Obama: When It Rains, It Pours...

Here's the first crack in the MSM's support of Mr. Obama...



via HotAirPundit

The 2010 Election...

James W. Creaser has written for RealClearPolitics.com a brilliant summation on the recent election.  Here is the first several paragraphs,  The Democratic Party under Barack Obama in 2010 suffered the greatest defeat for a newly elected president in a midterm since the Republican Party under Warren Gamaliel Harding in 1922. Democrats, at this writing, dropped 61 seats in the House of Representatives, where they will now be in the minority, and 6 seats in the Senate, where they will continue to hold a slight edge. The Democratic defeat was historic by other measures as well--in House seats lost in a congressional election (the most since 1948), and in House seats lost in any midterm (the most since 1938). But it is the performance of a president's party following his first election that is the relevant point of comparison today.


The midterm election is one of the distinctive features of America's constitutional system. By allowing for an expression of voter sentiment separate from the selection of the president, midterms help supply the concrete political support in Congress for checking presidential programmatic power. A check of this kind seems to be exactly what the public had in mind in 2010, ending liberal hopes that Obama's presidency would inaugurate a "new" New Deal.


The comparison of Obama to FDR has been looming in the background for the past two years. Time magazine, in the cover of its post-election edition, superimposed Barack Obama's head onto a memorable photo of FDR seated in his convertible following his 1932 landslide victory. The expectation was that Obama, like FDR, would lead Democrats to further gains in the ensuing midterm and then onwards and upwards to an era of Democratic dominance. Democratic totals in Congress in 2008 were taken to be a floor for the party's support, not a ceiling. "The future in America's politics," wrote Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, "belongs to Barack Obama's Democrats." Happy days were here again.

If 2010 represents the future in American politics, it is not the one Progressives expected. This holds true not just for the Democrats' standing today at the national level, but at the state level as well, where Republicans gained control of at least seven new governorships and fourteen state legislative chambers, giving them their highest total of state legislative chambers since the 1920s. More importantly, the renewed strength of Republicans in the states gives the GOP an important edge in the crucial process of the redistricting of legislative seats that begins next year. It was the perfect time for a surge.

President Obama and the Republicans did not agree on very much over the last two years, but on the question of what this election was all about there was not an inch of daylight between them--at least when the campaign began. The contest, as the President repeatedly proclaimed, was a judgment on "the change," referring to his whole domestic package of stimulus policies, health care reform bill, and presumably his proposals for increased taxes on the wealthiest. Obama spoke of "guarding the change," with Republicans responding by echoing the sentiment, if not always the exact words, of John Boehner, "Hell No." Herein lies the main line of political conflict for the period ahead. With the advancement of the progressive Obama agenda by legislative (as distinct from administrative) means halted, Obama, now the "conservative," will be using every ounce of his powers to sustain the parts of his program that have been enacted, while the Republicans, as proponents of change, will be seeking to reverse many of them...

________________________________________________

Read the whole thing!

Election Was Referendum On Democrat's Socialist Policies

The election yesterday was quite literally a referendum of the socialist policies that were implemented over the past 2 years by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  They were most emphatically NOT "for" the GOP, but a rejection of TARP, "The America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, Cap & Trade, $1,000,000,000,000.00 "Stimulus Package" (but was really a payoff to Democratic constituencies), government take over of GM and the illegal award of that company to the UAW.  All the while the people were demanding action on the economy...a demand that fell on deaf ears in Washington.

They only editorial that I've seen that shows even a glimmer of understanding at the debacle the Democratic Party has had at the hands of voters was, now former Senator, Evan Bayh of Indianna, whose seat fell to the GOP.  Mr. Bayh had this to say in this mornings NY Times: 

Many of our problems were foreseeable. A public unhappy about the economy will take it out on the party in power, even if the problems began under previous management. What’s more, when one party controls everything — the House, the Senate, the White House — disgruntled voters have only one target for their ire. And the president’s party almost always loses seats in midterm elections...It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a “political realignment” and a “new progressive era” proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left...We also overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation during a severe recession. It was a noble aspiration, but $1 trillion in new spending and a major entitlement expansion are best attempted when the Treasury is flush and the economy strong, hardly our situation today.  [emhasis is mine, not the author's, Ed.]

 That's a pretty clear understanding of just how badly the leadership in Washington screwed up.  Mr. Bayh was part of that leadership and jumped ship rather than have to face his constituents back home.  But that does leave him in an excellent position to challenge Mr. Obama in 2012.

