Today is the Pro Bowl.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/nfl-2009-2010-non-pro-bowl-non-recap/
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/ideological-bigotry-my-book-is-now-available/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
Custom Search
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Pro Bowl Saturday 2009-2010
Tomorrow is the Pro Bowl.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/pro-bowl-saturday-2009-2010/
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/ideological-bigotry-my-book-is-now-available/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/pro-bowl-saturday-2009-2010/
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/ideological-bigotry-my-book-is-now-available/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
Friday, January 29, 2010
A Proposal That Will Actually Create Jobs
From The Marston Chronicles
We have all watched in disbelief as the Obama administration has thrown over a trillion dollars at stimulating the economy and stemming the continual loss of jobs. Never has so much been spent to accomplish so little except to line the pockets of the special interests. You would think that even the economic illiterates could figure out that in order to create jobs, you need to give businesses a reason to start hiring. Threatening them with new taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, cap and trade, and further regulation will definitely not do that; in fact, it will only encourage them to lay off more people.
There is a very simple way to encourage businesses to start hiring people right away. It does not require a whole new bureaucracy to administer it or to send money to anyone. All it requires is to design a simple form that businesses can fill out with the name, address, social security numbers and wages of all new hires or rehires. What will encourage businesses to do that? It is because the federal government will subsidize a portion of the wages of these hires and not be sending the business a check either. Businesses know that the inefficient federal government will not get them a check in a timely fashion as the cash for clunkers program made very clear.
What kind of a subsidy would be required? The business agrees to keep the new hire employed for a full year and to replace any new hire that leaves for any reason for the balance of the one year contract. The government will agree to pay 100% of the gross wages of the new hire for the first month. The second month, it will pay 90% of the gross wages. Each month after that it will decrease the subsidy by 10% until the subsidy stops after the tenth month. Simple isn't it? This is not rocket science, people, it is just common sense which seems to be sorely lacking in government these days.
How does the business get paid the subsidy? It doesn't. It subtracts the amount of the subsidy from the payroll taxes the business deducts from all its employees' wages and sends in the reduced amount. The form is attached to the paperwork filed showing the payroll taxes that are being paid. The business gets to keep the the subsidy immediately by not sending in all of the payroll taxes like it is required to do. There is no muss, no fuss and minimal paperwork. Instead of having to cut a check for the subsidy with all of the effort and bureaucracy required, the government just collects less in taxes in the first place. Now would businesses go for this program? You had better believe they would.
You now are going to tell me that this is way too expensive. Like a trillion dollars wasted to no real effect was too expensive? Instead of another stimulus bill that will not work, how about this idea? You can just use the rest of the previous stimulus money to pay for this program since it will only be wasted on any other approach. How many jobs will be created the minute a bill enacting this program passes? As many as the government is willing to subsidize. Let's say that the average wage of a new hire will be $10 an hour. For an average work month of 176 hours, that is $1,760 the first month, $1,584 the second, etc. until it becomes $176 in the tenth month. This is a total subsidy of $9,680 per new hire (or rehire). Let's call it an even $10,000 to keep the math simple. You create 100 jobs for each million spent. That comes to 100,000 jobs for each billion spent. If this program had been in place in stead of the stimulus bill, we could have created 10,000,000 jobs at a cost of $100 billion.
Since we spent a trillion to no avail, we could have gotten by with a tenth of that and have a solid economy to boot. There would have been no need for bailouts that did nothing for working Americans. It would have saved a fortune in unemployment compensation and food stamps. Starting in the eleventh month, the government would start collecting payroll taxes on another 10 million employees and not be in the bind it is now. Best of all, these jobs would put us back at full employment in a very short time. The state and local governments would be collecting sales taxes on all the money being spent by another 10 million employed people and not be in the bind they are in now. This is not a welfare program, it is an investment in America's future. Why does the government have to do things the hard and ineffective way?
Does this simple idea ring a bell with you? Fine. Spread the word through the internet and flood the halls of Congress with demands that the government enact this program. This is not a Republican program or a Democrat program. This can be the American people's program. The sooner this is done, the sooner we will all be better off and so will our country.
We have all watched in disbelief as the Obama administration has thrown over a trillion dollars at stimulating the economy and stemming the continual loss of jobs. Never has so much been spent to accomplish so little except to line the pockets of the special interests. You would think that even the economic illiterates could figure out that in order to create jobs, you need to give businesses a reason to start hiring. Threatening them with new taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, cap and trade, and further regulation will definitely not do that; in fact, it will only encourage them to lay off more people.
There is a very simple way to encourage businesses to start hiring people right away. It does not require a whole new bureaucracy to administer it or to send money to anyone. All it requires is to design a simple form that businesses can fill out with the name, address, social security numbers and wages of all new hires or rehires. What will encourage businesses to do that? It is because the federal government will subsidize a portion of the wages of these hires and not be sending the business a check either. Businesses know that the inefficient federal government will not get them a check in a timely fashion as the cash for clunkers program made very clear.
What kind of a subsidy would be required? The business agrees to keep the new hire employed for a full year and to replace any new hire that leaves for any reason for the balance of the one year contract. The government will agree to pay 100% of the gross wages of the new hire for the first month. The second month, it will pay 90% of the gross wages. Each month after that it will decrease the subsidy by 10% until the subsidy stops after the tenth month. Simple isn't it? This is not rocket science, people, it is just common sense which seems to be sorely lacking in government these days.
How does the business get paid the subsidy? It doesn't. It subtracts the amount of the subsidy from the payroll taxes the business deducts from all its employees' wages and sends in the reduced amount. The form is attached to the paperwork filed showing the payroll taxes that are being paid. The business gets to keep the the subsidy immediately by not sending in all of the payroll taxes like it is required to do. There is no muss, no fuss and minimal paperwork. Instead of having to cut a check for the subsidy with all of the effort and bureaucracy required, the government just collects less in taxes in the first place. Now would businesses go for this program? You had better believe they would.
