Like, Totally Political, Dude!: election

Showing posts with label election. Show all posts

FILM THIN: Hollywood's Top Power Women Aren't Yet Excited about Hillary Clinton

MIA: Hollywood's Power Women for Hillary - Hollywood Reporter

Says one female executive (anonymous):

"Every woman I know who hasn't given to her feels guilty about it," says the industry dealmaker. "We all want a woman to be president — some of us just wish it were someone else."

Lara Bergthold, a campaign strategist at a group called RALLY, says:

The "fear factor" of the Republican field will drive donations from the notoriously liberal-leaning Hollywood. She says it is hard to imagine a Republican presidential candidate more likely to ignite anxiety in Hollywood than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

"The stakes are so high given the candidates on the other side," she says. "They're scary."

Not asked in the article: ARE YOU WAITING TILL THE OUTCOME OF FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HER MISUSE OF SECRET COMMUNICATIONS? Err, not even likely many of them are aware of the facts behind the email investigation, nor do they want to accept it. They're elitists just like Hillary. They probably still suspect Benghazi was actually due to a crappy video from a whack-job pastor. Or, they just don't care about such distractions since they have no direct or apparent impact on their lives.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Obama exposed himself as using Benghazi for politics in 2nd debate: 'Please proceed, Governor'

Obama was helped in setting up one of his best put-down speeches of the second debate, thanks to moderator Candy Crowley's chiming in when Obama refused to speak. This portion of a Washington Times Communities blog post by Henry D'Andrea makes the point I hope anyone can agree to, at least silently (liberals and Obamasexuals, maybe not):

"...an audience member asked the president, "We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama gave a lengthy response which never addressed the question. During his rebuttal Romney said, “I think it’s interesting, the president just said something which is that the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this is was an act of terror?

"It was not a spontaneous demonstration; is that what you’re saying?”

“Please proceed, governor,” Obama replied.

Romney looked at him with consternation as the president didn’t say whether he called the Libya attack an act of terrorism on September 12. "

-----

As we all have heard, moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and muddled things since Romney was trying to outline the facts and Obama refused to chime in as Romney was seeking confirmation. For me this action by the seasoned (thus someone who ought to have known better) CNN host was the most disappointing part of the debate, not considering omissions and a few obvious attempts to demonize Romney. The candidates had their low moments, but this involvement ruined the debate. People will, however, simply make of it what they wish, facts and order of events need not affect them. If they are of a certain stubborn mind to begin with.

Importantly, you could extend Crowley's offense to Obama as well: He could have easily confirmed the order of things -- or just stuck with the spin, rather than voting present on it at that stage in the debate -- when given the chance by Romney. When Obama said, "Please proceed, Governor," I think it's clear that Obama was counting on a lead-in, from Romney, to what proved to be a prepared, over-the-top campaign cheap shot minutes later.

Here's how: I believe Obama was hoping Romney was going to take more of a cheap shot at him on the Benghazi affair, or at least talk about it in a way that didn't include requesting a clarification from Obama. The President didn't get the lead-in he might have preferred, since Romney sought clarification from Obama of some of the what-where-when of the Benghazi attack. We heard a request for agreement by Romney, and Obama's "Please proceed, Governor." Yes, please proceed, without my confirming anything, because I have a great diatribe prepared once you're finished setting me up for it.

Obama was interested in giving one of his prepared gotcha attacks, to take some heat off of himself. Since Obama is well informed about speaking -- much more informed than he is about economics, military matters, security, and the varied threats from Muslim extremists -- he fashioned the debate himself to get to his prepared outrage. It happened to be in part thanks to Crowley's feckless assistance.

Obama gave what I believe was a well-prepared rant about his being insulted by any suggestion that he or his Administration was lackadaisical about the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three former military men. He used it, it just wasn't as perfectly set-up as it could have been, because Romney wasn't taking a cheap shot. There must have been some slight disappointment about Romney's taking a higher road in the Obama camp.

Watch the Benghazi attack portion from the second debate again, and consider Obama's chess game, holding the complete facts like cherished pieces and moving forward all of his self-protecting rhetorical pieces -- his pawns. Ironically, I should add, because he tried to refute any idea that he was making political hay of Benghazi, when it seems, no matter how he feels about it, that he has been doing exactly that, and in the debate did it once again.

I think it's a clear effort to make a political game of the Benghazi event, using games to put his own failings on the back burner by trying to suggest his opponent is making it political, not he.

This intentional, political gaming by Obama with the facts of Benghazi -- and his embarrassing handling of it -- is similar to a child claiming his little sister was at fault for his being grounded for a broken cookie jar because she pointed out to the parents that he had broken the jar. It's childish head games.

