REACTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT'S POST-ELECTION PRESS CONFERENCE

Look at what we've done! A hearty congratulations goes out to all conservatives and tea partiers for a job well done. It was historic, and a devastating blow against communism, socialism, marxism and all the other unsuccessful big government ism's out there. Through all the tears, aches and pains suffered over the last two years -- we have been triumphant.

Not since 1938, has there been such a blowout, and all the negative attacks by the press, the libs, and especially the soon-to-be-gone 'moderate' Republicans, cannot dim the light of this bright and shining victory.

The National Journal reported today that the GOP picked up 680 seats in state legislatures across the country, and now hold more seats than at any time since 1928. It far exceeds the 472 seats in the 1994 "Contract With America" blowout with a 52 seat pick up in the House, and the post-Watergate 628 Democrat seat pickup in 1974.

And yet, Obama is in complete and utter denial. Again, he blames an ignorant and mis-informed people for his "shellacking", and insists the election in no way is a reflection on him or his policies, but rather on a weak economy.

Really?

This conservative victory means more than meets the eye, for the 10 Republican Governor pickup means the all important redistricting process will play a huge part in the 2012 election.

So, while there were a few heart-breakers in the momentous 2010 election, there are so many reasons to be grateful and proud. It reminded me of the disappointment I felt when Ronald Reagan lost the presidential nomination in 1976, and why he is so loved to this day. His words were powerful then, and appropriate now -- so take heart, keep your spirits high, and keep up the great. Three cheers for all. You deserve it.

If anyone forgot why Ronald Reagan became the greatest president in modern times, here's one of many examples. This is a speech he gave as he bid farewell to his campaign staff after his second defeat for the presidential nomination: (h/t Mark Levin)

"Sure there's disappointment in what happened, but the cause.... the cause goes on. Don't get cynical ...because, look at yourselves, at what you were willing to do, and recognise that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a shining city on a hill."

It brought tears to my eyes, and then he wrote --

We fought, we dreamed, and the dream is still with us.
Ronald Reagan



Keith Hennessey writes an excellent piece about Obama's post-election speech, his off-the-mark, carefully structured, sharp words, which "foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address".

Reactions to the President's Post-Election Press Conference
by Keith Hennessey - November 3, 2010

Here are my initial reactions to important economic policy elements of the President’s press conference.

The President argued the electoral losses were the result of a continued weak economy and his inability to convince voters that he had made things better quickly enough. He repeatedly ducked the question of whether his policies contributed to the Democrats’ devastating losses. Two conclusions are consistent with ducking this question: (1) he thinks his policies did not hurt Democrats on Election Day; or (2) he knows they hurt Democrats but doesn’t want to admit it because doing so would further risk the policy gains he has achieved. I find it very hard to imagine (1), but I misjudged him last January and as a result I incorrectly concluded he would stop pushing for health care reform, so I lack confidence in my ability to discern between the two.

---------------------------------------------------------

He did not acknowledge learning anything from the election or that he was in any way surprised by the result. In contrast he surprised me with the word “confirmed”:

And yesterday’s vote confirmed what I’ve heard from folks all across America: People are frustrated — they’re deeply frustrated — with the pace of our economic recovery and the opportunities that they hope for their children and their grandchildren.

Given this answer, I’d like to ask him “Were you surprised by Tuesday’s results?”

--------------------------------------------------------

The initial press reaction was that the President “took responsibility for the losses.” The precise words in his prepared statement were, however, artfully phrase:

Over the last two years, we’ve made progress. But, clearly, too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday. And as President, I take responsibility for that.

The President took responsibility only for “too many Americans [not feeling] progress yet.” That’s a minor concession, along the lines of “We didn’t communicate our policies well.” He conceded nothing about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of his economic policies, nor about the unpopularity of stimulus, health care, or cap-and-trade.

---------------------------------------------------------

In a prepared statement as important as this one, no language is accidental. These sentences foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address:

But what I think the American people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future: reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we’re making the investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy.

and

In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world. To win that competition, and to continue our economic leadership, we’re going to need to be strong and we’re going to need to be united.

He also tends to connect economic competitiveness with domestic infrastructure, R&D, and education spending. This linkage is not accidental.

-------------------------------------------------------

He tried to erect a firewall around the health care laws:

And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.

Yet for several months he has been refighting (is that a word?) the tax rate battle of ten years earlier, and his entire economic message has been a backward-looking complaint and a relitigation of the policies and conditions he “inherited.”

--------------------------------------------------------

He floated a few areas of potential bipartisan agreement:

•the looming tax increases;
•energy:

◦expanding domestic natural gas supply;
◦energy efficiency;
◦“how we build electric cars”;
◦expanding nuclear power;

•education;
•limiting appropriations earmarks;
•fixing one tax provision in the health care laws that hurts small businesses;
•infrastructure spending; and
•immediate (and temporary) expensing of business investment.

------------------------------------------------------

He acknowledged that legislation pricing carbon is dead for the foreseeable future. In doing so he acknowledged a well-established conventional wisdom, but it’s still significant when the President says it. His “this year” language should kill silly speculation about a lame duck Congress trying to enact cap-and-trade in 2010, and his “… or the year after…” language takes cap-and-trade off the table through the remainder of this Presidential term.

I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year. And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.

He also signaled a willingness to trade legislative action on “clean energy” with dialing back (or prohibiting?) EPA from regulating greenhouse gases:

So I think it’s too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. I think we can. Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.

And I think EPA wants help from the legislature on this. I don’t think that the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here. I think what they want to do is make sure that the issue is being dealt with.

-------------------------------------------------------

Finally, on the question of looming tax increases he signaled that “this is something that has to be done during the lame duck session,” and he made no negative statements about extending all the rates. When asked directly “So you’re willing to negotiate?” he replied “Absolutely.” In upcoming days I’ll write about potential paths to a tax deal.


Keith Hennessey served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush from August 2002 through the first three weeks of 2009.

THIS IS A REFERENDUM, NOT AN ELECTION

We heard him say it with our own ears -- My name is not on the ballot, but my agenda is. In all his speeches, across the fruited plain, for over two years, before a cherry-picked adoring audience, it's always about him. "My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out," Obama said Tuesday afternoon during an appearance on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show. Is he saying this election is a referendum on him? Sounds like.

On the other hand, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had another message: "They can't talk about their record," he said on Monday in a radio appearance. "You know, this election is going to be a referendum on their job-killing policies."

This is the stand that Democrats must play because they cannot stand on their issues. Most of us will never forget that wintry cold Sunday night back in March when they eeked out enough votes to pass Obamacare by two. Most of us will never forget how they did it. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, and why November 2nd is so critical to us. This destruction has been going on for decades.