Maureen Dowd, writing in the same paper, had this take...and it's way off base. 

Even though it was predicted, it was still a shock to see voters humiliate a brilliant and spellbinding young president, who’d had such a Kennedy-like beginning, while electing a lot of conservative nuts and promoting this central-casting congressman as the face of the future: a Republican who had vowed in a written pledge to restore America to old-fashioned values, returning to a gauzy “Leave It to Beaver” image that never existed even on the set of “Leave It to Beaver.” Republicans outcommunicated a silver-tongued president who was supposed to be Ronald Reagan’s heir in the communications department.

The only people who believe this sort of thing are those who are shocked at how badly the election went yesterday.  They only talke to like minded people and live in a bubble world.  Those of us who are suffering in the real world see a President who can't give a speech without a teleprompter, and who when he goes off on a tangent, blunders endlessly.  He can give a good speech.  The biased media have been telling us for three and a half years just how brilliant Mr. Obama is...how Kennedyesk...yet he hasn't shown it to those of us who "cling to religion and guns"...he just reads a good speech.

Yet, Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, via Real Clear Politics, tells us that Mr. Obama's policies were right...

I'm disappointed, but I continue to believe that our actions were necessary and correct. The stimulus spending helped avert a second Great Depression. The health-care legislation offers the dual promise of extending coverage and controlling costs. Financial regulatory reform will protect the U.S. economy from private-sector recklessness.

...if they were right, why hasn't the economy begun to produce jobs?  Why is business sitting on roughly $5 trillion dollars?  Because they rightly see the policies that have been pursued by this administration as hurtful and wrongheaded.  On January 1st, we'll see the largest single tax hike in our history.  Basically EVERYONE's taxes will rise by 13%...because of the uncertaintainty that this administrations policies have produced, no businessman in his right mind is going to hire more people, or try and produce more goods...when they are uncertain of just what taxes they will have to  pay...how much more it will cost to hire, train, and insure (under government mandates) each new worker.

The Democratic Party was thumped at the polls yesterday because they ignored what America had to say since April 2009.  It's as simple as that.  Sugar coating it, and blaming the stupidity of voters will do nothing but put the time in the political wilderness that party must suffer for their own imbecilic desire to push through a socialist agenda.  On the other hand, the GOP must not mistake this as a mandate to continue their policies of 2002-2006 either, else they'll face the wrath of the voters in 2012...

Election Day

It's Election Day, get out and VOTE!

My opinion is that if you don't vote, then you can't bitch about how fucked up the government is, or what it's' doing wrong, because you missed your obligation as a citizen...and didn't vote...

SO GO VOTE NOW!

VOTE THE BUMS OUT NOW!
IT'S NOVEMBER...TODAY IS THE DAY WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!  HEAR US BARACK AND REAP WHAT YOU HAVE SOWN!

Steward/Colbert Rally Video

Here's some video from American's for Prosperity on the "Fear Sanity" Stewart/Colbert charade on Saturday...

Please remember three things about these people:

1. Not even close to all Democrats are twerps, but every single twerp in this video is a Democrat.
2. Said twerps hate you, and want you to die in a fire.
3. If you vote on Tuesday, they’ll hate you even more.  

Moe Lane

 

Keep in mind that 99% of these people are Democrats...or to the left of them...

But this picture from DC/Jim Treacher says it all:

Liberals see themselves as smatter than everyone else...so they should be in charge.

More video from Reason TV:

President Jackson's Farewell Message to the American People.

March 4, 1837.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[In his farewell speech, the President warns about the dangers of breaking up the Union. He warns about the dangers of a Central Bank and paper money. He says that all that is necessary for the defense of the U.S. is a well armed militia and a well prepared Navy.... Make as many copies of this speech as you can and distribute far and wide.]

FELLOW-CITIZENS:
Being about to retire finally from public life, I beg leave to offer you my grateful thanks for the many proofs of kindness and confidence which I have received at your hands. It has been my fortune in the discharge of public duties, civil and military, frequently to have found myself in difficult and trying situations, where prompt decision and energetic action were necessary, and where the interest of the country required that high responsibilities should be fearlessly encountered; and it is with the deepest emotions of gratitude that I acknowledge the continued and unbroken confidence with which you have sustained me in every trial. My public life has been a long one, and I can not hope that it has at all times been free from errors; but I have the consolation of knowing that if mistakes have been committed they have not seriously injured the country I so anxiously endeavored to serve, and at the moment when I surrender my last public trust I leave this great people prosperous and happy, in the full enjoyment of liberty and peace, and honored and respected by every nation of the world.