You now are going to tell me that this is way too expensive. Like a trillion dollars wasted to no real effect was too expensive? Instead of another stimulus bill that will not work, how about this idea? You can just use the rest of the previous stimulus money to pay for this program since it will only be wasted on any other approach. How many jobs will be created the minute a bill enacting this program passes? As many as the government is willing to subsidize. Let's say that the average wage of a new hire will be $10 an hour. For an average work month of 176 hours, that is $1,760 the first month, $1,584 the second, etc. until it becomes $176 in the tenth month. This is a total subsidy of $9,680 per new hire (or rehire). Let's call it an even $10,000 to keep the math simple. You create 100 jobs for each million spent. That comes to 100,000 jobs for each billion spent. If this program had been in place in stead of the stimulus bill, we could have created 10,000,000 jobs at a cost of $100 billion.
Since we spent a trillion to no avail, we could have gotten by with a tenth of that and have a solid economy to boot. There would have been no need for bailouts that did nothing for working Americans. It would have saved a fortune in unemployment compensation and food stamps. Starting in the eleventh month, the government would start collecting payroll taxes on another 10 million employees and not be in the bind it is now. Best of all, these jobs would put us back at full employment in a very short time. The state and local governments would be collecting sales taxes on all the money being spent by another 10 million employed people and not be in the bind they are in now. This is not a welfare program, it is an investment in America's future. Why does the government have to do things the hard and ineffective way?
Does this simple idea ring a bell with you? Fine. Spread the word through the internet and flood the halls of Congress with demands that the government enact this program. This is not a Republican program or a Democrat program. This can be the American people's program. The sooner this is done, the sooner we will all be better off and so will our country.
Oh my lord, he is still talking
Oh my lord, the president is still talking.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/oh-my-lord-he-is-still-talking/
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/ideological-bigotry-my-book-is-now-available/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/oh-my-lord-he-is-still-talking/
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/ideological-bigotry-my-book-is-now-available/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
James O’Keefe Sets The Record Straight
Via Big Government, the James O’Keefe statement.
Easy enough to verify or debunk his statement.
Release the video tapes for the public to see.
.
The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.
As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.
It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story. MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.” The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public. The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me. And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting. The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.
Easy enough to verify or debunk his statement.
Release the video tapes for the public to see.
.
Christmas Day Bomber- System Failed Miserably
After Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano first said the failed terror attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on flight 253 showed that our "system worked", she later back tracked and agreed that the system failed and said she was speaking to the actions of authorities after the man's arrest.
She pointed to the notifications and other procedures in place as examples of what she originally meant when she uttered those words the "system worked".
Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post today showing evidence how the system failed in ore than one aspect.
He continues to show the incompetence of the Obama administration in dealing with terrorism, by providing the kicker.
The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, one year later, does not exist yet.
Everyone feeling safer now that Obama is in charge?
.
She pointed to the notifications and other procedures in place as examples of what she originally meant when she uttered those words the "system worked".
Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post today showing evidence how the system failed in ore than one aspect.
After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.
We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).
The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
He continues to show the incompetence of the Obama administration in dealing with terrorism, by providing the kicker.
The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, one year later, does not exist yet.
Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Which is why the Justice Department's other egregious terror decision, granting Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York, is now the subject of a letter from six senators -- three Republicans, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman -- asking Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision.
Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins had written an earlier letter asking for Abdulmutallab to be turned over to the military for renewed interrogation. The problem is, it's hard to see how that decision gets reversed. Once you've read a man Miranda rights, what do you say? We are idiots? On second thought . . .
Everyone feeling safer now that Obama is in charge?
.
Kirk Still Voting In Senate
Big Government asks "Why Is Senator Kirk Still Voting on Legislation?"
Big Government gets the last word:
Good questions.
.
The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry’s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry’s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was “plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.” Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.
Based on this authority, it would appear that a valid point of order could be raised as to Senator Kirk’s participation in Senate proceedings after January 19, 2010.
Big Government gets the last word:
Why is the GOP allowing the Democrats to blatantly violate Senate and election rules and laws? Where is the GOP leadership? Will Kirk’s votes stand? Massachusetts voters deserve an explanation as does the rest of the country for this blatant abuse of power.
Good questions.
.
We Don't Want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Back In Our Country Barack
After a monumentally bad decision by Barack Obama to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on American soil, to New York where the initial attacks occurred, the backlash against the decision has forced the Obama administration to start hunting a new place to hold the trial.
Reports from New York Daily News, the New York Times, the New York Post and CNN (so far), show that Obama is ordering the DOJ to locate alternative sites for the trial.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a terrorist and should be tried by military tribunal and not brought back unto American soil.
Republican politicians will move forward with their plans to block any funding to bring Mohammed on to U.S. soil.
More from NYT:
Commentary Magazine's Jennifer Rubin points out what should be obvious to the Obama administration by now:
I think the kicker here is the dueling headlines today, regarding 9/11. Barack Obama is more than willing to spend whatever amount of money, in the millions, to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on American soil, back on American soil for a trial that by all rights should be conducted by the military and yet the same man, Barack Obama, is opposed to funding the 9/11 healthcare bill that would help pay for the ongoing health problems for the men and women that were at ground zero, risking their lives to deal with the fallout, find survivors and remove the dead from the rubble.
Now is the perfect time for the Republicans and/or Democrats to bring bills up in the House and Senate to refuse any and all funding to be used to bring that monster back on to American soil.
Anyone that votes against a bill like that would be in even more trouble come November than they already are.
.
Reports from New York Daily News, the New York Times, the New York Post and CNN (so far), show that Obama is ordering the DOJ to locate alternative sites for the trial.
President Obama said through a spokesman that he still believed a civilian criminal trial for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has admitted planning the attacks, and four accomplices could be conducted “successfully and securely in the United States.” He did not mention New York specifically.
Mr. Obama left the decision on possible alternate sites to the Justice Department, which was scrambling to assess the options, administration officials said.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a terrorist and should be tried by military tribunal and not brought back unto American soil.
Republican politicians will move forward with their plans to block any funding to bring Mohammed on to U.S. soil.