Basically, it's not any one thing the libs have done, but a sum of its parts. This overreach is a pattern of Democrats, but never on such a grand scale. Another reason why Nov 2nd is more a referendum than an election.

Dennis Prager writes a great piece on this 'Referendum', and what will happen if the Democrats are allowed to continue along this path of destruction. It's an inspiration to get out and vote, to get your neighbors, friends, and family [even foes, if you can convince them) to follow. Our nation depends on it.

P.S. Thought and prayers to Carly Fiorina, and happy to hear you're back out there -- on your way to a historic win!

This Is a Referendum, Not an Election
by Dennis Prager - October 26, 2010

Next Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day.

It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is "the most important election in our lifetime" or something analogous. But having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, this commentator cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

The reason is that unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America.

If the Democrats win:

-- The American people have announced, consciously or not, that they support the Democratic Party's "fundamental transformation" -- those were President Obama's words when he campaigned, and he has lived up to them -- of America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

-- America will change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth.

The left has never been primarily interested in creating wealth. Its primary goal always and everywhere has been to redistribute it. That so many businessmen and much of Wall Street are only now awakening to this fact is only a testament to the staggering lack of wisdom in big business.

-- America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens.

For proof, just look at the virtual shutdown of much of France and the ubiquitous rioting of vast numbers of its citizens over a tiny change in its welfare state -- raising the age of retirement from 60 to 62. The idea that one will work two more years before receiving benefits until death so offends vast numbers of French -- including young people who have every reason to believe they will live until the age of 100 -- that they are fighting it as if their very lives were in jeopardy. That is the self-centeredness that all welfare states engender in their citizens.

-- America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims -- who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state.

Latinos, blacks, Muslims, gays and vast numbers of women have been told by the left and its political party that they are all persecuted by a country that is SIXHIRB -- Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist and Bigoted. That America is the least SIXHIRB country in the world is a fact that has been all but drowned out by the left-wing domination of television and print news media, all the entertainment media, and the high schools and universities.

-- America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial, and religious backgrounds

With a Democratic victory the country's very motto -- E Pluribus Unum, "Out of Many One" -- will continue to erode as ethnic and racial identities rather one American identity are increasingly celebrated. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced that Germany's experiment with multiculturalism has "utterly failed," but the left and its political party, the Democrats, have redoubled their efforts to supplant E Pluribus Unum with multiculturalism.

-- America will continue its economic slide.

With a Democratic victory, unsustainable debts will mount, wealth-producing companies will continue to flee from higher taxes and more regulations, energy use will be taxed in the name of environmentalist utopianism, and the government will continue to print dollars.

-- America will become increasingly secular.

With a Democratic victory, the left's goal of rendering America's other motto, "In God We Trust," an anachronism will come closer to fruition. Leftism is a jealous god. As in Western Europe, the Judeo-Christian roots of this country are ceasing to play the indispensible moral role they have played since before 1776.

And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections.

In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory.

Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs. It was above all about America.

Read more Dennis Prager columns here.

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

As the Nov 2nd elections are finally within reach, we are witnessing the onslaught of a herd of wolves in sheep's clothing. Suddenly the Democrats are talking like conservatives, but their voting records show these people are lying.

Will Americans be fooled this time? Will they fall for the smooth talking leftists who cannot run on their victories over the past 20 months? Say it ain't so, Joe.

The left voted over 90% of the time with either Pelosi, Reid, Obama, or all three and these three are perfectly happy to be temporarily dissed, as long as the Democrat candidates win, so that they can maintain the absolute power they have enjoyed over the past miserable 20 months.

Shows how strongly they stand behind their principles.

In her Eagle Forum, the quick-witted and knowledgeable Phyllis Schlafly lays out some excellent questions that should be asked of ALL candidates -- of both parties -- to help make that final decision where to cast their vote.

Questions for Congressional Candidates
by Phyllis Schlafly - October 8, 2010

We look forward to the 2010 elections in the hope that we can decisively reject Barack Obama's plans to "fundamentally transform the United States." Here are some questions voters can ask all candidates to help decide whom to vote for.

• Will you vote against all tax increases and new taxes?
• Will you vote to extend all the Republican tax cuts?
• Will you vote to cut federal spending to the pre-bailout level?
• Will you vote to abolish the death tax without passing a new tax (called "carryover basis") on the sale of inherited property?
• Will you pledge to vote to repeal Obamacare?
• Will you vote for legislation providing that all health plans receiving federal tax benefits include the availability of high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts?
• Will you pledge to enact a government-wide ban on the funding of abortions in any health plan that receives federal benefits?
• Will you pledge to vote against any form of amnesty for illegal aliens?
• Will you vote to cut off funds for the Attorney General to sue to get a judge to knock out Arizona's popular immigration-enforcement law?
• Will you vote to require employers to use the E-Verify system to verify the Social Security numbers of their employees?
• Will you order the federal government to build the fence on our southern border as legislated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006?
• Will you send U.S. troops to our southern border to prevent illegal entry?
• Will you vote for legislation providing that no judge can force the government to communicate with anyone in a language other than English?
• Will you vote for legislation requiring that aliens seeking to enter or remain in the United States must renounce a belief in jihad, sharia, polygamy, child marriage, arranged marriage, "honor" killings, and female genital mutilation?
• Will you vote to prohibit Mexican trucks on U.S. roads?
• Will you vote to stop giving the benefits of U.S. citizenship to babies ("anchor babies") born to illegal aliens?
• Will you vote for legislation repealing EMTALA (which requires hospitals to provide free medical care to illegal aliens) and limiting Plyler v. Doe (which requires public schools to give a free education to the children of illegal aliens)?
• Will you vote against any bills that exceed the enumerated constitutional powers of Congress?
• Will you vote to prohibit the use of taxpayers' funds for any activity designed to promote economic or political union with North America or any foreign countries?
• Will you pledge to vote No on increased federal involvement in education?
• Will you urge congressional committee chairmen to hold public hearings on the grab for legislative powers by supremacist judges, and then take appropriate action to require the judiciary to respect the separation of powers?
• Will you vote to tie federal school appropriations to informed, written parental consent for curricula, surveys, classes or books that may be privacy-invading or offensive to religion or conscience?
• Will you vote to defund Planned Parenthood?
• Will you pledge to vote No on any attempt to repeal DOMA?
• Will you support the right of all fit parents to the care, custody, and control of the upbringing of their children, even if parents are divorced?
• Will you vote No on any effort to revive the so-called Equal Rights Amendment and on any legislation implying that the ERA, which expired in 1982, is still somehow viable?
• Will you vote against repeal of the law that forbids open homosexuals from serving in our military?
• Will you oppose any and all proposals for a national Constitutional Convention (known as a Con Con)?
• Will you oppose any attempt to bypass the Electoral College by a vote-transfer deceit called National Popular Vote?
• Will you vote against any legislation to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state and entitled to a state's representation in Congress?
• Will you vote No on any carbon tax or cap-and-trade bill?
• Will you vote to eliminate the ban on our favorite light bulbs?
• Will you vote No on Card Check that eliminates the secret ballot in workers' elections?
• Will you vote for legislation providing that actions claiming a violation of the Establishment Clause shall not be eligible for an award of attorney's fees?