If my humble efforts have in any degree contributed to preserve to you these blessings, I have been more than rewarded by the honors you have heaped upon me, and, above all, by the generous confidence with which you have supported me in every peril, and with which you have continued to animate and cheer my path to the closing hour of my political life. The time has now come when advanced age and a broken frame warn me to retire from public concerns, but the recollection of the many favors you have bestowed upon me is engraven upon my heart, and I have felt that I could not part from your service without making this public acknowledgment of the gratitude I owe you. And if I use the occasion to offer to you the counsels of age and experience, you will, I trust, receive them with the same indulgent kindness which you have so often extended to me, and will at least see in them an earnest desire to perpetuate in this favored land the blessings of liberty and equal law.

We have now lived almost fifty years under the Constitution framed by the sages and patriots of the Revolution. The conflicts in which the nations of Europe were engaged during a great part of this period, the spirit in which they waged war against each other, and our intimate commercial connections with every part of the civilized world rendered it a time of much difficulty for the Government of the United States. We have had our seasons of peace and of war, with all the evils which precede or follow a state of hostility with powerful nations. We encountered these trials with our Constitution yet in its infancy, and under the disadvantages which a new and untried government must always feel when it is called upon to put forth its whole strength without the lights of experience to guide it or the weight of precedents to justify its measures. But we have passed triumphantly through all these difficulties. Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment, and at the end of nearly half a century we find that it has preserved unimpaired the liberties of the people, secured the rights of property, and that our country has improved and is flourishing beyond any former example in the history of nations.

Read the whole thing...Mr. Jackson had some keen insights that haven't changed much in the roughly 173 years since his stepping down from our nation's highest office.  Some of those insights are pertinent today.

DoJ To Prevent Voting Irregularities?

The DoJ is sending out teams to various states (Texas, Alaska, Nevada, etc) to "prevent voter fraud."  This is the same DoJ the refused, once Eric Holder took over, to finish the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia where there was video evidence of voter intimidation.  I submit that the only winners here will be Democratic candidates who will benefit from a corrupt Department of Justice oversight.

Here's video of Houston:



I suspect that there will be a tremendous amount of voter fraud...and that it will only benefit Democratic candidates.  In Washington, Patty Murry's campaign is using illegal aliens to "turn out the vote." 

“When Maria Gianni is knocking on voters’ doors, she’s not bashful about telling people she is in the country illegally. She knows it’s a risk to advertise to strangers that she’s here illegally — but one worth taking in what she sees as a crucial election. The 42-year-old is one of dozens of volunteers — many of them illegal immigrants — canvassing neighborhoods in the Seattle area trying to get naturalized citizens to cast a ballot for candidates like Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who is in a neck-to-neck race with Republican Dino Rossi. Pramila Jayapal, head of OneAmerica Votes, says the campaign is about empowering immigrants who may not feel like they can contribute to a campaign because they can’t vote.”

To add insult to injury, she's illegally using recycled campaign adds to attack her opponent.

Voter Fraud In New Jersey

Video of voter fraud allegations...this time in New Jersey:

Widespread Voter Fraud in Nevada

Harry Reid and the SEIU are attempting to steal the election for the US Senate seat in Nevada. 



Related:  SEIU Controls "Glitchy" Voter Machines In Clark County Nevada

Jerry Brown's Lies

Here's video of former California Governor, Jerry Brown admitting that he lied during his first campaign for governor in Califoria.  If this isn't pertinent today then nothing is.

Interviewer: You said something a moment ago that I have to follow up on and I have to draw you out on. You said you don’t have to lie anymore now that you’re not a politician. What did you lie about when you were governor?

Jerry Brown: It’s all a lie. You’re pretending there’s a plan…
Interviewer: What did you lie about?
Jerry Brown: You run for office and the assumption is “Oh, I know what to do”. You don’t. I didn’t have a plan for California. Clinton doesn’t have a plan. Bush doesn’t have a plan.
Interviewer: You said you had a plan for California and you lied because you didn’t have a plan?

