We pointed out in our last posting called Pity the Democrat Members of Congress that a lot of House Democrats are going to lose their seats. We also pointed out that the ones who were the most enthusiastic about things like Obama care did so at no pain to them since they are from safe seats. Yet Scott Brown won in Massachusetts where all ten members of Congress from that state voted for Obama care. Needless to say, they are all Democrats since only one Republican voted for that bill and he represents New Orleans. Analysis shows that none of these 10 Democrat congressmen from Massachusetts has anything to worry about in November even after Scott Brown got elected there by opposing Obama care and treating terrorists not only as a criminal but with all of the rights a U. S. citizen enjoys to boot.
Can we now be so sure of that in light of the election of Scott Brown? We have already projected that the Republicans will pick up 60 seats held by Democrats which is double any other analyst is willing to project. How could there possibly be any more? The fact remains that there are 182 House seats where the Democrat incumbent voted for Obama care with most likely no unpleasant consequences like not getting re-elected. Since 219 Democrats voted for Obama care, there are only 37 who will likely pay the price for their foolishness. That means there are another 23 Democrats who voted against Obama care but will pay the price anyway for the 182 who will not. We have a map of those folks on our 2010 election outlook page.
Over 83% of the Democrats will not pay any price for voting to make you buy health insurance under penalty of fine or imprisonment if you do not. Forget about anything else having to do with the House care reform bill pro or con. 182 Democrats voted to force you to buy something with your own money supposedly for your own good whether you like it or not and they will get away with it with no consequences. Why in the world would you want to let them get away with that? To help you see whether you live in a district represented by one of these 182 freedom hating Democrats and one Republican, here is a map of them:
Who Voted to Deny You Freedom with no Consequences?
Pity the Democrat Members of Congress
A lot of Democrats in both the House and the Senate are going to lose their seats in November. The heck of it is that the ones who most deserve to lose are not the ones who will lose. The people pushing the socialist agenda of Obama like Pelosi are not going to lose their seats. Republicans could not get elected dog catcher in their districts. No, it is the Democrats in marginal and certainly in the conservative districts who are going down. They are the ones whose arms had to be twisted to get them to vote for Obama's agenda.
The strange thing is that though these Democrats have poll numbers in the toilet, President Obama's are not. Oh, they have fallen drastically but they were unrealistically high to start with. Right now his approval ratings exceed his disapproval ratings by one point give or take a point. We find this strange that his agenda is hurting the Democrats badly in Congress but not causing him that much trouble when it is his agenda we are talking about. On top of that are his very visible personal failings. He seems to think nothing of telling outright whoppers which all but his most sycophantic followers know are not true. His decisions on dealing with the war on terror are incomprehensible and his appeasement foreign policy is a total joke. Yet still his ratings are not near as bad as those vulnerable Democrats in congress.
Right now, the Democrats are on the verge of losing both houses of Congress and unless things improve soon that is exactly what will happen in November. If Obama's agenda is killing the Democrats in Congress and it clearly is, why isn't the voting public just as annoyed with Obama? Why is that? Why is his personal approval so much higher than ratings for his agenda? There has to be some reason why this agenda has not pulled down Obama's approval to match that of the Democrats in Congress. We think it is because a lot of voters have been unwilling to admit they made a mistake in electing him. Perhaps others are less than truthful to polling companies because they do not want to be considered racists. Let's face it, the Obama administration has relentlessly played the race card and very effectively.
That brings up the question of why the Democrats in Congress have been willing to fall on their swords to advance this agenda when it only hurts them and not Obama. One would think that the vulnerable Democrats would have long since have seen the handwriting on the wall and told Obama they were all through paying such a heavy price for advancing his agenda. The election of Scott Brown does seem to have been the necessary wake-up call for a lot of them. Perhaps that is why his agenda has suddenly screeched to a halt. The odd part of all of this is that Obama is still pushing his far left agenda seemingly oblivious to the damage it is doing to his party. If you truly believe Obama's claim that he is not an ideologue then we have this great bridge in Brooklyn we can make you a great deal on.
