It is amazing how often you see political activists and politicians from both parties doubling down on stupid. One definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same mistake and expecting different results. It may not be insane to do that but it sure is stupid. Since both sides of the political aisle are guilty of this, let's first pick on the Democrats. We just saw an election in which the Democrats got their worst drubbing since 1938. While a lot of factors led to this debacle, it seems fair to conclude that the voters felt that the Democrats were not listening to them. Nothing annoys the electorate more than to be ignored and it makes the voters inclined to teach politicians better manners by voting them out of office. At the top of the list of voter complaints about not being listened to was the imposition of Obamacare on that same electorate. A clear majority of the voters have been opposed to Obamacare since day one. So what did the Democrats do? They jammed it through anyway and effectively told the voters that the Democrats didn't care whether the voters wanted it or not because they were going to pass it anyway. So why should the Democrats be so surprised when the voters sent them a message about how really annoyed they were about being treated that way? The message was as loud and clear as any message that has ever been sent to a political party. Consider this data: out of 18 Democrats who won by less than 5% in 2008, only Jim Himes of CT-4 survived. Of the 10 Democrats who won in 2008 by more than 5 points but less than 10, 6 lost in 2010. Of the 19 Democrats with 2008 margins between 10 and 15 points, 9 lost in 2010. Ordinarily a 15 point margin in politics makes for a safe seat but in 2010, 24 Democrats lost out of 51 with that supposedly safe margin. That is a ton bricks that fell on the Democrats last November. So they got the message and straightened out, right? No, they doubled down on stupid. The Republicans who did get the message tried to repeal Obamacare recently. So how many Democrats showed they got the message the voters sent them? Only three Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to repeal Obamacare and not one Democrat in the Senate voted to save their own skins. Apparently all but three House Democrats who survived in 2010 figure they do not need to worry about 2012. Yes, they are right to figure that the Republicans will be hard pressed to make further gains other than the ones they will pick up from reapportionment in states where the Republicans control both houses of the state legislature and the governor as well. Still any Democrat who won by less than a 5% margin is considered vulnerable in any year and there are 20 such Democrats. So how many of those Democrats showed they did not get the message? If you guessed not one single one, you got it right. The three Democrats who did get the message are Boren (OK-2) who won by 13.05%, McIntyre (NC-7) who won by 7.36% and Ross (AR-4) who won by 17.38%. Boren and Ross had nothing to worry about but they listened anyway. McIntyre would probably have survived even not voting to repeal Obamacare but he was not taking any chances. As for the rest of the Democrat who won by less than 10% and who voted and should not have doubled down on stupid, 37 of the 38 did just that. In the Senate, it was even worse. There are five Senate Democrats who are in real trouble in 2012. They are Nelson of Nebraska, Testor of Montana, McCaskill of Missouri, Webb of Virginia and Nelson of Florida. The first three just committed political suicide by voting against repealing Obamacare. The Republicans were already going to pick up North Dakota when Conrad retired so this doubling down on stupid just gave the Republicans control of the Senate in 2013. Nelson of Florida will lose if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate but otherwise might survive. There are another three Democrats who should be worried, namely Manchin of West Virginia, Stabenow of Michigan and Brown of Ohio. Manchin ran ads against Obamacare and then voted to retain it. If Hoekstra runs against Stabenow, she could easily lose. If DeWine runs against Brown, he could also lose. These Democrats could have made sure that did not happen but instead they doubled down on stupid and put nine Senate seats at risk. Now let's pick on the Republicans and the insistence of some of them on ideological purity tests. This is a center-right country, but some Republicans ignore the center part and think they can control Congress and the White House with only bone fide conservative candidates. That is not possible because there are not enough reliable red states to accomplish that. Republicans must win some seats in the purple states and a smattering in the blue states as well. The political activists in the Republican Party threw away three Senate seats in 2010 that they should have easily won by picking a right-wing candidate in purple and blue states. Sue Lowden would have beaten Reid in Nevada, Jane Norton would have beaten Bennet in Colorado and Mike Castle would have beaten Coons in Delaware. So instead of three more yes votes to repeal Obamacare, the Republicans got three no votes. Some of the no votes they got came from moderate Republicans like Brown in Massachusetts, Collins and Snowe in Maine, Graham in South Carolina and Kirk in Illinois. So what are the right wing Republicans going to do about these RINO Republicans? You guessed it. They are going to try and defeat Snowe and Brown in 2012 by running a more conservative Republican in the primary election and throw away another two seats. That is doubling down on stupid. Didn't they learn anything in 2010? They could have had a 50-50 Senate with Biden having to cast a vote to break a tie and thereby tie Obama-Biden to every vote along party lines in the Senate. Here is factoid for these purists: Only one Republican came closer than a 10% margin in the House in Massachusetts in 2010 and that one lost by 4.49%. Yet Scott Brown carried Massachusetts in a special election with a 4.76% margin. He will not do that well in 2012 because all the Obama voters who did not vote in the special election will vote in 2012. The only reason Brown won was because it was a special election which favors Republicans and because Scott Brown is a candidate manager's dream come true. The Republican Party had very little to do with Scott's victory because Scott did it his way. Scott may survive since he is ahead in the polls but if he has opposition in the primary, he will lose in the general. By doubling down on stupid, the Republicans can throw away another Senate seat.
