Jeff's Thoughts

Obama's actions are disgusting

2011-04-19T14:26:00.000-07:00

I'm so ticked off that the president would lower himself way beneath the presidency on the fiscal mess we are in. Let me set the stage:
On January 10th, 2010, Obama said both political sides need to come to agreements, not demagogue the other sides plans. Doing this, he said, would be unhealthy to our political process. And remember, this is from the former candidate who said he would change the poisoned political well.

Obama had several chances to discuss our fiscal crisis; all of the Continuing Resolutions the congress kept passing, the State of the Union Address, a response to his own debt commission's findings, his 2011 budget proposal, etc, etc, etc.... As you can see, he had ample opportunities to discuss his broad plan to tackle our fiscal problems.

Instead, it was reported in about every media outlet that the Obama plan was to "wait" for Budget Chairman Paul Ryan to come out with his proposal, a plan that would tackle our long-term problem of the entitlement programs. A solution that would protect those at or entering retirement age, and enabling the plans to continue. Obama's team thought that they would wait for Ryan's plan to gain the upper hand politically. After all, it's much easier to lambast the other persons proposal than coming up with a plan of your own.... especially when it hits on sensitive topics as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. These of course, are our biggest drivers of our fiscal mess. And now, Standard & Poor's said yesterday we are on the verge of having our credit rating downgraded our debt from "stable" to "negative".

Here's the order of what happened when Obama FINALLY gave his address, weeks after Ryan's proposal:

1. Invites Paul Ryan to have a front row seat at his speech on our financial mess.

2. Spends more than half of his speech ridiculing Ryan's plan; essentially saying Ryan's plan didn't want to help kids with autism, down syndrome, the elderly, helpless, etc.; saying these people can fend for themselves under the Ryan plan. All the while, Ryan wanted to only protect the millionaires and billionaires (hello class warfare). Not only was this untrue, this was EXACTLY what Obama said in 2008, as well as in his speech on Jan 10, 2010 that is corrupting our political process. Nonetheless, Obama does this to Ryan. Very ugly!!
To the issue of Ryan's plan- According to Obama's own deficit commission (which he cites often in speeches, yet hasn't embraced much of it in policy), it says that there would be 3 different tax rates- 8,14, and 23 percent, all the while taking out many tax loopholes and deductions we are used to. In Ryan's plan, the top rate is actually HIGHER than Obama's commission's 23 percent (for the rich). However, Obama is either demogoguing without knowing the facts, or he is flat out lying!

3. Obama only gives broad strokes to his plan. In other words, he doesn't really have a plan; he's just used theories in a few speeches. This includes: taxing the rich (read: Small Business Owners), cut defense (although the Pentagon shot back the following day that this is a pipe dream that cannot happen right now), and cutting waste in Medicare and Medicaid (that's a cop out proposal, something that if it could be done, wouldn't it have been done by now?). He didn't mention Social Security, apparently thinking this has long-term solvency. Even many liberal commentators said his plans were all well and good, but did NOT offer specifics. If we're to get serious about our mess, shouldn't specifics have been offered?

As most Americans are clearly seeing, this president has more interest in getting re-elected, than tackling our country's problems. And two smart people can disagree on ideas, but at least Ryan showed the moxie to come out with real ideas with meat on them. Obama on the other hand, showed he's a flat wimp on this issue!

On the Paul Ryan front: Man, that guy has class. He sat through the whole speech, even though it distorted his plan from a to z. Nonetheless, he sat through the wreckage of the teleprompter in chiefs failed leadership on this issue. Here's hoping that Ryan would run for President. Not only would Ryan most likely win, but he would wax Obama's ass on the floor when the debate came to budget/fiscal matters. That would be incredibly satisfying to me, as someone who had his blood boiling during Obama's speech.

Finally, I can't help but once again think how a basketball or football coach would view Obama as a leader? Would you ever want to follow him into battle? He NEVER shows leadership aspects... never. Case in point: Punting on our fiscal crisis as mentioned above, saying the Libya leader HAS to go, yet also saying we WON'T force him out, failing to lead on the trainwreck known as Obamacare, the gulf oil spill, etc.

PAUL RYAN in 2012!!!

Polls and Obama

2011-04-19T14:20:00.001-07:00

Team Obama is seeing some pretty bad poll numbers. Here's a look:

He's under water in Gallup, Marist, Rasmussen, WashPo/ABC News polls, all disapproving by at least 3% more than approve.

His overall approval is down to 46% average, and dropping.

Obamacare is at its lowest support since inception, only 35% support it.

46% strongly disapprove of his handling of the economy; only 23% strongly approve.

On most polls, he's narrowly beating his Republican opponents. However, Romney is beating him by 2 points in a recent poll. Nonetheless, a sitting president SHOULD be beating any unnamed opponent, or named for that matter, even before the election season has started.

General Electric and Taxes

2011-04-14T13:29:00.000-07:00

As most now know, GE made billions in profits, yet didn't pay ANY taxes last year. Do we hear the populous Obama, or his liberal friends decrying this? Of course not! Reason being, GE has a stake in MSNBC (liberal network), and GE's CEO, Jeff Immelt, is working now for Obama. Change we can, ummmm.......never mind!!

Obama's lack of leadership

2011-04-14T12:27:00.000-07:00

As hard as I am on Obama, I truly do not blame him for his lack of leadership skills. The fact is, his resume showed him community organizing, being a little known state senator, and a US senator, who really didn't lead on any issues. In other words, it was his soaring rhetoric, not leadership ability, that got him elected. So why are conservatives torching him so much for his failure to lead? It's kind of a double-edged sword. We know he's not a leader, yet he wanted a job that by definition is the top leadership job in the world. Go figure! Anyway, here's some areas where is lack of ability to lead has definitely hurt him:

Health care Reform- It surely wasn't popular then, at it's surely not popular now. Fact is, Obama said he wanted huge changes in this system, then gave the baton to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (both VERY unpopular figures in our country) to write legislation on health care. Obama really didn't get involved, which showed by his lack of clarity when he didn't know if many aspects would be in the bill.

Libya/Egypt conflicts- In Egypt, he basically sat on his hands without saying anything. On Libya, he waited for France and England to take the lead.

Libya continued-- Instead of letting congress know that we were sending cruise missels into Libya, he notified the UN. Breathtaking!

Gaddafi- In one swath, Obama said Muammar Gaddifi must go (as in be overthrown). The very next day, he said the United States policy was to NOT overthrow the evil dictator. Fine, but which is it? For some reason, I believe President Bush would have shown more leadership, one way or the other.

Failure to shown interest in deficit three times- In the continuing resolution last December, his State of the Union Address, and the last minute continuation of the government from a shutdown last week. In neither case did he mention ways we can get out of our mess.

Attacking Paul Ryan's plan during his "fiscal speech", instead of laying out a plan of his own. He didn't give specifics as to how he would reduce our deficit on entitlements, which everyone knows are the big drivers of our debt.

Promising to punish the rich with taxes0 He did say that he was going back on last December's passage of the Bush tax cuts. Agree or disagree with lower taxes on the ones who create jobs, he can't have it both ways.

Raising the debt ceiling

2011-04-14T12:18:00.000-07:00

Here's Obama's flip-flopping on raising the debt ceiling. Of course now that he's president, he thinks it would be irresponsible for Republicans to vote against the raising of the debt ceiling. Here's what he said on the issue when he was a senator: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It's a sign that the US cannot pay its own bills.....Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here". Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren." Apparently, Obama's minnions are now saying Obama regrets that vote 5 years ago. Ummm, damage done, Mr. President. There are certain things you can regret, but how can you go from principled...... to unprincipled..

Government shutdown and whose fault?

2011-04-08T12:08:00.000-07:00

The government may be coming to a shutdown within the next several hours. Of course both sides are blaming the other. But whose fault is it really? I'd go out on a limb and say the 111th Congress (we are in the 112th now). In the 111th congress, they failed to enact a budget. How incredibly disappointing is that? And the kicker is, Democrats controlled the White House, House of Reps, and the Senate. So where's their excuse? It's nice and refreshing to see the House Republicans hold the hard line on having 61 Billion in cuts, which was promised when they were elected in the 2010 landslide. If our government cannot cut 61 Billion (when we are in the whole 1.65 Trillion alone this year), we've got problems. Problems similar to Greece. Finally..... Didn't Obama say that in his first term, he'd reduce the size of the deficit in half? Instead, he's pushed it up another 5 Trillion or so (he's been around 1.5 Trillion each of his three years).

Libya and Obama's response

2011-03-24T12:33:00.000-07:00

It isn't really surprising that a President who has such little experience with anything other than teaching and community organizing has everybody confused as to what the Libya mission is.
He has the left ticked that he lifted a finger at all with airstrikes.
He has ticked the right off because, despite many in his administration (including Clinton) saying the time for Gaddafi to go is now with regime change, they are walking back on that statement. I presume because Obama's left flank is throwing a hissy fit because we've used force at all. Nonetheless, can anyone explain the mission coherently?

Finally, he has legislators from the left and the right upset because he thought going to the UN for its approval was more valuable than filling congress in on what he was doing. Oh, he did. But that was without asking for input, and minutes before the strategy was set in motion on the battlefield...

Now just stop and ponder... What if Bush decided not to notify congress of these plans before striking a country? Man, what a scene that would be.

Finally, remember Biden and Obama saying in the 08 campaign that without congressional approval, a US President cannot go to war. Well, I guess Obama's being a hypocrit now! I think the constitution grants the commander these authorities....maybe Obama had a change of heart once Bush left office and he got into office... insert sarcasm here.

My heart is pondering the thought of us having a president who is an actual leader!!!

Gas prices and politics

2011-03-09T10:10:00.001-08:00

As most observers will know, presidents probably get too much credit when things are going well. Likewise, they get too much blame when things are not going well. This is so true of the economy. Of course there are policies that may trigger economic output (eg- lower tax rates, less regulation and government interference, etc.).

One of the chief economic (and therefore political) indicators are gas prices. When gas prices get high, who gets the blame? Remember back in the mid 2000's, how the liberal left accused the Bush Administration of having bad energy policy, therefore making gas prices in the 3 dollar range? As I said then, and will say now, there's only so much a president can do to affect gas prices. There are too many factors an American president has no control over that can aversely affect gas prices. The biggest one is global unrest; drilling down further, Mideast unrest. Since so much of the worlds outflow of oil comes from many of these countries, this can cause panic in the markets. Until things stabilize in places such as Libya, gas may even go higher, especially as we start to enter the high drive months of the Summer. A few random thoughts on energy policy, what a president can do, and political fallout:

Any positive press to the oil markets will drive speculators away. Remember in 08 when President Bush made proclamations of more drilling? The prices went down dramatically in 2 days.
Any signs of more drilling does more for the psyche of the market short term (ie- more oil will soon come) as well as the long term (ie- actually more supply for our country).
Moratorium's on drilling KILLS the psyche and therefore drives the speculators to raise prices of oil and bet on the long. Obama did our country or the oil job force no favors by saying no drilling after the oil spill last Spring.
I'm willing to not blame Obama totally for higher oil prices. He can only do so much with all the tension in the middle east.
Politically, Obama will be toast in '12 (or at least very vulnerable) if prices remain in the 3-4 dollar per gallon range for gas. The fact is, this affects every industry in our country. Fair or unfair, this would be the political reality.

Defense of Marriage Act

2011-03-03T10:16:00.000-08:00

The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by congress in 1996, and signed into law by President Clinton, is now under assault by Obama and his minnions. So much so that they have promised not to defend "DOMA" in court. Say what???? Just because Obama now thinks DOMA is unconstitutional, he orders his justice department not to defend a law? That's very unusual. How could a president pick and choose what current laws to defend? If that were rational thinking, when Republicans regain the White House, should they not defend Obamacare?

Whatever your opinion is on this matter, it sets a very scary precedent if the executive branch picks and chooses what laws to defend.

Speaking of DOMA, Obama seems to be struggling with this issue. Here's his positions since the 08 campaign:

He believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman; gays should be entitled to civil unions.
He believes DOMA is unconstitutional; even though it protects the issue that he says he believes in (defending marriage).

Whatever the outcome, he's surely to piss off huge factions of his liberal base. Since African Americans support DOMA (traditional marriage) by 75 percent, and Mexicans support it by 65 percent; this while his gay base and liberal elites want Obama to do a reverse and allow federal gay marriage. Either way he's boxed himself in. It'll be interesting to see how the liberal media "allows" him to escape this jam he's put himself in.

Why conservatism beats liberalism

2011-03-01T09:14:00.000-08:00

In a manuscript I write, I explain why conservatism fits into my view on life, mainly as a Christian. This is the main reason why I vote like I do. But, as Winston Churchill explains, there are very logical reasons to to be conservative:
"If you aren't liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't conservative at age 40, you have no brain."

Here are some quick reasons why voting for the more conservative candidate always wins:

School choice- As much as liberals say they are all about choice, they aren't when it comes to schools. Instead, liberals suck on the Unions teet and therefore oppose school vouchers, school choice; as well as rip private schools and home schooling to shreds.
Abortion- This happens to be the only thing where liberals support "choice". In fact, as more technology proves the point that life begins at conception, public support is now on the side of life. Honestly, liberals support abortion on demand, plain and simple. We have a president who supports partial birth abortion; and is in the tank for Planned Parenthood, Now Organization for Women, is opposed to parental notification. Do I need to go on? Fact is, if you are pro-life, how can you support Democrats?
Less Government intrusion- Liberals want government more in our lives; conservatives want citizens to make more choices themselves.
Health Care- Liberals rammed through a mandate where it demands us to buy health insurance or pay a fine. How unconstitutional is that?
Giving to charity- In every metric polled, conservatives give FAR more to charity in time and money than do liberals. Fact is, conservatives would rather make that decision personally; while liberals would rather FORCE this on citizens through higher taxation.
Marriage- The Defense of Marriage Act is under assault by liberals again. This, despite around 65 percent of our country believing that marriage should be between ONE man and ONE woman. This doesn't take away rights for gay couples, as they should have rights. But you can't change a definition (or law) based on what a minority of Americans want. For Christians, this shouldn't even be an issue.
Accountability- Conservatism by and large, serves to the folks who believe in accountability for their actions. Get pregnant, don't kill the unborn. Are you a bad rated teacher? You may lose your job. Commit murder? Death penalty may be the result of taking a life.
Imminent Domain- Conservatives believe private property is just that... Liberals believe that private property can be taken away by the government if they determine it would be more useful for public consumption (parks, building, etc.).
Taxation- Despite living in a society where our government spends trillions more than it has, liberals think we still don't tax enough. This despite already living in a progressive system where the higher earners already pay the lions share of taxes... and the poor pay next to nothing.
Unions v. Business- Liberals support big union because unions ONLY support Democrats. Therefore, they receive sweetheart deals-- pensions, healthcare, wages, in exchange for electing liberal politicians. It's the gift that keeps on giving.... for liberals.

Obama and lobbyists (unions, abortion industry)

2011-02-24T11:33:00.000-08:00

The Obama Administration has touted that they are full of transparency, and they are the enemies of lobbyists. Remember all of the campaign rhetoric in 2008, railing against lobbyists? Well, as Politico is reporting, instead of inviting lobbyists to the White House, Obama is meeting with them at Jackson Place (near the White House); therefore these meetings don't have to be disclosed.
Business as usual......