Republicans in the Senate and House said they would try to block financing for civilian criminal trials for the alleged terrorists, seeking to force the administration to place them on trial before a military commission in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, or on a military base elsewhere.
Opponents of civilian trials said they hoped new doubts about a New York trial and increased fears of terrorism since the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day would win more Democratic support for such measures.
More from NYT:
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, introduced legislation on Wednesday that would block financing for civilian trials for those accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he would introduce a parallel bill in the Senate next week.
Mr. Graham, an experienced military prosecutor who has long argued that foreign terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants, proposed a similar amendment in November but it failed to pass the Senate by 54 to 45. He said he believed the same measure could pass today.
Commentary Magazine's Jennifer Rubin points out what should be obvious to the Obama administration by now:
This would be a monumental admission of error by Obama and, more importantly, by his attorney general, who assured us all that this would be a slam dunk, a safe and pain free proceeding. Now that Obama has lost his mystical powers to silence his own party, the truth is seeping out: this is an expensive, dangerous, and entirely unnecessary deviation from historical practice. Obama is colliding with reality.
On Guantanamo, the KSM trial, and the Mirandizing of the Christmas Day bomber the public and a bipartisan consensus is taking the lead. The Obami’s leftward lark on national security, I suspect, is about to end. The Bush-era policies have been vindicated by none other than Obama, who proved the alternatives to be unworkable, foolish, and politically untenable. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney must be smiling broadly.
I think the kicker here is the dueling headlines today, regarding 9/11. Barack Obama is more than willing to spend whatever amount of money, in the millions, to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on American soil, back on American soil for a trial that by all rights should be conducted by the military and yet the same man, Barack Obama, is opposed to funding the 9/11 healthcare bill that would help pay for the ongoing health problems for the men and women that were at ground zero, risking their lives to deal with the fallout, find survivors and remove the dead from the rubble.
Now is the perfect time for the Republicans and/or Democrats to bring bills up in the House and Senate to refuse any and all funding to be used to bring that monster back on to American soil.
Anyone that votes against a bill like that would be in even more trouble come November than they already are.
.
9/11 Health Bill Funding Opposed By Obama?
When I saw the headline at The New York Daily News site, "NY pols stunned to learn Obama administration opposes funding for 9/11 health bill", I thought it had to be one of those headlines meant to catch the eye but that the story didn't justify.. had to be right?
Nope.. they have quotes from two New York state Senators that participated in the meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
We are talking about hundreds of men and women that responded at ground zero, digging for survivors and removing the bodies and/or body parts of those that were murdered in the horrible terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001 that killed almost 3,000 people.
Words fail me.
.
Nope.. they have quotes from two New York state Senators that participated in the meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.
"I was stunned — and very disappointed," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who like most of the other legislators had expected more of a discussion on how to more forward.
"To say the least, I was flabbergasted," said Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.
The 9/11 bill would spend about $11 billion over 30 years to care for the growing numbers of people getting sick from their service at Ground Zero, and to compensate families for their losses.
We are talking about hundreds of men and women that responded at ground zero, digging for survivors and removing the bodies and/or body parts of those that were murdered in the horrible terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001 that killed almost 3,000 people.
"She made it clear that the administration does not support any kind of funding mechanism that goes into the bill," said Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel. "I think it's fiscal restraint… but you know what? They find money for everything else, they need to find money for this," Engel said.
"We were attacked because we're a symbol of our country." McMahon was furious that caring for the heroes of Sept. 11 would take a back seat to anything but military funding.
"I thought there was a complete lack of understanding of the issue by the secretary and quite frankly, I did not expect that lack of compassion and failure to understand the urgency of the issue."
Victims and advocates of 9/11 families are similarly stunned. Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died on 9/11 and who supports the White House in its push to try the terrorists in New York, was crestfallen at the news.
"I thought that these people would be taken care of. I would have expected better from this administration," Van Auken said, adding that she thought it sends the wrong message to all of America's would-be heroes that the government won't be there for them.
Words fail me.
.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State Of The Nation
by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
Book of Obama: Chapter 10
e placed The Holy Suit and Tie once again upon His body, and ascended once again to the Dome. There the assembled chapter of the Congress, the Holy Justices of the land, the members of the anointed Cabinet and guests from near and far sat awaiting His words. Unlike the year before, He wasn't popular. Every plan, every idea He had, was rejected by the people.
"We do not want your Cap and Trade, Health Care, or other Moonbat ideas. Your bowing down to dictators, despots and tyrants around the world does not put us at ease You have apologized to everyone for all the supposed evils that we were suspected of doing. You are getting ready to destroy our laws, by declaring the Holy Document invalid. We have heard enough lies from you, your dogs Emanuel, Axelrod, Pelosi and Reid. We've heard them all and we've learned a couple of things."
The Anointed One just smiled and then addressed the Nation:
And after The Anointed One had finished His speech, His followers were full of glee. For they just knew that once again He had saved the day.
But from right across the river, from the city of Richmond in the land of Virginia, came a new prophet from the right. Bob The Wise McDonnell.
The GOP got Teddy's seat, they can get more they will.
For the people have seen the truth, heard the lies and broken promises.
Unlike those on the left, the right will not just yell.
They are the ones, in Midterm years, come out in droves to vote.
Reid, Frank and Boxer, plus many more are running scared tonight.
For the GOP has the will, the drive and the clout,
To drive the Moonbats back into the dark.
We just have to wait for November to do it!
* The President mentioned many people in his speech, but none by name, nor did he recognize any of them in the balcony (he only recognized his wife). Could it be they are all named: Ellie Light?
Book of Obama: Chapter 10
e placed The Holy Suit and Tie once again upon His body, and ascended once again to the Dome. There the assembled chapter of the Congress, the Holy Justices of the land, the members of the anointed Cabinet and guests from near and far sat awaiting His words. Unlike the year before, He wasn't popular. Every plan, every idea He had, was rejected by the people.