Questions especially for Senate candidates:

• Will you vote No on the New START Treaty, which would restrict our right to build anti-missile defenses?
• Will you vote No on the UN Law of the Sea Treaty?
• Will you vote No on the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child?
• Will you vote No on the UN Treaty on Women (known as CEDAW)?
• Will you vote against any judicial nominee who espouses the unconstitutional theories of a "living" or "evolving" Constitution, or an "activist" judiciary?

The more Yes answers to these questions, the more support the candidate deserves.

Read previous Phyllis Schlafly columns

WHAT WAS BEFORE IS AGAIN

We are going to start hearing all about a Democrat surge in the weeks and days before our November 2nd historic elections -- especially in light of the highly successful Communist/Socialist gathering of Oct 2nd at our nation's capitol. And you can believe that, as much as a Democrat surge.

CSPAN used an 8-28 rally photo (here) for this Socialist gathering and later had to pull it because they were exposed.  Just goes to show you that the real media is taking hold. It also shows the left is openly embracing their socialist/communist identity.

These people are so desperate, the gloves are coming off (as usual) and the stuff will be slinging right and left -- pun intended. This is where the biased mainstream media will play their most important role to date -- misleading the American people in a pivotal mid-term election.

In case some of us have forgotten, and younger voters have been programmed by the liberal education system, Erick Erickson points out in Red State:

What Was Before Is Again
by Erick Erickson - October 4, 2010

The New York Times ran an article over the weekend that the House of Representatives is still not in the hands of the GOP. A Newsweek survey came out with an oddity of a generic ballot answer. Gallup has been jumping all over the place.

Had I a show, I’d say “roll the tape.” Instead, you’ll have to settle for this.

Here’s Charlie Cook’s review of the October generic ballot data trickling out:

In polls by the Gallup Organization for CNN and USA Today, among all adult Americans, Republicans have now been ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot test in all five surveys taken since mid-August. In the most recent poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, Republicans had a 3-point advantage among registered voters, 48 to 45 percent.

A CBS News poll … among registered voters still found a narrow one-point Democratic edge, 42 to 41 percent, but that’s compared to a 10-point Democratic advantage in October 1992.

An … ABC News poll found a 3-point Republican advantage among adults nationwide, 47 to 44 percent, compared to a 6-point GOP edge in both September and August ABC/Washington Post polls.

Tim Curran in Roll Call noted, “[A] slew of late polls show key races tightening around the country” and there were “indications of a slight Democratic comeback last week.”

Hotline reported “recent polls showing Dems even or leading in generic ballot questions” and asked Bill Kristol for comment. Kristol said, “Republicans have not gotten as many votes across the nation as Democrats in a Congressional race in 40 years.”

Margaret Carlson is on television saying of the GOP’s insurgency, “The corks were popped a little early.”

David Lauter, writing in the Los Angeles Times, reports

Asked which party can do a better job on the country’s major problems, 36% favored Republicans, 29% chose Democrats and 15% said neither party….

The GOP holds similar edges on individual issues, including crime, welfare reform, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Even on health care, where the Democrats once enjoyed a large margin, the two sides are now even, at 38%, with 14% saying that neither party is up to the job.

The GOP edge generally has not come about because Republicans have won major improvements in their ratings as problem-solvers. Instead, respondents turned away from the Democrats, dropping their ratings. Moreover, the percentage saying they think that neither party can handle the nation’s problems has risen.

Yes, yes, the nation hates the GOP, but wants the GOP in charge.

Now, here’s the catch — all of those stories were from October of 1994 ranging from 4 weeks to a week before the November 8, 1994, sweep of the GOP.

The polls were tightening. The Democrats were again neck and neck with the GOP in 1994. Not only that, but the economy had improved. The recession was not only declared over, but employment was significantly on the rise.

The President was on the campaign trail in October of 1994 trying to rev up black voters and telling people not to go back to the era of George Bush. Same this year.

On October 9, 1994, a month out from the November 8, 1994 election, the Washington Post’s Kevin Merida wrote, “One matchup pits William Frist (R), a wealthy heart-lung transplant surgeon from Nashville, against Sen. Jim Sasser (D), an 18-year veteran who chairs the Budget Committee and is making a strong bid to be the next Senate majority leader. Though some polls have showed the race tightening, several independent analysts doubt that Frist has enough to knock Sasser out. But he is trying.”

Bill Frist won the race 56% to 42%.

Read more Erick Erickson here.

2010 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CALENDAR

"Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy night" (ALL ABOUT EVE 1950)

And so, each election Tuesday will be one bumpy night after another, until November 3, 2010. Holy cow!  Counting the days. (hat tip Political Wire)

The complete 2010 calendar, so we all can participate in one way or another.  All elections are critical, and we can all make a difference. Schedule your vacations around them, as we have painfully learned -- elections have consequences:

February 2
•Illinois

March 2
•Texas

April 13
•Texas run-off

May 4
•Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio

May 11
•Nebraska, West Virginia

May 18
•Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania

May 25
•Idaho

June 1
•Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico

June 8
•California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Arkansas run-off

June 22
•Utah, North Carolina run-off, Mississippi run-off, South Carolina run-off

June 29
•South Dakota run-off

July 13
•Alabama run-off

July 20
•Georgia

July 27
•Oklahoma

August 3
•Kansas, Michigan, Missouri

August 5
•Tennessee

August 10
•Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia run-off

August 17
•Washington, Wyoming (NOTE for California: 15th District runoff)

August 24
•Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma run-off

August 28
•Louisiana

September 14
•Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin

September 18
•Hawaii

October 2
•Louisiana run-off

GOP ON TRACK TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM JAWS OF VICTORY

The recent primaries have unleashed a miriad of emotions, which must be paralleled to a sign of our time. Never in our short history has there been such turmoil, and that is not to diminish the very difficult times America has fought herself through. You have to admit that what we witnessed this past week is a first, and has infuriated the majority of American citizens. It's almost as though this was planned by a cunning and crafty president.

We have become a nation severely divided, thanks to the president, who was annointed to be post-racial, when, in fact, the opposite is true. Obama prepped and allowed a foreign dignitary, President Calderon of Mexico, to trash the United States of America on the floor of a Joint Session of Congress, while the radical left congressional members gave him a standing ovation, including AG Holder and HS Napolitano.