Jerry Brown: You say you’re going to lower taxes, you’re going to put people to work, you’re gonna improve the schools, you’re going to stop crime… crime is up, schools are worse, taxes are higher. I mean be real!

Mr. Brown says he has a "plan" for California today.  Is he lying?  As it is most American's think politicians are lying when the give a speech anyway.  Here's Mr. Brown admitting to have lied about his "plan" in the past. 

A Time For Choosing: Vote Wisely On Nov 2

Here's some video of Ronald Reagan dating to 1964.  Oddly enough, this is pertinent today 46 years later. 



It really is a time for choosing.  We have the choice of spending our country into bankruptcy within 10 years by continueing the ruinous path chosen by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, or we can roll back both the size and scope of government interference in our private lives and in the economy.

Remember, if your Congressman or Senators, state house delegates-representatives or senators, right down to your city and country council men and women have voted to increase taxes or increase governmental regulartion and intereference then they are part of the problem and not the solution.

The GOP has been granted an opportunity given, perhaps, once in a generation...to remake itself and to return to it's fiscally conservative roots.  If it does not, if Republican Party leadership decides to return to "business as usual" then the party is doomed. 

Remember November.

If Full Senate Were Up For Election: GOP Would Take Filibuster Proof Majority

The Raw Story is reporting that Nate Silver, a top pollster who writes a blog at the NY Times, recently released information that should shock the Democratic Party.  If the entire Senate were up for reelection, like the House of Representatives, the GOP would gain a fillibuster proof majority. 

Take a look at our Senate forecast map. There’s a lot of red there. Part of that, yes, is because Republicans tend to do better in the middle of the country where the states are physically larger — but that kind of misses the point.  Right now, among the 37 Senate elections, we have Republicans favored in 25, Democrats favored in 11, and one other (Colorado) that’s too close to call. If Democrats have a relatively good election night, they will win about one-third of the available Senate races. And if anything, the states that are voting for Senate this year are slightly blue-leaning. If the entire Senate were up for re-election in this political climate, the Republicans would be favored to earn a filibuster-proof majority, and might even earn a veto-proof majority! Fortunately for Democrats, that’s not how the system works. (Maybe some of our readers could go though the list of 63 Senators that are not up for re-election and guess which ones they’d expect to lose if they were. It could be kind of fun.) [Emphasis is mine, ed.]

Think about that...the "little people" are pissed enough at our "political elite" that they would hand the opposition party a majority large enough to overturn everything the Democratic Party has done in the past four years.  Thus has Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid hav wrought...on the other hand...if the GOP screws this up by returning to what they did during 2002-2006, aka,  "going along to get along" then they will have forced We The People to create a political party that is genuinely fiscally conservative, and 2012 will make this years elections seem mild by comparison.

Via Instapundit

We'll Save A Spot For You...

The Barney Shuffle

Scott Bielat has gone on the offensive:

Do You Trust These People?

Do you trust these people?



"We can continue moving this country forward..."  Haven't you screwed us enough?

Via Anne Althouse

Barney Franks Boyfriend Heckles Opponent

Congressman Barney Frank's boyfriend is caught on video heckling Sean Bielat...you have to give them credit though...sending your boyfriend out takes...balls.  After all this is the 1st time in 30 years that Mr. Frank has had a real challenger.  He just doesn't know how to campaign



Now I'm told that there are "copyright" issues...didn't take Barney long to scare YouTube, now did it?

Congressional Races

Here's a very interesting graph from Real Clear Politics.  It shows where they believe Congressional races looked yesterday.  What's important about this graph is not that GOP "safe" seats have increased, but that Democratic "safe" seats are moving right...into uncharted territory. 

After all, Barney Frank, who is seeking his 16th term (he hasn't been really challenged in the 14) is now facing a real challenge.  After all, would he have asked Bill Clinton to come campaig for him if he wasn't?  Furthermore, back in April when Sarah Palin went to Boston for a Tea Party event, on a Wednesday afternnon attracted roughly 25,000 people...Mr. Obama on a Saturday, with the sitting governor of Massachusetts, couldn't bring in any more than 8500...what does that say?  Here's what Steven Green, of vodkapundit fame has to say: 

Four more Likely Democratic wins have been downgraded to Leans. And six more Safe seats — the bedrock wins any party counts on to stay even remotely in the game — six of those seats have moved right one spot. That’s why you see Beloved Bill Clinton campaigning for Barney Frank and Loretta Sanchez — who should both be shoe-ins. Meanwhile, Toxic Avenger Obama isn’t doing much, if anything, for congressional Democrats. Obama got his party into this fix, and not even Clinton’s still-considerable charms can get them out.