Obama had no humility regarding the Benghazi attack and his errors in handling that event while his fundraising trips were not taking a break. Obama was not interested in admitting the facts of his unseemly preference to campaigning over being the president. He went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and onto TV shows in the attack's immediate aftermath.

Fact is, Obama was not admitting to a direct challenge to the United States, treating it as an upswelling of a popular demonstration. For many days. He didn't want the Arab Spring to turn so cold. But it did. He's doing clean-up now, attempting to throw his shame on his political foe. How could the president ever be convinced that a shoulder-fired missile might have been part of a popular demonstration? Is there such a thing as a sudden, unplanned militant action? I don't think so.

Obama is trying to make political hay of the Benghazi deaths. Romney has pointed out what was done wrong, if he is doing anything with this event. Mostly detached, guilt-ridden and fanatical masses are taking Obama's bait to attack Romney unreasonably for Benghazi, when they should be wondering why Obama kept avoiding the use of the word "terror" connected directly to the Benghazi attack.

Obama cares about our embassies and the Americans serving in them, I'd imagine, but he seems to be equally interested in using the event to his political advantage.

I wonder if the folks at that Las Vegas fund-raising event that followed the Benghazi attack felt like Obama cared about them? Or, at least, that he cared about their money? I think they should have felt honored by his desire for campaign cash.

-----

Read more of the Wash. Times blog: Candy Crowley gets it wrong: Obama never called Benghazi a ‘terror attack’ in Rose Garden speech | http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2...
Follow them: @wtcommunities on Twitter

---

- jR @airfarceone on Twitter

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Go on! Tell the world just how clueless you are! Fwd: I like Obamacare

Do you like Obamacare? Do you know what it is? How has it affected your healthcare costs?

The Obama campaign says it is just peachy. But only in an email to those signed up as supporters.

What should that tell you?

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jim Messina, BarackObama.com" <info@barackobama.com>
Date: March 23, 2012
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject: I like Obamacare
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Today is the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.
Since then, the law that almost everyone calls Obamacare has been doing exactly what the other side has hoped it wouldn't do: It's been working.
It's about time we give it the love it deserves.
Let everyone know: "I like Obamacare."
Every single one of the other side's candidates for president has made overturning this law the central part of their campaign.

Did they bother to mention that barely a thing from it is kicked into gear yet? No.

Bait. For the misinformed. And for those whose goals are irresponsibility for themselves.

This is a very joyfully cynical campaign. I hope Obama fails. Come November, Americans have a lot to explain if they choose this ineffective bureaucrat a second time.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

GOP: Priebus steps into the spotlight (Politico)

(Now, hopefully his next step won't be a foot in his mouth)

Perhaps the man who had helped Steele take the chair of the conservative GOP in 2009 can serve as more of a guide and chairman, and less of a media target, as the exiting chair. For that to happen, it will also require certain media segments to act like professionals and not gossips, of course. But it will be up to Chairman Reince Priebus to opine with clarity all the time, not fire one-offs that miss the mark, as Steele had done. Several times.

POLITICO: The diminutive chairman of the Wisconsin GOP vanquished Steele to become national chairman.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47644.html

"Priebus often jokes about the pronunciation of his Greek name. The name is Rhine with a hard 's' at the end and pree-bus. After winning a hard-fought contest, he still pronounced his name carefully for reporters at a hastily convened press conference....

Priebus's mother, Dimitra, said in an interview that her son started volunteering for Republican causes when he was 10 years old by putting signs in people's yards. His father, Roula, was once a union electrician and now works in real estate...."

- jR

A reason to be afraid of most Democrats in the House

Heath Shuler. Image via Wikipedia

If you needed a reason to be concered about the mindset of elected Democrats, you only need to look so far. The following suggests, perhaps, that the only way to snap the House Democrats -- the most so-called "liberal" among them, certainly -- out of their view that things are running just fine, thanks to them, is to replace them. At least, to bump out about 3/4 of them in 2012 (or 150 of them).

House Democrats Re-Elect Pelosi as Their Leader (via The Caucus, a NY Times blog)

Officials said that [Nancy] Pelosi defeated Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina in an internal party vote, 150 to 43. Mr. Shuler acknowledged before the vote that he had no chance to win, but he wanted to give disgruntled Democrats a chance to register their opposition to Ms. Pelosi's leadership anyway.
...
Mr. Shuler, the former college quarterback who won his third term representing North Carolina's 11th District, publicly called on her not to run. After the vote, Mr. Shuler said the vote showed that concerns about Ms. Pelosi's leadership went beyond a few conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats.
"It came out pretty much as we expected," he told reporters, adding that "it wasn't about winning the race, but it was about having a voice within our caucus."
Ms. Pelosi became the first female Speaker after Democrats gained a majority in the House in 2006. She has been a prolific fundraiser, collecting more than $200 million for the party since joining the leadership in the House in 2002.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/house-democrats-re-elect-pelosi-as-their-leader/?partner=rss&emc=rss

I guess we'll see by this time next year whether or not it will be as regrettable to have John Boerner as Speaker as it has been a dippy rich chick from the ether of the snobby side of San Francisco.

