – 45
*Mary Bono Mack
Steve Pougnet
GOP Hold
CA – 47
Van Tran
*Loretta Sanchez
Tossup
CA – 50
*Brian Bilbray
Francine Busby
GOP Hold
CO – 3
Scott Tipton
*John Salazar
GOP Gain
CO – 4
Cory Gardner
*Betsy Markey
GOP Gain
CO – 7
Ryan Frazier
*Ed Perlmutter
Tossup
CT – 1
Ann Brickley
*John Larson
Dem Hold
CT – 2
Janet Peckinpaugh
*Joe Courtney
Dem Hold
CT – 4
Dan Debicella
*Jim Himes
GOP Gain
CT – 5
Sam Caligiuri
*Chris Murphy
GOP Gain
DE – AL (Open)
*Glen Urquhart
John Carney Jr.
Dem Gain
FL – 2
Steve Southerland
*Allen Boyd
GOP Gain
FL – 8
Dan Webster
*Alan Grayson
GOP Gain
FL – 12 (Open)
*Dennis Ross
Lori Edwards
GOP Hold
FL – 13
*Vern Buchanan
James Golden
GOP Hold
FL – 16
*Tom Rooney
Jim Horn
GOP Hold
FL – 22
Allen West
*Ron Klein
GOP Gain
FL – 24
Sandy Adams
*Susan Kosmas
GOP Gain
FL – 25 (Open)
*David Rivera
Joe Garcia
GOP Hold
GA – 2
Mike Keown
*Sanford Bishop
GOP Gain
GA – 8
Austin Scott
*Jim Marshall
GOP Gain
GA – 12
Raymond McKinney
*John Barrow
Tossup
HI – 1
*Charles Djou
Colleen Hanabusa
Dem Gain
ID – 1
Raul Labrador
*Walter Minnick
Tossup
IL – 8
Joe Walsh
*Melissa Bean
Tossup
IL – 10 (Open)
*Robert Dold
Daniel Seals
Tossup
IL – 11
Adam Kinzinger
*Debbie Halvorson
GOP Gain
IL – 14
Randy Hultgren
*Bill Foster
GOP Gain
IL – 17
Bobby Schilling
*Phil Hare
GOP Gain
IN – 2
Jackie Walorski
*Joe Donnelly
Tossup
IN – 8 (Open – Ellsworth seat)
Dr. Larry Bucshon
*Trent Van Haaften
GOP Gain
IN – 9
Todd Young
*Baron Hill
GOP Gain
IA – 1
Ben Lange
*Bruce Braley
Tossup
IA – 2
M. Miller-Meeks
*David Loebsack
Dem Hold
IA – 3
Brad Zaun
*Leonard Boswell
Tossup
KS – 3 (Open)
Kevin Yoder
*Stephene Moore
GOP Gain
KS – 4 (Open)
*Mike Pompeo
Raj Goyle
GOP Hold
KY – 3
Todd Lally
*John Yarmuth
Tossup
KY – 6
Andy Barr
*Ben Chandler
Tossup
LA – 2
*Joseph Cao
Cedric Richmond
Dem Gain
LA – 3 (Open)
Jeff Landry
*Ravi Sangisetty
GOP Gain
ME – 1
Dean Scontras
*Chellie Pingree
Tossup
MD – 1
Andy Harris
*Frank Kratovil, Jr.
GOP Gain
MA – 4
Sean Bielat
*Barney Frank
Dem Hold
MA – 5
Jon Golnik
*Niki Tsongas
Dem Hold
MA – 6
Bill Hudak
*John Tierney
Dem Hold
MA – 10 (Open – Delahunt retiring)
Jeff Perry
*William Keating
Tossup
MI – 1 (Open, Stupak Retiring)
Dr. Daniel Benishek
*Gary McDowell
GOP Gain
MI – 7
Tim Walberg
*Mark Shauer
GOP Gain
MI – 9
Andrew Raczkowski
*Gary Peters
Tossup
MI – 15
Rob Steele
*John Dingell
Dem Hold
MN – 1
Randy Demmer
*Tim Walz
Dem Hold
MN – 6
*Michele Bachmann
Tarryl Clark
GOP Hold
MN – 8
Chip Cravaack
*Jim Oberstar
Dem Hold
MS – 1
Alan Nunnelee
*Travis Childers
GOP Gain
MS – 4
Steven Palazzo
*Gene Taylor
GOP Gain
MO – 3
Ed Martin
*Russ Carnahan
Dem Hold
MO – 4
Vicky Hartzler
*Ike Skelton
Tossup
MO – 5
Jacob Turk
*Emanuel Cleaver
Dem Hold
ND – AL
Rick Berg
*Earl Pomeroy
GOP Gain
NE – 2
*Lee Terry
Tom White
GOP Hold
NV – 3
Dr. Joseph Heck
*Dina Titus
GOP Gain
NH – 1
Frank Guinta
*Carol Shea-Porter
GOP Gain
NH – 2 (Open)
Charles Bass
*Ann Kuster
GOP Gain
NJ – 3
John Runyan
*John Adler
GOP Gain
NJ – 6
Anna Little
*Frank Pallone
Tossup
NJ – 12
Scott Sipprelle
*Rush Holt
Dem Hold
NM – 1
Jon Barela
*Martin Heinrich
Tossup
NM – 2
Steve Pearce
*Harry Teague
GOP Gain
NM – 3
Tom Mullins
*Ben Ray Lujan
Dem Hold
NY – 1
Randy Altschuler
*Tim Bishop
Tossup
NY – 4
Fran Becker
*Carolyn McCarthy
Tossup
NY – 13
Mike Grimm
*Mike McMahon
Tossup
NY – 19
Nan Hayworth
*John Hall
GOP Gain
NY – 20
Chris Gibson
*Scott Murphy
GOP Gain
NY – 22
George Phillips
*Maurice Hinchey
Dem Hold
NY – 23
Matthew Doheny
(Doug Hoffman on ballot as Conservative Party nominee, but campaign suspended; calls on supporters to vote for Doheny)