Also, if anyone didn't know the Democrats (Obama included) weren't in the back pockets of big unions and the abortion industry... Union chiefs Andy Stern and Richard Trumka have made combined over 100 visits to the White House in 2 years. In addition, Trumka said he visits with White House officials 2-3 times per week. How can Obama be objective with both sides when...

He only gets visits from unions and not the "other side" (eg-Chamber of Commerce)
Big unions are the biggest financial givers to Democrats in elections.
Obama rails against Governors at a state level, who are trying to rein in big unions.
He invites abortion providers for meetings; but not pro-life groups.

Is big money really Republican??

2011-02-22T14:13:00.000-08:00

Contrary to popular political belief, the big money really lies in the Democrat party. Of the top ten contributors to political campaigns since 1989, 5 of them are from unions. Of course, unions PAC's vote Democrat 100% of the time. In the 2010 election, 10 of the top 20 PAC's were from unions. Finally, the top 10 industries gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in 2010? This includes the likes of lawyers, Securities, Real Estate, Pharma, Unions, Health professionals, etc.

So despite hearing all of the liberal psychobabble when it comes to this issue, just remember the facts. This is true with the unions fighting Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. They are pissed off because they are proposed to have to pay a little more into their healthcare and so forth. Nonetheless, these public unions still pay FAR less for these expensives than the private sector. And what do they do? Well, they take their toys and go home. All of the Democrats in the state senate have left the state in protest. Didn't Obama say that elections have consequences in 08? I guess that doesn't include his own party when they get taken to the woodshed! Also, they wonderful teachers who are protesting are calling in sick instead of going back to work to teach.

As conservatives always say, performance is way more important than tenure. Of course these teacher unions who are so powerful, usually get their way; even though it hurts the children the most.

Senate for 2012 taking shape

2011-02-09T12:50:00.000-08:00

There are 23 Democrats seats up, along with 10 Republicans. As usual, most incumbent seats will remain safe. However, there are several that are ripe for the picking. Since 2006 was a GOP bloodbath, many of those senate seats picked up that year were an anomoly, likely to be one time deals.

With a 47-53 minority, it looks like there are some easy chances to flip 4 seats. If the GOP gets the White House, they will only need three turnovers, as the new VP would hold a 50-50 tiebreaker in the senate.

Onto some that may flip the chamber in '12:

North Dakota- With retiring Democrat Kent Conrad in an already GOP state, as long as the GOP picks a decent candidate, this is an easy layin.
Montana- Another GOP state that has Democrat Jon Tester. Since he voted for Obamacare, he's gonna have a tough road here. Congressman Denny Rehberg is the GOP guy, and he's the ons on favorite here. Another pickup.
Virginia- Let's face it, George Allen doesn't barely lose his seat in 06 if it weren't for self induced errors... even in a bad GOP year. Nonetheless, he's back challenging, and he's the cream of the crop, both parties. Webb, the Democrat, is retiring instead of fighting a rematch. So Dems need a challenger. In a state where Governor McDonnell slaughtered the Dem last year by 18 points, this is very likely a GOP pickup.
Nebraska- In the red of the reddest states, Dem Ben Nelson only survives by supporting GOP judges, pro-life, for our foreign wars. But since he voted for Obamacare, that was WAY too much for this conservative state. Call it the last cornhusker straw. His approval's in the tank; he's facing a strong candidate in GOP AG Bruning. And it's likely gonna be a nasty night for Nelson, ala Lincoln in 2010. Party is over for these conservative Dems. If they vote for socialism, they will go down, plain and simple!
Missouri- Claire McCaskill, a devout Obama supporter, won barely in 06. Obama lost there, and Obamacare referundem to get rid of the mandate passed by 70%. And Claire voted for it. Oops!! Chickens may be coming home to roost here. If the GOP has a decent or strong candidate, this is a very likely pickup.

More later, but here's 5 likely switcharoos, before we even start trying.... Of course, we have to watch for a couple seats, namely Nevada. Not sure about GOP incumbent John Ensign.

Debunking more Obamacare lies

2011-01-28T11:31:00.000-08:00

1. The Medicare Actuary was asked two simple questions during a hearing- that it will bring down medical costs, and that people can keep their coverage if they like it.

The actuary, Richard Foster said, "I would say false, more so than true" regarding the costs. Regarding whether people can keep their coverage: "not true in all cases."

2. As people have pointed out, the Obama Administration STILL trots out what the CBO scored as cost savings. First of all, they score what is given to them, not what happens in the real world. They are simply given math equations to fill out. In other words, if a program costs $540 Billion and taxes are increased by $760 Billion, there will be a savings. Of course, all experts say these proposed numbers of cost savings are only true if you believe in flying cows.

3. Tax? In 09, Obama promised it was not a tax, rather a fine not to get insurance. Now, they are boxed in a legal corner and are screaming from the rooftops that it is indeed a tax. So did they lie twice, or just didn't get their "facts" straight??

Repealing Obamacare succeeds in House

2011-01-20T09:34:00.000-08:00

Probably the best line on repealing Obamacare came from an editorial from the Wall Street Journal:

"Obamacare cannot be fixed at the margins when it is so destructive at its core."

Well said....

Liberal doozies for the week

2011-01-19T08:51:00.000-08:00

Just in case the mainstream media didn't catch these greatest hits for the week, here are some outrageous comments by liberals this week:

Our buddy Harry Reid calling China's President a "dictator" while he was visiting.
House Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee saying the repeal of HC is unconstitutional. Umm, what about forcing us to buy something, I don't see that in the constitution!
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying her party would have lost "more seats" if HC reform wasn't passed. Umm, do she not know that over half our population want it repealed in every poll? Or that 2/3 of doctors are against it?
Liberal meda like David Corn STILL saying the likes of Sarah Palin caused the deranged nutcase in Arizona to go on a shooting spree. Breathtaking!

Arizona shootings

2011-01-12T09:14:00.000-08:00

Several people were shot in a public meeting, with congresswoman Giffords, a Democrat, and a federal judge, who is a Christian conservative. Right after the massacre took place, liberal pundits went on the air proclaiming it was the political right- Palin, Limbaugh, Tea Party are partly responsible because of all of the heated rhetoric. This is just breathtaking that they would take this tack, though not suprising in the least. They do this all the time. When there's a shooting, blame society, blame gun owners, blame Christians, but never ever blame the insane person who carried through these violent acts.

The above is the classic difference between a liberal and conservative mindset... Liberals believe there's always a societal reason behind anyone's violent actions.... Conservatives believe that we should be all held accountable for our actions and not always want to blame other things for ones actions-- it's called personal accountability!

So when Obama says to his political enemies to "get in their face and argue with them", or "if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun", or when the Democrat organization puts out a "target" map of Republicans they want to take down... I can go on forever with these examples.

The fact is, that's what politicians do. It's not a call for actually carrying out these acts; they are metaphors, even when conservatives do them, not just liberals.

And the backlash is under way. This is the reason why the NYT is getting DESTROYED by The Wall Street Journal. This is why MSNBC is getting spanked by Fox News. This is why network coverage is about non-existent. Period, end of sentence!

Obamacare unconstitutional

2011-01-04T13:44:00.000-08:00

Now that a Federal Judge has ruled that mandating a citizen to buy a product is indeed unconstituional, backers of the Constitution have won a major battle. There are several other lawsuits that have yet to be determined on this issue. Ultimately, this is headed for the Supreme Court. Wouldn't it be something if a President's biggest piece of legislation during his term was ruled unconstitutional? That would be amazing!

And talk about double-speak. During the healthcare fight, Democrats and Obama promised those who didn't buy insurance would be fined, not taxed, is now not true. Since the constitution prohibits the action of fining someone for not buying a good or service, they are now saying it is indeed a tax. If they were so certain it was not a tax last year, how can it all of a sudden be defined as a tax this year?

Change we CANNOT believe in!!

Repeal Obamacare

2011-01-04T13:35:00.000-08:00

Now that the GOP has won in a huge landslide in the House of Representatives, they are fulfilling the promise to the American people if they took control of power again- they are voting next week to repeal Obamacare. Of course, this will not pass the Senate or the President's veto pen. Nonetheless, it sets battle lines for 2012. And the advantage on this is clearly with the GOP. As it stands, there are STILL no polls out there that think Obamacare is good. Moreso, majorities not only are against it, but want it repealed.

And for Democrats to say Republicans are going to starve the "good parts" of it, that's a non-starter. If they only wanted the good things in it (reducing the donut hole, not allowing insurance companies to insure pre-exisiting conditions, etc.) they are making the case for Republicans. In fact, Republicans are in favor of these parts. But there are things that have to be repealed in order to get rid of the bad (mandating us to buy or receive penalty) and adding the good (such as tort reform) into the overall health care reform.

It cannot be repeated enough- Republicans won a huge majority in the House and Governorships, as well as reducing the deficit in the Senate, largely on this issue. And the support AGAINST Obamacare is the only position that has major support from both parties.

I'd also be interested to see those Democrats who voted for Obamacare last year in the Senate, to see where they stand now. These would be the vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election in 2012 and represent states that clearly are against Obamacare. This would include Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia, and so on. I'd venture to guess that if this group decides to keep their support for Obamacare this year, they will indeed be an extinct species when it comes time for re-election. So much so that they will be wiped off the map in the way many Democrats were this past election (see Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas).

Raising the debt ceiling

2011-01-04T12:50:00.000-08:00

The White House Economic team is saying that it's completely irresponsible and "dangerous" for Republicans to stall or vote no on raising the debt ceiling. Would this be regarded as hypocritical if their boss did exactly the same thing in 2006?

As senator, Obama voted no on raising the debt ceiling because it was a Republican in the White House. Was it reckless then? In addition, in 07 and again in 08, Obama was a non-voter for this same thing. So in these cases, was it not important enough to vote on these things?

Once again, Obama being hypocritical. And his policies/actions/statements fly in the face of "change we can believe in". As all non kool-aid drinkers now know, this was all just words..... no actions to support change he promised.

Obama's words unite or divide?

2010-12-08T09:01:00.000-08:00

Obama came to the White House promising to change the way things were done. He would bridge differences, calm the waters on both sides of the political isle. Remember that? In order to make for his extreme views on many issues, as well as his unbelievably thin resume, he would change the way things operated.

As we all know now, this isn't happening. Even the liberal media smells blood in this realm. They have attacked his administration pretty well over these past 6 months for doing something he said would never happen if he were entrusted with the presidency.

To be certain, Bush said he'd try the same thing 8 years earlier. Nonetheless, the media didn't believe his words and didn't have to eat crow the way they are doing so now.

A few examples- When Obama labels the GOP as "hostage takers" on the tax debate, that's demeaning. When he says the GOP can sit in the back on policy issues before the midterms, that's degrading language. When he says the GOP's "holy grail" is getting tax breaks for the rich, that's not telling the truth. Yet he finds a way to contually spew this hateful language across the political isle.

Instead, why doesn't he say: "The GOP has a different vision for excellerating our economy that me and my liberal friends. Nonetheless, we will try to get the best bill possible for the American people." Wouldn't that be more in line with the promises he made in 2007-2008?

By the way, Obama and his liberal minnions still refuse to say these tax breaks for the "rich" include basically all of the people who will inject money into our economy. Read: new hiring, purchases, investments, and the like.

Obama at 39 percent approval

2010-11-23T10:48:00.000-08:00

According to a Zogby poll, Obama is now below 40 percent approval. He's been averaging around 44 percent amongst all polls recently. Nonetheless, the needle is pointing downwards, as his promises of 2008 are not coming to fruition.

A few thoughts to ponder:

Will a Democrat challenge him in 2012? If not Clinton, there won't be a serious challenger, only a token challenger from his left (if there's such a thing).
Only the economy rebounding big time will Obama be able to recover in time for 2012. Either that, or he faces a nominal GOP candidate that the country doesn't get behind, ala John McCain.
If the GOP can get somebody with the fire to run against Obama like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Mike Pence, Obama would REALLY need some great fortune during the next year. Again, nothing could be bigger than major US job growth. But with his anti-business policies, I'm not sure how that'll happen.

The GOP is now at 62 House seats. There's still 4 more seats that haven't been determined. Not since before WWII has there been this large of a GOP majority in the lower chamber.

2012 GOP candidates

2010-11-04T12:12:00.000-07:00

Of all of the 2012 candidates I'd like to see, here's some that I'd like to run, either getting the GOP nod, or the VP nod:

Paul Ryan
Mike Pence
Chris Christie
Bob McDonnell
Mitch Daniels
Marco Rubio

I believe the 08 retreads are not what the country is looking for, even though I like all of them: (Palin, Romney, Huckabee, etc.)

Election Results

2010-11-04T12:07:00.000-07:00

My predictions weren't too bad. I said the GOP would get 53-66 seats; they are currently at 60, with the chance to get up to 65 or 66 on the races still to be determined.

In the senate, I predicted California and West Virginia were 25% propositions at best. The GOP lost both, so no surprise there.

The only two in which I put the odds of the GOP winning over 50% and lost, Colorado and Nevada, were both fairly close. Colorado being under 1% loss.

I predicted Colorado and Washington state would be the closest two races. Colorado, as mentioned above, ended under 1% and Washington still hasn't been decided yet. So that prediction was fairly accurate.

I thought the GOP would get around 8-9 governorships, I believe we got 10.

In all, the house, governorships, and state houses were the biggest shellacking the Dems took. The pickup of 6 senate seats was probably the floor for what the GOP was capable of.

Nonetheless, a great night overall for the GOP and our country!

Election Predictions

2010-11-02T10:09:00.000-07:00

This election will definitely be a referendum on President Obama, and his policies. If you ask Republicans, they have failed..... If you ask Democrats, they have succeeded..... if you ask Independents (who voted for him in large numbers), he has failed... and hence, that's why we're going to see a political massacre tonight....

But will it be?? Is it a typical midterm, where the sitting president loses his share of seats? Is it a midterm in which the natural political fluctuations occur, in which moderates look to balance a government that is owned by Democrats in both chambers of congress, as well as the Executive Office? Or is it just a tsunami, in which the country is sick and tired of how our congress and president thumb their noses at the country and not listen to us? If you look at incredibly unpopular policies that Obama has embraced--- Obamacare, stimulus, ground zero mosque, Arizona immigration, debt, overreach of gov't, etc., that's where you find your answer.

Because of this, here's what I'm guessing. Note- this could be way off, as it's hard to predict! :)

House of Representatives:

The GOP will pick up 53-66 seats. They need 39 to win back the majority. They will have more than enough. In a year in which Democrats took many conservative districts because of momentum and enthusiasm, these seats will go back to their rightful owners. In this, there will be around 37-45 seats that move back to the GOP, because Dems just simply couldn't hold these seats with a liberal congress that pushes government healthcare, cap and trade, huge debts, etc.

There will be another 15-20 seats that the GOP will pick up in districts that are swing, from R +3 to D +3. The main factor of this will be independents. Independents are against congressional Democrats by a roughly 60-40 margin. In this, that means HUGE changes because swing districts usually have roughly the same amount of D's and R's. Plus, some Independents will come out and vote R just as a repudiation of Obama and his policies.