Doubling Down on Stupid
Burris and Senate Plan B: Police Intervetion
If and when Roland Burris, the Senator-designate for Illinois, shows up to take his seat in the Senate he might just be met with some opposition. It seems that Congress has a rather disturbing plan to use armed guards to prevent him from entering the chambers and taking his position.
Via the LA Times,LA Times-Reporting from Washington -- Should Roland Burris show up for duty in the Senate on Tuesday, armed police officers stand ready to bar him from the floor.
Impressive, the herd on the Hill sinking to armed force to stop something they don't like. The pertinent question is," Why are we even discussing a tactic like this?" Personally I think the Burris appointment is tainted-beyond all belief-and if the Senate seats him they are foolish. However, armed police force on the Hill?
This cinematic showdown is among an elaborate set of contingencies that Democratic leaders are planning if, as expected, the former Illinois attorney general appointed by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich shows up with newly elected senators to press his claim that he is the legitimate replacement for President-elect Barack Obama. read more...
We have already seen Progressive Democratic abuse of the power with the illegal investigation into Joe Wurzelbacher's record in Ohio. Now this? Let's not forget the overt use of force in Waco and Elian Gonzales. It seems the new Congress is tearing a page from the Clinton DOJ and are hitting the ground running on abusing their legal powers with antics like this.
Nevertheless, Burris is now challenging the Illinois Secretary of State's decision not to certify his appointment letter. If Burris should be be successful in forcing the Illinois SoS to ratify his appointment, this still does not ensure him being seated in Congress. Although, if he is granted certification, the Senate seems out of bounds using armed force to prevent him from appearing at the swearing in ceremony.
However, according the SCOTUS blog (H/T TalkLeft) any decisions made by the state have little effect on the Senate's actual ability to seat him.SCOTUS Blog-A house of Congress’s authority to judge an election (and, perhaps, an appointment) would appear to take precedence over any state method of selection, under the Supremacy Clause and the specific grant of authority under Article I, Section 5.
The Senate has to be careful about drawing a distinct line between "tainting" of the process, not the appointee. In other words, the Senate has the power to judge the the suitableness of the appointing official, Blagojevich. As long as they do not add a challenge to Burris's actual personal qualifications for the office.
Either way, all of this is a slippery slope of legality. It is safe to garner that the Judicial Branch will uphold any decision made by the Legislative, regarding their treatment of Burris. It would be difficult to fathom that the Supreme Court, or any other federal judge, wants to be brought into the Blagojevich scandal and be perceived as stepping on Senate toes.
With all this in mind, why would something so puerile and demagogic like police intervention even be considered? The Senate is supposed to be in control, not Blagojevich. But when fractious ideas like this start appearing you have to wonder if fear isn't getting the better of our "leaders" on the Hill.
Update: The progressives at FiredogLake are having a very rare kumbyah fest with Harry Reid, concerning Burris. Usually, Reid is the target of their disdain and contempt. I share their usual feelings, only for different reasons.FiredogLake-I've had my problems with Reid over the years, but he's not in the wrong on Blagojevich and Burris. This is not a racial issue. Long before Burris, a black man, was appointed by a corrupt governor, Reid said he wouldn't allow anyone, anyone, appointed by Blagojevich, to be seated. There is no reason to believe Reid and the Democratic caucus are opposing Burris for racial reasons: all of them signed a letter saying they wouldn't seat anyone. Do you know how hard it is to get every Democratic Senator to agree on anything? read more...
Related Articles:
ProPublica-In 90’s, Burris Sought Death Penalty for Innocent Man
Chicago Sun Times-Burris has long history of brazenness
Obama's Snubbing of the South
Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.
President Obama has conceivably put together one of the more diverse cabinets since President Bush’s choices in 2001. Presently, his picks range from five women, four blacks, three Hispanics, and two Asians. As diverse as his cabinet is, does it really represent the face of America?
Obama’s cabinet choices might be ethnically representative of the US as a whole, however, regionally there is much left to be desired. So far the only pick from below the Mason-Dixon line is the Southern-lite US Trade Rep. and former Dallas mayor, Ron Kirk.
The South is traditionally painted as rural rednecks, totting Confederate flags, draped in sheets, carrying shotguns, bellowing, “The South shall rise again.” While this caricature may have applied some fifty odd years ago. The face of the New South is quite different than what our brethren on the West Coast and in the North East might have you believe.
Population growth is one reason. Back in July CNN reported that 7 out of the 10 fastest growing cities were in the South our South-lite regions.
City State Population Growth
New Orleans La. 239,124 13.8%
Victorville Calif. 107,221 9.5%
McKinney Texas 115,620 8.0%
N. Las Vegas Nev. 212,114 7.4%
Cary N.C. 121,796 7.3%
Killeen Texas 112,434 6.5%
Port St. Lucie Fla. 151,391 6.3%
Gilbert Ariz. 207,550 5.8%
Clarksville Tenn. 119,284 4.8%
Denton Texas 115,506 4.7%
There is also the demographic shift in South that is contributing to massive change in identity. Most still stereotype Southerners as “traditional agrarian whites.” The South is actually home to almost 50% of the nation’ s American-African community, also, there is a migration of Hispanics into the region as well.
US Census Bureau,
Census Bureau-(Hispanics) This ethnic group was the most mobile of the four discussed here as 56 percent changed residence during the five-year period; the South and the Midwest recorded net gains while the West and the Northeast showed net losses; Florida recorded the largest net gain among states (92,000) while Clark County, Nev. (56,000), led all counties.
