Nuclear Option revisited

Back in May of 2005, the Senate Republicans were debating upon using the "Nuclear Option" to get some of Bush's judges through. This means that instead of needing the 60 votes to defeat the filibuster, they would use rarely used parliamentary tactics which would allow only 51 votes for passage. This was signed in the 70's with the main purpose to help with budgetary things. The Republican Senate Majority did NOT use this tactic in 2005. However, the link below shows the likes of Democrats Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Dianne Feinstein excoriating the Republicans and the Bush Administration for even thinking about using the Nuclear Option. These Senators were saying the Bush Administration was arrogant, that it was a power grab, that it didn't care about the limits of the 3 branches of government, that it was unconstitutional, et al. Here is the link from 2005:

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Now here we are in 2010, where we have an incredibly unpopular Healthcare bill. The RealClearPolitics average of all polls has the public not liking this by an average of 58-38%. And now the Democrats have lost their 60th vote by the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate a few weeks ago. And as far as the Nuclear Option goes, Reid says this option is on the table because Republicans aren't cooperating with this spectacularly unpopular healthcare legislation. Where is Obama and Biden and Clinton ripping this as unconstitutional?? Oh right, if your side does it, it's ok.

HYPOCRISY AT ITS BEST!!!!!!!!!

Obamacare, again?

Yesterday the Administration came out with their form of Obamacare. In some ways, it's even more extreme than the Senate and House versions that were overwhelmingly unpopular with the American public. This Administration is absolutely tone-deaf when it comes to the Healthcare debate. In a democracy, there are competing ideas that get debated on, and the public usually gets to decide on the merits which side has won the debate. And usually the side that wins the debate is where the law goes. When it doesn't, there are major casualties in the next election cycle for those who voted against the will of the public. So here's a friendly warning to by liberal friends--- continue supporting Obamacare, and it will be at your peril come November 2nd, 2010.

I don't doubt that Obamacare supporters want what is best for the country. But what I doubt is their willingness to accept defeat. If they were smart, they would scrap these bills, and start working on reforms on a bipartisan basis.

And for those who say Republicans have no ideas, why then didn't the Administration put in small language on a few Republican backed ideas into their 2,700 page bill. This would include any kind of Tort Reform, ability to buy across state lines, to have drugs imported from Canada, medical tax credits (as proposed by McCain in the 08 campaign). If they wanted bipartisanship, they would accept any of these solid legislative options. Instead, they want to just crow how the Republicans are the party of "no" and that they have no ideas of their own.

Final question-- How many times does the American public have to reject legislation before an Administration gives up on it, or at least agrees to start over??

Obama not liked by investors

In an Investors Business Daily poll 2 weeks ago, 77% said that Obama's policies are bad for investors. That's quite a big change, being that Obama received big dollars from many of the top investment firms. In fact, he received the vast majority of donations from Goldman Sachs, and fairly even with Chase and Citi, as John McCain.

His words on not charging capital gains for the rest of the year at the State of the Union speech would be a great first step. That could be something I'd agree with Obama on.

Evan Bayh retires

Word is this morning that Democrat Senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh, is retiring after two terms come November. For being a Democrat, he certainly had a decent head on his shoulders. As with partisan politics these days, he was disdained by liberals for wanting compromise on tough issues. We conservatives thought he went too much with the Democrat tide (supporting the ever unpopular Obamacare, the failing stimulus package, Cap and Trade, etc.) Nonetheless, he was a voice of somewhat reason on the left, being that there are so few voices of reason on the liberal left.

As for politics, this is a beautiful development for Republicans. Indiana, being a more red state, is now likely to be taken back by Republicans. Former Senator Dan Coats is now the favorite to take back this seat for the GOP. Although the party would like to see popular congressman Mike Pence throw his hat into the ring. If he did, he'd be a certainty to win election. Last month, Pence declined to run. Of course, not having to take on the centrist Bayh may change his mind.

We'll see...