Senate:

Republicans will be in line to pick off many seats, mostly in Democrat turf. Which means most of these seats are in states in which Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans. There will also be easy wins for the GOP in states that lean conservative. These are Arkansas, North Dakota, and Indiana. The ones in states that lean Democrat that the GOP is favored to win are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Nevada (tossup state with more registered D's).

Assuming the GOP picks up these states, they will be at 7, needing 10 for a senate majority. The other states that may go GOP include West Virginia. This is a state in which there's a Democrat who is popular, and is running square against Obama and his policies (cap and trade, health care, etc.). If the Democrat Manchin loses, this will open things up for the GOP to have a path toward a majority. If Manchin holds on, we may have to wait until 2012 to get a GOP senate majority.

I believe Washington and Colorado will be the closest two states. Republican Dino Rossi has a great chance at upsetting sitting senator Patty Murray in Washington. It's still an uphill climb, as the surrounding Seattle area (King County) still votes in high numbers for liberals. But in this election cycle, a cycle where Murray votes for everything government, this could be the year where she goes down.

The other states in which the GOP has a fighting chance is California. Simply, Carly Fiorina is a more impressive candidate than Barbara Boxer. But because Boxer is a liberal, she still is favored to win.

Here's my predictions for the Senate (Only using change of party predictions)

Arkansas- Republican challenger Boozman leads going away. The rout is on. GOP pickup.
Indiana- Republican challenger Dan Coats has this open seat wrapped up big. GOP pickup.
North Dakota- Republican Governor John Hoeven has this seat wrapped up. He's been up by upwards of 40 points in the polls. GOP pickup.
Wisconsin- Republican challenger Ron Johnson leads incumbent Dem Russ Feingold by over 7 points for the past month. Should range between 7-12 point victory. GOP pickup.
Pennsylvania- Republican challenger Pat Toomey leads Dem Joe Sestak by around 4-5 points. Should be a Toomey victory, even in Dem state like PA. GOP pickup.
Illinois- Republican Mark Kirk looks to hold off Dem Giannoulius for Obama's old seat. Even in this Dem state, Kirk has led by 3-4 pts. 80% chance Kirk wins. GOP pickup.
Colorado- Republican challenger Ken Buck has led incumbent Michael Bennet on the last 10 polls. Still close, but probable Buck win by 2-6 points. 80% GOP pickup.
Nevada- GOP challenger Sharron Angle continues to lead Majority leader Harry Reid by 3-4 points. I'm a little nervous, as the unions will be out in force for Reid. However, with his huge unpopularity, I think Angle wins. 60% GOP pickup.
Washington- Challenger Dino Rossi has the deck stacked against him against incumbent Patty Murray because of voter registration. However, if this is a wave election, Rossi has a decent chance. 30% chance of GOP pickup. This should be a 0-4 point win by either side, very close.
West Virginia- Republican John Raese trails Dem Joe Manchin. Reason- Manchin is denouncing Obama in a state that very much dislikes our current president. Because of this, Raese still has a chance, though likely a Dem retention. 25% chance of GOP pickup.
California- With everything being equal, GOP'er Carly Fiorina is a much more impressive candidate, better speaker, has fresh ideas, etc. But in California, Boxer will get the lions share of SF and LA, and likely a victory. Fiorina's chance is at 15-20% in my mind.

If the GOP only gets 9 seats, they may try to entice moderate Dems Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson to switch over to caucus with the GOP. If that were the case, the GOP would have the majority.

I'm an enemy

2010-11-02T09:07:00.000-07:00

What happened to Obama's hopey changey message? Now, he goes on a Spanish radio station and tells latinos not to sit on their hands and not vote, but rather to go out and vote to "punish their enemies". Wow, breathtaking. So those who think illegal immigration should be enforced are enemies?

What world is Obama living in? It seems like a banana republic at times during these past two years. I warned our country that change doesn't happen because somebody says it will. They need to have a track record, a past of showing positive change in order to believe it. So when there's a senator who votes "present" on difficult votes, and was a community agitator, that hardly qualifies you as being a president of the free world.

Defund NPR

2010-10-25T13:53:00.000-07:00

Why does NPR get a pass from the liberal media for not being "straight down the middle reporting"? Well, because the liberal media doesn't think they are liberal, so why would they think NPR is? Last week, liberal commentator Juan Williams was fired from NPR for giving a personal feeling that he feels uncomfortable at airports when he sees a muslim dressed in "muslim garb". Williams wasn't giving an opinion, he was portraying a personal feeling. Truth be told- who in our country wouldn't think this? I surely do!

Anyway, NPR fired him for expressing his opinion on Fox News, and that he's not allowed to do this. Even though often shows a liberal perspective, he was fired. It's more than obvious that he was fired for being a regular contributor to Fox News. If it were for offering an opinion, as the NPR CEO said, why do the other commentators get fired for offering theirs? Here's an example of two NPR employees who gave their opinion on things:

Cokie Roberts saying that pro-lifers who are against partial birth abortion are basically nuts.
Nina Totenburg saying former conservative senator Jesse Helms deserves aids for his beliefs, or at least his grandkids deserve aids. WOW!!!!

And these two correspondents still have jobs at NPR. And there's no evidence to show they were even repremended for these comments. Could it be because they were extreme liberal perspectives? I wonder!!

The fact is, Fox News dominates the ratings, and liberals don't like it. They don't like it because Fox shows BOTH sides to the argument. And the reason why liberals think it's a conservative network is because they aren't used to seeing a news outlet not being completely in the tank for liberal politicians or causes--- see Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, etc etc etc..

And good for Williams. He's now a multi-millionaire as a contributor for Fox. Take that NPR. And why again do our taxes go for funding an outlet like NPR? Don't we have enough options that are free, as in tax-free?

Foreign Donations in politics

2010-10-25T13:39:00.000-07:00

What's with all the hoopla over foreign donations? Is it true that every time we turn on the TV, we are flooded with ads denouncing a certain candidate? Yes. Is it very annoying at times? You bet! However, as the Obama Administration tries to define this as the Republicans spending hundreds of millions to defeat Democrats, let's take a look at a few of the facts, why don't we:

Obama promised to take federal funding if his opponent did in '08. After McCain decided to take federal funding, Obama decided to opt out and take personal money, therefore unlimited. So not only does Obama go back on a promise, but he does EXACTLY what he's complaining the GOP is doing in '10.
Of the top 10 spending organizations, 6 of them are liberally funded. And the tops is the ACSME municipal union.
Obama accepted over $400 million in donations that didn't have a name attached to it, so he can't say one side is playing hardball with donations, but he isn't. Once again, he did EXACTLY what he's complaining about now.
In fact, in 2008, liberals spent over a hundred million dollars more than conservatives on political races.
Argument liberals make- The unions have a name behind them and some of these donations don't. Well, that doesn't hold water, as many of these union members who pay monthly dues, don't even support these ads. It's the brass that decides to spend the money on this.
Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove- These were the bogeymen of the Obama argument of receiving foreign donations. However, there is ZERO evidence any foreign donations have seeped into advertising for or against a candidate. Wasn't Obama supposed to be about hope and change, and not fear? Oops!!!
If Obama didn't like the law of not having more transparency, he should have done two things: #1- Don't receive funds for his campaign that didn't have names attached to them. And #2, change the law. Remember, he had the Presidency and both houses of congress. Where's his excuse?? Sounds like fear-mongering to the far left political base.. the base in which Obama stands.

When in doubt, Democrats blast pro-lifers

2010-10-17T11:40:00.000-07:00

This is exactly why I, as a Christian, would NEVER vote for a Democrat!!! My morals say that the political issue of life is the most important. With that being said, any pro-life Democrat is simply disagreeing with their party's leadership that will always get their way. In other words, the party platform will support the most pro-choice policies possible.. (ie- Mexico City policy, partial birth abortion, parent notification, etc.).

Barbara Boxer is saying that opponent Carly Fiorina is a pro-life zealot. So because Fiorina believes in life, Boxer has to scare the electorate about Fiorina's beliefs. This is absolutely disgusting by Boxer. And since Michele and Barack have campaigned for Boxer, apparently they endorse this type of advertising.

With that being said... How can ANY pro-life Christian support Democrats in our country????

Change won't happen under Obama says his supporters

2010-10-17T11:33:00.000-07:00

"Hope and Change" were the main themes for Obama's rallying cry in 2008. The ability to work across party lines and get things done in Washington; to restore the civility; to avoid the "pettiness" that divides us; to do the "will" of the people.... blah, blah, blah...

Wouldn't it be nice....

Instead, we all know that with majorities in the House and Senate, Obama hasn't worked with Republicans on anything. He may say it's the GOP's fault, but wasn't he supposed to rise above this? Especially since all of his policies have the majority of all Americans against (Arizona immigration, ground zero mosque, healthcare, cap and trade, stimulus, etc.).

Now, according to the latest Associated Press poll, 63 percent of Obama backers in 2008 do NOT believe that Obama is employing the change that he promised. If 63 percent of his supporters think this, imagine how many McCain supporters think Obama has changed things for the better in Washington.

Because of the above, being that we live in a politically center-right nation, this far left President is going to see his party receive a bloodbath in 2 weeks.

25 percent of Democrats want Obamacare repealed

2010-10-06T12:42:00.000-07:00

Do I need to say more? This is nothing short of astonishing!! We know that about 9 in 10 Republicans and 7 in 10 Independents want it repealed, but to bleed Democrats at a 1 in 4 clip has to be putting Obama in fetal position about now. This is according to a The Hill/ANGA poll.

Say goodbye to the House!

Senate has a good chance as well!!

Will the White House be gone too in 2012???

Bush era tax cuts

2010-09-28T13:25:00.001-07:00

Nothing annoys me more than when Democrats keep repeating the "Republicans are for the rich" line. Do they not realize the taxation on those making over 200K results in over 750,000 small businesses in the United States? So in a economic decline, the question remains why they would want to raise the taxes on these individuals. Do they not think the uncertainty of what their tax rates would be might scare these small business owners into keeping a tight grip on extra cash, instead of hiring and expanding?

There are now 47 House Democrats who want the Bush era tax cuts for ALL incomes to be continued. In addition, such Democrat Senators as Kent Conrad, Joe Lieberman, and Ben Nelson also agree these need to be kept. Nonetheless, the Obama White House will still spill out the failed and pathetic line of blaming the GOP.

Front-runners for GOP Presidential nomination

2010-09-23T13:48:00.001-07:00

I know we're still an eternity in politics away from knowing who will come out of the GOP field, but here's some of my early ten favorites in order:

Mitch Daniels
Paul Ryan
Mitt Romney
John Thune
Haley Barbour
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Mike Pence
Mike Huckabee
Chris Christie

Mixed bag of polls for GOP

2010-09-23T13:43:00.000-07:00

A new Pew Research poll has the GOP out in front of the Dems by a 49-33 margin among independents. And with the voter intensity so much stronger for the GOP, my prediction of a Democrat bloodbath remains.

Here's a few new poll nuggets I've seen today:

Wisconsin- Republican Ron Johnson continues his solid ~8 lead over Russ Feingold. Looking like a solid pickup for the GOP, whereas last week it was a toss-up.
California- Boxer appears to be keeping (and increasing) her lead over GOP'er Carly Fiorina. The lead is around 6 or so. Nonetheless, the voter intensity will be big, even in CA. Not over yet.
New York- In a shocker, the GOP challenger is 1 point behind Democrat Kirsten Gillebrand. Like CA, New York has more Dem voters, but the GOP has a chance.
Washington- Democrat Patty Murray has sustained her lead from last week. Unless Republican Dino Rossi turns things around in a hurry, this may get away from the GOP.

Direction of the GOP leadership

2010-09-22T13:47:00.000-07:00

The future of the GOP is heading in a new direction. The "old" GOP, headed by the spending rank and file, is headed out. And coming is the new GOP blood. You know, the ones that really stand for what people think in association with the Republican Party-- Strong Defense, low taxes, and most importantly, less government involvement. Here's the list in no particular order, along with their biggest attribute at this time-

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan- Roadmap for America author. All things budgetary, Ryan is the best point man, and is extremely articulate.
Indiana Congressman Mike Pence- Strong conservative voice in House that resonates with grassroots.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie- Popular governor in a blue state, and is taking on special interests with no apologies and cutting the deficit without raising taxes in the Garden State.
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell- Strong social conservative succeeding in a "purple state" with conservative principles.
Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown- Taking a senate seat in Massachusetts will make him a star in GOP circles, especially when he was the voice that promised to try to undo Obamacare.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels- He's about as popular of governor as their is in the nation. Proves strong economic conservative values can make a state succeed, going from in the red to in the black; and has strong support in both parties.
Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio- Cuban American has huge upside inside the party and has a future platform in the GOP's leadership, possibly 2016?
North Dakota Senator John Thune- Part of current GOP senate, but has perfect conservative credentials on things we hold dear. Added cherry on top- Knocked off former Democrat senate leader Tom Daschle.

New Senate polls look promising

2010-09-21T12:21:00.000-07:00

On the heels of my mid-September predictions, here's a few inviting polls in close races held by Democrats.

West Virginia- John Raese has now pulled ahead of Democrat Joe Manchin. This would be a huge pickup, being that it wasn't on the radar only 2 weeks ago. As my previous blog stated, West Virginia cannot stand Obama, so this poll isn't surprising despite Mancin's popularity.

Wisconsin- Republican Ron Johnson appears to be opening up a lead over incumbent Russ Feingold. The last two polls have him up 7 and 11 points, respectively.

Nevada- Sharron Angle leads by a point in each of the last two polls over Harry Reid.

California- Democrat Barbara Boxer's 8 point lead of last week is now down to 1 point.

Summation: If these four contests go GOP, there very well could be a GOP Senate majority, in addition to a new GOP House majority. Add these four to GOP pickups in North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado. Then add on the possibilities of Connecticut, Washington, Delaware, and New York. WOW!!!

Dems run against Obamacare

2010-09-21T12:16:00.000-07:00

At current count, ZERO Democrats have run or advertised this election season on their support of Obamacare. This is nothing short of stunning. In the book I wrote, it basically rattles off all the reasons why our country wouldn't "come around" to this monstrosity despite the Obama Administration saying it would.

As for Democrats who have advertised AGAINST Obamacare, there have been no less than 34 running away from it. Once again, this number is absolutely amazing. For it being the signature bill in a Presidency, it's nothing to be too proud of. In addition, fully 61 percent not only don't like Obamacare, but want it repealed. It's now up to the GOP to get this sucker repealed and replaced. This however will be tricky because Obama would veto anything a new GOP majority in congress wants. Instead, the best plan may be to defund Obamacare. Assuming the GOP retakes the House, if there's no money for the program, it'll basically be neutered.

GOP Poor Sports

2010-09-21T11:59:00.001-07:00

In any game, there is a winner and a loser. In politics, the same goes. However, those who feel like they have more power than they really do, clearly do not understand this simple philosophy. This is especially true in the GOP Primaries this year. The fact is, when you represent a political party, you are asking the voters to pick the best candidate to face the other party. When one loses, they should listen to the "will of the people". Let's take a look at a few mainstream Republican candidates who despite losing their primary battle, cannot accept losing. Once again, this points to the power grab these people have. Once one has been exposed to D.C. for so long, they may not know any better until the public reminds them it's OUR country, not these lifer politicians.

Delaware- The upstart conservative Christine O'Donnell beat the party favorite, Mike Castle. It's true that Castle had a better chance of winning the general election. Nonetheless, Castle still takes his toys and goes home. Instead of endorsing the party candidate, he says the wackos of the GOP helped get O'Donnell elected. Sound like a poor loser to you?
Alaska- Lisa Murkowski was beaten by the impressive Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. Murkowski has decided that she needs more power grabbing of Washington in her future. So she's decided to be a write-in candidate. She will surely lose. She's lucky this is a GOP state, or else she would have essentially split the GOP vote and give the senate seat to a Democrat. Very productive! And to make matters worse, she spits on the voters by saying Miller is "extreme". So apparently the voters don't know better. But when you look at the resumes, Miller's dwarfs sweet ole Lisa's! He's a magistrate judge, graduated from West Point, served two wars, etc.
Florida- Getting trounced in polling for the GOP primary, slicki-minded Charlie Crist decided to abandon the GOP to become an Independent. And for a while, things were working. He was leading in the polls. But now the true is coming out on this man with no integrity. Marco Rubio is destroying both Crist and the Democrat. The sad part is Crist promised to not leave the GOP once Rubio caught fire. Lie #1. And secondly, he pretty much killed his own political future. He left the GOP, the Dems don't want him. If he would have just taken the beating like a good soldier, he could have challenged the very beatable Democrat Nelson in the next senate election in '12. Oh well, we hopefully will never hear or see from this phony again!

Telltales of GOP landslide

2010-09-20T14:11:00.000-07:00

Since most in the country know that there will be a GOP tsunami on November 2nd, let's take a look at some races that give supporting evidence to this theory:

CA Senate- Republican Carly Fiorina within striking distance (around 3-5 pts) against three term incumbent Barbara Boxer in a liberal state.
WA Senate- Republican Dino Rossi. He's still the underdog, but if he has a chance this year (polls are saying he's still in it, although losing some ground), things will look good for the GOP.
Penn Senate- In this open seat, Republican Pat Toomey is beating Democrat Joe Sestak fairly easily (around 9-12 pts). This with a state that has over a million more registered Democrats in the state.
Penn Governor- Republican Tom Corbett is beating his Democrat challenger pretty handily (10-14 pt range).
Ohio Governor- Personal favorite Jon Kasich is winning big.
Ohio Senate- Republican Rob Portman has this one in the bag.
Wisconsin Senate- Republican challenger Ron Johnson has a real shot of knocking off liberal incumbent Russ Feingold. The latest polls show political novice Johnson with a slight lead.
Wisconsin Governor- The GOP challenger is winning big as of last count.

In the past few election cycles, the GOP's strategy was to dominate the South, compete in the Rust Belt States and Southwest, and survive in the Northeast and West Coast. If you look at this election cycle, things are changing to come extent in these regions.

Republicans are dominating the Rust Belt States. As mentioned above in Pennsylvania Governor and Senate races. Also, the GOP is primed to take a few congressional seats from the Dems. Also, Ohio and Wisconsin are also looking good for the GOP in the Gubernatorial, Senate, and congressional races.
Republicans are competing in West Coast races. See CA Governor and Senate races; Washington Senate race; Oregon Governor race.
Purple State Colorado is turning against Obama. Senate race leans Republican, as well as 3 currently held Democrat congressional districts. This includes my district, where Democrat Betsy Markey is on her political deathbed! Also, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada is still in the fight of his political life. Despite the union support and a ton of money, he still could very well go down in November!
Northeast- Although this still isn't fertile ground for the GOP, there's some positive showings. The GOP will potentially pick up a few Democrat congressional seats in New York. They already won the senate seat in Massachusetts (Scott Brown); have a strong challenge in Connecticut for Senate; the GOP Senate candidate leads in New Hampshire; the GOP candidate in Delaware trails by only 10 (this is good for Delaware).

All this evidence points to more than 39 House districts being turned to the GOP. This would mean they would take control of the House! Away, satan.... I mean Nancy Pelosi. I'm guessing the GOP will pick up between 43-48 House Seats. This number could swell to 60, but I don't want to count my chickens before they've hatched.

As for the Senate, I still don't see the GOP retaking the majority. They need to take 10 seats back. This would really require an inside straight, basically running the table. Although the chances may be slim, in tide elections, all of the close calls go for the party with momentum (see '94 for GOP and '06 for Dems).

Here's my guesses on the 10 contested senate seats that currently belong to Dems, plus a few more wildcards. First four are no brainers (ND, Ind, Ark, Penn); next three are teneous (CO, Ill, Wisc); Nevada is the crown jewel; next two I'm not sure will happen (CA, WA); next two aren't on radars (WV, Conn), but should they be?; last one is the biggest wildcard (Lieberman and Nelson seats)~

North Dakota. Slam dunk for GOP. Popular Governor John Hoeven leads by about 40 pts. Even if Democrat Byron Dorgan doesn't retire, Hoeven still wins. +1
Indiana. Another easy win for GOP'er Dan Coats. He's up by at least 15 pts. +2
Arkansas. Republican John Boozman leads Democrat Blanche Lincoln by as many as 35 pts, average being 20 pts. Another easy pickup. +3
Pennsylvania. Although I wouldn't bet my life on it, GOP candidate Pat Toomey should win here. He's the better candidate and the polls support this claim. +4
Colorado. In all recent polls, Republican Ken Buck leads incumbent Michael Bennet. Although anything can happen, this is Buck's race to lose. +5
Illinois. In this Democrat state, corruption rules. When corruption rules, political bodies get turned over. With weak candidate Giannoulius, this Democrat is in serious trouble. I give a little pause because this is still a Democrat leaning state. Still, with the tide rolling, I see GOP'er Mark Kirk winning. Not totally confident though +6
Wisconsin. As explained above, Ron Johnson leads Russ Feingold. I believe that Feingold is just simply too liberal for this toss-up state (unless you're in Madison). Close, but Johnson wins if I had to put money on it. +7
Nevada. Still not sure Republican Sharron Angle can pull this out with Reid's get out the vote and union support, plus a ton of money. Nonetheless, he's so despised in this state that his son doesn't put his own last name on advertising. Now there's a vote of confidence for you dad! I'd say toss-up, to lean Angle. +8 (maybe)
California. Fiorina is a good candidate, but in a liberal state, Boxer still has the edge. But if this is really a "wave" election, we may see the GOP going to the polls at such a rate that it may overwhelm the built in Democrat advantage. Still an uphill climb. Lean Democrat retention. +0.
Washington. Rossi is also a good candidate, but is starting to lose momentum to incumbent Patty Murray. Rossi needs to hold his own in King County (Seattle area) to have a chance. +0.
West Virginia. Despite the popular Democrat Governor Joe Manchin entering the senate race, he's now only leading by 5 pts. Reason being? This state cannot stand Obama or his elite liberalism. And with Manchin probably rubber stamping Obama's agenda, there's a chance the state may turn from a candidate they like. Although Manchin is still the favorite, I can almost see this state flipping to the GOP before CA or WA does.
Connecticut. This race is the Democrat Attorney General Dick Blumenthal's to win, despite his lying about serving in Vietnam and getting caught. WWE Founder Linda McMahon (although an unconventional candidate) has a punchers chance. In a highly liberal state, the tide must really pour in if she ends up winning. If she does win, she'll likely be the 11th or 12th GOP pickup, as it'll be a continuation of a dominant GOP night.
Joe Lieberman. If the GOP is one vote short, he may change his alliances and caucus with the GOP. If he's guaranteed the Chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee, there's a slight chance he'd do it. Remember, he backed John McCain in '08!
Ben Nelson. He's the now unpopular senator from Nebraska. After his Obamacare vote, he was about the most unpopular person in this heavily conservative state. So to save his own hyde, he me switch to the GOP in anticipation of a tough '12 senate contest.

And there you have it. Once again, I'm much more confident in the House flipping to the GOP, than the senate. But, with all of these scenarios, I'd say there's a 25 percent chance of it happening. Time will tell. As long as Obama remains nuclear active, the GOP is going to give the Democrats a bloodbath on November 2nd!

William Buckley's electable philosophy

2010-09-17T07:44:00.000-07:00

William Buckley, the founder of modern conservatism, had a very powerful idea when it comes to Republican Primaries. He said that it's important to nominate the most conservative Republican who is electable. This is a great thought to ponder. Is party purity the most important? Is it good to be pragmatic some of the time? If so, would it be wise to nominate a candidate who is most electable in a state?

These questions come on the heels of conservative and Tea Party darling Christine O'Donnell beating the established moderate Republican Mike Castle in Delaware. In the early going, it was all but going to be a Castle coronation. And with Castle being a popular "moderate" Republican in the House of Representatives for so many terms, most election analysts had him cruising to an easy victory over Democrat Chris Coons. Now that O'Donnell has won, these analysts say that Coons is on his way to an easy victory. Yet there is such a strong case for the anti-establishment candidate. But will this work in a very liberal state, such as Delaware? Does O'Donnell have enough Tea Party and anti-establishment support for a conservative to win in a seat held by longtime liberal Joe Biden?

If you look at several examples of an upstart candidate this election cycle, it may offer a few tips:

Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts had a groundswell of support late in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy's seat. Brown campaigned on bringing power back to the people; and to oppose Obamacare. He succeeded, and won in a very liberal state. In fact, some analysts say is the most liberal state in the nation. He has supported a few of Obama's initiatives, but still has support from the Republican establishment.
Republican nominee Joe Miller from Alaska- Miller upset incumbent Lisa Murkowsi in the primary a few weeks ago. Miller had the anti-establishment, Tea Party support. But Miller brings bonafides to the table- judge, West Point grad, veteran.
Republican Sharron Angle from Nevada- Most analysts think she was the weakest of the GOP primary candidates. However, she received the support of the Tea Party and virtually cruised to victory in the Primary. She is running neck and neck with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In this case, it' s a50/50 proposition. On one hand, you can say that Reid is so unpopular that Adolph Hitler would have a chance against him. On the other hand, could Sue Lowden have cruised to victory had she beaten Angle in the primary? Who knows. The fact is, Angle's supporters are probably a lot more fired up to go vote for her than are Reid's. In addition, there will be many in Nevada who will just vote against Reid no matter the opponent because of him sheparding such unpopular policies through the Senate-- Obamacare, Stimulus, Auto bailouts, etc.
Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky. He was the outsider who really had an easy victory. He's a lot in the mold of his father, Ron Paul. However, this should not affect Paul in any way. He's running for a Senate seat in a very anti-Obama state of Kentucky. Paul will win easily.
Marco Rubio of Florida- When Rubio stepped in to challenge popular Governor Charlie Crist, most GOP'ers put their weight behind Crist, the establishment pick. However, as the clarifications in policy positions have come out, Rubio was blowing Crist out of the water in GOP polling. Because of this, Crist left the GOP (after promising not to do so) and is running as an Independent. One year ago, nobody gave Rubio any shot. Today, many are saying not only is he a lock to be Florida's junior Senator, but that he is a rising star in the Republican party.

From these examples, I can definitely see both arguments. One should vote for where their policy positions are. And the fact is, all conservatives would take O'Donnell's over Castle's any day of the week. However, does this mean that the GOP will now lose this state that was once thought an absolute lock? Only time will tell. Most are hoping for a Rubio-like turnaround. But the deck is stacked against O'Donnell being that she isn't running in Florida.

Equating Quran burning to Mosque opposition??

2010-09-10T15:43:00.000-07:00

The liberal establishment media is at it again. It is well known that they cook up some doozies on their philosophical opposites (read- conservatives, Christians, Patriots, etc.). However, this one really stretches ones imagination. They are coming up with a theory in which they are putting the following two issues on equal ground-- the opposition to the Mosque being built by Ground Zero with the Pastor of a Christian church wanting to burn Quran's on September 11th.

However, this flies in the face of reality based on the following points:

Not one conservative or Christian in media has backed the burning of the Quran.
All asked about it have condemned it (Palin, Hannity, National Review, etc.)
If we wanted to play a game, we could call out a liberal double standard.... or hyprocrisy. Wasn't it their First Amendment right to want to build a Mosque at Ground Zero no matter how nuts the idea is? Same thing for the Quran burning- No matter how outrageous this is, why doesn't the liberal media come out and support the churches 1st Amendment right?

The President is shooting blanks

2010-08-16T12:15:00.000-07:00

Most voters in the country now believe that President Obama is not doing his job well. In the most recent Gallup Poll, only 42 percent approve, while 49 percent disapprove. Taking all of the most recent polls together over the past 3 weeks, Obama is underwater there as well 45-49 on average. To make matters worse, the intensity gap is huge. Those who are "very satisfied" with Obama hovers in the mid 20's, while those who are "very unsatisfied" has been in the 40's for some time now. At this point in a presidency, the fall shouldn't happen this fast. Of course when Independents are running away from you like a plague, this is what you get...where you have only the base of your party really believing in you.

Here are several several reasons in which Obama is in this predicament:

Nation still divided- Obama's 2008 campaign was built around bring people together, uniting divisions, building bridges. However, most voters see this as pure talk. Where has Obama reached out? He seems to always make the argument that his way is noble, while his oppositions is deceitful. Take the recent issue on Social Security. Obama says Republicans are out to "destroy" this important program for Seniors. Seriously, I wasn't Obama about having debates, not giving scare tactics? In fact, I do remember Obama saying those are the ways of the past. Wasn't hope, not fear a campaign slogan?
Obamacare- Plain and simply, this was a travesty to begin with. The transparency wasn't there, the bipartisan support was non-existent, the public support was upside-down. And for those who think that Republicans were the ones that kept saying "no", remember that Independents were against this bill by almost 2-1. Nonetheless, Obama and Democrats drove this piece of legislation down our throats.
Oil Spill debacle- Obama showed absolutely no leadership in the aftermath of the oil spill. It led to many peoples fears that he is more of a professor than a leader. And the worst part is leadership is the job he applied for.... and received from the American people. After several months of the spill, approval for Obama steadily declined.
70-30 on the wrong side... The Arizona Immigration law, signed by Governor Jan Brewer, is supported by 70 percent of Arizonan's, and about 65 percent of Americans in most polls. Nonetheless, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration is suing Arizona. I believe most realize the law mirrors the Federal law, which Obama, Holder, and most liberals don't understand.
Another 70-30 on the wrong side... Having a mosque at Ground Zero has 30 percent support nationwide. Even the ultra-liberal New York thinks there shouldn't be a mosque there. Nonetheless, the Obama Administration has come in favor of having the mosque here. The following day, Obama backtracked...then had his communications guy say he stands by everything he said. Only problem-- He straddled the fence on these comments with zero clarification.

The House in GOP's hands?

2010-08-08T19:00:00.000-07:00

We are about 90 days out from the midterm elections of 2010. As of now, there is growing optimism that the GOP will take back the House of Representatives. In most "wave" elections, all of the close house races goes to the party that has the momentum. Take 2006- There were many house seats held by the GOP in which they were slight favorites going in. As the patterned surfaced, many of those seats went to the Democrats, just barely. However, wave elections tend to do this. When there is enough dissatisfaction with the party in power (in this case, Democrats hold all 3 branches of government), they usually get skunked. In 2010, this is definitely the case. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama are all unpopular by every poll taken over the past few months. And the worst part is? Things are getting worse for them! Here's several things to note as to the importance of taking enough house seats to win majority (currently at 39):

1. Pelosi would not be the Speaker anymore. This means that she wouldn't drive the narrative of legislation anymore. This speaks for itself.
2. Whenever there is a tremendously unpopular bill, like the health care bill, Cap and Trade, or the stimulus, the House GOP will vote against it, and WITH the will of the people!
3. No more bargaining with a far left agenda that Obama wants to turn our country into. If you disagree with this statement, just look at the polls. They are on our side, by large margins. Independents are for the GOP this year in huge numbers, namely because Obama doesn't know how lead.
4. Did I mention we'd see a lot less of the wicked witch... I mean Pelosi???

Reid v. Angle and Colorado Senate Race

2010-07-31T16:34:00.000-07:00

Well, the matchup between Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and conservative Republican Sharron Angle is neck and neck. Despite Reid being in the dumps all year and being incredibly unpopular in his home state, he's surviving thus far. This was something I've warned for several months; he has the political ability (e.g. finances, sliming opponent) to win this race. And when you add the evil, corrupt unions, he has more than a fighters chance.

Despite getting a conservative, I do believe Republican Sue Lowden would have been a much better fit for Republicans. I don't dislike Angle, she is just viewed as too far to the right to get elected by too many. Why didn't Republicans vote for the safer choice in Lowden? She most likely would have walked to victory against Reid. And it's not like Lowden disagrees with Republicans on anything, solid on social issues, economic issues, as well as national security.

In the Colorado Senate race, could there be the possibility of the same thing happening? So far, it seems that Republican Ken Buck is more liked than Angle. Buck is still running close with establishment favorite Jane Norton. I personally like them both, but think Norton has less of a chance to make a big mistake and give the race to the Democrats (either Romanoff or Bennet). As of now, it's the GOP's race to lose. I still haven't decided who I'm going to support, Norton or Buck.

Rangel, Waters, Kerry and failed taxes

2010-07-31T16:25:00.000-07:00

The House Ways and Means Committee former Chair, Democrat Charles Rangel, has been charged with 13 ethics violations by his colleagues. To think that a man like him was in charge of creating tax laws is appalling. Of the 13 ethics violations, the majority have to do with finances- failing to report rental income, etc. Even Obama is now calling for Rangel to step down. Of course the better alternative for Republicans is if Rangel fights these charges and creates a huge circus for Democrats before the mid-term elections.

Another leading House Democrat, Maxine Waters, is under investigation for working with a bank to distribute them money on which her husband held stock on. This is an ongoing investigation.

We also have failed Presidential Candidate John Kerry cheating on paying his yacht taxes in Massachusetts by docking his 7 million dollar yacht in neighboring Rhode Island. After conservatives called him out on this, Kerry's "decided" to pay the tax anyway. What a man!!

LA Dodger owner Frank McCourt has not paid taxes on revenues for over 6 years now. When the tax man cometh, watch out. The reason why I mention this-- McCourt is a committed liberal and donor to everything Democrat.

Has to be asked once again-- Has Speaker Pelosi "drained the swamp" like she promised? Seems like she looks the other way when Democrats act this way!

Quick rundown of some Senate 2010 contests

2010-07-13T13:06:00.000-07:00

Here's a July rundown of a few Senate races that are starting to take shape. All of the tea leafs would show that the GOP is in for a big November. If you look at voter intensity, Obama's diminished support, runaway spending by congress and the president, you have recipes for disaster for a party that controls both houses of congress and the White House.

California: Barbara Boxer v. Republican Carly Fiorina. In most polls, Boxer has a 2-5 point advantage. However, in the most recent poll, Fiorina showed a 2 point lead. Although I would give Boxer a slight edge, it's still open for the taking for Fiorina... on a few points-- Boxer is not a particularly strong candidate; voter intensity is with the GOP; and Boxer is far more liberal than even California is.

Missouri: (R) Roy Blount v. (D) Robin Carnahan. Most handicappers see this as a toss-up or slight Blount advantage. In Missouri, where Obama's high spending is very unpopular and voter intensity is higher among the GOP, I believe Blount wins this, sans a major campaign blunder.

Colorado: (R) Ken Buck v. (D) Michael Bennet. Although Republican Jane Norton and Democrat Andrew Romanoff still are trying to win their parties nomination, I'm putting the favorites in there. Buck runs 5-7 points ahead of Bennet in recent polling. Because Buck is not the establishment Republican and is backed by Tea Party activists, I think Buck has a slight advantage against incumbent and known light-weight Bennet. Lean pickup for the GOP.

Illinois: (R) Mark Kirk and (D) Alexi Giannulious have each ran less than grand campaigns thus far. Giannulious' family bank has tanked, and much of it failed when the Democrat was running the bank. On the other hand, Kirk has embellished his military service (why do they do this?), which makes him look less than trustworthy. This figures to be a battle of who can make the least amount of mistakes from here on it. In an ordinary year, the Democrat political machine would allow the Democrat to win easily. But this is no ordinary year. Tossup.

Indiana: (R) Dan Coats is beating (D) Brad Ellsworth by around 20 points. In a seat held by a Democrat for the past several years, this is a big pickup for the GOP.

Washington: (D) Patty Murray is up against (R) Dino Rossi. In most polls, Murray leads a few points. Rossi has led recently in one or two. Even though this is a Democrat-leaning state and the incumbent is a Democrat with money, this is no lock. As I said above, all of the voter intensity is for the GOP. In an off year election like 2010, history shows the party in the minority almost always gains seats. And since Rossi is a formidable candidate, and with Democrats struggling with policy in DC, there's a decent chance at an upset here. Leans Murray.

Nevada: (D) Senate Leader Harry Reid remains in a fight for his political life. He is still extremely unpopular in his state. Evenso, he has a ton of money, as well as support from the unions and Washington. That said, he is still the underdog to upstart Tea Partier Sharron Angle. This figures to get dirty because that's the only way Reid can win an election anymore--- tear down an opponent.

Florida: (R) Marco Rubio will be the GOP nominee. Turncoat Charlie Crist turned to being an Independent after promising to stay with the GOP. This was because of politics, not beliefs. He was getting trounced by Rubio in GOP polling. The two are running neck and neck, being that many Democrats will support him, as liberal Kendrick Meek has no chance of winning. If Crist won, he hasn't said if he would caucus with the GOP or Democrats. I'd still say it's leaning Rubio's way.

Pennsylvania: (R) Pat Toomey will take on (D) Joe Sestak. This is rated as a tossup. I sound like a broken record here-- With more Democrats than Republicans, there lies Sestak's advantage. However, Toomey is seen as the stronger candidate and has been polling several points above Sestak. Leans GOP pickup.

Delaware: (R) Mike Castle is a shoe-in to take VP Biden's old senate seat. GOP pickup.

North Dakota: (R) John Hoeven is also a shoe-in to take a seat from the Democrats. GOP pickup.

Ohio: (R) Rob Portman is trying to save the GOP seat for retiring Voinovich. He's neck and neck with both Democrats vying to beat him. If the GOP has a big night, Portman should retain this GOP seat. Slight GOP advantage.

Replace the Speaker!!

2010-07-02T08:41:00.000-07:00

In a breath-taking display of ignorance, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs! SAY WHAT?????????? I guess I don't need to press on this topic, the comments speaks for itself.

The blind leading our country...... right off a cliff!!!

Joe Biden is a smart ass

2010-06-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

As everybody knows, Joe Biden is not the most eloquent person in the world. But sometimes this guy is really amazing with some of his quotes. In a Wisconsin custard shop, he asked where the ice cream is... After that, he asked the store owner how much he owed for the custard. The owner responded by saying he'd like his taxes to be lower (typical response politicians receive from businesses, mostly tongue in cheek). When Biden heard this, he didn't respond, look annoyed, and walked away. Later in private, he told the store owner why he had to be a smart ass for making that comment?

Ummm, excuse me?? A business owner is a "smart ass" for asking for his taxes to be lower?? All of the egg will be on Biden's face for taking lightly what people in this country are demanding. What they are demanding is the government to get out of the way of the people!

The Harry Reid Brood

2010-06-25T13:43:00.000-07:00

Harry Reid, already looked at as a weasel by most in the country (and his state), is dragging his son down as well. Rory Reid, who is running for Nevada Governor, trails Republican Brian Sandoval by 22 points in the race. Reid, who can't distance himself from his dad fast enough, has dropped his last name from his most recent advertising. As if the state won't realize he isn't related (or associated) with his dad. Speaking of, the Senate Majority Leader is still politically crippled. Despite having a huge war chest, he still trails Republican upstart Sharron Angle by 7 points in the race for Nevada Senate in November.

There's no doubt that taking down Harry Reid would be the trophy win of this election cycle for the GOP, ala Tom Daschle in 2004. Let's hope!

Democrat article on Obama

2010-06-19T18:11:00.001-07:00

Here's a great article on Obama's naive foreign policy stances by a lifelong liberal Democrat from New York, Mort Zuckerman. Great read:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/06/18/mort-zuckerman-world-sees-obama-as-incompetent-and-amateur.html?PageNr=1

Oil spill and agenda

2010-06-16T08:30:00.000-07:00

A few things to note as we are on day 58 of the BP oil spill:

Obama gave his first Oval Office address last night, with underwhelming results. Chris Matthews and Obama lapdog Olbermann both thought he didn't show executive command. Other commentators said it was dry and too little, too late.
He is trotting out the Climate bill "Cap and Tax" now, which is hugely unpopular. Never let a crisis go to waste, right Obama?
He's putting a moratorium on drilling for the next six months in the gulf. Wonder how many thousands of jobs that will lose?
His approval rating is at 42 percent....and 44 percent now have a "strong" disapproval of Obama.
The New York Times came out with an exhaustive story the other day about how badly managed the cleanup has been.
Louisianan's think Bush handled Katrina better than Obama is handling the oil spill, by a 15 point margin in the poll.

With all that being said, I hope Obama stops being so preachy about how government can solve and handle everything with such precision. This is the latest example that they can't. I don't cast as much blame on Obama as many fellow conservatives will, being that it's a disaster unlike any other. But I do challenge him on saying how poorly Bush did, while most think he's done worse. So far, he hasn't admitted any federal failings... We'll see..

Obama cannot lead

2010-06-02T19:20:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama, the cool Harvard Law Grad and former community agitator-- oh, I mean organizer, simply does not know how to lead. It's pretty difficult to turn somebody who is not a leader, into one. Of course, we know that the President of the United States HAS to be a leader. Case in point, whenever there is a difficult situation Obama has to handle, he blames others for the problem, instead of figuring out a way to lead his country out of the mess. His blaming of President Bush is becoming very tiresome. This is true with the BP oil spill (the well was approved by Obama's admin no less than 10 days before the spill) where Obama blamed the Bush Admins lack of regulations. But I do have to ask, if Bush had lax regulations, don't you think over the past year and a half Obama would have addressed this? Anyway, that is just a tired old talking point.

I was reading an article in the LA Times, one of the most liberal papers in the country. The article talked about Obama blaming Bush for bad regulations that may have caused the spill. When reading the reader comments at the end of the article, no less than 65 of the 67 comments were about how Obama cannot take responsibility, and cannot blame somebody else for a problems that the country elected him President to solve. So if 65 of 67 comments are anti-Obama in the LAT, what does that tell you? Maybe nothing, but it does show that people are getting sick and tired of Obama's act.

White House wants to buy off congressman

2010-05-21T13:48:00.000-07:00

In an attempt to keep congressman Joe Sestak from running against White House preferred candidate Arlen Specter for Pennsylvania Senate, Sestak maintains the White House Admin. bribed Sestak with a administration position if he backed out from running. Of course, Sestak eventually beat Specter. But the question remains, did the White House bribe Sestak, which is a felony? Every time the press has asked an admin official, they have NOT answered the question, thus not denying it.

Once again I have to ask Mr. President, is this the change we were supposed to believe in???

Rand Paul begs Obama to campaign for his opponent

2010-05-19T12:50:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul, winner of the Republican Primary in Kentucky, is pleading with President Obama to campaign for Paul's Democrat opponent. Classic!! Nothing like mocking the unpopular President...and incredibly unpopular in states like Kentucky.

So Obama has publicly backed strongly four candidates since becoming President. Here they are and the results:

Creigh Deeds for Governor of Virginia. Deeds was smashed by Bob McDonnell by 18 points in 2009 race. Obama campaigned for Deeds on more than one occasion.
Jon Corzine for Governor of New Jersey. Corzine lost to Chris Christie by 5 points, despite being a liberal state. Obama and Corzine were closely aligned.
Martha Coakley for Senator of Massachusetts. In the most liberal of liberal states, Republican Scott Brown (with help from the Tea Party) beat Coakley by about 5 points. Obama campaigned with Coakley the week of the contest. Insult to injury for Obama- Brown promised to be the vote trying to block Obama's health care plan.
Arlen Specter for Senate in Pennsylvania. Specter lost his primary battle to Democrat Joe Sestak. Specter switched his allegiance to the Dems back in 2009 so Obama could get his unpopular programs through.

So needless to say, Obama hasn't had any luck trying to sway the public into voting for his preferred candidates. Let's just hope this trend continues from November 2010, til his re-election in 2012!!

Eric Holder hasn't ready Arizona Immigration Bill

2010-05-18T09:35:00.000-07:00

Attorney General Eric Holder has NOT read the Arizona Immigration bill. Nonetheless, Holder is thinking about suing Arizona for their law that Governor Brewer signed. If Holder would actually read the bill and quit kowtowing to the ACLU and liberal wackos, he would come to find that the bill is similar, if not identical to the federal law on illegal immigration. Holder is nothing short of a disgrace!

Apologizing to China for Arizona immigration

2010-05-18T09:31:00.000-07:00

This is truly a head scratcher.... We know that Obama has the penchant for apologizing for America overseas over the past few years. Now some in his State Department are doing the same. Michael Posner, State Department Official, had a visit with the higher ups from China. One of the first things Posner inquired about was China's opinion on the Arizona Immigration Law, and that he disagreed with this state policy. Of all people, we are now going to China for insight and opinions??? This is one of the worst country's to speak on human rights issues; hello Tibet!!! For Posner to bring up an American law to a foreign nation is absolutely breathtaking.

Blumenthal lies about Vietnam

2010-05-18T09:15:00.000-07:00

At the start of 2010, Republicans were in the driver's seat to take Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's seat. After reading the tea leaves, Dodd decided to not seek re-election. In this heavily Democrat state, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal put his hat into the ring. Immediately Blumenthal was winning in the polls by 20-30 points over any Republican challenger. You would have thought that Blumenthal's chances were next to 100 percent. The is unless, of course, one decides to lie about their military service. IN a stunning revelation, Blumenthal was "caught" by the New York Times of all sources, that he did NOT serve in Vietnam as Blumenthal has said on several occasions on the campaign trail. Oops!!! Blumenthal's response to this is that he "misspoke". This is just like saying Bill Clinton accidentally put his penis in Monica Lewinsky's mouth on several occasions.

Arizona Immigration Law

2010-05-17T14:34:00.001-07:00

I think many people who disapprove of the new enforcing of the Federal law really get caught up in the emotion of the debate. I think the vast majority of society want immigrants to come to our wonderful country. However, not illegally! What this law does is actually enforce the federal law. If you don't believe me, read both laws. As far as the profiling, the cops can only ask for their papers of citizenship if they are already in contact with them because of illegal activity. So this severely reduces the chances for profiling.

The real blame should go to the federal government. This includes the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration. Neither have spent much time focusing on eliminating the chance for illegals to get into our country.

As it stands now, over 55 percent of the country want their state to enforce this law the way Arizona has. In addition, the Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has seen a huge spike in her approval ratings.

Let's take the emotion out of the debate and start trying to fix the problem. Those who disagree with this law need to stop calling those who favor it bigots. It's getting old, this rhetoric!

Repeal it!

2010-05-17T14:32:00.000-07:00

According to Rasmussen Reports, 56 percent want Obamacare repealed. Amazing that this number is so high. This goes beyond those who disagree with it...it's to the point that not only do they disagree with it, but want further action (repeal). Truly amazing. Nonetheless, the Democrats are completely tone-deaf.

The day of reckoning will be upon these liberals-- November 3rd, 2010!!

US not to use Nuclear Weapons

2010-04-08T12:32:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration has decided it is best to let the world know that we will not use a Nuclear Weapon in response to an attack from a country that does not use them themselves. In other words, if any rogue country (besides N. Korea and Iran) attacked us with a Biological or Chemical weapon, we have promised NOT to use a Nuclear weapon in return. So what are we going to use? This seems to box the United States in. To say that the world "appreciates" this gesture is not a valid reason in announcing this action. And there were obvious signs that the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, had deep reservations about this policy Obama is taking on. But as any liberal President would say-- As long as it makes the New York Times happy....... Ugh!

Looking at history- What if we told the world that we wouldn't use a Nuclear weapon before WWII? Our response to Pearl Harbor would not have done the everlasting damage it against our enemy. Also, before the Gulf War in 1991, Defense Secretary George Shultz told a high ranking Iraqi official that if they used Biological or Chemical weapons on the US, we would hold the Nuclear option on the table. Many experts believe this help deterred Iraq from using these weapons against us. There's nothing like the threat of something that holds our enemy back. Apparently, Obama doesn't believe this. I'd imagine the majority of the country would disagree with him.

Media Bias

2010-04-07T08:38:00.000-07:00

To basically all accounts, the media has a strong bias to the left. In the 08 Presidential election, it was notated that over 85% of the media supported Obama's candidacy. Because we are all human beings, our biases can't help but seep into the news articles or TV news. That's just a matter of fact. In a one month segment during the 08 campaign, positive TV coverage on Obama was around 80%, while McCain's positive press was around 35%. Do people really just think McCain was a bad guy, or didn't offer any great solutions? Or was Obama was great, he didn't deserve any media scrutiny? With the bombastic stories during the campaign of Jeremiah Wright, the association with terrorist Bill Ayers and felon Tony Rezko, along with his comments about distributing the wealth, his stand on allowing extreme uses of abortion-- it would seem like more scrutiny would head Obama's way.

One of the reasons so many on the political left throw bombs at Fox News is because they are the one source that doesn't tilt left. Do they tilt right? I would say yes. Nonetheless, when you compare Fox News against CBS News (Couric), NBC News (Williams), ABC News (Gibson), the three network news channels are extremely liberal, and have an obvious bias. In addition, if conservatives want to go to Fox News to get their "bias" news, liberals can go to MSNBC to get their liberal "bias". And when you compare Fox and MSNBC, MSNBC is far more tilted to the left, than Fox is to the right. Sure, each side has bias opinion journalists. But when a network (MSNBC) uses their opinion guys as the ones who head the news coverage, that spells trouble. In the 08 election, committed lefties Olbermann and Matthews were giving the "news" during the party conventions. And Fox News had straight down the center on his reporting Brit Hume, along with Chris Wallace. Pretty big distinction there. Beyond the TV media, the print media tilts pretty strongly to the left. You can name the largest 30 newspapers in the country, and I bet I can name on one hand the ones that have editorials that slant to the right-- Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Las Vegas Sun Review. This, while about every other paper tilts strongly to the left.

A few more media biases to consider. Although the majority of the country believe strongly in the right to bear arms, most papers and TV stations rail on the 2nd Amendment in every related court case. Just like the 2nd Amendment, the country is now more pro-life than pro-choice. Even so, the media will roast anyone who believes in the sanctity of life. They get portrayed as illiterate, not knowing the scientific issues, etc. Same goes for the Tea Party. Even though in a recent poll, 40% were either Independent or Democrat, these journalists act as if they are all red-neck conservatives who have never seen a big city. If you don't believe this analysis, just read the New York Times over the past 2 weeks. The fact is, the majority of the Tea Party movement make over 55K a year. Hardly the caricature the mainstream media is portraying them to be.

With all of this, a Rasmussen Poll just released stated that 55% believe the media bias is of more concern than the just finished Supreme Court Case revolved around campaign givings by corporations. Pretty startling numbers.

This weeks politics

2010-04-01T08:20:00.001-07:00

As the media and the country continue to debate the new Health Care Reform signed into law by Obama, this only hurts the Democrats and boosts Republicans. Take the following set of polls as proof:

Republicans lead Democrats in all Congressional generic polls. Average around 3-4 points.
Enthusiasm for 2010 elections is 50% very excited for Republicans; 35% very excited for Democrats. Intensity is the name of the game in midterm elections.
50-40 average. People against Obamacare. This is an average of all polls.
44-34 percent believe this bill will harm our economy, according to Gallup.
55-29 believe quality of care will go down, according to Gallup.
61-23 believe the US debt will go up from Obamacare.

The Obama Administration continues to annoy our most loyal ally in the Middle East (Israel), while walking on egg shells with rogue country's, such as Iran.

Obama agreed to open up portions of the Atlantic for oil drilling. This pissed the Mother Jones wing of his party off. However, he refused to allow opening of drilling on the Pacific, as well as Alaska (ANWR) where the oil is abundant. This pisses the conservatives off. He's really digging himself a hole. A hole that if it gets too deep, will start making him look like a Jimmy Carter, one term President... and a bad one at that.

HCR down to the wire

2010-03-19T10:09:00.000-07:00

The vote will be taking place on Sunday on Obamacare. As of Wednesday, the most recent polls had 35% wanting Obamacare, while 55% were against it. 46% want the bill scrapped and Congress to start over, while only 30% want this bill to go through. There are a few polls that have it close, although still opposing it. But for the most part, Americans oppose it by wide margins. The RealClearPolitics average is still around negative 12% on this bill (eg-51 against, 39 for).

I really don't know where to start, except to say this is the most sneaky, slimy piece of legislation that I've ever seen. They are trying to bribe members of congress to change their vote to yes. Then they were thinking about reconciliation (which is what's happening now), then deem and pass (which votes not on the actual health care bill, but the process) so Democrats don't have to put their necks on the line for such an unpopular piece of legislation. Democrats are also trying to sneak in Student Loan care, which in effect gives control of student loans to the government. This was put in to try to sway unsure Democrats to support the overall bill. Nothing like including Student Loans into a Health Care bill.

Here are some more things that are truly disgusting, truly the Chicago Thug style of politics that Obama is imploring:

In an interview Tuesday, Obama says he's not sure what "special deals" (aka-bribes) are in the final piece of legislation (Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Gator-Aide, North Dakota deal, Connecticut deal, etc.) He flat out didn't know. And even so, he's saying this bill HAS to pass.
Abortion- As much as Obama says the Senate bill doesn't allow public funds for abortion per the Hyde Amendment, he and his allies refuse to allow the Stupak amendment language be placed in the Senate version. In actuality, the Senate bill distinctly says funds will be given to health centers around America. These health centers can use the funds for their patients as they choose, which includes abortion. Presto, hence the public funds for abortion are included. NOTE: Stupak is a Democrat from Michigan who is a pro-life and refuses to support a bill that doesn't have strict abortion language in it. He has about 8-12 other Dems on board with him.
Reconciliation- Now that the Democrats don't have a Super-Majority of 60 votes in the Senate (after Scott Brown's victory), the only way for Democrats to pass the bill is by using a tactic called "reconciliation" or the "nuclear option". This means a simple majority wins. In other words, all Democrats would need now is 51 votes, instead of the normal filibuster proof 60. Two problems with this-- one, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, etc. blasted the possibility of Bush using this tactic back in 2005, some in this group calling it a power grab and even unconstitutional. Now, it seems these Democrats have a change of heart now that they want it used for their advantage. Two-- Reconciliation was passed by law only to be used by budgetary issues. This current bill doesn't have to do with budget issues. Just think--- Obama was going to be the candidate to change Washington. Yeah right!
Transparency- During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised 8 times to hold debate and the writeup of the health care bill on CSPAN. Not only did this not happen, Republicans weren't even invited in to help draw up the bill. Only Democrats in backroom deals. Pathetic!
Republicans don't have a plan??- Obama equates opposing this plan to "doing nothing" as he says Republicans would do. Of course he's completely lying on this. Republicans have offered things such as pooling groups together for cheaper insurance, Tort Reform, Buying insurance across state lines, buying meds from Canada, offering families tax credits of say $4,000 on medical expenses. But by admitting this, Obama would have to be fair, and fair he isn't.
Deem and Pass- Since the public has been so much against Obamacare (in virtually every poll), Democrats have thought of the "Slaughter Solution", also known as Deem and Pass. Louise Slaughter, Democrat, was where this tactic was named after. Anyway, as mentioned above, this allows Democrats to pass not the actual health bill, but the actual vote on the process. Democrats have deemed (no pun intended) that not having to actually vote on the unpopular bill would give them cover, being that many of these congressmen would be voted out in November on this vote. Nonetheless, if the Deem and Pass passes, debate would be over with the bill going through successfully.
Large Majorities be damned- Despite having 60, and now 59 votes in the Senate, and a large majority in the House, Democrats still cannot get out of each others way. The debate has gone on for over a year. So many Democrats are wary of the process, in addition to the actual vote, they cannot seem to muster up enough support. Even with all of the White House bribes.
There are ZERO Republicans in the House or Senate who support this bill. Never has a large piece of legislation not had bipartisan support. Even the Iraq War (over 20 Dems) and Bush Tax Cuts (around a dozen) had major bipartisan support.

Why this bill is bad, without looking at the process:

The "Doc Fix"-- This means there should have been a 22% decrease in payouts to Doctors who work with Medicare patients. Of course nobody wanted the Doctors to have this decrease. So instead, Democrats moved this bill to a bill on its own, being that it would have hurt the overall numbers, turning it upside down financially. So this 250 Billion Dollar "loss" will not be included in the health care bill.
Medicare Savings-- In the bill, Medicare cuts are to be $500 Billion. These "cuts" are being used for other parts of health care. Even so, Obama and his allies say the expansion of Medicare will be made possible by these savings. So in effect, Obama is "double-counting" the savings, as the money is also being spent. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who rates these plans, says double counting cannot be included. Nonetheless, Democrats are still doing it. Stubborn facts get in the way of Democrats arguments too many times.
Tax increases-- Obama says only the upper income people will pay for the rest of the bill. But the fact remains, and always will be, the majority of small business owners would be classified as "upper income" earners because of how they file taxes. Nothing like hurting small businesses.
Businesses-- Businesses who don't supply health care to their employees will be fined 8%. Instead of supplying health care, many of the employers will pay the fine because it will be cheaper to pay it, than supplying insurance. This means millions of people will be taken off their business insurance and pushed into the government plan. So when Obama says you can keep your plan if you'd like, that's totally untrue. Some will, but most will be decided by their employers. Case in point, Caterpillar estimates they will lose over $100 Million the first year if Obamacare passes.
Fined for not insuring yourself is not American-- Yet this is what will happen. When I was 22 and not on my parents plan anymore, I didn't want to buy insurance. Instead, I wanted my money used for other things I deemed more important. Yet the government will now fine us if we don't get insurance. That is so Un-American.
Medical Devices will be taxed-- And who will they pass this bill onto?? Of course, the Doctors offices and Hospitals, which gets passed on to the consumer.

No surprise that Seniors oppose this plan in HUGE numbers, as well as the American public. And one other thing, and probably the most important stat-- When has the Government EVER stayed to its budget with anything? The fact is, they don't know how to run business. For example, the Post Office is so many hundreds of millions in the red, and is poorly run. This while its competitors (UPS and FedEx) are making money hand over fist. Also take a look at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. These programs have costs Billions of dollars more than they were proposed and passed in Congress. Who thinks Obamacare will come under budget? For those who do, I feel very sad for your state of thinking!

Stupak cannot stop anti life wave on HC

2010-03-12T14:32:00.000-08:00

Here is what pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak said about the current Healthcare bill. Very said what this has come to:

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Update- Healthcare Reform

2010-03-11T13:22:00.001-08:00

As of March 11th, there is probably at best a 50/50 chance of reconciliation going through on the healthcare bill. Now that the Democrats don't have the necessary votes in the Senate, they are going to use the parliamentary procedure of the nuclear option (reconciliation) to move forward. The problem is, the House of Representatives has to vote on the Senate's bill in order for it to pass. There no longer can be a merging of the House and Senate Bills, now that the Senate can't muster 60 votes to sustain a possible filibuster. Because of this, the House has to go along with what the Senate bill contains. The importance of this is all of the pro-life Democrats who only voted for the House bill last time because of the Stupak (Bart Stupak) amendment stating that no public funds can be used for abortion, cannot possibly be included in the Senate bill. So Stupak and other conservative Democrats are most likely not going to vote "yea" on Healthcare reform, as they did last time around.

So in addition to the other 25 or so Democrats who voted "nay" last vote in November to make the passage at 220-215, the numbers look upside down at this point for Democrats. When you look at the 220 who voted for Obamacare in the House in November, 2 members have retired, one has died, and the sole Republican is switching to a "nay" vote. In the other hand, one previous "nay" vote (Eric Massa- D) has left the House on ethical charges of groping a staffer. So because of these defections, Democrats still need 216 to pass it. As of many reports, there are about 200-203 who have said yes, and many of the persuadable Democrats teetering. Because of all of this, the likelihood of it passing is less than 50%. However, in the vastly unpopular Cap and Trade bill last year, Speaker Pelosi was about 20 votes short of passage the day before the vote. Because of her strong arming and dealing, she was able to muscle it through by 3 votes. So Republicans and skeptics alike, are not underestimating Pelosi's potential pull on unsure Democrats.

One more caveat to throw in the ringer- Liberals who have demanded a single payer public plan or else they would flee, are starting to bark. As of now, we know Dennis Kucinic is a "nay" vote because the bill doesn't go far enough. The Hispanic, Black, and Progressive Caucuses in the Democrat party are all whining that they may change their vote on protest. But not many serious thinkers really think Pelosi can't or won't get them in lockstep, especially if the bill is close.

Last thing to address- Many in the media and many Democrats have stated that the Hyde Amendment (disallowing public funds for abortion, except in rape, incest, etc.) makes it impossible for public funds to be used for abortions. This is plainly untrue. There are several provisions which indeed make them available. This includes Obama's 11 Billion dollar plan in the bill that would go toward community and Health Centers. Although it doesn't say these funds would be for abortion, it doesn't say that they CANNOT be used for abortions. There are a few other tricks in the bill that allow back end ways to allow funds to be used for abortion. In case Democrats think only Republicans think this is the case, here's a few remarks from Democrats regarding the current Senate bill:

Tim Holden (D-Penn) "I will not vote for the Senate bill," Holden said. "It makes significant cuts to Medicare and Medicaid ... and the restrictions on (federal funding for) abortion are not as strong."
Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) "Last fall, I worked to pass legislation to bring needed changes to our health care system, while putting in place strict prohibitions on the use of taxpayer funding for abortion. The House will soon take up this issue again. When there is a final piece of legislation, I will take the time needed to review the bill and determine how I will vote. However, my overall position is unchanged. Health care reform is critically important for our nation, and I support efforts to enact changes to our system - if those changes are done the right way. But I'm firm in my commitment that I won't support legislation that provides federal funding for abortion."
Joe Donnolly (D-IN) "language on abortion is a "fatal flaw." I would not vote for it," he said. He figures there will be a vote within a month or so. The abortion language is unpopular with "a significant" number of congressmen. It has the potential to kill the bill, he said.
Dan :Lipinski (D-Ill) His advisor: "No. Congressman Lipinski will not vote for a health care bill that provides federal funding for abortion."

Justice Department hires 9 terrorist lawyers

2010-03-03T13:14:00.000-08:00

Eric Holder, who heads the Justice Department as the Attorney General, has hired 9 lawyers to the Department who have defended Islamic terrorists. This seems to be pretty atrocious. So a lawyer who has defended the mastermind behind 9/11, KSM, is now working for our Justice Department. These lawyers seem to have some sort of sympathy of these captured terrorists, in believing they have access to US miranda rights, even though that is just not true.

Whatever the case, this seems to be pretty radical, even on the surface.

Constitution and buying HC Insurance

2010-03-03T12:30:00.000-08:00

Is it constitutional for us to be forced to buy healthcare insurance? And if we don't, we'll be fined. So where in the constitution does it talk about the ability for the government to force citizens to buy insurance.

I'm no constitutional lawyer and don't understand every little thing. However, when reading the constitution, I didn't come across language that allows the government to enforce such things as telling its citizens it has to buy any sort of goods or services.

More on Healthcare and the Summit

2010-03-02T13:01:00.000-08:00

The Healthcare Summit raised a lot of interesting points. The main one being, there is just a philosophical difference in how government should be looked at. Liberals, and thus Democrats, believe there should be an overriding central authority that supercedes any marketplace idea. This includes the following things, among others: that every adult has to acquire health insurance, or get penalized for it (do we actually get arrested for this?); that employers will get fined 8% if they don't have any of their employees covered; that Washington bureaucrats get to decide what constitutes as acceptable coverage for any US citizen.

One of the things that has struck me is how little people have discussed how Washington cannot manage any entitlement programs anywhere close to what the financial estimates become. For instance, the Medicare program when it was introduced way back when, was supposed to be just a sliver of what it has turned out to be. If you look at the following federal run programs, it doesn't take a liberal genious (oxymoron?) to figure that the government struggles mightily with doing business: US Postal Service- Projected 800 Billion deficit this year (UPS and FedEx are wildly successful); Social Security- Going to be insolvent at any time; Medicare- Going to be insolvent before we retire.

The Conservative way is much better. This includes the following things:

Tort Reform. The CBO estimates this could save as much as $50 Billion per year in medical malpractice savings.
Ability to Buy across state lines. The would allow all of the insurance providers to compete for your business. In essence, the consumer can go with the most affordable price, no matter what state it is located in.
Buy from Imported Drugs from Canada. This was a bipartisan agreemlent, but apparently, not bipartisan enough as it was not included in the current House or Senate bills.
Healthcare Savings Accounts. This idea was brandished by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and it is overwhelmingly popular and successful. This allows a family to have, say, $2,500 put into their healthcare kitty. From there, a family gets to choose how it spends its money on care. This plan does have provisions in case of catastrophic conditions occur, which really helps the consumer. This plan gives control to the consumer, not the government. A similar plan was offered by McCain in the 08 campaign.

An article by Economist Thomas Sowell also makes a great point about how all of these estimates fly in the face of reality. As he calls it, Alice in Wonderland. The main point he makes is how they are making estimates based on what kind of medical services we use when we have to pay for all of its costs. If the government were to take over, people would be going in for about every reason imaginable. Say for instance I got a skin rash and I was in line before someone who may have a potentially cancerous tumor. That person would have to wait in extraordinarily long lines while the people in the front of the line would get helped first. And back to the original point here, the costs would go up extravagantly because people would be making "free" doctor or ER visits, when they otherwise wouldn't have gone. Sowell says that "bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing."

Healthcare gimmicks on Democrats plan

2010-03-02T11:32:00.000-08:00

Health Care Gimmicks:

As Republican Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Chuck Grassley stated in the Healthcare Summit, there are many gimmicks and "smoke and mirrors" in the current Senate Healthcare plan. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the source that scores these plans. Here are a few examples of this:

The way the bill was written to the CBO, we start paying for this in taxes in 2010, while the actual plan starts in 2014. In other words, the CBO scored the first 10 years of raising the capital, while only the final six years of this period has the plan implemented. So 10 years of taxes and 6 years of usage. After the first 10 years, the cost curve goes dramatically up, some independent estimates having the plan costing us 2.5 Trillion during the second 10 years.
Using either the House or Senate Bill, the true costs of 10 years of revenue (taxes, cuts in Medicare, etc.) and 10 years of the healthcare plan, the real cost is over 2.3 Trillion. And this is NOT including what is known as the "Doc Fix", explained below. If it was included, we can add on another 200 Billion or so to the total cost.
The current plan has Medicare cuts- Does anyone really believe we will have 500 Million Dollars in Medicare cuts? Everytime this puts into legislation (by Republican or Democrat), these funds do NOT get slashed from Medicare. It just won't happen. But in order for Obama's plan to work according to the budge guidelines, this had to be included.
"Doc Fix". Instead of having a reduction in Medicare doctor fees by 21% going into effect, and thus hurting the bills numbers, both the House and Senate used this in a separate bill. However, these non-cuts still have to be considered in the whole "cost curve". Instead, Democrats think they can put all of the non-cash savers into another bill so it cannot be scored in a negative way by the CBO.

Warren Buffets says start over on Healthcare

2010-03-01T15:46:00.000-08:00

This line seems very familiar to what Republicans have been saying. Scratch this bill... not because Republicans don't like it... scrap it because the vast majority of AMERICANS don't like it. When, for the past three months, the polls have averaged -15% support for Obamacare, things need to start over.

What's remarkable about Buffet's comment is not that he's in any way an expert on healthcare, he's not. It's that he's a big supporter of Obama. When it comes to domestic policy, you don't hear Obama use any name more prevalent than Buffet, other than maybe former Fed Chair Paul Volcker.

The politics side of me wants Obamacare to go forward. This way the Democrats will be massacred in November. But the bill is just giving way too much control to Washington, which of course Obama wants (even if he denies it).

Nuclear Option revisited

2010-02-24T07:46:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-23T11:02:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-15T10:42:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-15T10:30:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-15T10:24:00.001-08:00

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??

2010-02-12T09:31:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-05T15:02:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-02T12:00:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-01T15:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Drug and alcohol usage for a President

2010-01-28T12:09:00.001-08:00

First off, I believe anybody should have the right to second chances, whether it be drug usage or abuse, alcohol usage or abuse, or even extra-marital sexual affairs. As long as the candidate feels contrite and asks for repentance, I feel fine about it.

As I was trying to go to sleep last night after a tiring basketball game, I was thinking about this. It was such a big deal that Bill Clinton used to smoke pot by the media. And it was even more of a big deal that George Bush was a heavy drinker, and even had a DUI during those campaigns. The media latched onto these stories like no other. Admittedly, Bush's crime was looked at much further of an offense to society, than Clinton's. Can you smell a liberal media people? Anyway, this brings me to the question at hand:

Why was it barely discussed about Obama's extensive drug usage as he was growing up? You can't tell me that snorting cocaine shouldn't be a sexy story, no matter who the politician is. The fact is, the mainstream media was so enamored by Obama, that they thought he couldn't do any wrong.

Once again, as long as he's remorseful for these past activities, I don't think it should be a big story, or even a disqualifier. I just was wondering about lack of coverage it received.

Campaign Finance

2010-01-28T11:23:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on Campaign Finance:

Citizens United vs. FEC, the Court found unconstitutional provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that prevented corporate and labor union money from funding some kinds of political communication. Under the ruling these groups may now fund political advertisements out of their general treasuries.

The decision overturns Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell vs. FEC, which separated individual and collective campaign contributions into two legal classes and restricted the latter. But it upholds restrictions on direct contributions by corporate bodies to candidates, as well as requirements that the funding sources of political advertisements be disclosed to the public.

Obama on the ruling: “The Supreme Court has given green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics...... major victory for big oil, wall street banks, and special interests."

Not to be repetitive in my analysis, but does this president have ANY room to speak on this topic without sounding, ummmm, hypocritical??

After all, it was Obama who received the largest amount of "special interest" money by ANY presidential candidate in history. This of course was led by the Democrats favorite entity, the trial Lawyers. In addition, the pro-abortion industry was very high on this list as well. So Obama has the audacity to ridicule big oil, but "forgets" to mention the power that these left wing entities provide. In other words, in Obama's world if an entity is helpful to his cause, they aren't "evil". And speaking of Wall St., wasn't it Obama who received roughly 78% of campaign donations from Wall St? Talking about biting the fingers that pay you.

Finally, and probably the most hypocritical thing of all--- During the '08 campaign, Obama pledged to take public money and not private money. He lied about this. He denied public financing so he could build up a campaign war chest that nobody in history has rivaled. To put this in perspective, he raised more money than Bush and Kerry COMBINED in 2004.

Another finally-- How tacky was it to lambast the Supreme Court decision in during the State of the Union. Camera's caught Conservative Justice mouthing "That's not true" when Obama was talking incorrectly about the decision. GOOD FOR ALITO!! I would think that Sam Alito would have a hair more knowledge about law than Obama does.

Our Narcissistic President

2010-01-26T12:50:00.000-08:00

Here is the Mirriams Dictionary's definition of narcissism:

inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
OR
erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

Obama really has this down to a "T". Outgoing Democrat Congressman Marion Berry, who worries the direction Obama is taking the country, received this retort from Obama: "The big difference between 1994 and 2010 is ME." Of course, 1994 is the year of the Republican wipeout of Democrats. In essence, Obama is taking a jab at former President Clinton.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love, one of the foremost researchers on narcissism, believes Obama fits this criteria.

This, to go along with other another such doozie Obama has made:

"I am the change that our country has been waiting for!"

others.

Obama's bank tax populism

2010-01-22T14:00:00.000-08:00

When election time hits, pollsters always say "populism sells". Well, this is what Obama is doing. He's asking if "we are on the side of the Wall St. Fat cats, or on the side of the people?" Well, in digging deep, the top 8 political figures that are supported by banks (Goldman Sachs, Citi, etc.) are Democrats. And going back to 2008, Obama destroyed a record of getting almost 1 Million dollars of hard money from personal bank donors. In addition, those who helped craft the Bush/Democrat TARP bill in late 08 were Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner. Obama backs both of them.

So before Obama wants to continue to spout of for "the little guy", just take a look at who he gets his dough from.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Beware-the-Goldman-Sachs-populist-82293977.html

John Edwards, wow!

2010-01-21T14:05:00.001-08:00

Man Mr. Edwards, and to think, we could have had you as V.P. if the Frenchman, errr, Mr. Kerry would have been elected POTUS.

Talk about the sleezeball of the decade award. That should go to John Edwards. It's not just that his wife had found out her incurable cancer had come back, or that he was running in the Democrat primary's for President, or that he has two young kids. Yes, those are offensive crimes to everyone who is involved (including those he guilted into voting for him in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.). But Edwards finally admits, after months of speculation that he has a love child with the woman he had an affair with for over a year, Rielle Hunter.

To add insult to injury, Edwards threw one of his staffers under the bus by telling him to claim to be the father of the baby. He also claimed that the affair was over at the time of the conception. Thus eliminating him as the potential father.

I know sins are committed, and that we serve a forgiving Lord. I sure hope Edwards does. He took literally millions of people through the ringer on this one. What a scumbag!

Obama's slash and burn strategy on McCain-Feingold

2010-01-21T14:02:00.001-08:00

Here's what realclearpolitics said on the Supreme Court ruling of McCain/Feingold:

A strong statement from President Obama on today's Supreme Court ruling that frees corporations to spend unlimited sums on political campaigns:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

It's worth noting, of course, that as a candidate Obama broke a pledge to stay within the matching funds program for presidential candidates. Sen. John McCain (R) had this warning when he made that decision:

“Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds. This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.”

Scott Brown's quote on terrorism

2010-01-20T16:03:00.001-08:00

This quote should be repeated over and over, until this administration and the media understand this point. Here's what Brown said in his victory speech:

" Our taxes should be used to buy the weapons to stop the terrorists, not to fund the terrorists' lawyers."

Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts

2010-01-20T15:54:00.000-08:00

Scott Brown wins the senate seat to succeed the late Ted Kennedy. This is shocking, being that a Republican has not won a senate seat in Massachusetts since 1972. It's shocking because just a year ago, Obama won the state by 26 points. It's shocking because Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state by over a 3-1 margin.

It's not shocking because Obama's policies in the state are incredibly unpopular. This is on a whole range of issues, including debt, economy as a whole, Healthcare, etc. It's not shocking because Brown ran a masterful campaign that will be studied about for a long time to come. It's not shocking because Martha Coakley, the defeated Democrat, ran a miserably campaign,

It's ironic because Brown promised to be the 41st vote against Obamacare, thus killing a filibuster proof senate of 60 Democrat votes. The whole irony is because Kennedy's lifelong dream of universal healthcare was on the cusp of being delivered, but his replacement is the one that will tear this unmet dream into pieces.

Obama's continued failures

2010-01-18T13:54:00.000-08:00

Read this for a fair, honest assessment of Obama's first year. It's harsh, fair, and to the point. It is not partisan, just lays out the facts.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/01/the_political_blunders_of_the_1.html

Healthcare payoffs

2010-01-18T09:44:00.001-08:00

Nobody ever said the game of politics wasn't full of lies, deceit, and basically doing anything to "get the job done". When Obama ran his 2008 campaign he promised to change the way politics was done in Washington. Regarding the healthcare debate, let's go over a few things that would clearly (even as a liberal supporter) not be included as "change". In fact, I would argue that it is Chicago "machine thug politics" at its worst. Here's a few samples:

Allowing the payoff of hundreds of millions to Louisiana to pay off skeptical Democrat Senator Mary Landreau. This is known as the "Louisiana Purchase"
Allowing the payoff of hundreds of millions to Nebraska to pay off skeptical Democrat Ben Nelson. This would allow citizens of Nebraska not to have to pay for Medicare Advantage for the next 10 years. Instead, the rest of the country would pay for it. This is called the "Cornhusker Kickback".
Allowing the "Cadillac Tax" NOT be payed by Union members. Since the unions are one of Obama's (and Democrats) largest supporters, Obama accepted this deal. So those of us who are not union members and have the "Cadillac" insurance plans, have to pay this tax, but Obama's friends do not for I believe 8 or 10 years. NICE!!!
As mentioned at length in previous posts, Obama PROMISED to put the healthcare debates on CSPAN 8 times during the campaign. Not only has this not happened, but the Democrats have denied the usual committee conference that debates any legislation.
Obama promised to allow bi-partisan debate, although none of the Republican ideas have been included in the bills. This includes tight restrictions on no federal funds for abortion, the possibility of drugs imported from Canada, being able to get insurance across state lines, tort reform, etc.

Didn't Obama eschew Bush for not getting bipartisan, if not consensus from the majority of the country on any one issue? If you look at ANY of Bush's big bills during his 8 years, he had a good amount of bipartisan support on these issues. This includes both wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), Tax Cuts in 01 and 03, No Child Left Behind, etc. Obama has ZERO support from Republicans and the public now disapproves this on average of 55-39%.

Massachusetts-- Vote Scott Brown

2010-01-17T11:50:00.000-08:00

In a special election to fill Senator Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, it was expected to be a ho-hum yawner. This being the Democrat is "supposed" to win every congressional or senate seat without trying. After all, Democrats out-register Republicans by a 37-11 margin. However, there are many more Independents than Democrats in the state. It's a stone-cold fact that all Mass. residents have a negative feeling towards Obama-care. 60% believe costs will go up, while 51% disapprove with Obama-care. Here are several more reasons as to why Brown is leading in three of the last four polls in the state:

By a three to one margin, Independents are going the Republican Brown's way.
As mentioned above, the majority are against Obama-care. Coakley has vowed to support; Brown has vowed to oppose.
Brown is the 41st vote in the Senate, meaning it would stop the ever-unpopular Obama-care.
Brown has run a great campaign, no matter what your affiliation, and Coakley has run a terrible campaign.

Here are a few doozies from the Coakley campaign to back up the charge that she is running terribly:

Went to Washington to raise money from Big PhFMA and Washington insiders for her campaign, while Brown stumped in his home state.
Democrats have placed an ad saying Brown doesn't want to help rape victims in Mass. because he supports the right for pro-life emergency workers to be replaced if an abortion is taking place.
Called Red Sox hero Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. Umm, is she from this planet?
When a Coakley staffer pushed down a conservative reporter, she denied seeing it, even though youtube has her staring at the incident.
Coakley believes Catholics probably shouldn't be working in emergency rooms because of their moral beliefs.
Coakley misspelled her home state in an attack ad on Brown.. Another oops!!!

All I can say is, down goes Coakley!!! Can't wait for this Tuesday.

Book- Game Change

2010-01-11T15:46:00.001-08:00

The new book, Game Change, reports many of the happenings during the lead up to the 2008 presidential election. Two of the things that were said:

Harry Reid (D) Senate Majority Leader: Said Obama had a good chance of winning because he is light skinned, and doesn't have the negro dialect, unless he wants to use it. Now I think the comments do afford an apology, but that they were not necessarily racist comments. What I do have a problem with is how there is a double-standard in our politics when it comes to race. Imagine if Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) said this?? Heads would have rolled, as in McConnell's head..... from the media and blacks around the country. It's hypocrisy 101.

Also, Bill Clinton, trying to sway Ted Kennedy into backing Hillary, said that a few years ago Obama would be fetching coffee for us. Again, stupid comments, inappropriate.

My problem with these two examples-- One, that there is a double standard; and two, that the media doesn't give it it's press time. Case in point, in the 60 Minutes special last night on this new book, both of these stories (probably the biggest stories of the book) were not even mentioned. This, while the McCain advisor v. Palin feud was dissected for about 10 minutes.

So very annoying!!!

Obama lies about having CSPAN debated on HC

2010-01-07T16:17:00.000-08:00

Now I know that campaigning for President and actually governing are very different, but Obama is starting to be held accountable for now following through. On 8 separate occasions, Obama said during the campaign that the healthcare debate would be on CSPAN, so the public would know where everybody stands, what concessions are being made, etc.

Now that the public has such little support over Obamacare, there has been ZERO TV coverage. In fact, the Democrats and the administration haven't even allowed it to go to conference for debate. In other words, the Democrat leadership (Durbin, Reid, Emmanuel, Pelosi) are meeting in private rooms, hashing out the final bill.

Also, didn't Obama promise to be a uniter? He has ZERO bipartisan support for this bill. ZERO!! Comparison sake-- On any decent or big bill W. had in the last 8 years, (tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, Iraq War), he had more than 10 Democrat Senators on board for each.

Finally, Obama complained during the campaign that Bush had bills that were voted on, and didn't allow enough time for debate. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Obama is the hypocrite of all hypocrites. As mentioned above, there has been no floor debate on this in the Senate.

One other thing-- Even a few Democrat Senators (Nelson, Landreau) weren't liking this bill. That is until they whored themselves out for special things for their states. For instance, Nelson got Nebraska 100 Million in payments the rest of the country, not Nebraska will have to pay for in Medicare for Cornhusker citizens. It may sound good for his state, but they rejected it. By over 2 to 1, they oppose it, and now Nelson. By the way, Nelson is a dead man walking when his term is due in 2010.

Obama response to underwear bombing

2010-01-07T15:51:00.000-08:00

This is getting ridiculous. This administration is totally inept as far as the failed attempted bombing on Christmas day. What we need is strength, resolve, leadership, truthfulness, and accountability after tragedies, or near misses of attack on our country. This is the reason why, love him or hate him, the country responded so well to W. Bush. He was able to show strong resolve, and most importantly, great leadership after 9/11. Here are a few things in which the Obama administration fell way short of what it needed to do:

Michael Leiter, Director of the National CounterTerrorism Center, who basically is the man needed for terrorism strikes on our country, decided to stay on the ski slopes for several days after the failed attack.
John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama- He said there was "no smoking gun" to know of the bombers intentions. Umm, excuse me? How about the bombers own dad saying his son told him that day over the phone this would be his last contact with his dad. to contact This made his dad contact Nigerian intelligence, fearing that his son might be planning a suicide mission in Yemen. The Nigerian officials brought Mutallab directly to the CIA station chief in Abuja Nov. 19. The next day the embassy sent out a thin report to U.S. embassies around the world warning Adbulmutallab may be associating with extremists in Yemen. He also left Amsterdam with no luggage to the US. In addition, he came to the US with his own name. How could this not have been caught??
Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Advisor- She said the system "absolutely worked". After getting hammered from the left and right, she offered a mea culpa the next day, although her words were less than convincing.
The Administration to allow the underwear bomber a US attorney. Absolutely breathtaking. Instead of trying him under the CONSTITUTIONAL Military Tribunal, where we could interrogate him, we allow him a US attorney. Of course at this point of him lawyering up, he stopped talking. And there was evidence that before getting an attorney afforded to him by the Obama Admin, he was singing like a canary, giving up valuable intelligent information.
Obama- On December 28th, Obama said this was an "isolated event". Sometimes this guy talks out of his ass, think the Harvard Professor friend of Obama getting arrested a few months back and Obama wrongly saying the cops were in the wrong. Anyway, Obama had to backtrack on those words, now that we know it was al-qaeda. This is a damning pattern. He assumes the best out of everyone, which includes the bad guys. This president has to be worse than Jimmy Carter, and that's saying something.

2010- The year of the Elephant

2010-01-04T11:27:00.000-08:00

After going through a couple very agonizing elections in 2006 and 2008, the Republican party looks to rebound in a big way in the 2010 elections. As history tells us throughout our history, the midterm elections usually are favorable to the party out of party. Being that the Democrats hold the WH, House of Representatives, and Senate, Republicans have history on its side. And when you include a president that has lost a ton of popularity, this adds to the Democrats conundrum.

Many of my earlier posts have described in detail the unpopular state of the larger Democrat bills in 2009. This includes the Healthcare monstrosity, Cap and Trade (currently has stalled in the Senate), and the stimulus package.

Why is Obama's approval in the 40's?

2009-12-16T09:56:00.000-08:00

Records are meant to be broken. No president has had approval ratings lower than Obama has within the first year of a presidency. It really does not take much insight to figure out why this has happened:

His healthcare bill is wildly unpopular. 70% of Seniors don't like it. The vast majority of Independents and all Republicans don't. What you have left is a minority of Independents, and the far left. I bring up Seniors because they vote in higher numbers than any other section of the population.
Cap and Trade Bill: This bill is also wildly unpopular. This has only passed the House of Representatives and is most likely a non-starter in the Senate. Even so, most voters know this bill is something that will hurt the economy and small business. Lastly, Climate Change legislation is at the bottom of voters minds, with only 2% thinking it should be addressed as the number one issue.
Partisan Democrats: This happens when the GOP is in full power as well. At any rate, the Democrats run the WH, House, and Senate. The electorate usually likes some type of balance. That shall be on its way in 2010.
Spending- Obama's spending makes Bush look thrifty. The deficit is ballooning at the highest rate in history under Obama. People know that you cannot fully spend your way out of a recession. Inflation is going to KILL us. That's why the dollar is so weak right now.
Obama promised the unemployment would not exceed 8% if his so called stimulus would be passed. Well, it's now over 10%. Where are the promises now, Obama?
Obama ran as a moderate, had a record of a liberal. Those who "hoped" he'd stick with his campaign promises are seeing what the real Obama is like. Couldn't have they just have looked at his record? Being that he was the most liberal senator in the US, shouldn't that have been obvious where he'd be?

Colorado Senate Poll

2009-12-11T09:14:00.000-08:00

In a new Rasmussen Reports poll, Colorado Senator Michael Bennett (D) has some bad numbers. His approval stands at 37%, while his disapproval is at 49%. Which leads to the obvious conclusion:

Republican challenger Jane Norton leads Bennett 46-37% in today's poll.

As I said in a previous post, 2010 is going to be a big shift away from Democrats, and toward the GOP. One reason is the public is upset over the Democrats agenda; and secondly and most importantly, the GOP has recruited some outstanding challengers in many states..... like Jane Norton. Norton, the former Lt. Governor of Colorado is extremely liked here.

Election 2010 Senate previews

2009-12-09T14:36:00.001-08:00

I know we're 11 months away from the 2010 elections, but the pickings are becoming much more sweet for the GOP.

Here are the top showdowns on my mind:

Nevada: Harry Reid (D), the Senate Majority Leader looks to be in serious trouble. His approval in the state is only 38%. He trails both GOP possibilities, Sue Lowden 51-41; and Danny Tarkanian 49-43. These polls are consistent with other poll numbers. This would be the crown jewel of the 2010 class, as Reid is the Majority Leader (and very annoying).
Connecticut: Chris Dodd (D) who chairs many important committees is in serious trouble. He trails all GOP challengers, and likely GOP opponent Rob Simmons is a GOP strength in the region. Simmons leads by 13 in Rasmussen Reports and 11 in Quinnipiac polls. In addition, the vast majority of voters distrust Dodd because of a few scandels, and disapprove of him.
Delaware: Joe Biden's empty seat is up for grabs. Biden's son is the likely Democrat nominee. The GOP's chance is Mike Castle, who is well known and liked in the state. In fact, all the polls have Castle up by 4-8 points.
Illinois: Roland Burris, who took Obama's Senate seat, is not running for re-election. If he did, he would get pounded. Anyway, the GOP nominee, Mark Kirk, has a 50/50 chance at winning this seat. Most polls have him even with his Democrat challenger.
North Dakota: Byron Dorgan (D) must be praying that the Governor, John Hoeven (R) doesn't run. If Hoeven runs, Dorgan is Dead on Arrival, as all polls say.
New York: Kirsten Gillebrand (D) is the fill-in for Hillary Clinton. She is not terribly popular, but has a chance for re-election. Unless a strong GOP candidate, say Rudy Guiliani decides to run. If America's Mayor decides to run, he would be the odds-on favorite to win.
Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln (D) is probably the most endangered species in the Senate. She is getting beat by any of her GOP challengers. It would take a slight miracle for her to keep her Senate seat.
California: Barbara Boxer (D) has low approval ratings (and is a bitch) but she still might win because this is California after all.
Colorado: Michael Bennett (D) has probably less than 50/50 chance of winning election here. Scott McInnis (R) is the favorite in this matchup.
Ohio: George Voinovich (R) is retiring. This seat is a toss-up, with the Republican Rob Portman (R) slightly ahead in the polls. The Democrat hasn't been decided yet.
Missouri: Kit Bond (R) is retiring. His replacement, Roy Blount is about a 50/50 bet to beat Jean Carnahan.

One thing to note: Any 50/50 battle in 06 and 08 went to the Democrats. This year is on the GOP side. People are already getting sick of the Democrats. With that being said, many toss ups may in fact be easy GOP victories.

GO GOP!!!!

Climate-gate

2009-12-09T14:29:00.001-08:00

So I'm sure everybody is aware of Climate-gate. Oh, except the liberal media. So little has been said on this in the mainstream media. It's almost funny, if it weren't so pathetic. So the lead researchers and defenders of global warming at East Anglia University had their emails hacked into. Many of the lead scientists are questioning what to do with the scientific data that shows that global warming may in fact not be as certain as they say. Of course, in their data all of these facts were not put into account.

So whatever ones mindset on whether global warming is primarily manmade would have to stop and wonder why data from only one side of the argument is being touted. While the other side of the debate is being shut off. If it's true science, then let ALL of the data prove it, not just the data that will make the UN, Al Gore, and these universities enough money to buy a small country.

And by the way, why does Gore still travel by private gulf stream if he is so into this "science"?

The facts on the ground remain-- The Earth goes through warming and cooling periods. Over the previous 12 years, it warmed some. Over the past 12 years, it's cooled some. And over the past century and a half, the temperature has gone up a whopping 1.5 degrees. Not exactly enough for us to deplete our economy with cap and trade legislation.

Obama's hypocrisy on the deficit

2009-12-09T14:27:00.000-08:00

Obama is right that the Bush administration let the deficit balloon out of control. However, for Obama to say this is really hypocritical. Obama's deficit is so far beyond the rate at what Bush rose it, he has no place to defend it. And when you add in the estimated 2.25 trillion his new health care plan will cost, he REALLY should just shut his mouth up.

Stimulus

2009-12-09T14:22:00.000-08:00

Another word on the Stimulus. Despite White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs and Obama STILL declaring the stimulus a success, here's another factoid that would be hard to defend.... On average per dollar spent thus far, the stimulus has cost an average of 245K per job. It's hard to defend this number. I think most of the unemployed would take the 245K and invest it in gold these days and call it good.