- jR

Vote: Stop raising taxes so we can start raising raises!

On Tuesday, November 2, 2010: VOTE for those who will:

STOP RAISING TAXES - SO WE CAN START RAISING RAISES.

Or: STOP EXPANDING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SO PEOPLE CAN AGAIN AIM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Does this make sense? Yes, of course it does, except to those who are convinced that government is the solution to all or most problems. Ronald Reagan famously said: in "today's crisis," government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. His actual quote has been streamlined to "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

That quote has been turned, stunningly, on its head by spiteful, poorly educated (on politics and civic history) left-wingers. They even go so far as to suggest that somehow conservatives think the best government would be nearly no government. Or, so little government that the greedy, violent, criminal, depraved, and any ne'er do wells could ultimately be the insane running the asylum.

Outside of a sense that the crazies are already running society, the turning of those words of Reagan, and the broad sentiment he conveyed, into something flatly "anti-government" is unproductive to the point of being cruel.

Saying that a small government sentiment is "anti-government" is akin to saying that those who believe in watching what they eat actually would prefer not eating, and that both will allow you to safely get into better shape. It's not just playing with words, it's wacky. Animaniacs kind of wacky.

Vermont has a senator with this bizarre, seemingly all-or-nothing political rhetoric, by the name of Bernie Sanders. And MSNBC has at least one vocal comrade of Sanders, in Ed Schultz. Both are an embarrassment to anyone seeking a rational discussion on the size of government versus the scale of people's opportunities and liberties.

Excellence and progress comes from the private sector, from R&D and science, and from not bureaucrats, pork projects, and wildly imbalanced pension plans for gov't employees. Don't be fooled by pie-in-the-sky promises. The only reason gov't spending and size gets continually larger is because the ones with the purse strings forgot they work for people, not the other way around. Time to change that.

Government is not the enemy of the people, but only until it proves to be the enemy. It is hurting us, but only some are truly outraged by it, most notably in recent years, the tea party movement.

It's hard to live on what was not long ago a good income level, and there's no sign of improvement coming. Better to stop the march toward government dominance now than to weep for the extinction of the American Dream later. One by one it is happening, for a variety of reasons, high among them the high cost of living versus honest, usual incomes. Remember when most middle class families could survive on one full-time income? No? It used to be so.

Now, and always, vote for the goal of smaller government and, thus, greater opportunity. The issues beyond the question of expanding government are indeed important, but they won't be your concern as a citizen if you're struggling to SUPPORT the government rather than CARING FOR yourself, your family, you business, and your community. It is getting harder every year for most people, and not only because of the recession. It's the trend going back decades, sadly.

It is time to stop raising taxes and to start allowing raises -- for those NOT working for Congress or on Wall Street -- to happen. It is through better family earnings that we get improved tax bases, not through larger and larger government. Doesn't that make honest sense to these so-called leaders?!

Don't wait for their answers, give them yours on November 2.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

The Lone Star, uh, Whatever: Texas county ballots printed with flag of Chile

Chile's flag. Note the one star and the colors. Image via Wikipedia.

Austin, TX: Texas county ballots wrongly have flag of Chile

So, they have a flag of Chile available in the voting offices, but not the state's flag? Where did they get flag clip art for Chile if they were looking for the dept.'s own official flag?!! I mean, this wasn't something that was a surprise requirement, I assume.

Amazing: just how could this go all the way to three weeks till election?

Perhaps the attitude of removing incumbents is stopping too short with elected officials, and we should look into removing zombie state workers, too. Just don't get them a job that requires identifying their state's flag, it would be too much for some. Apparently, at least in one Texas county.

The essential difference: Texas has the whole left hand side, perhaps a third of it, in blue, while Chile has the top left corner in blue, with one star in the top left corner of both. The red panel is across the entire bottom of Chile's flag (see image).

Is it a mistake anyone could make? Yes, if one didn't live in Texas and didn't work for Texas and didn't have the Texas flag all over everything. Otherwise, how embarrassing!

