July 17-19, 2010
Jul 17 11:00 The Case Against Harry Reid: Why He Must Go Jul 17 13:16 John Kasich Rolls Out New Ad, Website, Keeps Rocking Jul 18 04:48 NAACP's Jealous Offers Tepid Defense of Racist Resolution Jul 18 05:25 Another Day, Another Union Thug Beatdown Jul 18 14:32 How Mandates Morph Into Tax Increases Jul 19 06:58 McCollum's Disastrous Interview Jul 19 08:51 Policing the Ranks Jul 19 16:06 Panic Attack At DCCC, DNC?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The Case Against Harry Reid: Why He Must Go
Talk to any conservative pundit and they'll tell you that they'd love to see Harry Reid defeated this fall. Stephen Moore's WSJ article provides alot of reasons why conservative pundits, and Nevada residents, want him out of office:
When I ask whether it is really possible to knock off a Senate majority leader, she laughs and replies, "only Reid thinks he's too big to fail." Her strategy against the Reid attack machine is to link him to the lousy economy in Nevada. When I ask her if Nevadans want to give up Mr. Reid's clout in Washington, she replies: "When Harry Reid got to be majority leader, the unemployment rate was 4.4%. Now it is 14%, higher than even in Michigan...What has Harry Reid's power done for our state?" Her new TV ad, unrolled this week, hammers this message. "We know he is going to attack me constantly," she says, because "he can't possibly run on his record."I said in this post that Harry Reid's supposed clout hasn't helped make life better for Nevada. If anything, his earmarks have helped a tiny sliver of his cronies to the exclusion of others. Here's more proof that Reid sides with the special interests first, Nevadans second:
Reid either believes in letting job-creating opportunities disappear or he sided with the environmentalists in killing this project. I don't believe for a split second that Reid hates job creation. I don't have trouble believing, though, that he'd side with Washington's special interests so that their campaign contributions would keep flowing.Regarding jobs, she points to Mr. Reid's role in killing three clean coal-fired plants in rural Ely, where she and her husband have lived since 1971. After years of opposition by Mr. Reid in league with various environmental groups, NV Energy halted development of a $5 billion plant in February 2009. That meant the loss of 5,000 jobs, Mrs. Angle says.
"That's really when we realized Harry Reid doesn't care about jobs or people losing their homes. And it's also when 'Anybody but Harry Reid' signs first began to sprout up all over the state."
I also think it's highly likely that he'd side with Washington's special interests so that he wouldn't be the subject of their criticism. Thanks to Ms. Angle's recent fundraising efforts, she'll be able to remind people day after day after day that Harry Reid sides with the special interests first, Nevadans after that. This isn't the year where voters will let their politicians ingore their wishes.
This information shouldn't be overlooked this year:
Sharron Angle's first foray into activism was when her son was held back in kindergarten in 1983 and "the poor little guy was made to feel like a failure. He hated school." She wanted to home school him, but the school system and the courts said no. Her response was to open a one-room school with a Christian-based curriculum. It soon had 24 students.Elitist America sneers contemptuously at Sarah Palin's momma grizzlies. That's exceptionally foolish. The indicators are there that Republicans will do exceptionally well with women voters this cycle because they've perceived, rightly in my opinion, that Democrats care more about pleasing their special interest allies than they care about doing what's right for the Momma Grizzlies' children.
"I didn't realize how many other parents were angry with the school system," she recalls. She charged $125 a month to cover the cost of supplies but taught for free. (Mrs. Angle has a degree in education from the University of Nevada, Reno.)
In 1985 she rallied hundreds of parents behind her successful effort to pass a bill through the Nevada legislature allowing parents to home school anywhere in the state. The result of her effort is that in Nevada home schooling has become a popular alternative to the public schools, and Mrs. Angle is referred to as the "home school heroine."
"I was just a mother, and the government had gotten between me and my child, and that's like getting between a mother bear and her cubs," she says. "I think that's what activates the tea party movement. What they see is the government interfering with their lives, and with the inheritance of their children. Are we going to pass down liberty or deficits? And that's really what this movement is about." The cub-her 6-year-old son-now has a masters degree and teaches high school history in Yerrington, Nevada.