The South is also growing economically, maintaining its viability through the housing bust into the credit crunch. Although, not immune from its effects, the Southern economy has proven a certain amount of resiliency from the present economic turmoil. Almost two-thirds of the fastest growing counties were in the Southern United States.
Despite the a vast shift in the economic, demographic, and sociological makeup in the South these simple facts seem to allude to the pundits and political scientists. There is almost a blatant relishment, on their part, that the South has somehow faltered in its political power.
From the NY Times,NY Times-That could spell the end of the so-called Southern strategy, the doctrine that took shape under President Richard M. Nixon in which national elections were won by co-opting Southern whites on racial issues. And the Southernization of American politics — which reached its apogee in the 1990s when many Congressional leaders and President Bill Clinton were from the South — appears to have ended.
“I think that’s absolutely over,” said Thomas Schaller, a political scientist who argued prophetically that the Democrats could win national elections without the South.
Furthermore, there is the stereotypical argument that voters in the South are ignorant Confederates, who will only vote Republican due to racist views and lack of education.NY Times-One reason for that is that the South is no longer a solid voting bloc. Along the Atlantic Coast, parts of the “suburban South,” notably Virginia and North Carolina, made history last week in breaking from their Confederate past and supporting Mr. Obama. Those states have experienced an influx of better educated and more prosperous voters in recent years, pointing them in a different political direction than states farther west, like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and Appalachian sections of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Of course an analysis done by the Public Policy Polling shed a little more light on why Obama received his increased support among White constituents in Southern states. The abandonment "Confederate mindset," which had been done many years earlier, had little or nothing do with it. Some in the South, like many portions of the US, succumbed to fears concerning the future of the economy.Public Policy Polling-Economy, Economy, Economy. Among white voters in North Carolina who list it as their top issue Obama is actually up 48-46. In Florida Obama has the same 48-46 lead with whites most concerned about the economy. In Virginia it’s a 49-46 advantage.
With these factors in mind it would behoove the President-elect to look towards the South for future political gains. Alienating this region with its growing demographic support and approaching it with a West Coast or North East frame of mind could be a severe mistake.
With states such as California and New York suffering major blows to their economies. It is feasible to assume that an increased number of people holding hourly wage jobs could potentially migrate to states with more stable economic situations (i.e. The South). Coupling this migration with the large representation of minorities in this area, there will inevitably be an increase in the number of electoral votes allocated to each Southern state. Eroding the Democratic lock on California and New York, which contributes a significant number of electoral votes to their cause.
Republicans, as of now, are shifting the dynamic of the GOP and an outreach to minority communities is high on the priority list. Combining this with white support could solidify the base of the GOP even further and represent a return to the Southern Strategy which could work in favor of conservatives.
Chicago Tribune Derails Blago Investigation
Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.
Many are at a loss as to why Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney, hurried the arrest of beleaguered Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich. General opinion is that it was in order to prevent him from making an illegal appointment to the US Senate. Thereby avoiding any legal battles concerning the removal of his selection. However, on the WSJ blog, The Wire, it was reported that the arrests were moved ahead of schedule due to the Chicago Tribune’s leaking of a story related to the investigation. Consequently moving up the FBI timetable on capturing Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff.
From The Wire,The Wire-The precise timing of Tuesday’s dramatic, pre-dawn arrest was not dictated by Fitzgerald, nor was it dictated by the pace of Blagojevich’s alleged “crime spree.” It was dictated by the Chicago Tribune, according to people close to the investigation and a careful reading of the FBI’s affidavit in the case.
If the Tribune had not released the story early, as per their agreement with Fitzgerald, the Feds could have gathered more evidence against the Governor, making a conviction more probable. As well as potentially bringing down some fairly high profile Washington insiders.
At Fitzgerald’s request, the paper had been holding back a story since October detailing how a confidante of Blagojevich was cooperating with his office.
Chicago Tribune editor, Gerould Kern, issued this statement, concerning the early release of the story,
“In each case, we strive to make the right decision as reporters and as citizens,” he said.The Wire-Perhaps even more encouraging to the feds listening in on Dec. 4 was what they knew about the first time such a deal was discussed. About a month earlier, Blagojevich was caught on tape describing an approach by an alleged associate of Jackson. Blagojevich’s now-infamous quote about that meeting had been tantalizing. “We were approached ‘pay to play.’ That, you know, he’d raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator.”
On December 5th the Tribune released its story changing Blagojevich’s plans and derailed the meeting between his brother and Jackson’s envoy.
On Dec. 4, with the feds listening in, Blagojevich was allegedly putting this deal back into play.
The conversation resumed later that same day, as Blagojevich allegedly told his brother, a man identified in the affidavit as “Fundraiser A,” that he was “elevating” Mr. Jackson on the list of candidates, because the governor might be able to get something “tangible up front” for the pick.
He told his brother to meet with someone (unidentified by the feds) whom the pair believed to be close to Jackson. He urged his brother to tell this alleged supporter of Jackson that “some of this stuffs gotta start happening now… right now…and we gotta see it. You understand?” He was talking about campaign cash, the feds allege.The Wire-The next morning, on Friday, Dec. 5, it all came crashing down for the FBI agents underneath the headphones.