- jR

Alan Grayson (Nut-job, FL District 8): Beck fans wore “sheets over their heads”

Alan Grayson: Glenn Beck fans wore "sheets over their heads"

(FROM ORLANDO SENTINEL'S Political Pulse]

Since his election two years ago, Orlando Democrat U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's fame has multiplied exponentially with every inflammatory remark.

Every time he says something like the Republicans' health care plan is to "die quickly" or that Dick Cheney is a vampire who should "STFU," he becomes a bigger hero to liberals and a bigger target of conservatives. Now there's another addition to the list of Grayson's greatest hits.

During an appearance on the progressive talk-radio "Stephanie Miller Show" on Thursday — part of a regular segment called "Face the Grayson" — the congressman likened those who attended Glenn Beck's rally last week at the Lincoln Memorial to Ku Klux Klan members.

Miller: "The Glenn Beck thing — is that going to have an effect in November? To me, they were, I'm sorry, mostly old, white … mostly McCain-Palin leftovers, weren't they? These aren't new voters, these are people that have always voted Republican."

Grayson: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."

The congressman also repeated one of his recent favorites: "You only have three friends in life: God, your mama, and the Democratic Party."

You can listen to the whole 12-minute, 18-second segment below, if you scroll down on this widget and click on the "Face the Grayson" segment.

UPDATE: The Grayson campaign wanted to respond to, well, Grayson's own comment. So, here's an addition from campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala: "[Grayson opponent] Dan Webster should prove Representative Grayson wrong by rejecting the endorsement of David Barton, a man who has spoken at two neo-Nazi rallies, denies the Holocaust, and has led the effort to rewrite history books with a narrative of hate, fear, and discrimination."

Hello, Orlando? Get this kook out of office. Florida already has enough nuts in office, doesn't need this one. Accepting an endorsement or not is far from being in the same court as that person. But Webster ought to reject that guy's endorsement, if the claims of his practices are true.

- jR

All time donors: fed, state and city workers union is top

Much has been made of the money in politics, since it's fair to assess that where the money comes from is where the legislation and favor goes to.

For Obama, Pelosi and Reid, according to the opensecrets.org site, the stress should be on government jobs. It is disturbing just how true that has been, with the bigger government push of the Administration and Congress, ruled by not just Democrats, but a cast of Leftists unlike any who ever ran this country in my memory.

It was recently reported that, for the first time since who-knows-when, public sector jobs, which depend on everyone's payments of all taxes, fees and utilities, pay more than private sector jobs. Add to that the impressive benefits -- among them the retirement pensions the likes of which very rarely exist in private companies -- and it hardly is necessary to question whose interests the politicians have at heart. Is that cynical or simplistic? Not when seeing the numbers.

Government, typically, is not intent on having an efficient operation. They are rarely motivated to curb overall money, thanks to an historically expanding, abusive, power-greedy tax spending attitude. Politicians are rarely motivated to decrease spending. That is inconvenient since the people who work directly for them, with them,
and who support them so greatly -- with contributions -- are government workers. At least, those who support Democrats, overwhelmingly. They are the most special interest of all, historically.

They are not alone, but http://opensecrets.org/ has them pegged as the biggest big spenders along with several other union-heavy industries. The big spenders, ironically perhaps, are very heavily favoring Democrats. See the included image, a screenshot of the site's list of top all-time donors, and then ask yourself: why is government favoring not all the people, but some very special interests.

Sen. Dodd's reelection bid embraces his, umm, success with banking

From the Political Hah! Dept.:

Chris Dodd’s Comeback Slogan: ‘Banking on Change’ - BrianFaughnan’s blog - RedState

So what’s Chris Dodd’s plan to save his lucrative government gig? Remind people of his spot on the Banking Committee [link to RollCall article]:
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), facing increasingly difficult odds in 2010, is spending the two-week recess barnstorming his home state to try to improve his political standing…

The appearances are part of a series dubbed “Banking for Change,” meant to highlight Dodd’s work on consumer protection issues as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
Seriously? [link to Dodd's site]

If Dodd manages to win this time around, having proven what a terribly self-interested boob he is -- and it appears that Conn. voters are even less cerebral than Mass. and West Va. voters (Ted, John Kerry, Barney, etc.) -- it shows just how much work that sincere, dignified conservatives and general non-cretins will have to get through to try to recover some sway in D.C. That is, to clarify, there is a lot of work to come for people who believe in simple things:

smaller government,
a balanced budget,
power to the actual people (not their elected king by proxy),
peace through strength,
America still is (stuck or blessed as) the leader of the free world and should act like it,
despising mistreatment of people here but giving passes for mistreatment of "groups" elsewhere is absurd
liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness don't equate with living in a welfare state
we have the biggest guns, and we don't prefer to use them, but we damn well will

So, cut to the chase: Get the pitchforks, effigies, tar, feathers, and torches ready. Just like the good old, pre-Revolutionary War, days.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

El Salvador's self-proclaimed Obama, a Marxist, wins top spot

A former CNN correspondent has won the presidency of El Salvador. The new leader campaigned, in his own words, as the Obama for El Salvador, to the chagrin of U.S. State Dept. He is considered a far leftist Marxist and was running on the ticket of a former guerrilla organization.