He has a lot of nerve to lecture us, while his own country has far more stringent laws, and whose own country is in turmoil. Thank God for Senator McClintock, who did not let this attack go unanswered.

Americans are desperate to reverse this train wreck towards socialism, but in their desperation, conservatives are becoming unraveled. This cannot happen, or we are surely looking at an endless term of Obamanites. Rather than looking at the mainstream media's affliction towards conservatives, we should focus on the positive and concentrate on what to do between now and this coming November's critical elections. Let's not put the cart before the horse, or count our chickens before they're hatched.

We will get there, but we cannot run amuck. Ann Coulter writes her take on the primaries in World Net Daily. She is always good for a picker-upper:


GOP on Track to Snatch Defeat From Jaws of Victory
by Ann Coulter, May 20, 2010

Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!

That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.

Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.

The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!

But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as the New York Times reported.

The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat, and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.

Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!

Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate Obamacare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?

Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.

Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.

For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.

Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.

Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.

Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."

For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.

How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.

No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.

Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey – what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?

As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"

As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.

Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.

After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)

But now we find out from a front-page article in the New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" – he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.

He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)

Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!

Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.

Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor – who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.

But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!


Ann Coulter, well-known for her TV appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Catch her most recent book GUILTY: LIBERAL 'VICTIMS' AND THEIR ASSAULT ON AMERICA, now in paperback, here.

WHAT MOTIVATES OBAMA: LEFTIST TURNOUT

The best way to catch a fox is to understand their lay of the land. Obama is one crafty dude, not that intelligent, but very cunning. By now, we know how well he sets the stage: race baiting; strawmen à la the big bad banks, the awful insurance companies, those thieving pharmaceuticals, and let's not forget Goldman Sachs, who single-handedly caused the economic downfall of 2008. Strawmen.

I fear we have just seen the tip of the iceberg, if you can believe that. In the desperate weeks and months before this November's elections, we will see some pretty amazing new moves, but wait til 2012. I shudder to think, but we must -- because it's just too critical. Knowledge is power, and we can succeed, the smarter and more prepared we get.


Dick Morris gives us some useful insights worth saving for that rainy day:

WHAT MOTIVATES OBAMA: LEFTIST TURNOUT
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, May 5, 2010

Why is Obama vilifying FOX News? Why does Harry Reid push an immigration bill he knows can't pass? Why won't Schumer compromise on regulatory reform and why does he try to hang Goldman Sachs around the GOP? Why did Bill Clinton blame conservatives who oppose big government for the Oklahoma City bombing?

All share one motivation: To increase their base's turnout in the off year elections of 2010. Going after FOX News stimulates a feeling of victimization on the left. The immigration bill and the new Arizona law catalyzes a Latino turnout. Goldman Sachs enrages liberal anti-Wall Street populists. By characterizing the Tea Party activists as dangerous, liberals are aroused to vote in November.

There are two ways to win any election: energize the base or appeal to the center. Obama is, predictably, choosing the former, deliberately pushing policies that drive Independents into Republican arms as the price for generating passion on the part of his supporters.

Turnout in presidential year elections averages about 20 points higher than in off-year legislative races. Normally, the decrease in turnout is primarily among the least educated voters -- African-Americans and Latino-Americans -- and among young voters. These groups are, of course, precisely those that rallied to back Obama and put him over the top in 2008. A falloff in their turnout would be fatal to Obama's hopes of continuing Democratic control of Congress.

So Obama is doing all he can to generate a turnout, even going to the lengths of fostering racial tensions over immigration to energize his base.

Ultimately, the two events of this past week -- the oil spill and the Times Square terror attack -- will work in opposite political directions. While Obama may lose the day to day effort to convince us that he acted in a timely way to contain the spill, the more damage the oil does, the more environmentalists will be activated and fears of off shore drilling will be stoked. Advantage: Obama.

And the reverse is true of the Times Square attack. While Attorney General Eric Holder and the Homeland Security folks may win the day to day coverage of how they located and arrested the terror suspect, pulling him off a plane on the runway at JFK, the entire episode will raise fears of terrorism. Voters will ask why we have had three attempted attacks on US soil since Obama took office (Ft. Hood, Detroit airplane, and Times Square) while we had none in the seven years of Bush after 9/11. Advantage: Republicans.

The more either story has legs, the more the spill spreads and the more terror fears escalate, the more the respective political parties will benefit.


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns, and signup for his email!
See his 2 informative books, "Catastrophe" and "2010"

REMEMBER NOVEMBER

Not enough can be said about this coming November, and the closer it gets the more excited I get. Every once in awhile, something good this way comes, and sharing is what it's all about.

One interesting facet of these elections -- notice how some in our fickle congress have changed their profile? All of a sudden McCain is tough on immigration, Lindsey Graham-nesty is re-thinking Cap & Trade, Collins is still trying to decide whether she is conservative to not, but puts up a front nonetheless, and just today, Ben Nelson votes with the Republicans on Financial (NON)Reform. How spineless can you get, guys? Too late. Your true profiles were revealed in the crunch, when it counted, and we were desperately calling out for your support!

Erick Erickson has a great short little piece in Red State about a new pledge called "REMEMBER NOVEMBER", and it gave me goosebumps. TAKE THE PLEDGE!


My N-Word is November
by Erick Erickson, April 25, 2010

One of my favorite signs at the tax day tea party in Washington, D.C. held up by the the Christo-fascist, flag waving, gun toting, racist, white power fueled, anti-semetic, neo-nazi, homophobic teabaggers, or whatever the Democrats are calling tea partiers these days, was “My ‘n’ word is November.”

The guy who held it up was there with his wife. Her sign said, “I only play a racist on MSNBC.”

Folks, this video has already appeared on the site, but I want to make doubly sure you’ve seen it.

Come November, we will remember.

http://remembernovember.com/

BEWARE THE EMBOLDENED LEFT

As the left rejoices over their monumental victory, conservatives double down on the upcoming 2010 elections and their campaign strategy. "Repeal the Bill" is a good start, but should not be the focus, as it will be a difficult road and Obama will veto any attempt.

The eye-opening shenanigans by the left such as the backroom bribes, payoffs, and threats in their eternal quest for big government; the takeover of the private sector in financial institutions, the car industry, insurance companies, and now health care; their road to a socialistic re-distribution of wealth; the doubling and tripling our deficit .... should be their focus.

More importantly, the conservatives cannot think this is in the bag. Under-estimating Obama's thug policies and the left would be suicide for a conservative comeback. They need to accent on the revulsion the American people are feeling after the actions of the left this past year, and make sure to hold the momentum.