We can understand why those Democrats from safe districts can enthusiastically support this agenda because it is no skin off their electoral hides. Not only that, but their constituents undoubtedly favor socialism or else why would they continually vote for these leftist wackos? But what about the rest of those Democrats who only got there in 2006 or 2008 at the expense of a Republican incumbent? Whatever possessed them to commit political suicide for this idealistic and yet totally unrealistic nonsense? Did they truly think the American electorate would let them turn this country into Sweden lite? If so they totally misread the message that the voters were sending them in 2008 as is now readily apparent to anyone who does not have blinders on. Enthusiasm for our first black President is not a mandate for socialism.
Some people just have to learn things the hard way so pity those blue dog Democrats who really were not very enthusiastic about this agenda and who are now paying the price for those who were. It is too bad that those who are all for this nonsense are getting off Scot free and so is Obama who will not get his comeuppance until 2012.
Obama Gives Control of the Senate to Republicans
From The Marston Chronicles
Yesterday, we posted an article called "The Sky is Really Falling." In it we pointed out that the Republicans were within striking distance of regaining control of both Houses of Congress. That is no longer the case. Thanks to President Obama, they know should actually regain control of the Senate as well as the House. Yesterday, the Republicans were ahead in nine Senate races which is held by a Democrat. Well, today make that 10 Senate races. Since the Republicans now hold 41 seats since the election of Scott Brown, adding 10 more gives them control of the Senate 51-49 if the election were held today.
What has happened since yesterday is that Rasmussen Polling has released a new poll for the Illinois Senate now that the primary election is over and the candidates have been determined. Lo and behold, the Republican candidate Kirk is ahead of the Democrat candidate Giannoulias 46 to 40. Now there is a caveat here in that in three of these races the Republican who is leading the Democrat have not promised to run yet even though control of the Senate is at stake. This means that Pataki in New York, Thompson in Wisconsin and Rossi in Washington have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the race.
Finally the President has an accomplishment he can point to with pride. What? This was not the accomplishment you had in mind, Mr. President? Bummer. Here are the races with the poll results and the links to them:
| State | Name | Polling Results | Takeover Probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Dakota | Open | Hoeven 55, Heitkamp 34 | #89.5% |
| Delaware | Open | Castle 56, Coons 27 | #86.3% |
| Colorado | Michael Bennet | Norton 46, Bennet 37 | #73.0% |
| Pennsylvania | Arlen Specter | Toomey 46, Specter 38.3 | 71.6% |
| Massachusetts | Open | Brown 51, Coakley 46 | #66.1% |
| Washington | Patty Murray | Rossi 45, Murray 43 | 61.9% |
| Illinois | Open | Kirk 46, Giannoulias 40 | #61.2% |
| Wisconsin | Russ Feingold | Thompson 47, Feingold 43 | 60.4% |
| Nevada | Harry Reid | Tarkanian 52, Reid 41 | #60.3% |
| Arkansas | Blanche Lincoln | Boozman 56, Lincoln 33 | 59.0% |
| New York | Kirsten Gillibrand | Pataki 43.3, Gillibrand 42.8 | #58.4% |
The Sky is Really Falling
From The Marston Chronicles
In 45 years of being heavily involved in politics, we have never seen anything like this. Having been hammered for two elections, the Republican Party was totally on the ropes with only 40 Senate seats and 178 House seats. This is down from 55 Senate seats and 232 House seats in just four years. Now just 15 months later, the Republicans are poised to regain control of both houses in Congress in November. We are projecting a 58 seat gain in the House which would give them four more seats than they lost in the last two elections. We were projecting only a 44 seat gain just three weeks ago.
The Senate has been considered totally out of reach by everyone, ourselves included, until the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. The reverberations of that election are still striking every nook and cranny of the American political world. Races that would have been considered totally hopeless are now in play. Since there were only 19 Democrat held seats in play, how could the Republicans possibly expect to pick up 11 more to regain control of the Senate? The seats in Hawaii, Vermont and Schumers's seat in New York were and still are totally out of reach.