So what's important isn't that the GOP has more safe seats, but that the Democrats are losing their safe seats...this means that the ground is crumbling beneath them...because of thier utterly ignoring the will of the people last year and this year.  They have pursued  a vastly unpopular agenda and passed bills that the public doesn't want.  73% would like to  see ObamaCare repealed...this after Mr. Obama has stated repeatedly that as the public learned what was in it...it would become more popular.  Then, insurance policy cancellations have started rolling in.  Now...it will only get worse and much, much more expensive.

Several months ago, I predicted the Democrats could lose 100 seats in this election...that doesn't seem so far fetched any more, does it?

Kentucky Dem State Senator Calls Constituents Rednecks

Kentucky State Senator Mike Reynolds caught on tape calling his constituents rednecks.  Wanna bet he pays for that in a few weeks.

Mrs Obama Violates IL Election Law

The Drudge Report's top story is that Mrs. Obama violated Illinois election law today by urging a vote to support her husbands agenda...inside the polling area.  This is a clear violation of  Illinois state law -- Sec. 17-29 (a)

"No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place [or] within 100 feet of any polling place." A top Ilinois State Board of Elections official tells the DRUDGE REPORT that Mrs. Obama -- a Harvard-educated lawyer -- may have simply been ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally. "You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?" the official explained late Thursday. "I mean, she's pretty well liked and probably doesn't know what she's doing."

The  White House's only comment was issued by press secretary Robert Gibbs

 "I don't think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband's agenda," Gibbs smiled.

So, not only do we have a cabinet full of tax scofflaws, but a First Lady who will ignore state law when it suits her purpose.

Election 2010, Spin: It's All Pelosi's Fault

In a new article in Politico.com today, the JournoList shills for the Obama presidency are trying out a new spin.  Election losses this cycle are al Mrs. Pelosi's fault.  Here's a blatant effort by the now defunked JournoList hacks to deflect any sort of spatter on Mr. Obama's failing policies.  Here's the two lead paragraphs the emphasis is mine: 

In the home stretch of the 2010 campaign, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, more than even President Barack Obama, is emerging as the heaviest drag on Democratic hopes of holding on to the House.


In district after district, from Florida's Gold Coast to central Ohio, in the Ozark Mountains, on the Minnesota prairie and in retiree-laden Arizona, Pelosi's face, plastered on billboards, recorded in video clips and emblazoned on mailers, is casting a pall over her colleagues’ chances of winning reelection.

 As Jennifer Rubin points out in Contentions, using this additional paragraph: 

Conventional wisdom holds that midterm elections are referendums on the president — and Obama is certainly the central figure in the unfolding drama of the 2010 election. But if Democrats lose the House, it’s likely to be as much a rejection of the policies and politics of a woman who has managed to simultaneously become one of the most powerful speakers in congressional history and one of the most unpopular figures in American politics today.

Those are Mr. Obama's policies as well.  He spent all of last year trying to push them through despite their historic unpopularity. 

True, Pelosi’s demeanor is even more grating than the president’s, but the agenda she jammed through was Obama’s — and his villains are hers.


Certainly the Republicans are using her image and record against her own members. She, after all, has an approval rating much worse than Obama’s. But she is also a useful reminder that no matter how “independent” a Democratic congressman claims to be, he still votes with the extreme leftist leadership that runs the House. And it was she who refused to allow her members to take a vote on the Bush tax cuts, providing a vivid example of just what a Democratic majority means in the House. (I don’t rule out the possibility that, in addition to these factors, some GOP candidates are hesitant to go after the president personally with the same zeal they can direct at his ideological twin.)

But regardless of the number of posters bearing her photograph, the target of most GOP candidates is indeed the president. They are promising to repeal ObamaCare. They are promising to act as a check on the administration’s agenda. Make no mistake, Pelosi may be a useful foil, but the ultimate target is Obama and his agenda. But after the returns are in, watch the finger-pointing epidemic that will break out. You can be certain that the White House will be all too pleased to blame this on Pelosi.  [emphasis is mine, ed.]

I agree that after the returns are in you'll begin to hear a rising litany against her leadership and that the spin will blame her and "her policies" for the historic losses the Democratic Party will sustain on November 2.