Marc Rotterman write an important piece on the left's attack on conservatives, their movements, and talk radio in American Spectator:


Beware the Emboldened Left
by Marc Rotterman, March 24, 2010

As I write, Congress has just passed Barack Obama's signature issue -- healthcare reform. After a year of stops and starts, imposed deadlines and rancorous debate, President Obama and his allies have prevailed.

He does, in fact, have a victory. And where I come from, a victory is a victory.

Many of my Republican and conservative brethren view this partisan piece of legislation as a stake through the heart of the Left and some are already measuring for new drapes in the Speaker's office.

In fact, in some quarters of the Republican Party "irrational exuberance" has taken hold. Barack Obama's presidency is being compared that of Jimmy Carter.

That, in my view, is a mistake.

Conservatives and Republicans who underestimate President Obama do so at their own electoral peril. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama is a true believer, someone who understands that transforming policy translates into votes and a citizenry that is more reliant on the federal government. And unlike Carter, Obama is a streetwise, tough politician who will not give an inch when it comes to his vision of a "New America" -- one that is modeled after European socialism.

Starting now, the Obama administration will try to position him as a modern day LBJ -- getting things done for the middle class and the poor. The administration, and its allies in the mainstream media will echo Obama's belief that he is transformative figure and that healthcare legislation is akin to the historic Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.

And make no mistake about it -- Barack Obama's next agenda item is "immigration reform" which, unless it is defeated, will further broaden the Left's constituency, strengthen the unions, and undermine the rule of law.

By the way, Obama and his team will not stop there. Those who openly oppose Obama's policies will continue to be targets. First the liberal establishment went after Rush Limbaugh and for months now -- former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Left and progressives' newest devil is Glenn Beck and by extension the Fox News network.

One only has to watch MSNBC and its commentators' rants against Beck or read the Washington Post's two recent hit pieces on Fox and Beck -- one by the former discredited New York Times editor Howell Raines, the other by Howard Kurtz, a CNN employee who hosts the CNN show Reliable Sources -- to understand how far the progressives will go to torpedo Beck and Fox.

My point is that Obama and his allies view governing and campaigning in the same context -- "winning" means all out war and by any means necessary. In contrast, Republicans have, in the past, viewed campaigns from a "management perspective."

To compete and to win in 2010 Republicans and conservatives must outline and define what Obama has in store for this nation. And that is the remaking of the nation as we have known it from its inception. We cannot count on a bad economy to propel us to a majority, or outrage over the healthcare bill.

Yes, they are still a very important part of the debate.

But, we have an obligation in our messaging and advertising to illustrate in stark terms what "Obama's transformation" means to America, its families, traditions and culture. In short, we must campaign against the Left as if we were at war.

One thing we know for certain is that Obama and his cohorts are committed to their ideology and they will do what it takes to stay in power. To win, we must understand our opponents and maneuver according to circumstance.


Marc Rotterman worked on the national campaign of Reagan for President in 1980, served on the presidential transition team in 1980, and worked in the Reagan Administration from 1981 to 1984. He is a senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina, and a former member of the board of the American Conservative Union.

RINOs, RINOs Everywhere

The 2010 elections are only nine (9) short months away, and the Tea Party movement has momentum on their side. One of the major objectives of the movement, and why it has caught on like wildfire, is to weed out the thinned down conservatives - those conservatives you thought were on your side, but voted too many times with Obama's socialist agenda. One of the most important lessons Ronald Reagan taught us is that when you stick to your core conservative principles -- you win.

It's one thing to reach across the aisle, but there is a big difference between the parties. One is for social justice, leveling the playing field, taking from those who have and giving to those who have not, and government intervention - the nanny state. The other is for national security, securing our borders, free market solutions, fiscal responsibility, energy independence, and most importantly - smaller government, with prudent restraints on power.

Now the task is to find and replace the Republicans In Name Only, and keep them out. We are perilously close to losing our sovereignty, and Americans are engaged as never before. Special attention is being paid to how Republicans have voted this past year, especially with the Cap & Trade that passed the House with the "Gang of Eight" votes.

We cling to our God, our guns and our country, and political correctness is on the decline. We are an exceptional country, founded explicitly on a belief in God and on Judeo Christian values, and will be silent no more.

Tom Blumer writes a very interesting piece on RINOs in Pajamas Media:


RINOs, RINOs Everywhere
by Tom Blumer, January 30, 2010

Although this quote comes from a guy at Public Policy Polling (PPP), an organization that ought to consider renaming itself Pretty Partisan Polling, it sadly describes sensible conservatism’s situation on the ground in all too many states:

One lesson that can be taken from the recent GOP successes in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia is that your party can be a complete mess and still win an election.

Hidebound country club go-along-get-along Republican Party establishments are indeed making a mess of things. In state after state, they are doing everything in their power to pretend that the tea party phenomenon, arguably the most important grassroots movement in decades, either doesn’t exist or must be stopped. They are also reflexively supporting problematic candidates whose most important features are their name recognition and the size of either their personal bank accounts or their campaign war chests. Substantive issue positions dealing with what the country must do to stop Barack Obama, his apparatchiks, and the Democrat-controlled Congress from bankrupting us and closing down what for now remains the land of opportunity are coming in a distant third.

In California, Carly Fiorina is the GOP establishment’s fave to go up against Barbara “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” Boxer. Her accomplishments as a businesswoman consist of decimating Lucent and nearly ruining HP while walking away with $42 million for her troubles. One thing Fiorina rarely troubled with is actually voting in elections. Her campaign tells us: “She voted in six of 14 elections in California since 2000. She lived in New Jersey for the previous 10 years but never voted.” In the Golden State governor’s race, they like squishy moderate and Mitt Romney pal Meg Whitman, who also “regularly skipped elections in California and several other states where she lived and worked.” Are they trying to lose on purpose out there?

In Illinois, the Republican Party apparatus is clearing the field in its U.S. Senate primary for Congressman Mark Kirk, who voted for the monstrosity of cap and trade, and whom Democrats will likely “expose as a liar and adulterer in the general election.” In Arizona, moderate John McCain has forced Sarah Palin into a lose-lose proposition: help me fend off a primary challenge from legit conservative J.D. Hayworth or be tagged an ingrate for the rest of your life if you refuse. In Florida, Charlie Crist and the GOP establishment seem to think that pulling off the nearly impossible — dragging down Florida’s economy following Jeb Bush’s amazing stewardship — qualifies him to be the Sunshine State’s next U.S. senator. Thankfully challenger Marco Rubio begs to disagree and GOP voters are coming around.

Clearly, RINO fever is bad all over. But nothing exemplifies what Zig Ziglar would call “stinking thinking” as much as the recent GOP establishment moves in Ohio.