Recidivism Rate for terrorists

The issue of the recidivism rates for terrorists who we have released has been the hotly debated topic on Capital Hill over the past couple weeks. It's been noted that the recidivism rate has been around 12% over the course of the Bush Administration. This, of course, is not ideal. The ideal would be 0%.... just keep the bastards locked up forever at Gitmo. With the caveat that if they have been sent to Gitmo and are of no future threat by our experts, they should be released (these cases have proven to be rare).

Anyway, Obama's National Anti-Terrorism Chief John Brennan, who has made some pretty spectacularly irresponsible statements and articles over the war on terror, made another doozie over the weekend. Here's what Brennan said regarding this:

"People sometimes use that figure, 20 percent, say 'Oh my goodness, one out of five detainees returned to some type of extremist activity,'" Brennan said. "You know, the American penal system, the recidivism rate is up to something about 50 percent or so, as far as return to crime. Twenty percent isn't that bad."

At this point, I'm wondering who I think should be fired first, John Brennan, or Attorney General Eric Holder? Maybe both???

Biden- Iraq is Obama Admin great achievement??

Say what? We know that Joe Biden is known to shoot from the hip when he speaks. Everyone in Washington knows that he embellishes about as much as any politician known to man. But come on. Even the biggest Democrat backer would have a difficult time defending the statement Biden made to Larry King the other night. Biden exclaimed that Iraq would be one of the Obama Administration's biggest successes. Wow, is all I have to say. I will try my very best to list a few non-partisan facts that would counter Biden's wild claim. And since we were already in Iraq, let's not fight the battle of why we went into Iraq in the first place. Biden's argument doesn't deal with that.

• Before the Iraq troop surge: When Iraq was still a bloody mess, Biden and Obama both said that Iraq would, under no circumstances, succeed with a troop surge. If you want Obama's reasoning behind how the troop surge would make things worse, go to youtube. Believe me, you'll have NO trouble finding statements by him that it would fail. After Bush decided on the surge, Iraq has completely stabilized and will go down as one of the great decisions to fix a mess. Even Obama admits the surge has exceeded his expectations. And if Obama and Biden had their way?? We would have come home with a complete mess left in Iraq without finishing the job.
• Dividing Iraq into three sections: Biden said the best way to stabilize Iraq would be to partition the country in three sections, so the three different factions of the country (Sunni's, Shia's, and Kurds) could live peacefully. This idea was laughed off by about every military commander, saying this wasn't a serious solution. Even though Biden was dead serious.
• Before Bush left office: Bush signed a pact with the Iraq government that we had a timetable to leave. Although, no doubt, Obama will take credit when the majority of our troops come home, it was Bush who agreed on this pact, not Obama.
• Obama campaigned on bringing them home before war was won: This didn't happen, as the actual facts on the ground will ALWAYS supercede campaign promises. Obama was wrong to believe the commanders on the ground didn't know better. Alas, Obama went with what the commanders wanted. Duh!!

So to say that the Obama Administration will take credit for the successes, as Biden implies to King, stretches the imagination to the point of disbelief!

Recent Polls Update

Here are a few nuggets I'm finding interesting, as we are about 9 months from the 2010 midterms:

• In about every poll now, GOP leads the generic ballot over Dems. This is remarkable because even in solid GOP years, Dems usually outpoll the GOP on the generic ballot. This poll is confirmed by Gallup, Rasmussen, PPP, CNN/Opinion Dynamics.
• According to Rasmussen Reports, Obama still has an upside down approval of 46/49. More telling, the intensity against him is a -15. This means there are far more people who have a strong dislike of him/his policies, over people who favor him/his policies strongly.

Here are some Senate races, along with my prediction and odds, albeit 9 months out:

• Colorado Democrat Senate seat: Republican Jane Norton is way out in front of incumbent Democrat Michael Bennett, 51-37. With Bennett's favorables well below 50%, this poll is not surprising. The chances of this seat going back to the GOP seems very likely. Likely GOP Takeover. (70%)
  
• Delaware Open Senate seat (D) Biden's old seat): In Joe Biden's former seat, GOP candidate Mike Castle is the strong favorite over Democrat Chris Coons. Even in a heavily blue state, Castle is well liked.. and should take this former Democrat seat. Solid GOP Takeover.(80%)
  