"We do not want your Cap and Trade, Health Care, or other Moonbat ideas. Your bowing down to dictators, despots and tyrants around the world does not put us at ease You have apologized to everyone for all the supposed evils that we were suspected of doing. You are getting ready to destroy our laws, by declaring the Holy Document invalid. We have heard enough lies from you, your dogs Emanuel, Axelrod, Pelosi and Reid. We've heard them all and we've learned a couple of things."
The Anointed One just smiled and then addressed the Nation:short year ago I took office, but that is just a breeze in time. Look back upon our Founding Fathers, our struggles during the Civil War, the Depression. We did not flounder or despair. Nor did we despair through out the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement. And I will not despair now.
For I inherited a bad economy that was shaken to its core. I opposed all of the bailouts done, for I saw the harm they will do. My stimulus plan has created jobs in teaching, rescue, construction and other sectors.
We need Health Care now! I demand Congress to pass. Cap and Trade too. Forget about the Holy Document. There is too much to do.
I am a man of the people, representative of the Middle Class, My values are the same as yours. I love this country so much I would never bad name it. But we did wrong with the Muslim world, and other places too. I said to them I am sorry, there is nothing you can do.
I said I would create jobs, and that I will do. For every man and woman. New industries, new factories, Red, White, Blue, and Green. We must compete with China, Korea, and Germany too. This we must excel in if we are going to continually survive.
I will eliminate the nukes of the world, starting with our own. For did not the Great Reagan of old try to achieve this very goal.
People through out the land write to Me with their problems. A businessman in Denver*, or in Philadelphia, a teacher in the city, the cop on the beat, a child who wants to know why Mommy and Daddy lost their jobs, another who just lost his home. I read all their letters, I know all their problems, and I will solve them all.
I could go on all night, but that will do no good at all. I promised you Hope and Change, and did not lie to you on that, for I am not President #43.
And after The Anointed One had finished His speech, His followers were full of glee. For they just knew that once again He had saved the day.
But from right across the river, from the city of Richmond in the land of Virginia, came a new prophet from the right. Bob The Wise McDonnell.
The Prophet spoke of those with a job, how 1 in 10 lost theirs.And through it all, the world went on, the nation will endure.
He spoke of the despair the nation felt, of how the economy was gone.
He spoke of the need for smaller government, how The Anointed One did spend.
He said that the time for spending cuts and freezes were last year, not when your polling number has shown you have failed.
The Prophet McDonnell told the people that it isn't too late.
That the time has come to sit and wait,
So The Anointed One could not shove His agenda down our throats.
He told the assembled people and media the truth.
And our solutions aren't 1,000-page bills that no one has fully read,
After being crafted behind closed doors with special interests.
In fact, many of our proposals are available online at solutions.gop.gov, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.
He told them this and more.
The GOP got Teddy's seat, they can get more they will.
For the people have seen the truth, heard the lies and broken promises.
Unlike those on the left, the right will not just yell.
They are the ones, in Midterm years, come out in droves to vote.
Reid, Frank and Boxer, plus many more are running scared tonight.
For the GOP has the will, the drive and the clout,
To drive the Moonbats back into the dark.
We just have to wait for November to do it!
* The President mentioned many people in his speech, but none by name, nor did he recognize any of them in the balcony (he only recognized his wife). Could it be they are all named: Ellie Light?
Is he done talking yet?
Somebody wake me up if and when the president ever finishes talking.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/is-he-done-talking-yet/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/is-he-done-talking-yet/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
Wisconsin Senate Seat Could Be In Play In 2010
I say could be because the Republican, Tommy Thompson, ahead of the incumbent Democrat, Russ Feingold, by 47 percent to 43 percent, hasn't decided to run for the seat as of yet.
Run Tommy, Run!!!!!!
.
One more Democratic senator who has long been regarded as a safe prospect for reelection may be facing a challenging year in 2010.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Wisconsin finds Republican Tommy Thompson edging incumbent Russ Feingold 47% to 43% in a hypothetical U.S. Senate match-up. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Any incumbent who attracts less than 50% support at this point in a campaign is considered potentially vulnerable.
Thompson, who served as governor of the state from 1987 to 2001 and as secretary of Health and Human Services in President George W. Bush’s first term, is being urged by Republicans to enter the race. However, it remains unclear if he will enter the race. Feingold is seeking a fourth six-year term in the Senate this November.
Thompson leads by 10 points among male voters and breaks nearly even with Feingold among women.
Voters not affiliated with either major party break for Thompson 53% to 36%.
Run Tommy, Run!!!!!!
.
Backlash Against Obama On Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Trial Plans
I never did understand how Barack Obama thought the idea of giving the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a very public trial, in the middle of New York where the attacks occurred, was a good idea.
That particular brainstorm was initially met with overwhelming criticism and now is losing support, even from Democrats.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has reversed his initial tepid support of the idea and is now publicly coming out against it.
Two other NY Democrats are speaking out in opposition.
House Minority Leader John Boehner states emphatically that the House has "no appetite" for these trials.
Hot Air gets the quote of the day with their exit question:
HEH.
.
That particular brainstorm was initially met with overwhelming criticism and now is losing support, even from Democrats.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has reversed his initial tepid support of the idea and is now publicly coming out against it.
The mayor’s reversal was a political blow to the White House’s efforts to resolve a landmark terror case a few blocks from where Al Qaeda hijackers rammed planes into the World Trade Center, a trial that the president saw as an important demonstration of American justice.
Mr. Bloomberg said that a more secure location, like a military base, would be less disruptive and less costly. His remarks echoed growing opposition from Wall Street executives, the real estate industry and neighborhood groups, who have questioned the burdens that such a trial would bring to a heavily trafficked area of the city.
“It’s going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people,” Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference in Brooklyn. “My hope is that the attorney general and the president decide to change their mind.“
Two other NY Democrats are speaking out in opposition.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Nydia Velázquez have sided with President Obama’s GOP opponents in arguing the trial should not be held in New York City after all.
“I share the concerns from the Mayor and the businesses community, and I am open to alternative locations,” Gillibrand said in a statement this afternoon. “I do remain committed to bringing these heinous individuals to justice in the federal courts, and if the trial is held in New York, I will continue working to secure federal money for security costs so that New York taxpayers are not left with the bill.”