It's one thing to criticize moms. It's quite another to advocate policies that would give their children a brighter future.
Sen. Reid likes talking about his boxing background. This information from Stephen Moore's article says that Mrs. Angle is a feisty, combative woman who's won some fights against Goliaths:
Mrs. Angle's most legendary fight was within her own party. In 2003, then Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, schemed to raise the sales tax by half a billion dollars. Mr. Guinn declared that anybody who opposed his tax was "irrelevant, irresponsible and cowardly." The governor seemed to be pointing directly at her, says Mrs. Angle. "He knew from the start I would be against it."Sharron Angle sounds just irreverent enough to laugh at conventional wisdom in the morning and smart and determined enough to defeat it that afternoon. Getting 5 members of a state's Supreme Court isn't routine. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it's unprecedented.
The frustrated governor couldn't get the constitutionally required two-thirds vote of approval without her. As she tells the story, "at one critical point, the minority leader asked me: 'So, Sharron, what's your number?' That meant how big a tax increase could I tolerate? And I told them my number was zero."
When the bullying failed, the Nevada Supreme Court, in a spectacular abuse of the constitution, allowed the tax hike to go through without the two-thirds vote. The justices decreed that the money was needed for the schools and that the right to an adequate education took precedence over a procedural safeguard.
The next day, Ms. Angle recalls, "I went into the conference room and was told there's nothing you can do, Sharron. It's all over. The Supreme Court has the last word. And I said, 'No, it's not over.'"
She spearheaded a movement to get the Supreme Court replaced. In the next election in 2006, voters threw out five of the seven members of the Nevada Supreme Court; the other two had retired. "It was a referendum on that tax increase vote," she argues. "And the new court came in and reversed that decision and made our constitution whole."
Sharron Angle is exactly the type of senator that's needed to provide support to Jim Demint and Tom Coburn. If Angle, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are added to the Senate GOP, we'll finally have the nucleus of a fiscally conservative Senate.
This might be Mrs. Angle's best weapon in this fight:
To win, Sharron Angle is going to need a major money influx from the conservative groups that pushed her over the top in the primary to counter the $25 million Mr. Reid is expected to spend. What Mrs. Angle has going for her is a contagious optimism that Nevadans would never send Mr. Reid back to the Senate given the fiscal carnage in Washington.If there's anything that's motivating voters this cycle, it's voting out politicians that they perceive to have ignored them. If any politician fits that particular description, it's Harry Reid.
Nevada voters, she says, "are disillusioned, disappointed and disgusted with what had happened since the 2008 election. They are tired of this establishment machine that doesn't understand that we-the people- are in control. They are saying 'We don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. We don't believe either one of you.'"
In an ordinary year, Sharron Angle wouldn't have this good a shot at winning this election. This isn't an ordinary year and Sharron Angle isn't an ordinary candidate. This cycle, she's the right candidate in the right race at the right time.
What's better yet is that Harry Reid is the wrong politician who ignored the will of his constituents for far too long. That's why Nevadans will send Harry Reid to an invuluntary retirement this November.
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:13 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Jul-10 06:32 AM
Have you seriously examined the GOP alternative in that race? No matter how much you condemn Reid, the GOP has a major problem selling that brand of its brand. Zealots can sometimes err.
John Kasich Rolls Out New Ad, Website, Keeps Rocking
I haven't hidden my appreciation for John Kasich since starting this blog. I wrote in this post that I would've loved seeing Sen. McCain pick Mr. Kasich to be his VP pick. Now, more than ever, Americans need John Kasich's brand of intelligent fiscal restraint.
John Kasich used this post to announce the creation of a new website, called FixOhioNow.com . The idea behind the website is to gather people's ideas on how to fix Ohio's economy and/or government. The concept behind the website is brilliant. For the past 18 months, Washington, DC politicians ignored the will of We The People. They ignored the will of the people in passing Obamacare and the failed stimulus.