*Bill Owens
GOP Gain
NY – 24
Richard Hanna
*Michael Arcuri
Tossup
NY – 25
Ann Marie Buerkle
*Dan Maffei
Tossup
NY – 27
Leonard Roberto
*Brian Higgins
Dem Hold
NY – 29 (Open – Eric Massa resigned)
Thomas Reed
*Matthew Zeller
GOP Gain
NC – 2
Renee Elmers
*Bob Etheridge
GOP Gain
NC – 7
Ilario Pantano
*Mike McIntyre
Tossup
NC – 8
Harold Johnson
*Larry Kissell
GOP Gain
NC – 11
Jeff Miller
*Heath Shuler
Tossup
OH – 1
Steve Chabot
*Steve Driehaus
GOP Gain
OH – 2
*Jean Schmidt
Surya Yalamanchili
GOP Hold
OH – 6
Bill Johnson
*Charlie Wilson
GOP Gain
OH – 12
*Patrick Tiberi
Paula Brooks
GOP Hold
OH – 13
Thomas Ganley
*Betty Sue Sutton
Dem Hold
OH – 15
Steve Stivers
*Mary Jo Kilroy
GOP Gain
OH – 16
Jim Renacci
*John Boccieri
GOP Gain
OH – 18
Bob Gibbs
*Zack Space
GOP Gain
OK – 2
Charles Thompson
*Dan Boren
Dem Hold
OR – 1
Rob Cornilles
*David Wu
Dem Hold
OR – 4
Art Robinson
*Pete DeFazio
Dem Hold
OR – 5
Scott Bruun
*Kurt Schrader
GOP Gain
PA – 3
Mike Kelly
*Kathy Dahlkemper
GOP Gain
PA – 4
Keith Rothfus
*Jason Altmire
Dem Hold
PA – 6
*Jim Gerlach
Manan Trivedi
GOP Hold
PA – 7 (Open – Sestak Senate)
Patrick Meehan
*Bryan Lentz
GOP Gain
PA – 8
Mike Fitzpatrick
*Patrick Murphy
GOP Gain
PA – 10
Tom Marino
*Chris Carney
GOP Gain
PA – 11
Lou Barletta
*Paul Kanjorski
GOP Gain
PA – 12 (Special – Murtha Death)
Tim Burns
*Mark Critz
GOP Gain
PA – 15
*Charlie Dent
John Callahan
GOP Hold
PA – 17
David Argall
*Tim Holden
Dem Hold
RI – 1 (Patrick Kennedy retiring)
John Loughlin, II
*David Cicilline
Tossup
SC – 1 (Open)
*Tim Scott
Ben Frasier
GOP Hold
SC – 5
Mick Mulvaney
*John Spratt
GOP Gain
SD – AL
Kristi Noem
*S. Herseth-Sandlin
GOP Gain
TN – 4
Dr. Scott DesJarlais
*Lincoln Davis
GOP Gain
TN – 5
David Hall
*Jim Cooper
Dem Hold
TN – 6 (Open)
Diane Black
*Brett Carter
GOP Gain
TN – 8 (Open)
Stephen Fincher
*Roy Herron
GOP Gain
TX – 17
Bill Flores
*Chet Edwards
GOP Gain
TX – 23
Francisco “Quico” Canseco
*Ciro Rodriguez
GOP Gain
TX – 27
Blake Farenthold
*Solomon Ortiz
Tossup
VA – 2
Scott Rigell
*Glenn Nye
GOP Gain
VA – 5
Robert Hurt
*Tom Perriello
GOP Gain
VA – 9
Morgan Griffith
*Rick Boucher
Tossup
VA – 11
Keith Fimian
*Gerald Connolly
Tossup
WA – 2
John Koster
*Rick Larsen
Tossup
WA – 3 (Open)
Jaime Herrera
*Denny Heck
GOP Gain
WA – 6
Doug Cloud
*Norm Dicks
Dem Hold
WA – 8
*Dave Reichert
Suzan DelBene
GOP Hold
WA – 9
Dick Muri
*Adam Smith
Tossup
WV – 1 (Dem inc. district – Inc. Mollohan defeted)
David McKinley
*Michael Olivario, II
GOP Gain
WV – 3
Elliot Maynard
*Nick Joe Rahall, II
Dem Hold
WI – 3
Dan Kapanke
*Ronald Kind
Tossup
WI – 7 (OPEN – David Obey Retiring)
Sean Duffy
*Julie Lassa
GOP Gain
WI – 8
Reid Ribble
*Steve Kagen
GOP Gain
TOTALS
148 Competitive House Races
24 GOP Seats
124 Dem Seats
GOP Gain – 67
Dem Gain – 03
Tossup – 33
Net GOP Gain
+64
Kentucky: Rand Paul Now Up By Twelve Over Jack Conway
From Fire Andrea Mitchell:
4:40 PM (6 hours ago)Rand Paul now up by twelve over Jack Conwayfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminLets begin singing early.
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY, GOODBYE JACKASS!
This is the real Kentucky Head Stomp, except the head is Jack Conway’s chances of beating Rand Paul. Maybe I shouldn’t get too cocky with still a few days to ago, especially knowing all the dirty tactics progressives will try and use to steal this election. According to the latest Rasmussen Poll, Rand Poll leads Conway 53% to 41%. Slimy Bill Clinton is headed to Kentucky on Monday to campaign for Conway in a last ditch effort to try and help the fading Democrat. I’m sure he’ll have plenty of cigars on hand.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul with 53% support to Conway’s 41%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