El Salvador Former Rebels Win Their First Presidential Election - Bloomberg.com

El Salvador’s former rebel party won its first presidential election, ending two decades of rule for one of the staunchest U.S. allies in Central America.

Mauricio Funes, the candidate of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, said he would usher in a new type of leadership for Central America’s smallest country.

“Thank you for choosing hope over fear,” Funes said in San Salvador late yesterday in a speech carried on CNN Espanol. “This is a victory for all of El Salvador.”

Rodrigo Avila of the National Republican Alliance conceded defeat after results from yesterday’s election showed he trailed Funes. It is the first presidential loss in two decades for the ruling party, which squared off against the Marxist rebel group in a 12-year civil war that ended in 1992 and has remained close to successive U.S. administrations.

Funes, 49, a former television journalist, said he is willing to work with U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders. He campaigned on a slogan of “hope is born,” saying he represents the same type of change as Obama.

...

The former rebel FMLN emerged as El Salvador’s second-largest political party after signing peace accords in 1992, ending a civil war with a U.S.-backed military government that left about 75,000 people dead.

...

Funes never took up arms for the FMLN. His vice-presidential candidate, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, is a former rebel commander.

...

The former rebels made their greatest electoral gains at the beginning of this year, picking up 35 of 84 congressional seats, three more than they held before. Arena candidates won 32 legislative spots, down from 34 in 2004 elections.

The conservative party for which Avila was candidate had been in charge for two decades.

There is a troubling facet of this election campaign, and this win, for Obama, and perhaps it is also a welcome parallel for Obama's political foes to exploit into the future. Seeing as El Salvador is a very small country, it might get no traction, in any way, here in the U.S. However, supposed Democratic Party and liberal philosophy wonks, such as the blow-hard too-dumb-to-know-he's-an-angry-socialist Sean Penn, and TV/radio host and socialist apologist and Castro fan Tavis Smiley, are likely rejoicing this win.

The leftist was patterning his campaign and self-identification with not some Marxist or socialist leader such as Castro, Chavez or even a French or Swedish leader, but with Barack Obama. While Obama claims to be no leftist nor interested in harming private sector determination of the economy in favor of government-controlled economics, he has some extremists identifying with him. This El Sal. guy proclaimed his blatant Marxism to be the Obama tactics for that country.

- jR

Politifact: Obama pushed through a budget that is contrary to campaign pledges

While it is weakened, potentially, by a deference to short-sighted mainstream sound-bite obsessed (hit and run, drive by, smash and grab, scratch and sniff, whatever you wish to nickname it) journalism, Politifact is also going the distance to reflect comments against the tell-tale mirror of -- of all things! -- recorded facts. Something that, for one thing, TV news rarely manages to accomplish (nighttime MSNBC chatter shows, most of all are guilty of this, I opine). It is an offshoot of the Poynter Institute, both based in St. Pete, Florida.

Here, Politifact nobly nails Pres. Obama for letting the pigs run wild out of the barn. So to speak.

PolitiFact | Spending bill wasn't candidate Obama's "type", Boehner points out

Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, said Boehner meant that Obama had broken his campaign pledges, referenced on the White House Web site, to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." That's a reasonable interpretation of what Boehner said.

Obama did indeed make those pledges during the campaign. Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate, pledged to eliminate earmarks and "veto every earmark pork-barrel bill," and Obama, though stopping short of that, did pledge to get tough on them.

For example, here's Obama in the first presidential debate: "Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Obama thoroughly proving himself contrary to who he pretended to be, on some levels, while his worst "toss-off" lines are more prophetic of his moves, it seems at this early date, than his detailed rhetoric or denials of allegations.

Are we in trouble, or WHAT?

- jR

Iran blocks the competition's Web sites: how insular and autocratic of them

This is the story as offered by AP, on the Fox News Web site:

FOXNews.com - Iran Blocks Web Sites Promoting Reformist Khatami

"[Moderate] Khatami declared on Feb. 8 he would run again for president, setting the stage for a major political showdown... between the popular reformist — who made dialog with the West a centerpiece of his eight years as president — and the country's ruling hard-liners.

"[Opposition Web sites] could not be accessed from inside Iran on Saturday, though they were viewable outside."