Who would believe that the Republicans would have a snowball's chance in hell of picking up 11 of the remaining 16 seats? On top of this, three more seats in Connecticut, Maryland and Oregon are really long shots even now. For example, Senator Wyden in Oregon does not even have a Republican opponent and his seat is the best bet of the three. So that left the Republicans with having to pick up 11 of the remaining 13 seats to regain control. They have already picked up the Massachusetts seat with the election of Scott Brown so now they need 10 of 12 seats. You could have gotten odds of 100 to 1 that the Republicans could not do that. If we were in Las Vegas right now and had some money to spare, we sure would be placing a bet that the Republicans would regain control of both houses of Congress in November.
If you look at our table of vulnerable Democrat held seats in the Senate, you will see the latest polls for each seat where they have been taken so far. In those 12 seats, a possible or actual Republican candidate is ahead in 9 of them. This simply cannot be happening and since it is, the sky must really be falling. Of course, there are some problems in three of these good chance seats in that Pataki in New York, Thompson in Wisconsin and Rossi in Washington have not committed to run yet. Even unannounced, they are ahead of Gillibrand, Feingold and Murray. This is totally unbelievable. If these three run and the election were held today, there would be a tie in the Senate and Vice-President Biden would be casting the tie breaking vote for the Democrats.
But wait, we are not done yet. Let's look at the other three seats left out of the 12: Illinois, California and Indiana. We will not know about Illinois until a poll is taken after today's primary. In California, Boxer is only ahead of Campbell by 4 points and Bayh is only ahead of Hostettler by 3 in Indiana. It is entirely possible that the Republicans could pick up all 12 seats and that is just totally unreal. Things like this just do not happen in politics but then Republicans do not get elected in Massachusetts, the most Democrat state in the union, to fill a seat once held by two Kennedy brothers either.
How could this be happening? The only plausible answer is that there is a massive rejection by the voting public of the agenda being pushed by the Democrat trifecta of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Trying to jam health care reform down our throats, trying terrorists as common criminals and spending money like a whole carrier full of drunken sailors on Uncle Sam's credit card is ringing up a massive no sale for the Democrats. No one likes rejection but the worst thing you can do is to pretend it is not happening. That is definitely whistling past the graveyard. In this case, the graveyard is where the far left agenda of the trifecta is being buried right now. The Democrats need to "straighten up and fly right", so to speak, or suffer the most disastrous defeat in the history of modern politics.
A Proposal That Will Actually Create Jobs
From The Marston Chronicles
We have all watched in disbelief as the Obama administration has thrown over a trillion dollars at stimulating the economy and stemming the continual loss of jobs. Never has so much been spent to accomplish so little except to line the pockets of the special interests. You would think that even the economic illiterates could figure out that in order to create jobs, you need to give businesses a reason to start hiring. Threatening them with new taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, cap and trade, and further regulation will definitely not do that; in fact, it will only encourage them to lay off more people.
There is a very simple way to encourage businesses to start hiring people right away. It does not require a whole new bureaucracy to administer it or to send money to anyone. All it requires is to design a simple form that businesses can fill out with the name, address, social security numbers and wages of all new hires or rehires. What will encourage businesses to do that? It is because the federal government will subsidize a portion of the wages of these hires and not be sending the business a check either. Businesses know that the inefficient federal government will not get them a check in a timely fashion as the cash for clunkers program made very clear.
What kind of a subsidy would be required? The business agrees to keep the new hire employed for a full year and to replace any new hire that leaves for any reason for the balance of the one year contract. The government will agree to pay 100% of the gross wages of the new hire for the first month. The second month, it will pay 90% of the gross wages. Each month after that it will decrease the subsidy by 10% until the subsidy stops after the tenth month. Simple isn't it? This is not rocket science, people, it is just common sense which seems to be sorely lacking in government these days.
How does the business get paid the subsidy? It doesn't. It subtracts the amount of the subsidy from the payroll taxes the business deducts from all its employees' wages and sends in the reduced amount. The form is attached to the paperwork filed showing the payroll taxes that are being paid. The business gets to keep the the subsidy immediately by not sending in all of the payroll taxes like it is required to do. There is no muss, no fuss and minimal paperwork. Instead of having to cut a check for the subsidy with all of the effort and bureaucracy required, the government just collects less in taxes in the first place. Now would businesses go for this program? You had better believe they would.