What is puzzling about the Tribune’s actions is that Blagojevich was planning on exerting political pressure on Tribune co-owner, Sam Zell to fire some of his editorial staff. On September 29th, the Trib had released a scathing editorial concerning the Governor’s pay-to-play politics and recommended impeachment.
The Tribune’s front page screamed: “Feds taped Blagojevich; TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE: Adviser cooperated with corruption probe, sources say.”
Blagojevich read the same headline. “Undo” that “thing,” the governor allegedly told his brother, according to the FBI. And just like that, the meeting was off, only one day after it had been put back into play.
From the Washington Post,Washington Post-Blagojevich seized on the fact that Tribune, in attempting to unload the Cubs, was seeking aid from the Illinois Finance Authority to ease the sale of the team's ballpark, Wrigley Field.
With Fitzgerald’s reputation for going after the press when they hamper Federal investigations. I think it is safe to say there might be some scrutiny into the Tribune’s actions. Whether or not anything comes of it is another story. One which will probably be released earlier than it is supposed to.
On Nov. 4, the complaint says, Blagojevich told his chief of staff, John Harris, that because of the impeachment editorials and the pending Wrigley deal, an unnamed Tribune financial adviser should be told that "our recommendation is to fire all these [expletive] people, get 'em the [expletive] out of there and get us some editorial support."
Obama: Fox is Watching the Hen House
Cross Posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.
Team Bama has probed itself and the findings are, "No contact in Ill. gov scandal." Our citizenry can put their heads on their pillows tonight, resting assured, the fox is watching the hen house.
From AP, via Yahoo News.CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama said Monday a review by his own lawyer shows he had no direct contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich about the appointment of a Senate replacement, and transition aides did nothing inappropriate.
Let's not forget who Mr. Craig is either. His repertoire of high profile cases demonstrates his love of transparency and justice for the down-trodden .
Obama pledged to make the review public, but said he decided to hold off because prosecutors asked for a delay and "I don't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation." U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald released a statement confirming the request.
Controversy has swirled around the president-elect and his incoming White House chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, following Blagojevich's arrest last week on charges he schemed to trade Obama's Senate seat for personal gain.
Obama, fielding questions at a news conference, sidestepped when asked whether Emanuel had spoken with aides to the governor about potential Senate appointees.
Emanuel was one of several aides who watched the news conference from the wings.
The president-elect pledged the results of the investigation by his incoming White House counsel, Gregory Craig, would be released "in due course."
He said the probe was complete and thorough, but did not say which of his aides Craig interviewed, whether any of them was under oath at the time, or any other details. read more...The Politico-Among Craig’s other high-profile cases: successfully representing Elián González's father, a Cuban, in his efforts to regain custody of his son; and representing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in connection during the Volcker Commission's investigation of the oil-for-food Program at the United Nations. read more...
Thank you Mr. President-elect, with a man like this on the case, we can all put this ugliness behind us. Now, we can get on to something more important, like stimulus packages and taxpayer funded bailouts.
Lobbying for Freddie Mac Against Regulation, the Truth Finally Betold
Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking
The MSM is reporting that back in 2005 while there was growing concerns on the Hill about the need for regulation of Freddie Mac. The over-bloated and severely corrupt GSE started fighting back with an underground lobbying campaign that cut its opponents attempts off at the knees. Sad part is, most in the bloggin’ world already knew this, now the information is rather moot, but here is the story anyway.
From the APWASHINGTON – When the Washington Nationals played their first-ever baseball game in the nation's capital in April 2005, two congressmen who oversaw mortgage giant Freddie Mac had choice seats — courtesy of the very company they were supposed to be keeping an eye on.
The two Representatives in question were Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa. Ney is currently serving federal time for accepting gifts and political donations in exchange for favors in the Jack Abram off scandal.
Efforts to tighten government regulation were gaining support on Capitol Hill, and Freddie Mac was fighting back. The baseball tickets for home opener were means of influence. Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts. Freddie Mac paid the following amounts to the firms of former Republican lawmakers or ex-GOP staffers in 2006:
I must say, until this point I have had a certain affinity for Newt Gingrich, although, that has changed rather radically with advent of this report.
_Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York, at Park Strategies, $240,000.
_Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, at Clark & Weinstock, $360,297.
_Rep. Susan Molinari of New York, at Washington Group, $300,062.
_Susan Hirschmann at Williams & Jensen, former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, $240,790.
We have been expounding here that the Subprime bust, which is the cause of our present economic woes, was directly caused by more than one group or person. It was further facilitated by the greed of Washington Pols, power brokers, and lobbyists as well as Wall Street. Everyone was to caught up in the populism of the election to give a damn. So, now we are going to be trillions in debt just because everyone had to be right. Ain’t ego a bitch?The records obtained by the AP reflect growing concern within Freddie Mac over a chorus of criticism from Republicans worried that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had grown too big. The two companies owned or guaranteed over $5 trillion in mortgages.
Bush has a long history of just plain screwing up, however, for some reason there is a sense of justification due to this. They knew what was wrong, but a severe case of blitzkrieg lobbying eliminated the effort almost before it could get off the ground.
The Bush administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan were sounding the alarm about the potential threat to the nation's financial health if the fortunes of the two mammoth companies turned sour. They did eventually, when they took on $1 trillion worth of subprime mortgages and when their traditional guarantee business deteriorated. Commercial banks regarded Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as competitors and were anxious to pick up business that would result from scaling back the two companies.