The funding issue, for the record, has been championed by New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer.
Earlier today, Bloomberg splashed cold water on holding the 9/11 trial in the city — even though he had supported it and pledged that keeping New York safe would not be a problem.
“If they were to move it elsewheres, I’d be very happy with that,” Bloomberg said, according to The Mouth’s supreme colleague Celeste Katz. “I mean, the suggestion of a military base is probably a reasonably good one, relatively easy to supply, to provide security.”
An Obama administration official went apoplectic over Bloomberg’s remark, reminding The Mouth of the last major security issue involving a U.S. military base - Fort Hood.
The GOP thinks that all terrorists should be tried by military commission, and Velázquez offered a somewhat different reason for siding with opponents of the civilian federal trial in New York.
Velázquez’s district covers parts of lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, and she wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that trying KSM and the other Al Qaeda detainees still holed up in Guantanamo Bay in Manhattan federal court would hurt businesses.
“The current plan would create a fortress-like perimeter around the courthouse,” and all the security blockades “will deter many visitors from shopping in the area,” predicted Velázquez, chairman of the House Small Business Committee.
“I believe the choice for a trial location has been made in an extremely shortsighted manner and I would respectfully request that you explore the possibilities of moving the trial to an alternate site,” she added.
House Minority Leader John Boehner states emphatically that the House has "no appetite" for these trials.
House Minority Leader John Boehner said Wednesday the Obama administration doesn't have the votes to change the law to move detainees to U.S. territory for trial or to spend $500 million to refurbish the Thompson prison in Illinois to host the detainees who would be held there while awaiting trial in New York City.
"There is not going to be a trial in New York, I guarantee it. There is no appetite for the trials in Congress," Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
The leader added that any effort to do so will be used in the midterm election campaign.
"This is a big issue ... and a big issue we will campaign on this year," he added.
Hot Air gets the quote of the day with their exit question:
Exit question: Remind me again, what was the name of that charismatic young ex-senator who thought a “full military trial” for KSM would be a pretty sweet idea? I can’t place it. Skinny guy, big ears…
HEH.
.
VIDEO- Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) Responds to State of the Union
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) delivered the GOP response to Pres. Obama's State of the Union Address.
Excerpts provided by Wapo (full text of speech at that link as well):
.
Excerpts provided by Wapo (full text of speech at that link as well):
JOBS
"Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector's ability to create new jobs. We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world. What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class."
SPENDING
"The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household. This is simply unsustainable. The President's partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one. The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level."
HEALTHCARE
"All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality. But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government."
ENERGY
"Advances in technology can unleash more natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your utility bills. Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore."
EDUCATION
"The President and I agree on expanding the number of high-quality charter schools, and rewarding teachers for excellent performance. More school choices for parents and students mean more accountability and greater achievement.
A child's educational opportunity should be determined by her intellect and work ethic, not by her zip code."
NATIONAL DEFENSE
"We applaud President Obama's decision to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. We agree that victory there is a national security imperative. But we have serious concerns over recent steps the Administration has taken regarding suspected terrorists."
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
"Here at home government must help foster a society in which all our people can use their God-given talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream. Republicans know that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but we strongly believe that it must guarantee equality of opportunity for all.
That opportunity exists best in a democracy which promotes free enterprise, economic growth, strong families, and individual achievement."
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
"Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best."
.
Obama's State Of The Union Address 2010- More Campaign Promises
You can read the text of Barack Obama's State Of The Union Address at the New York Times, in it's entirety.
One moment being spoken about in the news and blogosphere, at length, was when Obama took a shot at the Supreme Court regarding the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling and Justice Sam Alito visibly shook his head and mouthed the words "not true."
Via The Politico:
A nice Joe Wilson moment.
Analysis of Obama's assertion:
Polifact checks Obama's facts and headlines with "Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies."
While Polifacts piece is worth a read, Bradley A. Smith, who is a Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, gets straight to the point:
Randy Barnett, Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, speaks about decorum and states the President owes the justices an apology.
The Speech Itself:
Politics Daily calls Obama's speech "A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address."
His speech was more like a continuation of his campaign, trying to recapture his golden moments where people still believed him.
Not only did Alito capture the media's attention, siphoning off much of the interest in Obama's "campaign promises", but to many Obama himself has lost sight of "reality".
I made a prediction yesterday, stating "His polling numbers will rise by a few points, for about two weeks and then they will drop back to where they are now before declining even more yet again."
The only change I would make to that now, is I think his poll numbers will go back down after the first week, it won't even take two full weeks.
Especially with journalists, like those at Associated Press that fact checks Obama's SOTU rhetoric.
Read the whole thing, they take Obama's promises made in the speech and check them against the reality of Washington.
.
One moment being spoken about in the news and blogosphere, at length, was when Obama took a shot at the Supreme Court regarding the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling and Justice Sam Alito visibly shook his head and mouthed the words "not true."
Via The Politico:
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.
A nice Joe Wilson moment.
Analysis of Obama's assertion:
Polifact checks Obama's facts and headlines with "Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies."
While Polifacts piece is worth a read, Bradley A. Smith, who is a Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, gets straight to the point:
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."
This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
Randy Barnett, Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, speaks about decorum and states the President owes the justices an apology.
In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.
The Speech Itself:
Politics Daily calls Obama's speech "A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address."
If substance was the main take-away of this address, it would have been merely mediocre. But what made it downright harmful for Obama and Democrats was its tone. The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn't persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. So he decided to use his first State of the Union to press his case. What he did was to set back his cause.
His speech was more like a continuation of his campaign, trying to recapture his golden moments where people still believed him.
Not only did Alito capture the media's attention, siphoning off much of the interest in Obama's "campaign promises", but to many Obama himself has lost sight of "reality".
After a series of political humiliations, Obama called on Republicans to change their course. Facing a general revolt against Washington, he proudly took credit for posting the names of White House visitors online. Promising to change the tone in Washington, he managed to be petty, backward looking, defiant and self-justifying.