You now are going to tell me that this is way too expensive. Like a trillion dollars wasted to no real effect was too expensive? Instead of another stimulus bill that will not work, how about this idea? You can just use the rest of the previous stimulus money to pay for this program since it will only be wasted on any other approach. How many jobs will be created the minute a bill enacting this program passes? As many as the government is willing to subsidize. Let's say that the average wage of a new hire will be $10 an hour. For an average work month of 176 hours, that is $1,760 the first month, $1,584 the second, etc. until it becomes $176 in the tenth month. This is a total subsidy of $9,680 per new hire (or rehire). Let's call it an even $10,000 to keep the math simple. You create 100 jobs for each million spent. That comes to 100,000 jobs for each billion spent. If this program had been in place in stead of the stimulus bill, we could have created 10,000,000 jobs at a cost of $100 billion.
Since we spent a trillion to no avail, we could have gotten by with a tenth of that and have a solid economy to boot. There would have been no need for bailouts that did nothing for working Americans. It would have saved a fortune in unemployment compensation and food stamps. Starting in the eleventh month, the government would start collecting payroll taxes on another 10 million employees and not be in the bind it is now. Best of all, these jobs would put us back at full employment in a very short time. The state and local governments would be collecting sales taxes on all the money being spent by another 10 million employed people and not be in the bind they are in now. This is not a welfare program, it is an investment in America's future. Why does the government have to do things the hard and ineffective way?
Does this simple idea ring a bell with you? Fine. Spread the word through the internet and flood the halls of Congress with demands that the government enact this program. This is not a Republican program or a Democrat program. This can be the American people's program. The sooner this is done, the sooner we will all be better off and so will our country.
America is a Racist Country
From The Marston Chronicles
What? You thought that the 2008 Presidential Election proved that America is not a racist country when we elected a black President when only one out of eight Americans are black? On the contrary, that election proved we are very much a racist country. Let's take a look at why Obama got elected. Was it because of his sterling record of accomplishment and his clear abilities to lead? That question answers itself because his resume would fit on the back of a postage stamp. Was it because he showed a knack for picking the right people to give him advice? A quick look at his choice of mentors like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Recko refutes that notion. He has continued showing a poor choice in choosing his associates as his various czars bear witness.
Then look at what people seemed to admire in him. His rhetorical abilities to read a good speech and to pick good speechwriters might be a reasonable choice. Was that enough to pick him to be the most powerful man in the world? Come on, people, let's face it, he was picked because of the color of his skin and just about nothing else because there was nothing there other than that. Picking on or choosing people based on their skin color is a racist act. That is what an large amount of the American electorate did and that makes this a racist country.
Now to be sure about 30% of the voters would vote for the donkey if the Democrats ran it but what about the other 23%? Yes, some of them fell for the hope and change gambit because Obama is the quintessential conman. Yes, some people voted not for Obama but against McCain and/or Palin. None of these can explain the entire 23%. Let's look at which part of the electorate that voted for Obama who usually do not bother to vote based on historical trends. The clear answer is the blacks and the under 30 group. They turned out in droves for Obama. Why did they suddenly do that? It is hard to come up with any other explanation but the color of Obama's skin.
Now that is not to say that most of these folks had other motives besides just the color of his skin. White guilt about this country ever condoning slavery comes to mind. Perhaps some thought that doing this would prove that America is not a racist country when it had the exact opposite effect. Perhaps others just like supporting the "disadvantaged" people in this country. None of these motives disguise the fact that they made a racist tinged decision. This was what could be rightly called the ultimate affirmative action. The fact that affirmative action is reverse racism does not make it any less racist.
Let's face facts: both Obama and his wife have been affirmative action bonus babies their entire lives. They have had everything handed to them on a silver platter primarily because of the color of their skin. Who paid for their expensive college education at top flight schools? It certainly was not them. Did they get passing grades in school based on their merit or was the color of their skin factored in? Perhaps this is why Obama's college records are sealed? Did they get jobs because they were the best qualified candidates or because they were filling a racial quota? Who knows, but the suspicion remains based on their attitudes. Like most people who get something they do not deserve, they resent it. This might explain why neither of them seems to be either grateful for living here or being proud of their country.