Among other things the "ready to talk" Iranian power-mongers have done in order to control their society:

Reformists have suffered setbacks in past years as hard-liners and conservatives have consolidated power. Hundreds of reformist newspapers have been shut down, and the Guardian Council barred thousands of reformist candidates from running in parliamentary elections in 2004 and 2008.

See the sites at http://www.yaarinews.com and http://www.yaari.ir. They are not in English, but Persian (or Farsi, I believe), mind you. The sites were set up last summer in anticipation of Khatami's candidacy.

- jR

Zell Miller, 2002: tax cuts should be a Democratic Party staple!

Full circle, that's what the election on November 2008 was -- a tilt around the bowl from success helped by Sept. 11 and appearing strong, and nothing less than tax cuts. Go figure!

In bad times, when the population is pissed off and willing to vote about it, impressions mean everything. When it comes to bad times and how well one can accuse the other side of being the cause of all our ills, the Democrats, make no mistake, won on rhetoric and the coolness of Barack Obama. The 44th president was not the reason for all the Congressional successes, the bad economy, which was blamed on GW Bush, was.

You can disagree, but I'd love to know just what the arguments are. I cannot see how, really, that this was about anything but voting, loudly, with our wallets (and some resentment of those with fat ones, especially the fat ones in pocket of finance industry white collar crooks).

Here's an interesting bit of commentary from one Democratic senator, in November of 2002. This was just after the Democrats were trounced in the "off-year" Congressional elections. The words are Sen. Zell Miller's. They were originally in the WSJ, but link below is from another site, CFIF.org, a political action group that I was not quickly able to gauge as liberal, conservative, or somewhere else (so I will leave it as "non-partisan"... as they claim).

And now, folks, Zell Miller:

Tax Cuts: Our Party Needs To Embrace Tax Cuts

...why in Heaven's name can't our party be for real tax cuts? In the middle of a recession, the Democrats once had a president who passed a massive tax-cut package. His name was John F. Kennedy. Today, in the middle of a recession, we should be a party advocating for more tax cuts, not less. But we aren't.

America is the most tax-averse country on earth. Our own revolution started with people tossing tea off boats in Boston Harbor … because of high taxes! Being a party that opposes tax cuts is not good politics, anywhere, any time. Like it or not, that's what we've become.

Instead of arguing that Mr. Bush's tax cut goes too far, we Democrats should be arguing that it doesn't go far enough. Middle-class families need more tax relief now as America faces an economic threat we haven't seen since the 1930s — the threat of deflation.

The words of a Democrat, a mere six years ago.

Interesting times.

- jR (AirFarceOne)

Why Obama matters to Africans: An observation by a white conservative guy

This is the first such piece I've come across. Good stuff.

Dennis Prager : From Africa With Love - Townhall.com

The election of a man of black African heritage as president of a predominantly white nation, and one that also happens to be the most powerful nation in the world, is taken by blacks the world over to mean that their centuries of suffering under the racist yoke of implied inferiority are coming to an end.

This is especially felt in Africa itself because Africa is largely benighted. Though many African countries have now been independent for nearly half a century, Africa remains particularly poor, particularly corrupt, and particularly violent. Africans, of course, know this, and while Barack Obama’s election will probably do nothing to end African poverty, corruption, or violence, it does seem to mark the end of the era of belief in black inferiority.

Hope. For Africans and their lineage everywhere. That is a good thing. Will it change anything? Who knows. Latin America cannot seem to get past its history of poorly educated masses, generally. Even our close neighbor, Mexico, cannot bring itself to dispose of mass corruption in order to develop further. It is a land where bullies reign and intellects either get killed or go along with the bullies, generally. What of Africa, then? And what else of this fanaticism? Is it due to the color of the skin? The ethnic familiarity? I hope they are happy for good reasons. Period.

What of improvement coming to Africa? Do they simply assume that now the U.S. will throw money at them? I certainly hope not. I hope we throw education and development at them. And push broad Chinese corruption out. In Africa, that is.

- jR

Al Franken: I'm good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, I was voted in

Franken: 'I work for you now'

"I didn't win the support of every Minnesotan. I'm going to have to earn it by being a senator who fights for every Minnesotan.

"Whether you voted for me or not, I want every Minnesotan to hear this: I work for you now and I will work hard to earn your confidence."

Franken, with his wife, Franni, at his side, said he hopes to work with Coleman despite their bitter, expensive overtime duel.

"I know this is not an easy day for Norm Coleman and his family, and I know that because Franni and I and our kids had plenty of time over the last couple months to contemplate what this would be like if the election turned out differently."

Such respectful words make it hard to gawk about the fact that this guy used to be on SNL. For goodness sake, he's a grade-B comic writer and crappy memoir (political and "humor") book author, and now he's actually been voted in as a senator? Wow. I guess who I am now laughing at is the 50% (roughly) of Minnesota voters who voted for him. No. I believe in the process, though. They might even be all stupid, but that's hard to believe.

So rather than be so cynical, as Franken would be and has been in the past, I'll just bide my time and hope for the best from the funniest senator we have (now that Strom Thurmond is long gone). Hey, he'll be at home with all the other clowns on Capitol Hill. Maybe he'll even show them up. That'll be a shocker. (Picture: looking like a true Democratic icon, Franken poses as a donkey.)

- jR

NARA, not NRA: election history

Questions about election numbers throughout history? Look here: The National Electoral College site. So long as they keep this site up, and accurate, I guess they can stick around. But if they start some kinda trickery -- look out!

In the end, did money win the White House?

Obama Spent Four Times as Much as McCain at Race End | Bloomberg.com

McCain spent $26.5 million in the final weeks of the campaign, with $9.5 million going for advertisements, $4.5 million for message phone calls and $2.2 million for salaries. He ended up with $4.9 million in bills still to be paid. McCain also had $25 million in his legal and accounting fund, which can cover expenses incurred during a mandatory FEC audit.

After Oct. 15, Obama reported spending at least $80 million on advertising, mostly on television. He listed another $14.5 million in expenses for travel and lodging, $7.9 million for “staging, sound, lighting,” $7.9 million for payroll and $4.3 million for telemarketing.

Obama also listed $14.7 million in contributions. As in the past, he made payments to state political parties. The Minnesota Democratic Party, for instance, got $350,000, and the Missouri Democratic Party got $550,000.

The vast difference in the finances of the get-out-the vote efforts -- in the end, it's all about getting votes -- suggests that the soon-to-be president is wise to not dance to the tune sung by his goofy worshipers. They are claiming that his election was a landslide. Landslide is a fun word that is often used by people unwittingly showing their own lack of logical, factual awareness (to be kind). Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC as an example.

First, it is absurd to presume that this was a landslide since the difference between the Dem and GOP takes were not even into double digits. So, no, not a landslide. Compare it to Reagan's 1984 victory, and his 1980 win, which was a solid win -- in double digits -- in both popular votes and states won. Second, it was simply not a landslide, if so much money was spent and they won by a very small margin.

Historically, even when Democrats lose, they spend more money than the GOP, in national elections. While this lends itself to a good joke about the difference in money and economic policy of the two parties, it also points out that, having won with such a small margin against a foe with such a small cash amount, that Obama ought to assure his victory is sweet by having it be a realist's victory, not an MSNBC-style, MoveOn.org-style, Karl Rove-style victory.

The Democrats will flaunt the win at their peril -- and are, evidenced by the blow-hard tactics of Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) in the midst of this economic crisis. Doddering Mr. Dodd has proclaimed quite loudly that it the fault of the Fed Reserve and Treasury that the banks -- which he oversees as a Congressional leader -- are not giving out loans with the money shoved at them.

- jR

Note: Have a look at this later post, for a more concise and easier to digest view of what the organizer and money-spender sides evoke in one little pontificater: http://totally-political.blogspot.com/2008/12/organizer-check-money-spender-check.html

Seriously: Obama invites the crisis of satire? FastCompany.com

Can We Laugh at Obama? | Culture Nuggets | Fast Company

After witnessing two years of emotional wrangling and finger-pointing, most of us are relieved to put the election season behind us. But as the nation transitions from the erratic, divisive Bush-era into the historically momentous presidency of Obama the [rhetorician], some journalists are declaring crisis mode on a flourishing art form: the political satire. Bush-impersonations have gone past the point of cliché, but no comedian is yet to figure out how to nail the uniquely relatable stateliness of Barack Obama. And most importantly, would audiences even respond if satirists like [Jon] Stewart mocked the messiah-like figure of so many Americans?

I think I may start to do stand-up then. And I won't even be zealous about it, just exaggerated, absurd and mocking. Who knows? I might actually get my own radio program, because God knows it is the only medium even remotely friendly to Obama-panning humor. Can't say that of print or TV.

The Democrats don't need you ... but they fooled you, three times

Look at all the blue donkeys!

Top All-Time Donors

See a trend? Look at the screenshot of top all-time donors (below). The story: the Democrats don't need your money!!