Barack Obama has lost his promise. He has lost his momentum. He has lost his touch. He has lost his filibuster-proof Senate majority. He has lost his first year in office.
Tonight, he lost his grip on reality.
I made a prediction yesterday, stating "His polling numbers will rise by a few points, for about two weeks and then they will drop back to where they are now before declining even more yet again."
The only change I would make to that now, is I think his poll numbers will go back down after the first week, it won't even take two full weeks.
Especially with journalists, like those at Associated Press that fact checks Obama's SOTU rhetoric.
Read the whole thing, they take Obama's promises made in the speech and check them against the reality of Washington.
.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
CNN Poll Shows Bad News For Obamacare
CNN:
When you have lost your CNN audience, you have lost the fight.
.
Only three in ten Americans say they want Congress to pass legislation similar to the health care reform bills that have already been approved by the House and Senate, according to a new national poll.A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates that nearly half the public, 48 percent, would like federal lawmakers to start work on an entirely new bill, and 21 percent feel Congress should stop working an any bills that would change the country's health care system.
The survey's Tuesday release comes one week after Republican Scott Brown's victory in a special senate election in Massachusetts. The GOP win means once Brown is sworn in as a senator, the Democrats will lose their 60-seat supermajority in the chamber, making their chances of passing the current health care reform legislation extremely difficult.
"Opposition to health care legislation is highest among senior citizens," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Twenty-nine percent of people over 65 want Congress to stop working on health care completely, compared to 20 percent of people under the age of 50."
According to the poll, Americans are equally divided on whether Congress will pass a health care bill by the end of the year.
Fifty-eight percent of people questioned in the survey oppose the bills previously passed by the House and Senate, with 38 percent supporting that legislation.
When you have lost your CNN audience, you have lost the fight.
.
And There Goes Pennsylvania
Senator Arlen Specter who was losing his proverbial butt as the Republican incumbent Senator for Pennsylvania, decided to switch parties and become a Democrat, hoping he would do better in the upcoming November election.
Well, that didn't work out so well for him and the news keeps getting worse.
The news is even worse for Barack Obama tough, even though he is not up for reelection until 2012, his stigma is affecting House and Senate races and will be a factor in the November elections.
Hot Air points to the ramifications:
Going out on a limb here and making a prediction about Obama and tonight's State Of The Union speech.
His polling numbers will rise by a few points, for about two weeks and then they will drop back to where they are now before declining even more yet again.
.
Well, that didn't work out so well for him and the news keeps getting worse.
Among all registered voters, Mr. Specter was tied with Republican former Rep. Pat Toomey at 30 percent with 35 percent saying they don't know whom to support. Mr. Specter was up by 8 percentage points in an August poll.
But among 395 likely voters, Mr. Toomey led Mr. Specter 45 to 31 percent. Mr Toomey led Mr. Sestak by 41 to 19 percent. The pool of likely voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
Six in 10 voters think it is time for a new senator.
The news is even worse for Barack Obama tough, even though he is not up for reelection until 2012, his stigma is affecting House and Senate races and will be a factor in the November elections.
A month after Mr. Obama took office, the F&M poll showed 55 percent thought he was doing a good or excellent job and 36 percent said he was doing a fair or poor job. In the latest poll, that was down to 38 percent good or excellent and 61 percent fair or poor.
The way Pennsylvanians view the president personally also dimmed. In February, 56 percent had a favorable view and 23 percent an unfavorable view. In the latest poll, 44 percent each had favorable and unfavorable views. In October, it was 45 percent favorable, 39 percent unfavorable.
His decline is tied heavily to economic concerns:
- 40 percent believe they are financially worse off than a year ago compared to 10 percent who think they are better off. About half believe they stand the same.
- 29 percent of state residents said health care will be the most important issue in their vote for senator followed by 24 percent who cited economic issues, jobs and bailouts.
- 26 percent said economic issues and jobs will be uppermost in their minds as they vote for governor. Taxes ran second at 13 percent.
- 53 percent believe the state is on the wrong track, 39 percent on the right track. Those numbers are actually better than an October poll when 60 percent said wrong track, 32 percent right track. The improvement could reflect the resolution of the state budget standoff, which had just concluded when the October poll was taken, Dr. Madonna said.
Hot Air points to the ramifications:
Clearly, though, Specter is about to get the boot from fed-up Keystone State voters. Democrats might want to push Specter out of the race and find another Democrat with statewide standing to run against Toomey, in the same manner that they pushed Chris Dodd out for Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut. The irony is that Specter switched parties in the first place to cling to power — and now he’s put himself in a spot where neither party wants anything to do with him.
Going out on a limb here and making a prediction about Obama and tonight's State Of The Union speech.
His polling numbers will rise by a few points, for about two weeks and then they will drop back to where they are now before declining even more yet again.
.
Liberal Jews--The New Eunuchs
Liberal Jews are the new eunuchs.
Maybe one day they will grow a pair before it is too late.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/liberal-jews-the-new-eunuchs/
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/ideological-bigotry-my-book-is-now-available/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
Maybe one day they will grow a pair before it is too late.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/liberal-jews-the-new-eunuchs/
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/04/ideological-bigotry-my-book-is-now-available/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
Meeting Colonel Ralph Peters
I recently had the honor of meeting Colonel Ralph Peters.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/meeting-colonel-ralph-peters/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/meeting-colonel-ralph-peters/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
West Bank--Israel Forever, Palestine Never
Benjamin Netanyahu has again showed why he is the leader of the free world.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/west-bank-israel-forever-palestine-never/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/01/west-bank-israel-forever-palestine-never/
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
NPR: Republicans 44 Percent, Democrats 39 Percent
Republicans hold a 5 point lead in the NPR polling data just released.
The poll was conducted by Republican Glen Bolger and Democrat Stan Greenberg and the 5 point lead for Republicans are the least of the Democrat's problems.
And, Bolger points out, that edge is more pronounced among people whose interest in the midterms is high.