After narrowing somewhat last week, the race moves back to where it’s been for most of the year. As a result, it’s moving back from Leans Republican to Solid Republican in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings. In 12 surveys prior to last week, Paul had led by seven to 15 points each time, earning 46% to 59% of the vote. Conway, Kentucky’s current attorney general, picked up 34% to 42% support in those same surveys
4:40 PM (6 hours ago)Rand Paul now up by twelve over Jack Conwayfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminLets begin singing early.
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY, GOODBYE JACKASS!
This is the real Kentucky Head Stomp, except the head is Jack Conway’s chances of beating Rand Paul. Maybe I shouldn’t get too cocky with still a few days to ago, especially knowing all the dirty tactics progressives will try and use to steal this election. According to the latest Rasmussen Poll, Rand Poll leads Conway 53% to 41%. Slimy Bill Clinton is headed to Kentucky on Monday to campaign for Conway in a last ditch effort to try and help the fading Democrat. I’m sure he’ll have plenty of cigars on hand.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul with 53% support to Conway’s 41%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
After narrowing somewhat last week, the race moves back to where it’s been for most of the year. As a result, it’s moving back from Leans Republican to Solid Republican in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings. In 12 surveys prior to last week, Paul had led by seven to 15 points each time, earning 46% to 59% of the vote. Conway, Kentucky’s current attorney general, picked up 34% to 42% support in those same surveys
Delaware: Christine O'Donnell Moving Up In Delaware; Down Ten But Leading Among Independents
From Freedom's Lighthouse:
Christine O’Donnell Moving Up in Delaware; Down 10 but Leading Among Indys
Christine O’Donnell is back within 10-points (51%-41%) of Democrat Chris Coons in a Monmouth University Poll on the Delaware U.S. Senate race. But the numbers inside the poll are even more interesting and hopeful for O’Donnell.
She is now leading in the Southern areas of the state by a 49%-43% margin. Just a few weeks ago, that margin for her was only 47%-46%. Also, among independents, O’Donnell is now leading Coons 47%-42%. If she can continue moving that margin up the next several days, and if the turnout for Coons is not strong, it could wind up being a real race in Delaware – far closer than anyone would have thought just a few days ago.
Even more evidence O’Donnell is getting too close for comfort for Democrats – Obama will campaign for Coons and other Democrats in Philadelphia on Saturday – whose media covers nearby Delaware.
And, related from The American Spectator:
4:59 PM (5 hours ago)Rallying to Christine O'Donnellfrom The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog by Quin HillyerReaders here may remember that I was unimpressed with Christine O'Donnell. Well, forget all that. The nasty account at Gawker featuring some guy's first-hand account of an alleged semi-sexual encounter with O'Donnell is such a vile infringement on privacy as to make all decent men feel a chivalrous urge to rush to her defense. Nobody deserves such treatment as Gawker gave her.