Just two weeks ago, the situation was at least tolerable. Though what I have been calling ORPINO (the Ohio Republican Party in Name Only) was backing a residency-challenged candidate for secretary of state (more on that in a bit), it at least had the sense not to get in the way of proven fiscal conservative John Kasich’s outsider-framed effort. On January 14, Kasich selected current state auditor and rising star Mary Taylor as his running mate. This move justifiably led ORPINO chair Kevin DeWine to declare Kasich-Taylor “as strong a gubernatorial ticket as you will see on any ballot in any state.”

Then Kevin DeWine proceeded to complete his ruination of most of the rest of the ticket in the name of money and nepotism.

Until he decided he wanted to be Ohio’s next attorney general, Kevin’s relative, former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine, was last seen being repudiated twice by Buckeye State voters in a 17-month span in 2005-2006. First, despite spending $1 million, his son Pat finished a distant fourth in a June 2005 GOP primary race to fill an open congressional seat. That thrashing was accurately seen as a proxy repudiation of Mike over his participation in the Gang of 14 and other conservative-betraying votes. After yet another vote in November 2005 to stop drilling for oil in Alaska and a 2006 GOP primary where two completely underfunded challengers blockaded by ORPINO nonetheless took 28% of the vote, Mike DeWine lost his U.S. Senate reelection race against far-left Cleveland-area Congressman Sherrod Brown by a stunning 12 points.

Second-cousin Kevin and the ORPINO gang decided that this awful track record justified clearing the AG field for Mike, even though DeWine’s primary opponent Dave Yost had already racked up a 5-0 record in December and January GOP county endorsement meetings and had earned an intense level of tea party and other grassroots enthusiasm.

Nobody seems to want to own up to what Kevin and ORPINO did next, but all of a sudden early this week Yost, whose campaign slogan was “A Prosecutor, Not a Politician,” decided that he wanted to run for state auditor instead. Not coincidentally, ORPINO was also unhappy with the not-beholden CPA who had just started his own auditor campaign after Kasich selected Taylor.

So let’s review:

• At the top of the ticket, the party now has two formerly bulletproof candidates who stood around while their party apparatus rigged two down-ticket races. Their slogan is “A New Way, a New Day.” Really?
• In the secretary of state race, the party is running Jon Husted, a guy who currently represents a state senate district he admits to not living in and owns an empty house in the district he admits to not living in, while claiming that his SOS campaign headquarters is that empty house. He is supposed to convince voters that he’ll be the state’s steadfast enforcer of election laws in a state where ACORN ran wild in 2008. Uh huh.
• Attorney general candidate and Second Amendment skeptic Mike DeWine, four years removed from public office with no prosecutorial experience in almost three decades, is supposedly going to unseat a Second Amendment-supporting Democratic incumbent. Riiiiight.
• Now auditor candidate Dave Yost thinks we’ll all forget his betrayal of his supporters and that voters will be jazzed about a lawyer running for head bean-counter. Don’t count on it, bud.
• The only uncompromised candidate remaining is treasurer candidate Josh Mandel. The grassroots pray nightly that ORPINO leaves him alone.

Tea partiers who should be the Republican Party’s best friends in a state that has been horribly mismanaged during the past three years under Democratic Governor Ted Strickland are justifiably exasperated to the point where I understand that there is serious thought being given to going the third-party route in certain of the down-ticket races. I suspect that similar third-party moves are under consideration in other states and in higher-profile races. ORPINO and its compadres in other states will only have themselves to blame if this comes about.

Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.

MASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE

Wow! This video is exhilarating.

There's plenty of time to pass this around before the monumental special election of Massachusetts Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley on Tuesday, January 19th (h/t Conservative Blogs Central):

MEMO TO STEELE: GOP WILL WIN

Michael Steele is not the most popular guy in the Republican Party these days, and then again, maybe he is just that. After commenting on Fox New's Hannity that Republicans will not take control of the House in 2010, there has been a backlash by conservatives. In a time when the right is reeling from the totalitarian effects of this administration, negativity is not welcome.

In fact quite the opposite, Mr. Steele. Americans of all walks of life are united against this march to marxism, and the results at the polls will be like something this country has never seen. You cannot continue to stomp on freedom and God given rights without repercussion. You cannot continue to tax the working class and give to the non-working class without repercussion. America does not respond well to oppression.

Dick Morris lays out the vulnerable votes in both Houses in The Hill:


MEMO TO STEELE: GOP WILL WIN
by Dick Morris, January 12, 2010

Pessimism is no more attractive in a party leader than it is in a high school cheerleader. And in the case of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele, it is unwarranted as well. Despite his prediction, on Fox News, that GOP congressional control will not come “this year,” the Republican Party has a very, very good chance of taking both houses of Congress in 2010.

We are in the midst of a political tsunami. To judge that the water will only ascend a hundred feet or two hundred or three hundred is entirely speculative. Generally, once these things start, they go further than anyone would have thought likely. Only rarely do they fall short.

President Barack Obama’s determination to march ahead with his full socialist agenda, including the imposition of a healthcare system a majority doesn’t want, can only strengthen the winds and the tide that is approaching. The 60-vote Democratic Senate majority is empowering such arrogance and disdain for the democratic process that it is easy to see how it will trigger an equal and opposite reaction in the 2010 elections.

The tsunami of 2010 is qualitatively different from the other slaughters of incumbents that took place in 1994 or 1974 or 1964. In those years, one party overstepped its bounds and the other exploited its rival’s vulnerability. They were classic instances of the voters correcting for the excessive liberalism, conservatism or dishonesty of the incumbent regime.

But 2010 is different. It is not only that Obama is too liberal or that the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end, a deficit that won’t shrink, a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years and a healthcare system a majority abhors.

2010 will be a unique year because voters have seen the myth of the moderate Democrat exposed. There is no longer any such animal. No moderate or conservative voter can rest on the assumption that his congressman or senator will stand firm for his values in the face of party pressure. The sweep of 2010 will be due as much to this intellectual insight as to any other cause, and this will make it even more powerful.

In the House, party switches have already won the Republicans one seat and more are likely to follow. Among open seats, Republicans will probably lose two and the Democrats six, reducing their margin to 35.

Then there are 28 Democrats who might lose who come from districts won by McCain. Seventeen are very vulnerable and 11 others somewhat less so.

But even these 11 longtime incumbents may find that their constituents cannot be bought by earmarks nor deluded into voting for what they are told is a “conservative” Democrat.

Eight Democrats — six of them freshmen — come from districts McCain narrowly lost and they narrowly won. And 11 others — three of them freshmen — are only slightly less vulnerable.

Republicans need to defeat 35 of these 47 Democrats to take control. Not a task that is at all beyond reach.