"So while it's a 5-point lead overall, among the most interested voters, that lead doubles," Bolger says. "And we saw that take effect in Virginia; we saw it took effect in [the] New Jersey gubernatorial race; and we saw it take effect in the Massachusetts Senate race as well."
Related:
Democrats fall as fast as Nixon Republicans in 1974
Many people ask me whether the Democrats are in as much trouble as they were in 1994. The numbers suggest they are in much deeper trouble, at least at this moment. Back in 1994 I wrote the first article in a nonpartisan publication suggesting that the Republicans had a serious chance to win the 40 seats necessary for a majority in the House. That article appeared in U.S. News & World Report in July 1994.
This year political handicapper Charlie Cook is writing in January, six months earlier in the cycle, that Republicans once again would capture the 40 seats they need for a majority if the House elections were held today. I concur. The generic vote question -- which party's candidates would you vote for in House elections -- is at least as favorable to Republicans as it was in the last month before the election in 1994.
.
Maureen Dowd Misses The Point About 'The One'
Maureen Dowd writes a piece spewing about how the new "One (Scott Brown) is replacing the old "One" (Obama), but she misses the point entirely.
Let us start with Dowd's snark:
Heh... bitter much Dowd?
The point Dowd misses, is that Brown, while deserving the credit for bringing himself from trailing badly to winning the Mass. special election spectacularly to take the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, he is not the "culmination".
He is not the be-all, end-all for the GOP, the Independents or the Washington elite.
He is an example, as was the August town halls, the tea party movements rise, the New Jersey and Virgina elections.
The culmination of all that, including Brown, will be the upcoming November elections.
What Dowd doesn't "get" is that the Democrats were looking for "The One" in 2008 and they got what they asked for and many are crying over it now.
Conservatives are not looking any special "One", we understand no one special person is going to be able to make drastic changes, no matter the promises, sweet words or charisma.
That is the difference between gullible and realistic.
Gullible people believe you need "the One", realistic people understand you need "many".
.
Let us start with Dowd's snark:
The New One is the shimmering vessel that we are pouring all our hopes and dreams into after the grave disappointment of the Last One, Barack Obama.
The only question left is: Why isn’t Scott Brown delivering the State of the Union? He’s the Epic One we want to hear from. All that inexperience can really be put to good use here.
Obama’s Oneness has been one-upped. Why settle for a faux populist when we can have a real one? Why settle for gloomy populism when we can have sunny populism? Why settle for Ivy League cool when we can have Cosmo hot? Why settle for a professor who favors banks, pharmaceutical companies and profligate Democrats when we can have an Everyman who favors banks, pharmaceutical companies and profligate Republicans? Why settle for a 48-year-old, 6-foot-1, organic arugula when we can have a 50-year-old, 6-foot-2, double waffle with bacon?
Heh... bitter much Dowd?
The point Dowd misses, is that Brown, while deserving the credit for bringing himself from trailing badly to winning the Mass. special election spectacularly to take the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, he is not the "culmination".
He is not the be-all, end-all for the GOP, the Independents or the Washington elite.
He is an example, as was the August town halls, the tea party movements rise, the New Jersey and Virgina elections.
The culmination of all that, including Brown, will be the upcoming November elections.
What Dowd doesn't "get" is that the Democrats were looking for "The One" in 2008 and they got what they asked for and many are crying over it now.
Conservatives are not looking any special "One", we understand no one special person is going to be able to make drastic changes, no matter the promises, sweet words or charisma.
That is the difference between gullible and realistic.
Gullible people believe you need "the One", realistic people understand you need "many".
.
Democrats send up white flag on health care.
H/T to Taylor Marsh for the title of this piece..word for word, because every once in a while we just have to give them one so they can honestly say they were "right" about the "refrain from the right."
It is ironic that after months of setting arbitrary timelines on the passage of Obamacare, we now see Harry Reid declaring "There is no rush," on getting Obamacare care passed.
The New York Times titles their piece "Democrats Put Lower Priority on Health Bill."
Now, one of those procedural aspects could include reconciliation, where the House would approve the version of Obamacare that the Senate passed, then make changes using reconciliation, where the Senate Democrats would only need 51 votes.
A couple problems with that scenario is that by using procedural tricks such as that, they would open the door to Republicans, giving them a few options as well using the procedural rules connected to reconciliation.
Considering the toxic atmosphere, politically, for Democrats in the upcoming November elections, that would be suicide and most of them know it as evidenced by certain Democrats stating clearing they will "oppose reconciliation".
Lincoln faces the same problem many House and Senate Democrats do right now.. they are trailing behind their Republican challengers for the upcoming election in November and are not willing to commit political suicide to satisfy Reid, Pelosi and Obama's agenda.
The New York Times breaks the rest of the bad news for far left progressives:
Where does this leave Democratic leadership at this moment?
At "war" with each other, according to The Politico:
Pelosi and her allies are mad at Obama, Representative Dina Titus (D-Nev.)says Democrats are "fucked" if they ignore the lesson of Massachusetts, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)calls the Senate a "House of Lords", out of touch with the people, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)says the Senate is "broken" and Reid declares he has some choice comments about the House.
Everyone is busy pointing their fingers at someone else and laying blame for the collapse of Obamacare.
I did save the best for last though.
Representative Marion Berry (D-AR), who has recently announced he is retiring, warned Obama of the public backlash against Democrats and likening it to the major losses Democrats suffered in 1994, and Obama, being the egotistical megalomaniac that he is and believing his own hype actually had the nerve to tell Berry, "Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me."
Berry now says "We’re going to see how much difference that makes now."
This will not be the last we hear about healthcare reform aka Obamacare, I am sure, but the closer to November we get, the less likely we are to see many of the vulnerable Democrats willing to jump of the Obamacare cliff.
This country needs healthcare reform, no doubt there, but all the Democrats have offered to date is a way to reform the system into socialized medicine, not a way to fix the system currently costing so much.
.
It is ironic that after months of setting arbitrary timelines on the passage of Obamacare, we now see Harry Reid declaring "There is no rush," on getting Obamacare care passed.
The New York Times titles their piece "Democrats Put Lower Priority on Health Bill."