John Kasich is both a throwback politician and a future-minded politician. He's a throwback politician in the sense of being a idealistic, statesmanlike politician with an extensive track record of working with politicians across the aisle without sacrificing his conservative principles. John Kasich's conservatism will never be outdated because it's informed by his listening to people, whether it's listening to the politician he's negotiating with or the local businessman or the factory worker.
In a very real sense, John Kasich is the GOP's version of the late great Tim Russert. Russert gained great fame as the anchor for NBC's Meet the Press but he didn't stop loving his Buffalo, NY roots.
Kasich is the only Budget Committee chairman to balance the budget 5 straight years at a time when most people thought they'd never see another balanced budget, much less see unprecedented surpluses. Still, Mr. Kasich didn't lose his affection for Ohio.
According to his bio , Congressman Kasich earned a special honor:
John Kasich was named by Newsweek as one of its "100 People for the 21 st Century" in April 1998. Always promoting the power of the individual to make a difference, he chose 20 individuals to write about in his book "Courage is Contagious" published in October 1998. His prose about these individuals' impact on others was described in USA Today as "full of thundering passion,inspirational testimony to any reader."That description fits John Kasich to a T. Old-fashioned in one respect, Kasich is still constantly reaching for the things that will make the next generation better.
That's why I'm totally not surprised to see John Kasich leading Scott Rasmussen's latest polling :
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the governor's race in Ohio finds Republican John Kasich with a 47% to 40% lead over incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland, for the second month in a row. Three percent (3%) of Likely Voters in the state prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.Let's be perfectly blunt: It's likely John Kasich will win this November and return Ohio to fiscally sanity. I'm not basing this opinion just on Rasmussen's polling. I'm also basing my opinion on this information :
The 2010 primary election results demonstrate the strong support that John Kasich and Mary Taylor have across the state, having taken more votes than Ted Strickland and Yvette McGee Brown in 70 of Ohio's 88 counties. Moreover, the dominant Kasich/Taylor turnout demonstrates the strong grassroots organization that the campaign has built.That Strickland gathered 115,000 fewer votes than John Kasich should have his campaign manager drinking Maalox by the bottle and buying Maalox by the case. What's worse is that there wasn't a competitive GOP primary but there were competitive Democratic primaries.
Just as significantly, the results point to the deep ambivalence that exists among Democrats for current Democrat Governor Ted Strickland. Ted Strickland took 114,758 fewer votes than John Kasich, came in fifth in total votes statewide, and took 52,634 fewer votes than the total number of Democrat votes cast in the Democrat U.S. Senate primary contest.
If the Kasich campaign keeps running a solid campaign, I expect the result will be a bright future for Ohio under a pro-growth Kasich administration.
UPDATE: Make sure you check out John Kasich's new commercial .
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:29 PM
No comments.
NAACP's Jealous Offers Tepid Defense of Racist Resolution
Benjamin Jealous' op-ed is one of the most tepid responses to a major flap I've seen in ages. Here's what I'm referring to:
It is unfortunate that at a time when our nation is reeling in the midst of one of the most devastating downturns in our economy since the Great Depression, the NAACP is compelled to deal with a disturbing, corrosive attack from the Tea Party.Mr. Jealous' argument is flimsy at best. The NAACP's mission statement speaks rather expansively about what its mission is:
Instead of joining us to repudiate racism, Tea Party leaders have attempted a tit for tat and demanded that we condemn the New Black Panther Party for reported hate speech. It is a false argument. Of course we condemn hate speech from anyone and any organization, including the New Black Panther Party. But that party is a mere flea compared to the influence and size of the Tea Party. And the New Black Panther Party is not a member of the NAACP. What we are asking the Tea Party to eschew is not the racism of some outside organization, but the bigotry within.