But you know what else? It also makes me respect O'Donnell more. Forgive me walking up to the fine line of re-infringing on her privacy in order to make my point, but here's the deal: How many late-30s, single women do you know who, while allegedly drunk, on Halloween, with a guy she is attracted to, would crawl into bed with the guy and, in that drunken condition..... make it clear that she won't, uh, do the deed? It takes a rare conscience to remain true to one's stated principles in a situation where it would be most easy to make excuses for failing one's principles. This isn't a commentary on her principles, or morals, themselves, but on her sincerity and devotion to them. Christine O'Donnell has been mercilessly mocked for talking so openly for so long about remaining celibate. But according to this guy's account, she really means it. Not only that, but she then allegedly dated this guy's friend for a full year and STILL didn't succumb.
Commitment publicly made, commitment privately honored.
Even as this sleazoid told his tale to embarrass O'Donnell, she emerges with her integrity intact. Integrity is a precious commodity. At least in this instance, if it is a true account, O'Donnell emerges not diminished but enhanced. Bless her heart.
Mike Castle should get over even his legitimate complaints about O'Donnell's primary campaign. He should surprise everybody this weekend by endorsing her. It would be an act of supreme graciousness on his part. It is a graciousness all people of good will should want to extend to her now.
Here's hoping she has a good day on Tuesday, and that she doesn't come out of this election embittered and bereft. And may she always hold fast to her principles, both political and personal. She's doing pretty well at it so far.
And, from Gateway Pundit:
10:53 PM (4 minutes ago)Hmm… Barack Obama Rushing to Delaware to Campaign for Coons This Weekendfrom Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftBut… But… This was supposed to be a lock?
Christine O’Donnell sliced the Bearded Marxist‘s lead in half in one week.
That’s weird. Barack Obama is rushing back to blue state Delaware to campaign with Chris Coons this weekend.
Via American Glob:
RUSH: Obama is back to Delaware tomorrow. There is a new poll. The Monmouth University poll. Christine O’Donnell is within ten points. Two weeks ago she was down 57-38. She is within ten points. Coons has backed out of the final two debates, and in the Monmouth University poll, Christine O’Donnell is winning independents 47 to 42. In Delaware, there are a lot of Democrats fed up with the direction of the country who are going to vote Republican or who aren’t going to vote.
Chris Coons was sued three times in 2007 for retaliating against public employees for their political views.
Christine O’Donnell Moving Up in Delaware; Down 10 but Leading Among Indys
Christine O’Donnell is back within 10-points (51%-41%) of Democrat Chris Coons in a Monmouth University Poll on the Delaware U.S. Senate race. But the numbers inside the poll are even more interesting and hopeful for O’Donnell.
She is now leading in the Southern areas of the state by a 49%-43% margin. Just a few weeks ago, that margin for her was only 47%-46%. Also, among independents, O’Donnell is now leading Coons 47%-42%. If she can continue moving that margin up the next several days, and if the turnout for Coons is not strong, it could wind up being a real race in Delaware – far closer than anyone would have thought just a few days ago.
Even more evidence O’Donnell is getting too close for comfort for Democrats – Obama will campaign for Coons and other Democrats in Philadelphia on Saturday – whose media covers nearby Delaware.
And, related from The American Spectator:
4:59 PM (5 hours ago)Rallying to Christine O'Donnellfrom The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog by Quin HillyerReaders here may remember that I was unimpressed with Christine O'Donnell. Well, forget all that. The nasty account at Gawker featuring some guy's first-hand account of an alleged semi-sexual encounter with O'Donnell is such a vile infringement on privacy as to make all decent men feel a chivalrous urge to rush to her defense. Nobody deserves such treatment as Gawker gave her.
But you know what else? It also makes me respect O'Donnell more. Forgive me walking up to the fine line of re-infringing on her privacy in order to make my point, but here's the deal: How many late-30s, single women do you know who, while allegedly drunk, on Halloween, with a guy she is attracted to, would crawl into bed with the guy and, in that drunken condition..... make it clear that she won't, uh, do the deed? It takes a rare conscience to remain true to one's stated principles in a situation where it would be most easy to make excuses for failing one's principles. This isn't a commentary on her principles, or morals, themselves, but on her sincerity and devotion to them. Christine O'Donnell has been mercilessly mocked for talking so openly for so long about remaining celibate. But according to this guy's account, she really means it. Not only that, but she then allegedly dated this guy's friend for a full year and STILL didn't succumb.
Commitment publicly made, commitment privately honored.