Click on the pic to it it full sized. Issue with the pic? See the actual page link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

We're going to be entrusting our entire federal government to the Democratic Party if Obama is elected. To put it simply, that sucks. Executive and both ends of Congress run by the Masters of the Lobbyists -- or the Slaves to the Lobbyists, as it were. So, don't expect the lobby controls, the "new kind of politics" rhetoric to result in ANY changes. That would be politically inconvenient for Democrats, most of all.

Fooled you once.

The balance of MONEY is in Dems' favor in more than the prez race of 2008: It is in their favor historically. Yet, they are the party of the common man? Please. The party of BIG CORPORATE and UNION MONEY! The party of -- gag -- the union of state and local employees, for goodness sake. What's that about?!! These guys who work for states and counties and cities can't get fired unless they kill their boss, practically, and they give more money to politicians than ANYONE. So, unlike me, they could buy their job security, and apparently buy the prevention of government shrinkage, it would seem.

Do numbers lie, or is Obama and company feeding us a line? Assuming Obama is our next prez, is government going to expand? Yes that is a question, but WHY IS IT EVEN A QUESTION? It is a dumb question. There is a lack of discussion of this issue of smaller government. WHY? Smaller government is an unpopular idea with Dems -- no wonder!! Look at who sponsors them! So, anyone think government jobs -- expanded government without a crisis motivating it -- won't be the answer to employment woes when Obama gets in?!! Anyone?!!

Seeing as the Dems have generally spent more than GOP whether they won or lost (that's broad stroke, I am not saying every little race everywhere), I am amazed that Bush ever won once, let alone twice. (But then, Clinton's southern aw-shucks rhetoric and Al Gore's true roots, his Beltway roots, were vastly different impressions. Al Gore managed. How'd we do?) Discuss and debate....

It is not for this year, but for the past 20 years...

(Actual page link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A )

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Goldman Sachs, they of course own the GOP and the Bush Admin, huh? After all, good old Treasury Sec Paulson's their guy! Or not. Yes, definitely not. See for yourself. Look at the screenshot, or go directly to this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085

Top Barack Obama contributor
Goldman Sachs dropped almost $800,000 on him. I guess that ruins the whole "the GOP ruined our economy by sucking up to their friends at Goldman Sachs" line of propaganda by the Dems, huh?

Fooled you twice.

Republicans are retiring. how bad will that be?

Since so many House seats are up for election, for a variety of reasons, that is going to change the landscape. It is a year for beating up on Republicans, I suppose because our president is ticking a lot of people off. But, retirement isn't helping things, either.

Retirements have put more than two dozen seats (27 or so) at clear risk for GOP to keep them. Maybe the change of faces will be a good thing, no matter what. Maybe there are going to be some more moderate Dems getting in. That's a good thing. That's not far-left liberals, at least.

Add to that this season of electoral blame-gaming, where the GOP is losing despite the economic problems not really being their fault at all. Republicans are expected to be booted (if they do not deserve it, for some demonstrable reason aside from childish spite, it's not a good thing). Why isn't Barney Frank being asked to leave, seeing as he is the biggest liar we have in the House, currently?

Fooled you three times.

Retiring at end of this session:

Wayne Allard (R) (Colorado Senate)
Larry Craig (R) (Idaho Senate)
Bud Cramer (D) (Alabama District 5)
Barbara Cubin (R) (Wyoming District 1)
Tom Davis (R) (Virginia District 11)
Pete V. Domenici (R) (New Mexico Senate)
John T. Doolittle (R) (California District 4)
Terry Everett (R) (Alabama District 2)
Mike Ferguson (R) (New Jersey District 7)
Vito Fossella (R) (New York District 13)
Chuck Hagel (R) (Nebraska Senate)
Dave Hobson (R) (Ohio District 7)
Darlene Hooley (D) (Oregon District 5)
Ray LaHood (R) (Illinois District 18)
Ron Lewis (R) (Kentucky District 2)
Jim McCrery (R) (Louisiana District 4)
Michael R. McNulty (D) (New York District 21)
John E. Peterson (R) (Pennsylvania District 5)
"Chip" Pickering Jr. (R) (Mississippi District 3)
Deborah Pryce (R) (Ohio District 15)
Jim Ramstad (R) (Minnesota District 3)
Ralph Regula (R) Ohio District 16)
Rick Renzi (R) (Arizona District 1)
Tom Reynolds (R) (New York District 26)
Jim Saxton (R) (New Jersey District 3)
James T. Walsh (R) (New York District 25)
John W. Warner (R) (Virginia Senate)
Dave Weldon (R) (Florida District 15)
Jerry Weller (R) (Illinois District 11)

See the full list online on the "Casualty" list (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/casualties.php)

I won't even bother pointing out that, based on their way of doing campaigns, the Dems in particular are not exactly cost-effectiveness heroes.

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Head count