In the Senate, the Republicans will easily hold all their open seats except for Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire. Since Missouri went for McCain, count it likely to send Rep. Roy Blunt to the Senate. Since Ohio is the quintessential swing state, it is hard to see how it does not go Republican as well. In New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte, the Republican, looks to be ahead, although the state is too Democratic to regard her as safe.

Democrats look to lose at least five seats: in Delaware, Arkansas, Nevada, North Dakota and Colorado. But in a tsunami, Republicans would likely pick up Illinois and Pennsylvania (with or without an Arlen Specter retirement or a loss in the primary), too. Four to go.

Despite Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's appeal and his state's liberalism, the Chris Dodd seat cannot be considered safe in this kind of year. Nor can California's Barbara Boxer take victory over Carly Fiorina for granted.

For the remaining two seats, the Republicans need strong candidates in Indiana, Washington state, Oregon, Wisconsin and against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York.

A strong candidate can be born or made. Even a relatively weak newcomer can gather strength from the kind of tsunami working its way toward Washington. The irresistible numbers of a GOP landslide make all of these seats winnable.


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Get Dick's book CATASTROPHE here.

Even in Massachusetts, Weak Support for Dem Health Care Bill

In an interesting poll analysis, Massachusetts shows weak support for the Democrat health care bill. This is a state that knows first hand what government health care brings -- disaster. Amazing, for a state that has far more registered Democrat voters than Republican.

The analysis illustrates how this administration is completely ignoring the will of the people, and governing on their own. They have closed off the American people from seeing how the health care bill is being put together in its final critical stages. A bill that will affect all of us, and take governmental control of another major chunk of our economy. It's an example of many more takeovers ahead which includes Cap and Tax, and amnesty for illegals.

This is what Americans have to look forward to, until we can reduce their totalitarian power. The special election for that 41st senatorial vote coming up on January 19th is crutial, and the Obama team knows it. They are pulling out all the stops to make sure they don't lose this power, and all Americans across the country can help at Scott Brown's RedInvadesBlue.com. There's an excellent chance for a Republican win in this clearly blue state. Mitt Romney won the governorship.

Byron York analyzes Massachusetts in the Washington Examiner:


Even in Massachusetts, Weak Support for Dem Health Care Bill
by Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent - January 10, 2010

The race to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts is shaping up as a referendum on health care reform. If you look inside the numbers of the Boston Globe poll -- the one that has Democrat Martha Coakley leading Republican Scott Brown by 15 percentage points -- you'll see that more voters name health care reform as the election's top important issue than name jobs and the economy. That's a striking reversal of opinion among the American public overall. And just 43 percent of Massachusetts voters support the Democratic national health care plan now making its way through Congress, versus 36 percent who oppose. In one of the bluest states in the country -- and one with up-close experience with a state health care regime that resembles the plan under consideration for the nation as a whole -- that is strikingly weak support. And that support is pretty much limited to Democrats; independents and Republicans are opposed.

Breaking down opinion by party, 65 percent of Democrats support reform, while 11 percent say they oppose it and 20 percent say they don't know. Among independents, 33 percent favor reform, while 43 percent oppose it and 23 percent say they don't know. And among Republicans, five percent favor reform, while 82 percent oppose it and 10 percent say they don't know.

Looking a little more closely at the numbers, it's clear that opponents of reform are far, far more intense in their feelings than supporters. Among Republicans, 65 percent say they strongly oppose reform, while 17 percent say they somewhat oppose it (making for that total of 82 percent opposed). Among Democrats, just 28 percent say they strongly support reform, while 37 percent say they somewhat favor it (making for the 65 percent total figure). Among independents, 29 percent strongly oppose it, while just 13 percent strongly support it.

That intensity of opposition likely accounts for the poll's finding that Massachusetts voters believe health care reform, and not the economy, is the most important issue in the race. Among all voters, 31 percent name health care reform as the most important issue, while 27 percent say jobs and the economy. Thirty-five percent of Republican voters name health care reform as the most important issue, versus 20 percent who say jobs and the economy. Among independents, 29 percent name health care reform, versus 23 percent who say jobs and the economy. Among Democrats, 29 percent say health care reform, versus 32 percent who say jobs and the economy.

The bottom line: In a state where support for the Democratic national health care plan should be strongest, the current bills making their way through Congress cannot muster majority support. If Coakley is elected, she will cast the 60th and decisive vote in the Senate to pass a plan that not even half the people in her home state support.

Tea Party 2010: Revolution Brewing? Or Is That Some Weak Tea?

The Tea Party movement is celebrating its one year anniversary, and momentum is on our side. Focus and organization is now the key, as there is little time before the Nov-2010 elections are here. Considering the monumental task ahead, realistically the best effect we can have on getting government back on track is to support the best qualified candidates running.

Since we do not have the multi million dollar funds of George Soros behind us, being the Minutemen and women will be the best tool. Money cannot buy the passion and loyalty to our Founding Fathers which motivates the Tea Party movement. There are many groups organized to promote this objective, and the time is now to focus on how to best get the word out. Know our limitations, and accent the positive.

Pajamas Media has an interesting take off on this. Food for thought:


Tea Party 2010: Revolution Brewing? Or Is That Some Weak Tea?
Taking stock of the movement's first year, and picking a script to follow for Act Two.
by Andrew Ian Dodge, January 3, 2010

As the nation and the tea party movement prepare for the new year, President Obama and the Democrats have been rushing forward legislation which will forever change the country and raise the deficit.

How far has the tea party movement come since the beginning of last year? A massive event occurred in Washington, D.C., on 9/12, and even greater numbers of people demonstrated all over the country to express their frustration. But ultimately, have they achieved any results? The bills have still gone through, and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama have shucked aside criticisms.

Ignoring the (majority) public outcry, some legislators have gone so far as to ban tea party members from their offices under penalty of arrest. Most of the MSM, excluding Fox, has carried the Democrats’ water, portraying tea parties as a fringe movement at best and domestic terror breeding at worst.

Fox has covered the tea parties, though selectively — driving the ratings of Beck and Hannity and legitimizing non-grassroots groups like FreedomWorks and Tea Party Express. Fox’s coverage assisted the left’s portrayal of the tea parties as astroturf, and the GOP-tied groups made it very hard to claim the movement is non-partisan.

So now what?

What should the tea party movement be doing to make itself more effective and to not exist merely as an exploitable outlet for the frustrated?

Some are pushing the idea of a Perot-like third party to challenge the two major parties on all fronts. Others are desperately against such a move, concerned that the tea party movement will hurt the Republican Party and “cost” them victory in 2010. The tea parties have very limited time to affect the outcome of 2010, and the logistics of a national third party seem overwhelming.

Another approach — and one that seems more logical — is for tea parties to endorse candidates that adhere to their principles, whatever the party.