Even as this sleazoid told his tale to embarrass O'Donnell, she emerges with her integrity intact. Integrity is a precious commodity. At least in this instance, if it is a true account, O'Donnell emerges not diminished but enhanced. Bless her heart.
Mike Castle should get over even his legitimate complaints about O'Donnell's primary campaign. He should surprise everybody this weekend by endorsing her. It would be an act of supreme graciousness on his part. It is a graciousness all people of good will should want to extend to her now.
Here's hoping she has a good day on Tuesday, and that she doesn't come out of this election embittered and bereft. And may she always hold fast to her principles, both political and personal. She's doing pretty well at it so far.
And, from Gateway Pundit:
10:53 PM (4 minutes ago)Hmm… Barack Obama Rushing to Delaware to Campaign for Coons This Weekendfrom Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftBut… But… This was supposed to be a lock?
Christine O’Donnell sliced the Bearded Marxist‘s lead in half in one week.
That’s weird. Barack Obama is rushing back to blue state Delaware to campaign with Chris Coons this weekend.
Via American Glob:
RUSH: Obama is back to Delaware tomorrow. There is a new poll. The Monmouth University poll. Christine O’Donnell is within ten points. Two weeks ago she was down 57-38. She is within ten points. Coons has backed out of the final two debates, and in the Monmouth University poll, Christine O’Donnell is winning independents 47 to 42. In Delaware, there are a lot of Democrats fed up with the direction of the country who are going to vote Republican or who aren’t going to vote.
Chris Coons was sued three times in 2007 for retaliating against public employees for their political views.
Vote Fraud Is Essential To Democrats
From Human Events:
Rush Limbaugh: Vote Fraud Essential to Democrats
by Connie Hair
10/28/2010
Giving insight as only the Great Maha Rushie can, Rush Limbaugh put some sunlight on yet another scheme to interfere in America's ability to self-govern by left-wing billionaire George Soros. Rush points out that even a small influx of cash into your state Secretary of State race can make a huge difference. Something to ponder.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Let me illustrate for you just how essential vote fraud is to the Democrat Party. George Soros sank a lot of money into a project called the Secretary of State Project, starting in 2006. Have you ever heard of the Secretary of State Project? (interruption) That's why you're the screener and why I am the host. The Secretary of State Project had a goal, and the goal was to put as many Democrats into the offices of secretary of state in the states as possible because they're the ones who adjudicate all of the vote fraud cases. They are the ones who count the votes. The secretary of state. The secretary of state, in all of the states, is the guy or the woman who decide on claims of voter fraud.
This is how we got Al Franken as a Senator from Minnesota. A Democrat secretary of state determined the vote count, how it was going to happen, when it was gonna stop, what votes were valid and what votes weren't. You know where they got the idea for this? They got the idea for the Secretary of State Project shortly after the 2004 election when a bunch of Democrats thought they lost Ohio, thought that John Kerry lost Ohio because of Ken Blackwell, who was the Republican secretary of state in Ohio. Now, the haughty Kerry (who once served in Vietnam) lost Ohio by 55,000 votes, and they're running around saying, "Man, if he'd-a had those 55,000 votes, why, we'd-a won! We'd-a won! We'd-a won the election in 2004."
It reminded me of the Democrat convention in San Francisco 1984. I was sent out there to cover it. The radio station I was working for wanted to get me outta town and get off the air my commentary. So they sent me out there to do so-called coverage, and I went to a cocktail party, a Democrat bigwig cocktail party some hotel. Dick Gephardt was there from Missouri. I went up and said hi, accidentally had some food come out of my mouth when I was talking to him. I apologized for it, and I ran into... (interruption) It's not spit. You know how chicken fingers somehow you get some crumbs in there and you're speaking and pshew! it flies out of there like that? It's totally accidental. (interruption) I did not spit on Dick Gephardt! I did not spit. It was an accident.
It's like stage spit. You know what stage spit is? It's part of performing. You know, I was so excited to see Gephardt, that's what I told him, that I didn't swallow before starting to speak to him. He smiled. And after I ran into a Democrat Party bigwig from Sikeston, Missouri, 30 miles south of my hometown in Cape Girardeau. We're talking seriously about the election. This is the convention where they nominated Mondull. And this guy from Sikeston, a family friend of ours and a nice guy, actually said: "You spot me 75, a hundred electoral votes, I can win this election." I said, "Well, isn't that what it's all about? (laughing) Spot you 75 or a hundred electoral votes?" So John Kerry, with a 55,000 vote deficit blaming Ken Blackwell for it, the secretary of state.
So that's where the Secretary of State Project got started, and it was rigged. The founder is a bunch of Democrats and George Soros sunk a lot of money into this. They raised a total of, I think, $500,000 for the 2006 secretary of state candidates that they supported. Now, most Americans don't understand the importance of the secretary of state. I mean, what's a secretary of state? Most people don't know what Hillary does except get out of town during elections. Secretary of state generally... Most people think the secretary of state flies over and mediates disputes between the Israelis and Palestinians and goes to funerals. It's even less knowledge of what a state secretary of state does.
They have no clue. So, you know, people running for that office don't draw very much attention, not very many donations. Consequently, even a modest injection of cash into those races can elect and be the determining factor in who wins. And so this idea was to get as many Democrats in that position. Regardless who the governor was, regardless the state legislature, get a Democrat holding office as the secretary of state, and then charge vote fraud, do all kinds of things, and have that person be the one who determines the outcome. Now, this is a party. This indicates, illustrates how essential vote fraud is to the Democrat Party, and it's exactly how we ended up with Al Franken.
So keep a sharp eye on all -- and remember, now, what spawned it was not cheating. They just got the idea. Ken Blackwell refused to have recounts and some places. I forget what it was, but 55,000 votes in the state, that is not close but the Democrats thought they got the shaft in Ohio. What they really said was, "If the secretary of state had been a Democrat we might have been able to swing that state for Kerry and won the presidency." That's what they realized. So you people keep a sharp eye on secretary of state elections in your state and practically reflexively, automatically vote Republican in every damn one of them, regardless whatever else is going on in the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.
Rush Limbaugh: Vote Fraud Essential to Democrats
by Connie Hair
10/28/2010
Giving insight as only the Great Maha Rushie can, Rush Limbaugh put some sunlight on yet another scheme to interfere in America's ability to self-govern by left-wing billionaire George Soros. Rush points out that even a small influx of cash into your state Secretary of State race can make a huge difference. Something to ponder.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Let me illustrate for you just how essential vote fraud is to the Democrat Party. George Soros sank a lot of money into a project called the Secretary of State Project, starting in 2006. Have you ever heard of the Secretary of State Project? (interruption) That's why you're the screener and why I am the host. The Secretary of State Project had a goal, and the goal was to put as many Democrats into the offices of secretary of state in the states as possible because they're the ones who adjudicate all of the vote fraud cases. They are the ones who count the votes. The secretary of state. The secretary of state, in all of the states, is the guy or the woman who decide on claims of voter fraud.
This is how we got Al Franken as a Senator from Minnesota. A Democrat secretary of state determined the vote count, how it was going to happen, when it was gonna stop, what votes were valid and what votes weren't. You know where they got the idea for this? They got the idea for the Secretary of State Project shortly after the 2004 election when a bunch of Democrats thought they lost Ohio, thought that John Kerry lost Ohio because of Ken Blackwell, who was the Republican secretary of state in Ohio. Now, the haughty Kerry (who once served in Vietnam) lost Ohio by 55,000 votes, and they're running around saying, "Man, if he'd-a had those 55,000 votes, why, we'd-a won! We'd-a won! We'd-a won the election in 2004."
It reminded me of the Democrat convention in San Francisco 1984. I was sent out there to cover it. The radio station I was working for wanted to get me outta town and get off the air my commentary. So they sent me out there to do so-called coverage, and I went to a cocktail party, a Democrat bigwig cocktail party some hotel. Dick Gephardt was there from Missouri. I went up and said hi, accidentally had some food come out of my mouth when I was talking to him. I apologized for it, and I ran into... (interruption) It's not spit. You know how chicken fingers somehow you get some crumbs in there and you're speaking and pshew! it flies out of there like that? It's totally accidental. (interruption) I did not spit on Dick Gephardt! I did not spit. It was an accident.
It's like stage spit. You know what stage spit is? It's part of performing. You know, I was so excited to see Gephardt, that's what I told him, that I didn't swallow before starting to speak to him. He smiled. And after I ran into a Democrat Party bigwig from Sikeston, Missouri, 30 miles south of my hometown in Cape Girardeau. We're talking seriously about the election. This is the convention where they nominated Mondull. And this guy from Sikeston, a family friend of ours and a nice guy, actually said: "You spot me 75, a hundred electoral votes, I can win this election." I said, "Well, isn't that what it's all about? (laughing) Spot you 75 or a hundred electoral votes?" So John Kerry, with a 55,000 vote deficit blaming Ken Blackwell for it, the secretary of state.
So that's where the Secretary of State Project got started, and it was rigged. The founder is a bunch of Democrats and George Soros sunk a lot of money into this. They raised a total of, I think, $500,000 for the 2006 secretary of state candidates that they supported. Now, most Americans don't understand the importance of the secretary of state. I mean, what's a secretary of state? Most people don't know what Hillary does except get out of town during elections. Secretary of state generally... Most people think the secretary of state flies over and mediates disputes between the Israelis and Palestinians and goes to funerals. It's even less knowledge of what a state secretary of state does.