The following statement of objectives is found on the first page of the NAACP Constitution, the principal objectives of the Association shall be:The NAACP can't seriously argue that they're taking "all lawful action" to guarantee people can exercise "their constitutional rights." Their inaction is essentially turning a blind eye towards people's constitutional right to vote. That's the opposite of taking "all lawful action to secure the exercise" of people's constitutional rights. Here's what Chairman Gerald Reynolds said in his opening remarks to the USCCR's July 6th hearing :
- To ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens
- To achieve equality of rights and eliminate race prejudice among the citizens of the United States
- To remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes
- To seek enactment and enforcement of federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights
- To inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination
- To educate persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action to secure the exercise thereof, and to take any other lawful action in furtherance of these objectives, consistent with the NAACP's Articles of Incorporation and this Constitution.
As most of you are aware by now, the litigation stemmed from an incident on Election Day 2008 in which two members of the New Black Panther Party appeared at a polling station in Philadelphia. Video and eyewitness testimony showed that they stood at an entrance to a polling place dressed in paramilitary garb and black combat boots. One brandished a nightstick. They hurled racial epithets at whites and blacks alike , taunting poll watchers and poll observers who were there to aid voters.How can an organization that proclaims itself to be a civil rights organization tolerate anyone hurling "racial epithets at whites and blacks alike"? For that matter, how can the NAACP sanction with their silence the "taunting [of] poll watchers and poll observers who were there to aid voters"?
I'd think that guaranteeing the smooth operation of polling stations would be Civil Rights 101. I'd think that preventing the hurling of "racial epithets at whites and blacks alike" would elicit, at minimum, a tersely worded statement from the NAACP.
By not speaking out against the NBPP's threatening behavior, the NAACP is saying that they aren't concerned with people's civil rights unless they fit into a certain category. Even then, the NAACP won't step forward if the perpetrators aren't white.
That isn't what Bobby Kennedy fought and died for. That certainly isn't what Dr. Martin Luther King envisioned when he fought and died for all men to be treated equally based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
In this case, the NAACP is saying with their inaction that people's civil rights are directly tied to whether the perpetrators' skin color. Since the perpetrators' skin color was black, in the eyes of the NAACP, the perpetrators shouldn't be punished. That some of the victims of the NBPP's abusive behavior obviously isn't the NAACP's concern.
This statement in President Jealous' op-ed is especially infuriating:
The NAACP is working hard to move our nation forward. We have joined with almost 200 other organizations representing people of all races, creeds and faiths to form a movement to pull America back together and put America back to work. "One Nation Working Together" is the antithesis to the bitter polarization being bred by the Tea Party and its ilk. It represents a clarion call to unity, to come together as a country.The NAACP can't say that they're "working hard to move our nation forward" if they're turning a blind eye towards the NBPP's thuggish actions. People don't want situational or conditional enforcement of this nation's civil rights laws. They're demanding that the New Black Panthers be held accountable because standing silent is appeasement.
How dare the NAACP say that TEA Party activists are breeding "bitter polarization" when they tolerate the thuggish behavior embodied by the NBPP's behavior at that polling station in Philadelphia.
As a TEA Party activist, I know what is and isn't tolerated. I know with certainty that if anyone associated with the St. Cloud TEA Party events made a racist comment, we wouldn't tolerate that behavior. We'd demand a sincere apology from any person who made racist comments. Likewise, we'd demand that they leave the event and never return. WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.
The NAACP owes America an apology for its situational indignation of racism. More importantly, the NAACP owes civil rights legends like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. an apology for straying far from the principles he fought his entire life for.
Finally, the New Black Panther Party owes America an apology for threatening people who tried voting or who tried monitoring the elections.
Posted Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:56 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 18-Jul-10 09:46 AM
Gary:
I think there are three things which are going on here which need more attention.
One, the arguments being raised by the tea party can't be countered therefore they must be attacked personnaly. I mean Amy K said the deficit was horrible when it was less than $200 so it must really be horrible now that it's more than a trillion dollars. So what if the spending is focused on things they want. So since they can't attack that and what will happen if the tea party will win (real spending cuts and no tax increases) they attack the people proposing the policies they don't like. Accussing somebody of being a racist is a powerful attack since it might get your supporters who otherwise might not come to the polls to vote.
Two, the left believes that President Obama must be right on the issues and therefore if somebody is attacking Obama and they are wrong (after all they are opposing Obama) there must be another reason for the attack aka Obama's race! Obama himself during the 2008 campaign did that himself by pointing out that people were going to attack him because he didn't look like those presidents on the bills. To the best of my knowledge the tea party has talked about the deficit, health care, the government doing what it is suppose to do. It is the left that has been trying to push this opposition has been race!
And three, there are some people on the left as this post indiciates don't make the standards that they are asking about. A piece you might have heard about, but didn't talk about was Lynne Varner's "The tea-party movement's bigotry especially regarding President Obama is distrubing"
In the article I found this incredible double standard she did. In the first paragraph she wrote "... and having his birthplace and religion endlessly questioned."
Okay the premise being it was wrong to question something about Obama's religion like:
* If he used a sermon by his preacher to write a book to ask did any other sermon influence him.
* If he was going to use that preacher to give a prayer at his announcement and than elected not to what was the reason.
* Why hasn't he found a new church in Washington.
If you believe the logic of Lynne it is wrong to ask questions like that. yet in the piece to show racism and hatred by the tea party movement by attacking Chris Broughton and him being inspired by his preacher including a prayer for Obama to die and go to hell and for a sermon "why I hate Barrack Obama".
The problem that Lynne overlooks if Chris' religion can be attacked how come we can't ask those relevant questions I pointed about Obama.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Another Day, Another Union Thug Beatdown
The actions filmed for this video are indefensible. People attempting to defend these union activists' actions should be ridiculed:
What justification is there for these union activists to prevent a journalist from filming what's happening in a public place? More importantly, what justification is there for these union activists to repeatedly intimidate and harrass journalists?
Thuggish behavior, whether it's the NBPP intimidating voters or union activists threatening a journalist for covering a public speech, has dramatically increased in recent years.
That behavior must stop. IMMEDIATELY. There's no justification for violent behavior, especially when we're talking about people exercising their constitutionally-protected rights to vote and to report what happens in public places.
Nonetheless, this video is proof positive that union activists won't hesitate in ignoring a person's constitutionally protected rights. All too often, all that matters to these activists/thugs is whether someone is getting in their way.
It's time that this type of thuggish behavior was vigorously prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, if the penalties aren't harsh for thuggish behavior, then legislation must be written and passed that sends the message that thuggish behavior will carry with it harsh penalties.
Anything less is unacceptable.
Posted Sunday, July 18, 2010 5:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Jul-10 06:27 AM
Sometime Gary, you should take time on a weekend, or when available, and expand on "The Revolution Will Be Blogged."
It is ambiguous.
Especially less what you mean by "the revolution" than what the post-revolutionary world would be that you envision. Two ways ideally; if it happens as you'd wish and your downside doubts, if it is coopted or redirected in ways you might not wish.
If you've earlier posted that - years ago, a repost with any reexamination you might offer after intervening time and events would be nice.
If not that, then post a link back for those who have not started reading your posts from the start.
I do not envision you have used that subcaption without having put in the thought. And I do not think you would be totally embracing some other writings, but if so, knowing of them would be interesting.
I expect we all could envision a Utopia, as well as our Utopia gone bad. Maybe a thing for mid or late November.
How Mandates Morph Into Tax Increases
According to this NYTimes article , the Obama administration said in court filings that their right to tax is the justification that allows them to impose mandates to buy health insurance:
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is "a valid exercise" of Congress's power to impose taxes.Whether the Supreme Court has ruled that "Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce" is irrelevant to the extent that the Supreme Court isn't infallible. As human beings whose rulings are often driven by their policy preferences, previous rulings might well be wrong according to the text of the Constitution.
Congress can use its taxing power "even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions" of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.
I'd argue that the mandates are unconstitutional because providing health care isn't one of the Constitution's enumerated powers given to the federal government. If the Constitution prohibits the federal government from providing health care, then it can't argue, in essence, that they can tax people for not doing what the federal government isn't authorized to mandate.
Here's why the Obama administration's arguments are tougher in the court of public opinion:
While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.I didn't think that the 2008 election confered on President Obama the authority to rewrite the dictionary. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of tax :
"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program "This Week."
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, "I absolutely reject that notion."
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.It's a tax according to that definition. More importantly to this situation is that the underlying activity, i.e. the mandating the purchase of health insurance, isn't sanctioned by the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can force people into buying health insurance, future congresses would be allowed to mandate the purchase of healthy foods or buying hybrid cars or green energy heating systems.
Sane justices would see those things as major infringements on a person's individual liberties. I'm not confident saying that justices like Breyer, Sotomayor or Ginsburg would put a higher priority on individual liberties as they would put on ruling in favor of anything that made their policy preferences a reality.
Opponents contend that the "minimum coverage provision" is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress's power to regulate commerce.The good news is that if SCOTUS rules that the mandate is a tax, a future congress and president could eliminate that tax in a simple budget bill. If one congress and administration can levy a tax, then it's certainly possible for another congress and administration to cut or eliminate that tax.
"This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: "Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power."
If Republicans turn President Obama into a one-term wonder, which is certainly possible, and if they have control of the House and Senate, which I think they will, their first bill should repeal the health care taxes, if not repealing the entire thing.
Democrats challenging Republicans to run on repealing Obamacare will find out that America didn't like much of it once they learned what was in the bill. They'll find that the American people rather viscerally hate the legislation, complete with $670,000,000,000 in new taxes .
Originally posted Sunday, July 18, 2010, revised 19-Jul 4:20 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 18-Jul-10 03:41 PM
Gary:
You left out the most important thing. The President promised he wouldn't raise a tax on anybody making $250,000 a year. He just clearly broke that promise and in his own words.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 19-Jul-10 06:46 AM
Horrors! You mean Obama lied about something? At this point, if he tells the TRUTH about something, it ought to be headline news!
Part of the sloganeering this year is to "defund, repeal and replace" Obamacare. The first part of that can be done by a simple GOP House majority, refusing to fund the thousands of bureaucrats needed, and rescinding the taxes. Obama can veto it, but then he doesn't get a budget, and the Republicans aren't going to get blamed for that government shutdown.
McCollum's Disastrous Interview
My first reaction after watching Esme Murphy's interview of Betty McCollum was "Does Rep. McCollum really think her constituents are that stupid"? Here's the transcript from the key part of the interview:
MURPHY: In terms of the recovery, there has been alot of criticism from Republicans that the recovery is not enough and that what the President has done with his stimulus package, while it did make some improvements in terms of the economy, it has basically put us in the position of trillion dollar deficits. Your thoughts on whether or not there needs to be a second round of stimulus spending.It's insulting to hear Betty McCollum, or any other liberal, blame President Bush for the trillion dollar deficits that didn't happen until Democrats took control of both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. The last annual deficit from when Republicans controlled both ends of Pennsylvania was $160,000,000,000.
MCCOLLUM: Well, first off, the deficits that we're facing was caused by the unpaid for Bush tax cuts; it was caused by two wars, both Afghanistan and Iraq, all being put on a credit card, with no shared responsibility with the American public to pay for the wars as many of our servicemen and women have given their all and made huge sacrifices.
So that's the big bulk. We inherited that mess and then you add the Wall Street crisis and not being regulated for all those years and the failure of our financial institutions to protect consumers' investments and retirements and the rest. So if you look at that, that is the big part of our debt.
Now, what do we do in the meantime? Well, stimulus, funding to keep Americans working, to move our economy forward and create confidence is what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was about. That's what I voted for...
The first deficit from total Democratic control was $1,400,000,000,000. For people who were educated in government schools, the Democrat-controlled deficit is almost 9 times bigger than the last GOP-controlled deficit.
Rep. McCollum wants people to think that the budgeting and appropriating decisions made by Democrats like President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are President Bush's fault , that everything is President Bush's fault.
That's intellectually indefensible BS. My condolences to the people living in MN-04. My advice, and I don't give advice often, is to elect Teresa Collett and end Betty McCollum's reign of intellectual incoherence. Nobody should be subjected to that level of intellectual dishonesty legislative irrelevance, especially when there's a vastly superior option.
Another thing that Rep. McCollum said that's intellectually irresponsible is her saying that the financial meltdown of late 2008 was all Wall Street's fault. That's intellectually indefensible, too. I'm not denying that firms like AIG and Goldman Sachs didn't play major roles in the crisis.
I'm simply arguing that Fannie and Freddie, the GSEs, aka the government, Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA), and Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-CT), played immensely bigger roles in the financial meltdown than did Wall Street. Not coincidentally, the finreg bill that Rep. McCollum voted for exempted Fannie and Freddie from the scrutiny that's heading Wall Street's direction.
Shouldn't we expect legislators to spend our taxes more responsibly? Shouldn't legislators be more than Speaker Pelosi's rubberstamp? Betty McCollum voted for Obamacare, Cap and Trade and ARRA. She's also voted for the omnibus spending bill of 2009 that funded government for the duration of FY2009.
Rep. McCollum even voted the NEA's wishes to eliminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program that takes underprivileged inner city students out of violence-riddled schools and puts them into schools like Sidwell Friends, aka the school for presidents' children like Sasha and Malia Obama and Chelsea Clinton.
MN-04, the choice is clear. You can pick someone who cares about the Constitution ( Teresa Collett ) or you can elect someone who routinely insults your intelligence, namely Rep. McCollum.
UPDATE: Mitch hammers Rep. McCollum hard in this post . It's this morning's must reading.
PS- My condolences to Mitch from the land that Michele represents.
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 7:24 AM
Comment 1 by Ben Rider at 19-Jul-10 12:04 PM
Gary, great post. I am interning for Teresa Collett and this interview is a gold mine. I really can't believe she actually did it. If you have more damaging info on Betty I would greatly appreciate it if you could email it to me.
Policing the Ranks
From time to time, conservatives need to police their ranks. Such was the case when I joined forces with Andy Aplikowski and Michael Brodkorb in denouncing disgraced Rep. Mark Olson . It was important because Mr. Olson's reputation was so toxic that it threatened genuinely highly qualified conservative candidates chances of winning elections.
Such a time is upon us again.
In HD-8B, a GOP primary will be held between Rudy Takala and Roger Crawford because the endorsing convention was adjourned at 2:00 am without endorsing either candidate . Now Takala is pushing for a new endorsing convention even though its verdict would be meaningless since Takala's and Crawford's names will be on the August 10th primary ballot.
Though I can't say that Mr. Takala has a criminal record like Olson, I can say that he's said some rather incendiary things that indicate he's well outside mainstream conservatism. Like this , for example:
When I write about liberal Democrats, it's usually safe to assume I'm not referring to all of them. Generally, the proletariat class of the Democratic Party genuinely believes in socialism and harbors no malicious intent. What I am referring to, rather, is the elitist class that powers the Democrats' movement in America.Where did that come from? While I agree that there are parts of the Democratic Party that think socialism is a superior economic model than capitalism, I don't know that being "a terrorist or an enemy of America" is what's required to "gain the respect of modern 'progressive intellectuals'" Simply criticizing the Bush administration seems to be the only requirement for gaining the "progressive intellectuals'" respect.
To gain the respect of modern "progressive intellectuals," it seems one must be a terrorist and an enemy to America.
What's troubling, too, is that Mr. Takala says that he isn't trying to paint liberals with a broad brush in one paragraph before painting liberals with a broad brush in a subsequent paragraph :
They love dictators--particularly Muslim and communist dictators--while hating America, individualism, capitalism, and anyone who seeks to preserve these American conceptions of freedom. Those at the top of the modern liberal hierarchy look essentially more like a group of foreign nationals than representatives of America.Talk about painting with a broad brush. Mr. Takala's habit of using inflammatory rhetoric is troubling because I'm confident that the DFL won't hesitate a split second in painting other GOP candidates as merchants of such irresponsible, inflammatory rhetoric.
Republicans should do everything possible to distance themselves from young Mr. Takala's irresponsible rhetoric. We've got a great many highly qualified candidates that might well help us retake the House. They can't do that if Mr. Takala's inflammatory rhetoric is tied to them in the public's eye.
Hopefully, in the future, Mr. Takala will learn how to eliminate the rhetoric and focus on specific things that the average voter will be persuaded by. Obviously, that time hasn't come yet.
Until Mr. Takala matures, it's best to not help him gain a platform within the Republican Party.
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 8:51 AM
Comment 1 by Brent at 19-Jul-10 07:47 PM
Wow, I never would have expected you to denouce Takala. It seems like he's just the kind of candidate the tea party movement attracts.
Speaking of quotes though, how about this one for another example of GOP candidates pushing the rhetoric.
"I don't think you can call yourself a freedom-loving American and be a Democrat." http://bit.ly/dCevPX
It's too bad you didn't take this position until *after* he got a platform within the Republican Party.
Comment 2 by LilOlLady at 19-Jul-10 09:35 PM
I think you can say Takala has a criminal record. He has failed to show up in court twice in the last three years for traffic citations, resulting in a suspended drivers license. Birds of a feather - two of his supporters were arrested a couple months ago in separate incidents:
http://tiny.cc/d3rsv
and this arrest of a Takala "honorary steering committee" mamber:
http://tiny.cc/yznb4
http://tiny.cc/6di9g
Panic Attack At DCCC, DNC?
I've written more than a few times that the signs are there that should panic Democratic strategists and that those strategists are drinking Maalox by the bottle, including here , here and here . Finally, the Agenda Media can't ignore this storyline anymore. Here's Time's coverage of the Democrats' impending doom:
Robert Gibbs' now-famous acknowledgement on Meet the Press on July 11 that Republicans were in a position to win back control of the House sparked a notable outbreak of hostility between the White House and congressional Democrats for two reasons. First, it forced Pelosi & Co. to recognize that the first part of their plan is failing. Public and private polling suggests that anxiety over the lack of jobs and anger over the big-spending ways of the Administration will trump the merits of the stimulus spending, health care reform and the financial regulation bill in voters' minds. Neither the economy nor voters' perceptions are likely to be turned around by Election Day. Congressional Democrats were aware of this hard reality before Gibbs opened his mouth, but having him say it out loud was apparently too much for those on the Hill to bear.I've said repeatedly this cycle that fundraising alone isn't the key to victory. Ask Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln whether their fundraising has helped their causes, either in the primaries or in the general election.
Democrats also fear that Gibbs' admission will impact the flow of donations from corporate interests and lobbyists, who tend to want to bet on the party more likely to win the majority. Open musing about a speaker John Boehner, House Democrats believe, will drive mercenary donors to shift their support to the GOP. The huge fundraising hauls by GOP Senate candidates just reported for the second quarter of the year were not, of course, the result of Gibbs' statement, but the momentum suggested by those figures could be hypercharged by White House pessimism.
Simply put, with the electorate being as upset as it is this cycle, no amount of money will save candidates who don't have a plausible message. In Crist's and Specter's cases, their message was "I'm for getting me elected.' The minute that this cynical public heard that, they were late for the door.
The only thing that's giving Denmocrats half a chance this fall is their fundraising numbers. Even with that dramatic advantage, that still doesn't guarantee enough victories this November to keep their majorities.
Let's remember that most of the nation isn't paying attention to their individual races yet. At this point, they're just studying the issues, forming preliminary opinions. Once the GOP starts highlighting the Democrats' reckless spending and their unwillingness to say no to any special interest group's spending requests, the tide will turn on a dime. The shift will be dramatic and swift.
If there's anything that's apparent this year, it's that people are outraged with Washington's reckless spending habits. In fact, it's a year where campaigns built on bragging about 'bringing home the bacon' will lead to defeat more often than usual.
The DSCC, the DCCC and the DNC have every right to be worried. They're staring at particularly hostile polling numbers while simultaneously defending their handling of a struggling economy and their passing of Obamacare.
The message that the American people are sending, especially to Democrats, is that they're mad as hell with business as usual and they aren't going to take it anymore.
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 4:14 PM
No comments.
