Politics: January 2010 Archives

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

I've seen all kinds of reports and so-called exposés about the TEA party movement in MSM. Many were derisive, a few tried hard to be neutral, a few more were big supporters, and some were outright hostile.

But then, out of nowhere, comes a piece that even a cynic like me has to admit was pretty well balanced, and from a source I never would have thought of as fair.

Ben McGrath does a pretty good job covering the rise of TEA party activism for the New Yorker, resisting the urge to paint everyone involved with the TEA party activities as inbred right-wing rednecks beholden to Big Oil, Big Finance, and Big (place name of latest scapegoat du jour here).

My first immersion in the social movement that helped take Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat away from the Democrats, and may have derailed the President's chief domestic initiative, occurred last fall, in Burlington, Kentucky, at a Take Back America rally.

About a thousand people had turned up at the rally, most of them old enough to remember a time when the threats to the nation's long-term security, at home and abroad, were more easily defined and acknowledged. Suspicious of decadent élites and concerned about a central government whose ambitions had grown unmanageably large, they sounded, at least in broad strokes, a little like the left-wing secessionists I'd met at a rally in Vermont in the waning days of the Bush Administration.

If there was a central theme to the proceedings, it was probably best expressed in the refrain "Can you hear us now?," conveying a long-standing grievance that the political class in Washington is unresponsive to the needs and worries of ordinary Americans. Republicans and Democrats alike were targets of derision.

Addressing McGrath's last point, more than a few Republicans have made the mistake of thinking the TEA party movement is a phenomenon automatically supportive of the GOP. They're wrong. Most Americans are sick and tired of being ignored or marginalized by both political parties. TEA party activists like me see both the Democrats and Republicans as being part of the problem, so GOP congresscritters, governors, and state legislators are no more immune from our displeasure than Democrats. (It's just that there are so many more Democrats in office these days that they're taking the brunt of our pushback.)

McGrath credits Rick Santelli, a CNBC reporter, as being the spark that started the TEA party fire with his rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange last February. The rant, reminiscent of Peter Finch's portrayal of Howard Beale in the movie Network, expressed the frustration so many of us were feeling at being ignored by the very people we put in office to serve us. Instead, they decided that we served them, and as such, all that was ours was theirs to use or misuse as they saw fit.

They were wrong.

And so the movement grows, as McGrath has shown.

It's true.

Rush Limbaugh was taken to task to his operation chaos. Jonathan Adler rightfully brings up MSNBC wingnut Ed Schultz and his desire to inspire Massachusetts Dems to vote ten times.

Adler, the Case Western Law Professor (and a former Cato Institute intern with me in 1990), is excellent at bringing up double standards in the media.

What Limbaugh argued for wasn't illegal, but Schultz has crossed the line. MSM? Anyone home?

The race for the US Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy is heating up. While Democrat Martha Coakley first thought it would be a cakewalk to the Senate, Scott Brown worked hard to disabuse her of that notion. The support he's received via fed up Massachusetts Republicans, independents, and Democrats has been amazing. So has the campaign's fundraising, pulling in about $1 million a day since the blogosphere kicked into high gear on his behalf. While Coakley has had to rely on lobbyist and special interests to raise campaign funds, Brown's funding has been grassroots, with the average donation being approximately $77 per contributor. Small donations have been pouring in from all over the country.

Coakley has shown how out of touch she is, blasting Scott Brown for taking all that "out of state" money...while standing outside the Washington DC fundraiser held for her by out of state lobbyists. The worst thing? She probably doesn't realize just how hypocritical she really was. And this is someone the people of Massachusetts should send to the US Senate?

Coakley knows her campaign is in trouble when even the Massachusetts SEIU locals are supporting Scott Brown, campaigning for him even though they aren't being paid $50 par day to hold one of his signs. Does this mean the Dems will have to bus in out-of-state SEIU members to carry signs for Coakley? Or will they be used to...umm... encourage voters heading into the polls to vote for Coakley, much like the New Black Panthers did during the Presidential elections in 2008?

The Democrats are pulling out all the stops, using every dirty trick in the book in order to get Coakley elected. The problem is that every time they do, Brown's poll numbers go up. I guess that means the folks in the People's Republic of Massachusetts have come to realize the state's Democratic leaders don't really have their best interests at heart, particularly when they keep pushing the worst possible candidate the party could have fielded like she's the second coming of Teddy.

If Brown pulls off an upset, that will give voters in other states some hope. Goodness knows we could use some here in New Hampshire, where the Democrats hold both chambers of the General Court and the Governor's office and have been doing their darnedest to push the state into insolvency with profligate spending and higher taxes at a time when no one can afford them.

I may teach Greek and Shakespeare, buy my sympathies are definitely with red-staters, even if I have metrocon sensibilities. For example, I'd like to check out that performance this weekend.

But it turns out the NYT's so-called man of the right, David Brooks, is bemoaning the fact that the "educated classes' ideas are now unpopular" with the country at large. Boo-hoo.

Maybe he should have seen that coming when candidate B. Hussein spoke in Berlin, Germany, about being a citizen of the world. Shields and Brooks on the NewsHour thought he was great; meanwhile, the country didn't and his approval went down. At least those areas between San Francisco and Boston.

Noemie Emery writes further of this. It doesn't help when the weather patterns over the past decade and the palpably obvious fraud of the Big Gubmit climate scientists are giving the lie to global warming or whatever they're calling it now.

One can see this skepticism with socialism with Ford's sales vis-a-via GM and Chrysler. Chan has written about this recently. No more Chryslers for me, either. And I've had fantastic luck with my 2001 Voyager.

And indeed it appears President Obama is our first post-American president. I know that must sound like an oxymoron.

Speaking of the Bay State, I think it's fun that a Republican might win. Don't hold out hope, though, folks. Sounds like he blew it by apologizing for being a conservative and not talking about illegal aliens being granted automatic citizenship as his rival advocates. He blew it. I don't know about you, but after the compassionate conservatism of W I am more in the mood for the red meat stuff.

And if you are really ambitious this morning, John Bolton lays out the next three years of Obama's foreign policy.

I gotta say, "Don't blame me, I voted for the American." TelePrompter POTUS.

 

Ah, the things that go on in Washington, including a palpably obvious violation of the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments in order to corral a wayward Sen. Ben Nelson. Here's a Union Leader story on it, drawing interesting reader comments including yours truly.

Why didn't Shaheen play hard to get? The story is that she's a lackey to Chuck Schumer the uber liberal NY senator. I was going to call the female senator a numb-nuts. Is that worse than Schumer calling a stewardess a bitch?

I just finished reading Sarah Palin's Going Rogue. All I can say: She's one tough lady.

Many of the episodes Sarah describes that took place during the 2008 Presidential campaign I was already familiar with, though her description of the way she was handled by the McCain campaign staffers filled in a few gaps.

One big reason the McCain-Palin ticket lost the 2008 election: the infighting between the McCain staff and the lack of communications between the McCain campaign 'headquarters' and Sarah Palin's campaign staff. The campaign lost their focus and practically handed the election to Obama. I have a feeling that if John McCain had fired some of the senior staffers and told the rest to "let Sarah be Sarah", we'd be talking about the McCain Administration and Obama would still be "Senator No-where Man".

But that's water under the bridge, something that can't be fixed. However, the animosity towards Sarah Palin by the campaign staff has translated itself into a lack of support of Palin from GOP insiders. I have a feeling it's because she refuses to fit into the mold they see as acceptable. But acceptable to whom?

Frankly, I have a feeling the insiders of both the Democrat and Republican parties choose to ignore what a large portion of Americans want, particularly what Americans want to see in their leaders. The growing momentum of the TEA parties has certainly shown anyone paying any kind of attention that the average Americans are tired of being marginalized and ignored, of being looked down upon by those considering themselves our betters. That Sarah Palin appeals to the great unwashed masses out there in Middle America pisses them off to no end.

A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party's professional class -- and maybe that's just how she wants it.

In a survey of 109 party leaders, political professionals and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the party's '12 WH nomination. Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was the overwhelming choice.

--snip--

And Dems are even less convinced Palin is a serious candidate. Just 3% of Dem insiders said she would be the candidate running against Obama in '12.

Then again, Palin fans can take heart, given just how long candidates have to go until the first nominating contests. In '06, insiders predicted that ex-Sen. George Allen (R-VA) would be the GOP nominee, and that Sec/State Hillary Clinton would easily win the Dem nomination.

Palin had little support from Alaska GOP insiders as well when she ran for governor, but she beat the incumbent Republican governor John Murkowski in the primary, receiving 51% of the vote (in a five way contest), and defeated her Democrat opponent by almost 8 percentage points, receiving over 48% of the votes cast in the six-way general election.

Not bad for someone with little actual support from the GOP insiders.

As one commenter to the post linked above put it:

Governor Palin is exactly right to distance herself from the GOP establishment. These are the same people who thought John McCain was a serious candidate and who hired Michael Steele to run the RNC. If Palin hadn't been running with him, McCain would undoubtedly have lost to Obama by 16 points instead of 6.

Assuming she wants the job, there are very few Republicans out there who can command the type of following among independents she does, and she's positioned herself exactly right if she decides to run.

I think we'll find she'll also garner support from a number of disaffected Democrats as well. Reagan certainly did.

If she decides to run, she'll certainly have my support.

Evidence is here. That she can say the new giaganto health bill won't add a penny to the deficit shows her to be an empty suit merely parroting the Democratic party line.

How's it we go from pro-life libertarian John Sununu to this? It's like dating Christine Brinkley and switching to Bette Midler.

I am not enjoying being represented by such a person in DC. I sorely miss the only engineer in the Senate whom the former governor replaced. Didn't she do a good job on health care for the state, though? One word: SB 711.

If people knew as much about politics as about sports box scores a lousy candidate like Shaheen would be on the B team, not the A team as she is now. Most politicians in Washington DC are only good at getting elected. They lack intelligence and don't have a conscience. I am sorry to say that NH hasn't deviated from the general path with Shaheen who felt it acceptable to feed her family on Domino's pizza almost every night when a state senator from Madbury. I briefly worked at the Durham franchise in the early 1990s and was stunned when a call came in almost every night for a home delivery to be made. The manager described her "as our best customer."

She had three young daughters at the time. One of the drivers, a high school classmate, said the pizza was going to feed them. Her husband was a lawyer in York, Maine, or nearby. It's amazing that the Pizza Mom is now senator.

But that's how it is with politics in our decadent country. If you don't think we've been in decline you should read this Pat Buchanan column or John Derbyshire's new book We Are Doomed.

For the longest time the major players in the MSM have either ignored or trivialized the TEA Party movement. But no more.

Tonight, ABC's World News had a report about the 'phenomenon' of the TEA parties, showing the effect they've been having and how the movement is growing. As political analyst Matthew Dowd put it:

"I think Republicans definitely dismiss this at their peril. I also think Democrats, by trying to marginalize it, underestimate the anger out there," political analyst Matthew Dowd said.

There are a lot of angry people out there. I'm but one of them.

I find it interesting that one of the favorite politicians among TEA party supporters is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. But it isn't all that surprising considering she implemented many of the TEA party core beliefs while she was governor, rooting out corruption, cutting profligate state spending, and scaling back the reach of state government until it was performing only the duties expected of it as laid out in the Alaska State Constitution.

The TEA parties aren't aiming their anger at any one party so much as the actions of those in Congress and the various statehouses, showing their anger at being ignored and seen as nothing more than a source of revenue for the tax-and-spenders in both the Democrat and Republican parties.

Maybe ABC started payi8ng attention when TEA party actions started bringing down politicians and party leaders who made the mistake of ignoring their constituents.

The most recent victim of "tea party' activists was Florida Republican Jim Greer, who resigned from as state party chairman this week, in part because of the activists' objections to his alliance with Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, who is running for the U.S. Senate. The activists are vocally supporting Crist's opponent -- a young, outspoken conservative, Marco Rubio -- and some believe the tea party group may bring down Crist, too.

The message is getting out: Politics as usual aren't going to work this time, at local, state, or federal level. You ignore us at your own peril for we have no problem firing you come next November, if not sooner. To quote Howard Beale from the great movie, Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"

It's time those in both parties pay attention because the TEA parties aren't going away.

It appears the New Hampshire First Congressional District Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D) is considering a run for the US Senate to replace retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg.

Second Congressional District Representative Paul Hodes (D) doesn't appear to be drawing the support he'd hoped for, with polls showing him behind the two front-runner GOP candidates.

Personally, I hope Shea-Porter runs.

I have two reasons for this.

First, it means she won't be running for re-election in the First Congressional District and, second, she's likely to lose the Senate race because the Second Congressional District is more conservative than the First, Hodes presently filling that seat in the House notwithstanding (he's far more responsive to all his constituents, unlike Shea-Porter).

Shea-Porter has shown her condescension towards her constituents, particularly her Republican constituents, more than once and quite publicly. She has also shown us she's arrogant, ignoring the wishes of her constituents because "she knows better". She follows every dictate of her fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi, voting against the best interests of the State of New Hampshire far too often. That won't play so well in the Second District.

So, "Run, Carol! Run!"

First, it was the now-heating-up race for Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat. Then Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) announces he wouldn't be seeking re-election (no doubt because he knew he was going to get his head handed to him in the general election). And now it's Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) pulling the plug as well.

Dems must know it's getting bad when even the Boston Globe is dissing Democrat Senate contender Martha Coakley. GOP candidate Scott Brown's campaign is picking up steam and momentum, closing the gap while Coakley seems content to keep her campaign "in the station". If Brown wins the January 19th special election in Massachusetts, Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will have lost his filibuster proof majority and gained yet another senator hostile to ObamaCare. Seeing as Brown has first hand knowledge of the abomination that is MassCare (call it ObamaCare Lite), there's no way he would support a national version of that program.

Even in state government Dems are seeing a fall off. The latest? Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) is ending his re-election campaign. Like Senator Dodd, it appears he realized he would get clobbered in the general election this coming November.

How many others Democrats will decide not to run for re-election by November, knowing they're likely to take a drubbing in the polls?

Only time will tell.

When I saw this over at Instapundit, I wondered if he was linking to Time magazine. Instead, it turns out he linked to a far better place.

Don Surber explains why he's selected Sarah Palin as Man Of The Year.

While each of the finalists was deserving, there can be only one man of the year -- Sarah Palin. In the pantheon of people who stood up this year for that which is right, no one else stood taller or looked better.

She endured the most and came to symbolize the majority of American citizens who are stunned by the attempt to rapidly dismantle this great nation of ours and transform it into another Euro-weenie socialist country that apologizes for trying to save the rest of the world over the years.

The cynic in me said I should honor the person most responsible for reviving the conservative movement -- Barack Obama. His arrogance and over-reach gave people pause. The plunder of the treasury in February caused even apolitical people to question his true motives.

But conservatives make lousy cynics. Skeptics yes. We refuse to act now, think later.

Indeed.

Though Sarah is no longer in office, she has not let that stop her from becoming a symbol for many of the frustrated people of Middle America (and I'm not talking about fly-over country, but about those of us stuck between the "gimmee-gimmees" and the looters..er...members of the political elite). We're sick and tired of being talked down to or being told we have to give up even more of our hard-earned money to a government that apparently has no scruples in regards to pissing it away on things most of us don't want, has no understanding of the real worth of those hard-earned dollars, and no understanding of how the economy works in the real world. It has become evident to more and more Americans that Sarah Palin gets it because she is one of us.

She understands the problems with profligate government spending, government corruption and how it costs the taxpayers, the poison of the so-called "Old Boys Network", and has a firm grasp on the concept of frugal spending (i.e. don't spend what you haven't got and don't go into hock just to spend it). Is it any surprise she draws large crowds at book signings and speeches?

Will she run for president in 2012? Who knows. Even if she decides not to run, she will be someone those aspiring to the office will have to measure up to. If they cannot appeal to Middle America, they will not get the votes they need to win.

I can understand why Don chose Sarah Plain as Man of the Year.