They have no clue. So, you know, people running for that office don't draw very much attention, not very many donations. Consequently, even a modest injection of cash into those races can elect and be the determining factor in who wins. And so this idea was to get as many Democrats in that position. Regardless who the governor was, regardless the state legislature, get a Democrat holding office as the secretary of state, and then charge vote fraud, do all kinds of things, and have that person be the one who determines the outcome. Now, this is a party. This indicates, illustrates how essential vote fraud is to the Democrat Party, and it's exactly how we ended up with Al Franken.
So keep a sharp eye on all -- and remember, now, what spawned it was not cheating. They just got the idea. Ken Blackwell refused to have recounts and some places. I forget what it was, but 55,000 votes in the state, that is not close but the Democrats thought they got the shaft in Ohio. What they really said was, "If the secretary of state had been a Democrat we might have been able to swing that state for Kerry and won the presidency." That's what they realized. So you people keep a sharp eye on secretary of state elections in your state and practically reflexively, automatically vote Republican in every damn one of them, regardless whatever else is going on in the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.
It's Beginning To Look Like A Republican Senate in 2010
From Human Events:
97
Comments It Looks Like a Republican Senate in 2010
by John Gizzi
10/28/2010
Goodbye Harry Reid. With November 2 almost here, signs are increasingly strong that Republicans will win at least the ten Senate seats they need to increase their present 41-seat minority to a majority of at least 51 and elect the Senate leader for the first time since 2006.
Because of special elections to fill out terms in Delaware, New York and West Virginia, there are an unusually high 37 Senate seats to be decided on by voters—18 held by Republicans, 19 by Democrats.
The ten Republican senators seeking re-election should all win handily: Shelby (Ala.), McCain (Ariz.), Isakson (Ga.), Crapo (Idaho), Grassley (Iowa), Vitter (La.), Burr (N.C.), Coburn (Okla.), DeMint (S.C.) and Thune (S.D.).
Republicans should also hold onto the five seats being relinquished by these GOP senators: LeMieux (Fla.), Brownback (Kan.), Bunning (Ky.), Bond (Mo.), Gregg (N.H.) and Voinovich (Ohio).
In two other states, Republican senators were denied renomination. Attorney Joe Miller should win the three-way race in Alaska (in which defeated GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski is waging a write-in candidacy) and Utah, where lawyer Mike Lee is a cinch to succeed the senator he defeated at the state GOP convention, Robert Bennett.
Of the 12 Democratic senators who are running, six should win: Inouye (Hawaii), Mikulski (Md.), Schumer (N.Y.), Gillibrand (N.Y.), Wyden (Ore.) and Leahy (Vt).
In four states, however, Democratic senators are likely to be defeated:
Arkansas: The most likely seat to go from Republican to Democrat, with Rep. John Boozman leading Sen. Blanche Lincoln by 10-to-20 percentage points in polls.
Colorado: The Rasmussen Poll gives Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck a 50% to 45% edge over appointed Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.
Nevada: With some polls showing this race a tie and others giving Republican former state legislator Sharron Angle a slight edge, the 14% unemployment and high number of foreclosures point to Angle’s unseating Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
Wisconsin: A CNN/Time poll shows GOP businessman Ron Johnson maintaining his 52%-to-44% lead (over Sen. Russ Feingold.
The defeat of these four senators would increase Republican strength in the Senate from 41 to 45.
Republicans should make net gains in five other states where Democratic senators are stepping down:
Connecticut: Republican candidate Linda McMahon, a World Wrestling Entertainment magnate, has used $25 million of her own wealth and strong debate performances to fight Democratic State Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal to a standstill for the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd.
Illinois: Despite some bad publicity about misstating his military record, GOP Rep. Mark Kirk leads State Treasurer and Obama friend Alex Giannoulias and has a wave of resentment against Democratic corruption in the statehouse on his side.
Indiana: Former GOP Sen. Dan Coats has a big lead (51% to 33% in a WISH-TV poll) over Rep. Brad Ellsworth for the seat of Ellsworth’s fellow Democrat, retiring Sen. Evan Bayh.
North Dakota: An easy GOP pickup, as GOP Gov. John Hoeven holds a lead of 30-plus points over Democrat Tracy Potter in the race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan.
West Virginia: Having appointed fellow Democrat Carte Goodwin to succeed late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd for the rest of this year, Gov. James Manchin, now running for the full term, finds himself trailing Republican businessman John Raese in the Rasmussen Poll 49% to 46%.
These five GOP pickups would leave the Senate with 50 seats held by each major party.
In the only state where a Democratic senator lost renomination—Pennsylvania, where Sen. Arlen Specter lost the May primary to Rep. Joe Sestak—Republican Pat Toomey continues to hold a comfortable lead over Sestak. A Toomey victory would give Republicans the 51 seats needed for a majority in the Senate.
Other GOP Possibilities
This list of Republican gains does not include California (where Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is battling businesswoman Carly Fiorina), Delaware (the nationally watched contest between conservative Republican Christine O’Donnell and liberal Democrat Chris Coons) and Washington State (where Democratic Sen. Patty Murray is in a tight race with former gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi). A Republican victory in any of these contests for seats currently in Democratic hands would increase GOP ranks in the next Senate even more.
For now, it seems a good bet to say the next Senate will have 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and two Independents who vote with the Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gizzi is Political Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97
Comments It Looks Like a Republican Senate in 2010
by John Gizzi
10/28/2010
Goodbye Harry Reid. With November 2 almost here, signs are increasingly strong that Republicans will win at least the ten Senate seats they need to increase their present 41-seat minority to a majority of at least 51 and elect the Senate leader for the first time since 2006.
Because of special elections to fill out terms in Delaware, New York and West Virginia, there are an unusually high 37 Senate seats to be decided on by voters—18 held by Republicans, 19 by Democrats.
The ten Republican senators seeking re-election should all win handily: Shelby (Ala.), McCain (Ariz.), Isakson (Ga.), Crapo (Idaho), Grassley (Iowa), Vitter (La.), Burr (N.C.), Coburn (Okla.), DeMint (S.C.) and Thune (S.D.).
Republicans should also hold onto the five seats being relinquished by these GOP senators: LeMieux (Fla.), Brownback (Kan.), Bunning (Ky.), Bond (Mo.), Gregg (N.H.) and Voinovich (Ohio).
In two other states, Republican senators were denied renomination. Attorney Joe Miller should win the three-way race in Alaska (in which defeated GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski is waging a write-in candidacy) and Utah, where lawyer Mike Lee is a cinch to succeed the senator he defeated at the state GOP convention, Robert Bennett.
Of the 12 Democratic senators who are running, six should win: Inouye (Hawaii), Mikulski (Md.), Schumer (N.Y.), Gillibrand (N.Y.), Wyden (Ore.) and Leahy (Vt).
In four states, however, Democratic senators are likely to be defeated:
Arkansas: The most likely seat to go from Republican to Democrat, with Rep. John Boozman leading Sen. Blanche Lincoln by 10-to-20 percentage points in polls.
Colorado: The Rasmussen Poll gives Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck a 50% to 45% edge over appointed Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.
Nevada: With some polls showing this race a tie and others giving Republican former state legislator Sharron Angle a slight edge, the 14% unemployment and high number of foreclosures point to Angle’s unseating Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
Wisconsin: A CNN/Time poll shows GOP businessman Ron Johnson maintaining his 52%-to-44% lead (over Sen. Russ Feingold.
The defeat of these four senators would increase Republican strength in the Senate from 41 to 45.
Republicans should make net gains in five other states where Democratic senators are stepping down:
Connecticut: Republican candidate Linda McMahon, a World Wrestling Entertainment magnate, has used $25 million of her own wealth and strong debate performances to fight Democratic State Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal to a standstill for the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd.
Illinois: Despite some bad publicity about misstating his military record, GOP Rep. Mark Kirk leads State Treasurer and Obama friend Alex Giannoulias and has a wave of resentment against Democratic corruption in the statehouse on his side.
Indiana: Former GOP Sen. Dan Coats has a big lead (51% to 33% in a WISH-TV poll) over Rep. Brad Ellsworth for the seat of Ellsworth’s fellow Democrat, retiring Sen. Evan Bayh.
North Dakota: An easy GOP pickup, as GOP Gov. John Hoeven holds a lead of 30-plus points over Democrat Tracy Potter in the race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan.
West Virginia: Having appointed fellow Democrat Carte Goodwin to succeed late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd for the rest of this year, Gov. James Manchin, now running for the full term, finds himself trailing Republican businessman John Raese in the Rasmussen Poll 49% to 46%.
These five GOP pickups would leave the Senate with 50 seats held by each major party.
In the only state where a Democratic senator lost renomination—Pennsylvania, where Sen. Arlen Specter lost the May primary to Rep. Joe Sestak—Republican Pat Toomey continues to hold a comfortable lead over Sestak. A Toomey victory would give Republicans the 51 seats needed for a majority in the Senate.
Other GOP Possibilities
This list of Republican gains does not include California (where Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is battling businesswoman Carly Fiorina), Delaware (the nationally watched contest between conservative Republican Christine O’Donnell and liberal Democrat Chris Coons) and Washington State (where Democratic Sen. Patty Murray is in a tight race with former gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi). A Republican victory in any of these contests for seats currently in Democratic hands would increase GOP ranks in the next Senate even more.
For now, it seems a good bet to say the next Senate will have 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and two Independents who vote with the Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gizzi is Political Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)