A state third party has been formed from the movement. Florida already has itself a registered tea party to challenge both parties, though it will be interesting to see if they are alone or one of many. Many states have very difficult, perhaps unreasonable, registration requirements for forming a third party.

Will the tea party movement be able to swing races? Their ranks do not lack for motivation and energy, but they may not possess the skills necessary to affect change in state politics. They also may lack money and an effective fundraising apparatus. They may be able to work with local candidates for 2010 primaries, however they will be hard-pressed to find brand new primary candidates to run between now and primary registration dates. This obviously depends on state law, but getting it sorted is a colossal task that takes coordination and great effort.

What may have affected the development of the activists is the fact that many seemed to have been suffering under the delusion that they were “reinventing” politics at the grassroots. Politics is politics, and even the tea party movement has been affected by egos, personality clashes, regionalism, and fakery.

The tea party movement may be best served by operating locally. Mass rallies in D.C. and phone-calling initiatives do not seem to be effective in modern politics. Local activism could have an actual effect, and is a good part of what the left has done to gain power.

The movement needs to be thinking about 2012 and beyond. They need to train themselves to effectively work in the political sphere that exists, not the fantasy one that has been created by the enthusiasm of the movement. Obama fooled millions with a promised “new dawn in politics.” The tea party movement must be wary of reality.

They have the drive and might; they need skills and patience. This year is pivotal for Republicans, Democrats, and politics in general, and the tea party movement has decisions to make regarding its direction.


Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.

What's More Important Than Being Electable? Being Able To Govern

The Republican Party needs a lot of work, and we have our work cut out for us in the next 10 months to find, support and elect conservatives with solid conservative values -- limited government, fiscal responsibility, energy independence, free market solutions, homeland national security-secure our borders, and the American dream.

We have momentum on our side, as the Dems poll numbers tank, but 10 months is a long time in politics. Our diligence has paid us back in spades, although at times you just wanted to throw up your hands. It's a New Year, and there is so much we can do, and number one being chosing the right candidates, keeping in mind this could be a presidential choice down the road. One thing is key, and concerns all the voting public - What is the state of the nation?

I was quite taken with a piece by Adam Graham in Pajamas Media on this:


What’s More Important Than Being Electable? Being Able To Govern
The Obama debacle has laid bare for the American people the need for an experienced, capable executive with a successful track record. The GOP now must provide one.
by Adam Graham, January 1, 2010

The shine is off. Recent tracking polls have shown the president’s popularity trending downwards under 50%. And both Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen show President Obama in tight races with Republican front-runners, and even with some non-Republican front-runners.

The most striking notes: Sarah Palin, the woman who many allege absolutely could not beat Obama, comes within three points in the Rasmussen poll and eight in the Public Policy Polling poll. And even more surprising, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) comes within eight points on Public Policy Polling.

Yes, the 75-year-old Texas congressman is nearly as close to Obama as John McCain was in 2008. This suggests a growing number of Americans, as of this moment, would vote for anyone over Barack Obama.

A year ago, it was very different for Obama, who couldn’t wait to actually get sworn in before giving regular addresses to the nation. Obama was a great campaigner, a well-polished speaker, and a youth celebrity figure who inspired a best-selling song that became a YouTube sensation (and one of Obama’s favorite songs). A year later, if Rasmussen is to be believed, the Democrats are on the verge of a political cataclysm, with the GOP having built a 7-point lead on the generic ballot.

Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) is expressing his frustration, saying he’s tired of “covering Obama’s can,” and has some pointed advice: “The president could take a few pages from Lyndon Johnson’s book … and start knocking heads together.”

Conyers is wrong — the president can’t. During his four years in the U.S. Senate (which he spent running for president), Obama didn’t acquire the legislative “skills” Lyndon Johnson did during ten years as a member of the Senate leadership. If the Democrats had wanted someone who would be effective moving legislation, they picked the wrong guy. They picked a solid candidate who could excite crowds and raise money. They didn’t choose someone who could make good decisions and move bills.

What’s the lesson for Republicans in 2012? Simply put, the goal of the nominating process is not to pick a good candidate; it’s to pick a good president. The problem with political folks is we tend to imagine the presidential campaign as the Super Bowl of politics, when it isn’t even opening day.

Much time is spent fretting over whether a candidate can win. Every major GOP presidential candidate has several people who swear that candidate can win, and others who will solemnly promise they won’t support candidate X.

However, history indicates the choice of the presidential nominee has little impact on how people vote. Allan Lichtman’s 13 keys have correctly predicted the outcome of the popular vote in every election since 1984, and retroactively account for the winners of every election since 1860. The keys are based on the performance of the administration in power and how the nation’s economy and foreign policy are doing. The average American doesn’t care about the topics that enthrall the political aficionados. Sorry, but Christopher Buckley’s endorsement of Obama didn’t carry a lot of weight. The average voter is far more concerned with one basic question: what is the state of the nation?

Given the state of the economy, the Katrina bungle, and the foreign policy blunders in the pre-surge Iraq strategy, any of the Democratic candidates could have beaten John McCain, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). In 2012, if all is going well in the nation, Obama will be re-elected in a landslide. If the nation is in serious trouble, most of the divisions in the conservative movement will unite and the American electorate will turn Obama out of office.

There are three basic questions conservatives should ask themselves:

Does the candidate have a coherent agenda that will make the country better?

Obama was afraid of the American people knowing his true colors, so he ran on a campaign of platitudes. He decided to let Congress craft the agenda.

A president who runs on a clear platform can, at the very least, claim to have a mandate for it. However, if you go around quoting platitudes of “hope” and “change” and leave the heavy lifting to Congress, you end up with a mess.

Does the candidate have the necessary skills to get his agenda passed?

Anybody can have good ideas, but it’s the ability to connect with the public and to reach out to the Congress to get the job done that matters. Say what you want about Ron Paul’s ideas, he would be a bad president because he could not get his ideas passed through Congress. He’s been in Congress for more than twenty years casting quixotic votes.

Does the candidate have the ability to make executive decisions?

If the Obama administration shows anything, it is the importance of executive decision-making, particularly on matters of war and peace. The problem with electing a legislator as president is that the only thing he’s ever run is his own mouth. In Obama’s case, he also ran a foundation that was supposed to improve Chicago schools and failed to do so. We should look for governors and mayors, maybe a general, to serve as the party’s nominee, not congressmen or senators.

Conservatives have to look for the candidate who will be able to hold the Republican coalition together. A Republican presidency that betrayed the core principles of the people who brought it to power is responsible for the lingering divisions within the GOP. However, thanks to opponents that took the wrong lessons from the Bush years, Republicans could be given another chance in 2012.

This time, let’s get it right.


Adam Graham is a contributor at Race42012.com and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog.