President Obama campaigned for incumbant New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine in 2009. New Jersey is a traditionally Democrat state. In fact, if you were looking for a bluer than blue state, New Jersey is it. Barack Obama won the state by 15 percent in 2008. If there was a state that you would expect to have a Democrat elected again, especially an incumbant, New Jersey. They elected Republican Chris Christie by a 4 percent margin. A state that overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama for President just a year ago voted for Republican Chris Christie for Governor.
President Obama campaigned for Creigh Deed for Virginia Governor in 2009. Virginia went to Obama by 6 percent in the 2008 election. After voters got a taste of Obama politics, Republican Robert McDonnell beat Deeds by a 17 point margin.
The President also campaigned for Martha Coakley (Or Marcia as she is known by “her good friend” Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)). Massachusetts (though I only lived there for a year and a half and not my entire life, I can still spell it –unlike Mrs. Coakley’s campaign) went decidedly for Barack Obama 62 t o 36 percent in 2008. Ted Kennedy, “the lyin’ of the senate” held that Senate seat for 47 years. Massachusetts is also one of the bluest of states. One year of Obama politics is all it took for a state that only has 12 percent registered Republicans and 35 percent are Democrats to vote a Republican by a margin of 7 percent.
If I were running for office as a Republican I would invite the President to campaign for my opponent. Seems whomever he campaigns for loses. Could it be that the American people are having buyer’s remorse? Could it be that the American people don’t want the Socialism that the Obama administration promises? Nah, the Democrats must just be running the wrong candidates – every time!.
As an aside, it was also interesting to see the Nobel Prize winner, and his wife, go to Copenhagen to persuade the International Olympic Committee to send the 2016 Olympics to his home town of Chicago. Chicago was eliminated in the first round. Chicago only garnered 18 of the 94 votes. The President couldn’t even get 20 percent of the IOC vote. It couldn’t have anything to do with Obama.
This can’t be happening; Obama stood for hope and change. Everyone was supposed to love his ideas and just do what he says because he was so smart and well spoken (with the help of the teleprompter –uh, um, um, not uh so good um without uh it). I remember reading just a short while ago about the decline and even death of the Republican Party. With Barack Obama in charge I, for one, am seeing the change; a resurgence of the Conservatives in the Republican party and decline of the Democrats.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Harry Reid owes an apology to the American people
Harry Reid has apologized to the President and that should be enough…..for him. The real people Senator Reid needs to apologize to are the American people.
The authors of a new book, “Game Change,” quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say. "Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination," they write.
The Democrats knew they could count on the minority vote if they ran a minority; and in fact got 96% of the black vote and 67%, 63% of the Latino and Asian vote respectively.
But those very words speak volumes about how Harry Reid feels about the American electorate. He essentially was saying that Democrats would not vote for a dark skinned black or a black with a “Negro dialect”. He was saying the Democrats are racist and the only reason they would vote for Obama is because he “wasn’t very black”.
His words were not directed to the party of Lincoln, a Republican, who freed the slaves with the emancipation proclamation. He wasn’t speaking to the party of Martin Luther King Jr. who was also a Republican; look it up. He wasn’t speaking to the Republican Party that championed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 or the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed civil rights again in the 1950’s and declared racial discrimination a national security issue and subsequently sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to uphold Brown v. Board of Education.
As a matter of fact he wasn’t speaking to any Republican as the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
http://www.nifty-fifties.com/Facts/Race.htm
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html
He was speaking to the Democrats who at one time started the Ku Klux Klan and the “Dixiecrats” who blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades after the end of the civil war. It’s the Democrat Party, not the GOP, that boasts an ex-Klansman among its senior leaders. He spoke about the Democrats like Orval Faubus who called out the Arkansas National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.
Harry Reid knew exactly what he was saying. He likes and respects Mr. Obama and I believe him when he apologized. He did, however, have malice in his heart for the American voter (particularly the Democrats) because he knew history and he knew that Democrats have a history of racism. The only way they would elect a black man to be President is if he was a “light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,”.
Mr. Reid, you don’t owe an apology to the President. You owe an apology to the American people.
The authors of a new book, “Game Change,” quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say. "Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination," they write.
The Democrats knew they could count on the minority vote if they ran a minority; and in fact got 96% of the black vote and 67%, 63% of the Latino and Asian vote respectively.
But those very words speak volumes about how Harry Reid feels about the American electorate. He essentially was saying that Democrats would not vote for a dark skinned black or a black with a “Negro dialect”. He was saying the Democrats are racist and the only reason they would vote for Obama is because he “wasn’t very black”.
His words were not directed to the party of Lincoln, a Republican, who freed the slaves with the emancipation proclamation. He wasn’t speaking to the party of Martin Luther King Jr. who was also a Republican; look it up. He wasn’t speaking to the Republican Party that championed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 or the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed civil rights again in the 1950’s and declared racial discrimination a national security issue and subsequently sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to uphold Brown v. Board of Education.
As a matter of fact he wasn’t speaking to any Republican as the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
http://www.nifty-fifties.com/Facts/Race.htm
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html
He was speaking to the Democrats who at one time started the Ku Klux Klan and the “Dixiecrats” who blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades after the end of the civil war. It’s the Democrat Party, not the GOP, that boasts an ex-Klansman among its senior leaders. He spoke about the Democrats like Orval Faubus who called out the Arkansas National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.
Harry Reid knew exactly what he was saying. He likes and respects Mr. Obama and I believe him when he apologized. He did, however, have malice in his heart for the American voter (particularly the Democrats) because he knew history and he knew that Democrats have a history of racism. The only way they would elect a black man to be President is if he was a “light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,”.
Mr. Reid, you don’t owe an apology to the President. You owe an apology to the American people.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Hey hey hey, bye bye
Like rats leaving a sinking ship, so are the Democrats leaving Congress.
I was surprised to hear that Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a five-term Democrat whose political stock began falling after the financial meltdown and his failed 2008 presidential bid, has decided not to seek re-election in November. How do you go from running for President two years ago to retiring? You don’t often hear of someone with his time in office, experience, and chairmanships talk about retiring. His power on Capitol Hill had reached a height that most legislators only dream of. I wonder what could have prompted it?
As recently as Monday, Dodd brushed aside questions about stepping aside for another Democratic candidate, and insisted he was in the race for good. He acknowledged that some of his fellow Democrats were "antsy" with his low poll numbers, but said things can change quickly in politics. "Clearly I'm glad the race isn't today, and the good news is, it's not," Dodd told reporters as he toured a small manufacturing company in Bristol, Conn. As late as last week, Dodd's campaign sent an e-mail to supporters seeking contributions. "The Republicans have declared my seat as one of the top targets and they intend to spend whatever it takes to win," the e-mail said. Apparently, he won’t need the money anymore.
Could it be the voters, after being stung by the Obama –nation are starting to open their eyes and hold their representatives responsible for their action? For those that don’t know (or choose to forget), Sen. Dodd got the sweetheart VIP deal from Countrywide Mortgage, and wrote the deal for AIG executives to get their multimillion dollar bonuses ($165,000,000) with our money; the money that was supposed to help create jobs and keep the country from slipping into double digit unemployment.
The news that Dodd would not seek reelection capped a day of Democratic retirements. Aside from Dodd and Dorgan, it was revealed that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter would not run for reelection in 2010. And in Michigan, Lt. Gov. John Cherry announced Tuesday that he would forgo a run for governor.
Easier to retire than face the voters and realize just what they think of you. This gives a good insight to the Democratic Party. They used him up and now that he doesn’t have a “for sure” seat, they are showing him the door- quickly. Just like they did to Cindy Sheehan after she was no longer relevant.
Expect to see Harry Reid announce his “retirement plans” in the next couple of months.
I was surprised to hear that Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a five-term Democrat whose political stock began falling after the financial meltdown and his failed 2008 presidential bid, has decided not to seek re-election in November. How do you go from running for President two years ago to retiring? You don’t often hear of someone with his time in office, experience, and chairmanships talk about retiring. His power on Capitol Hill had reached a height that most legislators only dream of. I wonder what could have prompted it?
As recently as Monday, Dodd brushed aside questions about stepping aside for another Democratic candidate, and insisted he was in the race for good. He acknowledged that some of his fellow Democrats were "antsy" with his low poll numbers, but said things can change quickly in politics. "Clearly I'm glad the race isn't today, and the good news is, it's not," Dodd told reporters as he toured a small manufacturing company in Bristol, Conn. As late as last week, Dodd's campaign sent an e-mail to supporters seeking contributions. "The Republicans have declared my seat as one of the top targets and they intend to spend whatever it takes to win," the e-mail said. Apparently, he won’t need the money anymore.
Could it be the voters, after being stung by the Obama –nation are starting to open their eyes and hold their representatives responsible for their action? For those that don’t know (or choose to forget), Sen. Dodd got the sweetheart VIP deal from Countrywide Mortgage, and wrote the deal for AIG executives to get their multimillion dollar bonuses ($165,000,000) with our money; the money that was supposed to help create jobs and keep the country from slipping into double digit unemployment.
The news that Dodd would not seek reelection capped a day of Democratic retirements. Aside from Dodd and Dorgan, it was revealed that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter would not run for reelection in 2010. And in Michigan, Lt. Gov. John Cherry announced Tuesday that he would forgo a run for governor.
Easier to retire than face the voters and realize just what they think of you. This gives a good insight to the Democratic Party. They used him up and now that he doesn’t have a “for sure” seat, they are showing him the door- quickly. Just like they did to Cindy Sheehan after she was no longer relevant.
Expect to see Harry Reid announce his “retirement plans” in the next couple of months.
Would I lie?
C-SPAN is trying to help the Obama administration keep one of its campaign promises. A promise made over 8 times. Candidate Obama promised that health care deliberations with Congress and special interests would be transparent to the extreme.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008. Don’t take my word for it though; http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/ shows videos of then Candidate Obama telling lying to (I mean telling) the American people about wanting to have C-SPAN televise the debates.
The president, members of Congress from both parties and special interest groups have indeed all participated in negotiations, but those conversations have not been broadcast. Instead, the president has announced deals with groups like the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry after they were worked out in backroom deals.
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network. "The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote. In his letter he states, "President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."
Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent; the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.
Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again. "This process cuts out the Republicans", indicating the congressional majority intended to make sure the Republican minority would "not have a motion to recommit opportunity."
The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on Christmas Eve. The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by leadership itself - forbidding debate on more than 150 of them - then provided just 24 hours for members to study the bill's final text. The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are still finding them 11 days later.
I guess I just don’t understand. If this is such a great deal for the American public, why wouldn’t the Democrats want to have all the proceedings televised, written about, shouted from the rooftops? “We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people,” Obama said shortly after the Senate acted. “This will be the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security passed in the 1930s,” said Obama, standing with Vice President Joe Biden in the State Room of the White House. If this is true, they (the Democrats) could easily cripple the Republicans by showing why this is the best thing since the Constitution itself. Unless, as I suspect, this is one of the worst bills in history and will be full of back room deals. Not to worry though, candidate Obama also said healthcare won’t pass with a fifty-plus-one strategy. http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-says-healthcare-wont-pass-with-a-fifty-plus-one-strategy/
Just like I pointed out about Global Warming not really being about Global Warming but more about global redistribution of wealth, the health care bill is not about health care. Senator Tom Harking put it best when he stated, “it has room for expansion and additions in the future. If we don’t start the starter home, we’ll never get there. So this is not the end of health care reform, this is the beginning of health care reform.” It is not about health care reform. It is about power. It is about the power of the government to grant or withhold services if you don’t do/act the way they want.
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. - Barry Goldwater.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008. Don’t take my word for it though; http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/ shows videos of then Candidate Obama telling lying to (I mean telling) the American people about wanting to have C-SPAN televise the debates.
The president, members of Congress from both parties and special interest groups have indeed all participated in negotiations, but those conversations have not been broadcast. Instead, the president has announced deals with groups like the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry after they were worked out in backroom deals.
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network. "The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote. In his letter he states, "President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."
Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent; the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.
Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again. "This process cuts out the Republicans", indicating the congressional majority intended to make sure the Republican minority would "not have a motion to recommit opportunity."
The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on Christmas Eve. The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by leadership itself - forbidding debate on more than 150 of them - then provided just 24 hours for members to study the bill's final text. The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are still finding them 11 days later.
I guess I just don’t understand. If this is such a great deal for the American public, why wouldn’t the Democrats want to have all the proceedings televised, written about, shouted from the rooftops? “We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people,” Obama said shortly after the Senate acted. “This will be the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security passed in the 1930s,” said Obama, standing with Vice President Joe Biden in the State Room of the White House. If this is true, they (the Democrats) could easily cripple the Republicans by showing why this is the best thing since the Constitution itself. Unless, as I suspect, this is one of the worst bills in history and will be full of back room deals. Not to worry though, candidate Obama also said healthcare won’t pass with a fifty-plus-one strategy. http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-says-healthcare-wont-pass-with-a-fifty-plus-one-strategy/
Just like I pointed out about Global Warming not really being about Global Warming but more about global redistribution of wealth, the health care bill is not about health care. Senator Tom Harking put it best when he stated, “it has room for expansion and additions in the future. If we don’t start the starter home, we’ll never get there. So this is not the end of health care reform, this is the beginning of health care reform.” It is not about health care reform. It is about power. It is about the power of the government to grant or withhold services if you don’t do/act the way they want.
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. - Barry Goldwater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)