Pushing back, Freddie Mac enlisted prominent conservatives, including Gingrich and former Justice Department official Viet Dinh, paying each $300,000 in 2006, according to internal records.
Gingrich talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model.
Dinh wrote a legal analysis of private property rights that viewed a hypothetical government-enforced sale of Freddie Mac assets as constitutionally suspect.The AP previously described, in October, how Freddie Mac thwarted efforts to bring a tough regulatory bill sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and John McCain of Arizona to a full Senate vote.
Interestingly enough, with all of the names up there one is retiring in 09’, two have been defeated politically, and the last, well we know his story all too well. It makes you wonder about lobbying and the ferocity at which they go after their nemeses . Most of the attempts on Palin’s political career have been brought on by Washington insider Republicans. Why not those who sought to thwart a trillion dollar industry's expansion with regulation and oversight?At a meeting days after Hagel's bill went to the full Senate, Syron and McLoughlin berated the company's in-house lobbyists for failing to keep Hagel's bill corralled in committee, said the four people familiar with events at Freddie Mac at the time.
The main focus of the lobbying campaign seemed to be targeted at the Republicans due to the amount of fervor and opposition some in the party were calling for. I have found no evidence of Democrats calling for the regulation of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Rather there were calls from Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for its expansion. Now that their man Flint is safely tucked away in the White House and the Collectivists have firm control of Congress, the truth can be released. Frank and boys had just better keep their sucks shut about this one or they might drown with the rest of the rats.
Freddie Mac shifted into high gear, secretly paying a Republican consulting firm, Washington-based DCI Group, $2 million to kill Hagel's legislation. The covert lobbying campaign targeted Republican senators in 2005-06.
According to the newly obtained records, DCI's deployment was part of a broader campaign that targeted mainly Republicans on Capitol Hill.
The internal Freddie Mac documents show that 17 of the lobbying firms and consultants paid in 2006 were specifically directed to focus on Republicans and four on Democrats, with varying targets for the rest.
Now, this fact about the Dems does not in anyway shape or form relinquish the Republicans of their responsibility in the matter. This was bigger than most could imagine and now that the election is over, maybe people will start seeing that, for all the good it will do.
Fairness Doctrine rev 3.0
CT
The main concern of most Americans right now is the economic crisis and how it will effect their futures. Why wouldn’t it be? We are facing possible financial ruin amid a Keynesian scramble to spend our way out of it. People are frightened and rightfully so. For the Progressive led Congress and White House, this attitude and environment could be the catalyst they need to push through legislation like the Fairness Doctrine.
Earlier this month CoS designate, Rahm Emanuel, was quoted in an interview as saying, “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” “They are opportunities to do big things.” This is a very ambiguous statement which might make some leery about the upcoming administration's motivation.
What does all this have to do with the Fairness Doctrine? A lot. As noted on The Foundry; conservative talk show hosts actually shifted the political dynamic of the electorate concerning comprehensive immigration reform. It gave them a look into the heart of the legislation and made the more politically active among them swamp Congressional representatives with calls. The result was that the package was summarily defeated.
Howard Kurtz, of Washington Post fame, had an article back in February of 2008 that itemized some of Rush Limbaugh’s contributions to shaping policy inside the Beltway. These examples show that Conservative Talk Radio has had a profound effect on many issues; from electing certain candidates to stopping legislation. It has been a powerful tool for the Right in regards to information dissemination.
Due to Conservative Talk's popularity, obvious influence, and the failure of Air-America, the Left has been demonstrating their willingness to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine. Support for the renewal of this legislation ranges from; Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Louise Slaughter (Slaughter, re-introduced its failed legislation in 2004-05), Barbara Boxer, and Chuck Schumer.
More than likely an introduction of the Fairness Doctrine, in its present form, would alienate a large portion of the voting bloc. This could serve as a rally cry for the GOP in 10' and possibly even 12'. So, this brings up the Fairness Doctrine rev 3.0.
Due to this potentially divisive nature and the Progressive juggernaut's political prescience, I highly doubt we will see direct legislation. They are much smarter than that. The expectation should be that any sort of laws limiting talk radio (Free Speech) will be attached as bill riders or under the guise of "localism." (President-elect Obama claims he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, but supports localism.) If attached as riders, they should be showing up in economic bills related to solving the credit crunch. This puts GOP Reps and Senators in a precarious position. Who in their right mind would oppose an economic package designed to "help" the people based on how it will limit talk radio? It's a political "Catch 22."
The political environment is ripe for the Progressives to make their legislative moves. If they are ever going to do it, now is the time. They would have to wait another 30-40 years for an opportunity like this to arise. And remember, "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” “They are opportunities to do big things."
Obama: Chicago Politics plus Clintonites Equals Conservative Dream?
Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.
For two years, from campaigning to President-elect, the Obama platform and objectives have remained an enigma which has been entirely ignored by his supporters and queried, with no success, by his opposition. There has been nothing to examine except supercilious speeches about “change” and “hope” and some very questionable associations. Starry-eyed Progressives and a hyper liberal media bent on making history refused a vetting process of President-elect Obama by their own, or anyone for that matter. To even think of it was considered heresy and demanded be burned at the stake.
However, the first light being shed on his intentions, and that of the senior members of his team, are their Cabinet choices. Unfortunately for his supporters, the same light that they thought was a beacon for the Progressive slide to collectivist equality might just be showing something slightly different than what they expected.