• North Dakota open Senate seat ((D) Dorgan retiring): In Byron Dorgan's retiring seat, the GOP is 100% certain (minus a scandal) to pick this seat up from the Dems. In reality, GOP Governor John Hoeven would have beaten Dorgan anyway, had Dorgan not decided to retire. Now, the GOP doesn't have to use any money on this race. Solid GOP Takeover. (100%)
  
• Arkansas Democrat Senate seat: Incumbent Blanche Lincoln (D) is in the political fight of her life. In fact, several recent polls have her down anywhere from 6-23 points (depending on the poll and her opponent). Either way, it looks like she is going down to the GOP this year. Likely GOP takeover (85%).
• Nevada Democrat Senate seat: Incumbent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, like Lincoln above, is in the political fight of his career. The vast majority of Nevadan's disapprove of him, and his performance. In matchups against the two likely GOP competitors, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian are ahead in poll after poll, between 6-9 points. Reid cannot be counted out because of his money advantage. Likely GOP takeover (60%).
• Pennsylvania Democrat Senate seat: Arlen Specter (D), is in a primary fight that he figures to win. If so, he'll be taking on (R) Pat Toomey. Toomey challenged Specter in 04, when Specter was still a Republican. In most recent polls, Toomey leads Specter in low double digits. In one recent poll, Toomey leads by 14 points. Since this is still a Democrat-leaning state, Specter still has a chance. Even so, Toomey is a strong candidate and the GOP tide is sweeping in. Likely GOP takeover (50-55%).
• Illinois Democrat Senate seat ((D) Obama's old seat): In a state where corruption rules the roost, this will be an interesting race. In Obama's former seat, his pal, (D) Alexi Giannoulius is running close with (R) Mark Kirk. In the Democrat-leaning state, this one is too close to call. Giannoulius is dogged by corruption charges in his former position at his family bank, so not sure how to read this one. I'd say 50-50. Even Race (50%).
• Ohio open Senate seat ((R) George Voinovich retiring): This retiring GOP seat is likely to stay in the GOP column. Rob Portman (R) is the slight favorite to retain this seat in GOP hands. Likely GOP retention (60%).
• Florida open Senate seat ((R) Mel Martinez retiring): The likely GOP candidate, Marco Rubio, should handily beat Democrat Kendrick Meek. Rubio, a conservative, is likely to beat current GOP Governor Charlie Crist in the primary. Likely GOP retention (75%).
• Missouri open Senate seat ((R) Kit Bond retiring): Republican Roy Blount and Democrat Robin Carnahan are running about even for this open GOP seat. With the likely GOP wave, Blount might be the slight favorite. Slight GOP Retention. (50-55%)
• Kentucky open Senate seat ((R) Jim Bunning retiring): In this strong GOP State, this open contest should go to GOP'ers Trey Grayson or Rand Paul. Strong GOP (90%).
• New Hampshire open Senate seat ((R) Judd Gregg retiring): (R) Kelly Ahoutte is the slight favorite over (D) Paul Hodes. Slight GOP retention (60%).

By details above, all of the GOP held seats that are close, are likely to stay in GOP hands. On the other hand, all of the close Democrat held seats, are 50/50 at worst for GOP takeovers. The following are slight Democrat retentions. If the GOP takes any of the following seats, it could be a GOP landslide in the Senate:

• Indiana Democrat Senate seat: Democrat Evan Bayh, who is a moderate, will have to fight hard for his seat. Former Senator Dan Coats (R), will give him a challenge. With this contest in a GOP state and Coats being a strong candidate, this could become close. Bayh isn't hugely unpopular like many Democrats above, so not sure how to read this yet. I'd say slight Democrat retention. Slight Dem retention (50-55%).
• New York Democrat Senate seat: (D) Kirsten Gillebrand, not hugely popular, is the favorite to keep her senate seat. If GOP'ers Rudy Guiliani or George Pataki decide to run, the GOP would be the slight favorite. Otherwise it would be a long shot for the GOP. It looks as if Rudy is a no-go at this time. Pataki entering the ring may be the GOP's only hope at this seat. Likely Dem retention (70%, depending on Pataki).
• Washington Democrat Senate seat: (D) Patty Murray is the favorite no matter who the GOP recruits. However, her approval's are below 50%. The best chance the GOP has is if former GOP Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi puts his hat into the ring. Rossi, who lost a very controversial election in 04 (he led the original count and the first few recounts. Recounting stopped once the Democrat took her first lead.) If Rossi commits, along with the likely GOP wave, there's a slight chance. Likely Dem retention (75%).
• California Democrat Senate seat: (D) Barbara Boxer, although unpopular, is in a heavy blue state, and has a sizable campaign warchest. She is the likely favorite. GOP'ers Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell have a slight chance. Although turnout in places like Los Angeles and San Francisco would have to be quite low. Likely Dem retention (90%).