I am well aware that this little opinion piece is going to get me called a racist, but somebody had to say it and I just did. It will not be the first time nor will it be the last time. Over thirty-five years ago, four U. S. Senators stood on the capitol steps and told the assembled media that I was plainly a racist. Why did Senators Ted Kennedy, Birch Bayh, Phil Hardt and Alan Cranston do that? It was because I refused to buckle to the demands of Cesar Chavez and his gang of thugs to help them recall the Governor of Arizona. That led to an FBI investigation that showed no evidence of that but that part never got publicized unlike the attack on me personally. Still I will be in the good company of the town hall protesters and the tea party folks who also got called racists without any evidence to support it other than a few signs held up by people who were not even part of the protest.
Of course, calling Republicans racists is pretty much par for the course and has been ever since 1964 when it was applied to Barry Goldwater and his supporters like me. You did not hear Republicans called racists prior to that because the blatant racists were the Southern Democrats who voted against every piece of civil rights legislation ever proposed while the Republicans were by and large supporting them. This certainly included Lyndon Baines Johnson prior to 1960 but you never heard a peep about that because those real racists were all Democrats. They can even be members of the Klu Klux Klan and still be elected to the U. S. Senate. This double standard about racism has been with us for over 55 years now and is still going strong.
The RINO Problem
A lot of you are not going to like this analysis but consider it in the nature of a reality check. We would like to regain control of the House of Representatives in November. We need a net gain of 40 seats to accomplish that. Since we are quite likely to lose Delaware and Louisiana 2, we actually need to pick up 42 seats from the Democrats. The odds are that we can do that as we calculate that we have a better than even chance in 46 seats. Update: Make that 47 seats since Marion Berry in AR-1 just announced his retirement. That moves his district from a 0.02% to 74.1% chance of going Republican.
That is the good news but it comes with some bad news for the fire breathing conservatives out there. A full half of these needed seats were carried by Obama-Biden. In fact all but 1 of these 23 districts are in states carried by the Democrats. MP-Margin means McCain-Palin margin in the table below and the probability means the percentage chances of the Republicans capturing the seat in November.
What are the odds of a true blue (red?) conservative getting elected in these districts? The answer is not very good at all. That means that we need all whole bunch of moderate Republicans like Scott Brown to win if we want to gain control of the House. Already people are complaining that Scott Brown is not conservative enough. The fact of the matter is that he is as conservative as he can be to win in bright blue state like Massachusetts. You may complain that moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are RINOs but you cannot elect a conservative in Maine. Remember that they did vote against Obama care so that makes them more useful than a left wing Democrat.
Surely you realize that controlling the House by one vote is a total disaster. One representative can hold the Republican majority out to dry. Fortunately, there are 4 more seats that are odds on bets and another ten that are quite possible to gain in a good Republican year like 1994. I am sure you can already guess that these seats are even bluer than the first group. You are right because 11 out of the 14 were carried by Obama-Biden.
If you want to get rid of the RINO's in red states, you can usually safely do that, but it is a fairly short list. For example, several folks want to dump McCain in Arizona. They have their chance since J.D. Hayworth is running against him in the Republican primary. The only problem is that J. D. has a reputation, whether deserved or not, as a blowhard. He lost a safe Republican House seat that contains Scottsdale which is about as red as you can get. Maybe he can beat McCain in the primary but can he defeat Rodney Glassman in the general election? Do we really want to take a chance on losing a safe Senate seat? I am no fan of McCain since I was the campaign manager for a Republican opponent in his very first run for office in Arizona but facts are facts.
If the Republicans want to regain control of the House, it takes a center-right coalition and the center part is the moderate Republicans. You can call them RINO's if you want, but we need them. Now this does not mean we have to put up with the likes of Dede Scozzafava though. New York 23 is nominally a Republican district and we should get it back in November. The Democrats tried to govern from the left and look where it has gotten them. In order to have enough seats to do anything, they needed the Blue Dogs. That is fine if you try to govern from the center but not if you do so from the left. Likewise, Republicans cannot govern from the right. We can take this country back from the leftists but not by offering candidates from the hard right in blue states. You may not like it but that is just the way it is.