Since the announcement of Hillary Clinton as SoS designate, some have been scratching their heads in confusion as to what to expect out of President-elect Obama. This appointment along with the possibility of Bill Richardson at Commerce, Eric Holder as Attorney General, and 31 out of his 47 member transition team being made up of former Clintonites has some on the Left worried they are not getting what they bargained for. Pundits and bloggers from both sides of the aisle are taking notice also: Pajamas Media, Dissenting Justice, Gun Toting Liberal, LA Times, and the Politico.
His choice for his top advisor role, not surprisingly filled by David Axelrod, member of the Chicagoan political machine extraordinaire and Rahm Emanuel as his CoS designate, see previous description, set the tone for this strange mixture of Chicago politics and Clintonian Renaissance . With their ascendancy to positions of prominence within the Obama administration it should come as no revelation to Obama supporters, and his opposition, that we see the return of the Clintonites.
Interestingly enough, and often overlooked, both of these men have moderate to strong ties with the Clintons. Axelrod has worked as a political consultant for HRC, has done political advisory work for Bill Clinton in 1996, and has personal ties to Hillary through a charity for epilepsy co-founded by his wife . Emanuel, as is well known, was Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy, serving in the Clinton White House from 1993-98.
Both men are very close personally also, having worked for Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago. Emanuel served as an adviser and chief fundraiser for Daley in 1989. Axelrod also joined the Daley campaign in 1989 as has remained close to Daley ever since. In 1984, Axelrod served as Press Secretary to Senator Paul Simon while Emanuel worked for the Senator’s campaign. When Emanuel married his wife Axelrod signed the ketuba, a Jewish marriage contract, at Emanuel's wedding, an honor that usually goes to a best friend.
A look at some of the top Obama campaign staffers and you still see signs of the Clintonian tendency; Valerie Jarrett-a senior unpaid adviser and fixture in Chicago politics. Her great-uncle Vernon Jordan, a lawyer, is a Bill Clinton confidant. Daniel Tarullo-Tarullo worked for Bill Clinton for six years, the last three in the White House as the president's point man on international economic policy. Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar-A veteran of President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, Cuéllar, now 35, was a top Treasury Department official from 1997 to 1999. Many of Obama's advisers served in the Clinton State Department or on the National Security Council. Philip Gordon and Ivo Daalder are two notables. Tony Lake-One of Obama's top foreign-policy and national security advisers, Lake was once closely associated with President Clinton, having served as national security adviser from 1993 to 1997, and as the president's envoy for negotiations that ended the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Frank Loy- The 79-year-old pillar of the environmental community serves on the boards of several national green groups. He held State Department posts during the Clinton, Carter, and Johnson administrations. David Cutler-Obama's top health care adviser served on the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, and he helped develop the Clintons' failed universal health care proposal in the early 1990s. Stuart Altman- He served on President Clinton's transition team but declined to participate in the Clintons' health care reform effort in the early 1990s.
More confusion has been heaped on the minds of Progressives with Gates possibly being kept on as SecDef and Timothy F. Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Nevertheless, one thing Progressives and Conservatives can agree upon is that none of us are getting the bill of goods we were sold. The chances of him governing as a moderate with center right tendencies is still very slim in the mind of this Conservative. Because of this doubt, the GOP must be prepared for the collectivist hammer to drop at a moments notice.
Obama Camapign post descriptions taken from the National Journal.
South Park Obama - Chaaange, Chaaange
After 2 years of election campaign and already talk about 2012 I think it is sometimes necessary to take a break and have a good laugh.
I cracked up big time when I watched the South Park episode 1212 "About last night", because it shows so much about how phony politics and partisan ship really are. I usually don't like this show, but this one is pretty hilarious
You can watch the first part here (by far the best part)
For the rest you would have to go to http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/
Rumor:Newt Gingrich for RNC Chair. Reality: Why not?
Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking
There seems to be a little bit of a rumor developing on the Conservative blogs that Newt Gingrich is going to make a run at the RNC chair. After searching for the beginning of the rumor, hoping to find a practical source of information to clarify, the search ended up back where it started. An article on Digital Journal, with no substantiating links or visible resources listed.
Obviously based on hear say and conjecture, this theory does have a practical side to it. Gingrich had expressed interest in running for President in 2008 and is rumored to have aspirations for 12’. Due to his attachment to the impeachment of Clinton and his own personal problems (i.e. an extramarital affair and a messy first divorce), Gingrich is an unlikely candidate for any office, especially since he would be identified with the polarization back in the 90’s.
However, for his pluses, Gingrich was credited with almost single-handedly returning Congress into the hands of the Republican Party in 1994, after forty odd years of Democratic domination. He also was a Rep. in the days of a Liberal dominated Congress, when he came to office in 1978. Gingrich recognizes how to operate in an environment non-conducive to Conservative thought and remain successful.
Most of the present Republican leadership came into power either during the Bush years, or a little before. They have functioned with little to no opposition from very weak opponents causing them to get drunk with power. They have fallen into a malaise and a false sense of security, which led them away from their core Conservative principles. Nor do they possess the strategic experience to combat the present day Liberal juggernaut. Gingrich, on the other hand, does.