NOTE: The seats I did not list for 2010 are safe seats at this time for both the GOP and Dems.

Conclusion: The GOP is likely to take between 5-7 Senate seats. This could change as the political climate changes. If the GOP takes these seats, the Democrats majority would be down to 54-46 to 52-48. As of now, it's 59-41. Here are the percentages I'd put them as of February 5th, 2010:

• 50%---- 52/54 Dem Majority. This would make it 46-48 GOP seats.
  
• 25% ----54/46 Dem Majority. This would make it 44-46 GOP seats.
• 15%---- 50/52 Dem Majority. This would make it 48-50 GOP seats. (If it's 50-50, The Dem VP would be decider).
• 10%---- Anything else- Either a 51+ Majority for GOP, or Dems only losing 4 or less Senate seats.

One more thing to consider- The possible flip of Independent Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats. He said there's a slight possibility he may switch to the GOP in the next year. And to think, he was almost our VP, as a Democrat!!
More to come on House and Gubernatorial races soon....

Follow up on February 1st post

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in a wonderfully written piece, dissects Obama's lack of seriousness when it comes to our national security. His article makes very similar points today, as to what I described in yesterday's blog post. For a link to the article, go here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/02/tone_deaf_to_concerns_about_terrorism_100127.html

Hillary was right on Obama

During the course of the 2008 Democrat Primaries, Hillary and Bill Clinton consistently were beating the drum of how "green" Obama would be to foreign policy, should he become president. Now, we have several campaign issues and current events that will attest to the Clinton's worry that Obama is simply too extreme and wet behind the ears when it comes to foreign policy. Some examples:

• Wanting to negotiate with rogue dictatorships, such as Iran and North Korea. What have we got for it thus far? Short answer---Having our president stoop to the level of these thugs by giving them the time of day.
• Closing Gitmo-- The majority of our country still believe Gitmo is the right place to hold these terrorists. If Obama had his way, they'd be either on US soil in our max prisons, or sent back to places like Yemen.
• Ending the war in Iraq-- Well, it was Bush who signed off on finishing the war in a few years. However, in the SOTU speech last week, Obama said we will close it down soon. He's saying this as if it were his decision. In reality, this was done by the Bush Admin. And one last thing- if we would have listened to Obama and the liberals, we would not have added more troops and would have sent our troops home with the war lost, and Iraq in disarray. However, with Bush and General Petraeus, we will go home after WINNING the war.
  
• Christmas Day Bomber-- We interrogated this guy for only 50 minutes before reading him his miranda rights. Come again? That's unbelievable! Our state department, led by AG Eric Holder, should be held accountable. So instead of continuing the interrogation, we read him his rights and allow him to lawyer up? Again, this is a terrorist who almost blew up a plane on US soil. This isn't a tax cheat, or even a felon.
• 9/11 Terrorists trial in New York-- The justice Department, again led by AG Eric Holder, wanted to try these terrorists in NYC. This with have Gitmo at our disposal to have a military tribunal. With this admin even admitting military tribunal's are legal and necessary, what is the rationale behind wanting this in NYC? Now many Democrats are coming out against it. Not just the cost, which is estimated at 200 million/yr, but at the moral issue of it. This being the ability for the defendants to grandstand and make themselves out to be martyrs. The public, by a double digit margin, wants these done in Gitmo. The numbers speak for themselves.