His education is another factor. He is simply put, is a Conservative intellect, possessing a Doctorate in European History from Tulane, in New Orleans, La. He also taught at the University of West Georgia form 1970-78. He is a consummate student of history, something the Republicans are in desperate need of since they are so far off the beaten path. His leadership behind the scenes and at the grassroots level could possibly shake up the Conservative movement and help redefine and unify their fractured party.
Also, Gingrich is presently leading a charge for social issues that most Republicans have shied away from, such as health care. Much like Obama and the liberals made raids into Republican held territories Gingrich might be trying to do the same, in a philosophical sense. This is not to say that he does not believe in these issues just that not enough Republicans do. These are wholeheartedly Conservative topics, which tie right in to the “natural rights” system of thought.
One other advantage Gingrich would have is a very limited but impressive pool of talent to draw from. You have Jindal, Pawlenty, Palin, etc. and all have two things in common; they are Governors and they are young. Ironically, every successful Republican President in the past forty years has been served in this office. Until President-elect Obama, a Senator had not been elected to the office of President since John F. Kennedy. Another point, whenever Republicans have fielded a candidate, in recent times, that was a Senator, they have been stingingly defeated by the Democrats.
Finally, Gingrich brings three things to the table; the elder statesman facet, the inspiring mentor adage, and an activist state of mind. He may possess to many personal flaws to be a viable candidate for office and is often prone to some hubris. However, his vast intellect, leadership skills, and command of the bona fide Conservative frame of mind could be the core to a successful movement within the RNC.
The Election May Be Over, But...
Cross Posted at No Kool-Aid, Just Goldwater
Many are not happy with the election results. I know I'm not. I do not trust Obama. Rahm Emanuel is hardly a unifying figure. Union officials are already looking for payback. Ahmadinejad can't restrain his glee. It's tough to be a conservative right now, looking at how far my country has been led astray.
But, I can be grateful that I live in a country where the transfer of power is peaceable. I have to love the democratic process even when I don't love the result. And I am especially grateful for the wisdom of our Constitution, and the staggered terms of our Senate.
Emotions ran high this election cycle. Many Republicans took the fall for a subpar President - and not just at the national level. In Nevada, we lost some good people in the state legislature. Many did nothing to lose their election - except running with an R next to their name.
The prospect of Obama with Democratic majorities in Congress is troubling to me. But fortunately, an irrational electorate couldn't throw out all of the Republicans in the Senate. We're in the minority, but retained the filibuster firewall.
If Obama governs as a relative centrist in spite of his radical roots, great. But we need our Senators to fight back if Obama pushes anything too nuttily left.
We need courage. We need commitment to principles. We need our Republican Senators to stand up and not roll over. We need them to fight for America, and not worry if they're called uncooperative or obstructionist. If it needs to be stopped, they need to stop it. They're all we've got. If they forget what is on the line, we need to remind them, with vigor.
Those of us who opposed Obama are over 56 million strong. We are not insignificant. We do not need to buy into a mandate. We still need to fight for what we feel is best for the country.
The election may be over, but the real fight is just beginning.
-Angela
Political Partisan Accepts White House Chief of Staff Position
Cross Posted at Politics and Critical Thinking
CT
Throughout his career, Emanuel has earned a reputation as a hard-hitting, highly aggressive, partisan insider, who is prone to the love of publicity. He is reported, at one time, to have mailed a dead fish to a political opponent. Emanuel’s specialties while serving in the Clinton White House, were outlining domestic policies such as health care, welfare, and trade and his hard nosed style earned him the nick,”Rahmbo.”
His appointment and acceptance was met with fierce opposition by Republican opponents who are fearing this is an indicator of the Obama administration's lack of willingness to work outside party lines. In a quote from the AP, House Minority Leader, John Boehner R-OH, called his selection an "ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil and govern from the center." The RNC (Republican National Committee) issued a statement, obtained from the Politico, calling Emanuel "a partisan insider" and referring to him by his nickname of "Rahmbo": "Barack Obama's first decision as president-elect undermines his promise to 'heal the divides."
Not all Republicans met Emanuel’s appointment with the same chagrin as their colleagues, "Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together."
The President-elect’s motivations for this possibly divisive choice are hard to determine. While Emanuel brings a hard line partisan template to this administration, he also fills in some of the gaps in Obama’s résumé. His knowledge of the Congressional landscape and necessities of the White House are great assets for the upcoming administration. How Rep. Emanuel will handle policy implementation and structuring the White House is another story though. One, which all Republicans and the like can do, is sit back and watch unfold.
AP Photo
Republicans Stay Home so Obama Wins
An analysis of the voter turnout figures, the final polls and the exit polling shows that the Republican turnout was way below the norm allowing Obama-Biden to win the election.
As usual, the media has missed the huge story of this election. Their story is that Obama registered huge masses of new supporters and got them to the polls. At first, that was what I thought, but that is not the key factor. I was expecting the highest percentage turnout in 100 years amounting to 130,000,000 voters, but instead as of 5:00 PM EDT, 121,146,964 people voted for Obama or McCain. In 2004, 121,069,054 people voted for Bush or Kerry. Hence in a hotly contested election in which a fortune was spent on the race, there was no big surge in voter turnout. The population is bigger and the number of registered voters is larger than in 2004, yet just about the same number of people voted. What are we to make of this? We know that a higher than normal percentage of minorities and under 30 youths turned out pushing up the Democratic votes. We know that about 15% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton voted for McCain-Palin (the PUMA voters). So how are we to explain the results? The conclusion is inescapable. The Republicans stayed home in droves. Obama did not win the election, the Republicans gave it to him by not getting out and voting.
For those of you who have been following my previous articles, you know I was predicting a McCain-Palin landslide in the electoral votes based on the P.U.M.A. Factor. Since these disgruntled Hillary supporters would normally vote Democrat, that should have been enough to tip the balance in the key states. I even allowed for a huge turnout because of Obama's vaunted ACORN express in my calculations so as not to underestimate the number of PUMA voters required. I have been doing this for 45 years and have never been wrong before. It goes without saying that when the results were widely different from what I predicted, I wanted to know how I could be so wrong. At first I thought it was because the PUMA voters did not turn out and vote for McCain-Palin but they clearly did. Then I thought that it was because Obama got millions of new voters to the polls and simply swamped the PUMA factor.
It was only when the turnout figures became available that I had to discard that theory. If the usual number of people voted yet more Democrats than normal turned out and there a sizable number of PUMA voters voting Republican, how could McCain-Palin have lost? When the results were staring me in the face, I was totally shocked. The smaller turnout meant that even fewer PUMA voters were required in the key states than I had calculated so McCain-Palin should have done even better than I predicted. Naturally my predictions were based on a normal Republican turnout. Who would have ever thought that the Republicans would fail to turn out in this election? While I am still busy trying to wipe the egg of my face, I am also extremely curious as to why so many Republicans stayed home. I imagine that I am not alone in wondering that at this point.
Did all the publicity about a Obama landslide and polls showing that Obama had it made in the shade cause the Republicans to stay home? Were too many Republicans so unhappy with President Bush that they felt that there was no point in voting? Were the Republicans that unhappy with McCain and Palin as the candidates? Were too many Republicans affected by white guilt about slavery and figured electing Obama would prove that America is not a racist country anymore? Yet the tracking polls only showed a 6% defection to Obama from Republicans. Whatever their reason was, it does not change the results.
The Lieberman Reid shoot out on Thursday
As posted on the Weekly Standard Blog and Roll Call: Lieberman will meet Reid.
A lot of Democrats were not happy with Lieberman's endorsement of McCain and want to penalize Lieberman.
What's at stake?
His chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and his place in the Democratic Conference.
Roll Call states:"A growing number of Senate Democrats have been pressuring Reid to penalize Lieberman for aggressively backing Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in this year’s presidential contest. At stake for Lieberman is his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and his place in the Democratic Conference.
It remains unclear what Reid will say in his upcoming meeting with Lieberman, but Democrats believe he is inching toward at least wresting the Homeland Security gavel from him. Lieberman, who sides with Democrats on most issues except the war in Iraq, became one of McCain’s most ardent allies and one of President-elect Obama’s vocal critics this presidential season.
Senate Democrats were particularly incensed with their Connecticut colleague after his bruising speech during the GOP presidential convention, during which Lieberman went on the attack against Obama."
Why is that important?
Well supposedly Barack Obama is talking about unifying the nation, but if Lieberman gets the boot, we already get a taste for what we really can expect from this administration.
Weekly Standard Blog says:
"Harry Reid said last night that the election results are 'not a mandate for a political party or an ideology." He'd seem quite the hypocrite if he said that at the same time he was planning to eject Lieberman from the conference."
Lieberman said in a statement this morning "now that the election is over, it is time to put partisan considerations aside and come together as a nation to solve the difficult challenges we face and make our blessed land stronger and safer. I pledge to work with President-elect Obama and his incoming administration in their efforts to reinvigorate our economy and keep our nation secure and free."
Probably we are talking here about a new phenomenon. BPMA - Bi-Partisanship-My-Ass.
The Alien Patriot
Barack Obama: No Sudden lurges to the Left?
Many pundits expect elected President Obama to be way more centrist than his previous voting record might suggest.
Why is that?
Because he still needs the support of his constituents and he has to prove that he is a thoughtful leader. If he is smart (and I believe he proofed that) and he wants to have a long lasting political career (I think he shows that ambition too) he needs to think long term.
Time Magazine writes in "Will a Black President Really Heal the Racial Divide?":"As Barack Hussein Obama places his brown hand on that black Bible and takes his oath, it will not make him merely the President of blacks who admire him nor leave him indebted to whites who assisted him. He cannot acquiesce to the liberals who support him nor vilify the conservatives who don't. He must remain a philosophical centrist who garners our best and brightest from both sides of the aisle. He must transcend all of that and rise to the global perspective of his calling and through it serve his God, his country and the rainbow coalition of the people of this great nation. We can hope he can re-establish the international respect we have lost and gradually convince the watching, waiting world that a change for us is good for them."
Obama said himself on the campaign trail that many of his fellow democrats who are moederate "will not going to want some sudden lurges to the left" and "I don't think we are going to have time to engage in a bunch of crazy things.." showing that he himself does present himself way more centrist than previously suggested.
Obama's record on flipping on some issues especially after the primary season: NAFTA, Iraq withdrawal strategy, dealing with Russia etc. is also a lot more centrist than his original positions.
So the question is just will he remain pragmatic on the issues and do what is the best for all Americans or will he be swept away by his own ideologies and idealogues around him?
The Alien Patriot
O'Reilly on the View
I laughed so hard, I just had to put this on here. I can't believe he said the "C" and the "S" word. Liberals just don't have any humor. So funny. Best entertainment of the week.
The Alien Patriot