With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” Mr. Reid said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.”
He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.
Mr. Reid said he and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, were working to map out a way to complete a health care overhaul in coming months.
“There are a number of options being discussed,” he said, emphasizing “procedural aspects” of the issue.
Now, one of those procedural aspects could include reconciliation, where the House would approve the version of Obamacare that the Senate passed, then make changes using reconciliation, where the Senate Democrats would only need 51 votes.
A couple problems with that scenario is that by using procedural tricks such as that, they would open the door to Republicans, giving them a few options as well using the procedural rules connected to reconciliation.
The GOP Senate leadership has privately settled on a strategy to derail health reform if Dems try to pass the Senate bill with a fix through reconciliation, aides say: Unleash an endless stream of amendments designed to stall for time and to force Dems to take untenable votes.
The aide described the planned GOP strategy as a “free for all of amendments,” vowing Dems would face “a mountain of amendments so politically toxic they’ll make the first health debate look like a post office naming.”
Senator Judd Gregg is getting some attention today because he vowed to make it an “extraordinarily difficult exercise” for Dems to pass the Senate bill through the House while getting the Senate to fix the bill with a “sidecar” through reconciliation.
I asked a senior GOP Senate aide to explain the game plan for making this an “extraordinarily difficult exercise.” He said the leadership — Senators Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander, etc. — are discussing how to exploit the fact that the reconciliation process allows for an “open-ended amendment process.”
That means there’s no limit on the number of amendments GOPers can offer, the aide said, or on their subject matter. A senior Democratic aide confirmed that this is the case — and that it’s a concern weighing on Dems.
“If you bring a reconciliation bill to the Senate, it’s a free for all of amendments,” the GOP aide said, cautioning that this was only part of the overall strategy. “There is no way to limit the number of amendments that are voted on. You can’t close debate. Democrats will have to vote on every politically perilous amendment that you can possibly think of.”
Considering the toxic atmosphere, politically, for Democrats in the upcoming November elections, that would be suicide and most of them know it as evidenced by certain Democrats stating clearing they will "oppose reconciliation".
"I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes," Lincoln said in a statement on Tuesday. "I have successfully fought for transparency throughout Senate deliberations on health care, and I will continue to do so."
"I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans. We have worked too long and too hard on this reform effort - we need to get it right," she said.
Lincoln faces the same problem many House and Senate Democrats do right now.. they are trailing behind their Republican challengers for the upcoming election in November and are not willing to commit political suicide to satisfy Reid, Pelosi and Obama's agenda.
The New York Times breaks the rest of the bad news for far left progressives:
Some Democrats said they did not expect any action on health care legislation until late February at the earliest.
But the Democrats stand to lose momentum, and every day closer to the November election could reduce their chances of passing a far-reaching bill.
Where does this leave Democratic leadership at this moment?
At "war" with each other, according to The Politico:
Pelosi and her allies are mad at Obama, Representative Dina Titus (D-Nev.)says Democrats are "fucked" if they ignore the lesson of Massachusetts, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)calls the Senate a "House of Lords", out of touch with the people, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)says the Senate is "broken" and Reid declares he has some choice comments about the House.
Everyone is busy pointing their fingers at someone else and laying blame for the collapse of Obamacare.
I did save the best for last though.
Representative Marion Berry (D-AR), who has recently announced he is retiring, warned Obama of the public backlash against Democrats and likening it to the major losses Democrats suffered in 1994, and Obama, being the egotistical megalomaniac that he is and believing his own hype actually had the nerve to tell Berry, "Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me."
Berry now says "We’re going to see how much difference that makes now."
This will not be the last we hear about healthcare reform aka Obamacare, I am sure, but the closer to November we get, the less likely we are to see many of the vulnerable Democrats willing to jump of the Obamacare cliff.
This country needs healthcare reform, no doubt there, but all the Democrats have offered to date is a way to reform the system into socialized medicine, not a way to fix the system currently costing so much.
.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Poll: Fox Most Trusted News Network
Heads must be exploding across the blogosphere right about now and I fully expect the fallout to be felt shortly.
Public Policy Polling finds that Fox News is the most trusted News network, ahead of everyone else by 10 percentage points.
49 percent of Americans trust Fox News with the next highest being CNN is 39 percent.
A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.
Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.
There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.
CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.
Side Note, just because liberal exploding heads amuse me, comes from TVNewser with "Fox News Finishes Week #1 in All of Primetime Cable".
Fox News was the top cable network in primetime last week, averaging the most total viewers between January 18th-24th.
Prime-time Average Viewers (Live+SD)
Week of January 18-25, 2010
Network (000s)
FOXN 3,213
USA 3,194
DSNY 2,475
NAN 2,236
TNT 1,979
A&E 1,845
LIFE 1,729
TBSC 1,597
HIST 1,541
FAM 1,442
HGTV 1,385
FX 1,329
TOON 1,326
ESPN 1,301
TRU 1,299
DISC 1,241
FOOD 1,204
SYFY 1,163
TLC 1,141
MTV 1,140
AMC 1,030
HALL 986
CNN 980
SPK 966
NKJR 812
There you have it... let the explosions begin.....5...4..3..2...1
.
America is a Racist Country
From The Marston Chronicles
What? You thought that the 2008 Presidential Election proved that America is not a racist country when we elected a black President when only one out of eight Americans are black? On the contrary, that election proved we are very much a racist country. Let's take a look at why Obama got elected. Was it because of his sterling record of accomplishment and his clear abilities to lead? That question answers itself because his resume would fit on the back of a postage stamp. Was it because he showed a knack for picking the right people to give him advice? A quick look at his choice of mentors like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Recko refutes that notion. He has continued showing a poor choice in choosing his associates as his various czars bear witness.
Then look at what people seemed to admire in him. His rhetorical abilities to read a good speech and to pick good speechwriters might be a reasonable choice. Was that enough to pick him to be the most powerful man in the world? Come on, people, let's face it, he was picked because of the color of his skin and just about nothing else because there was nothing there other than that. Picking on or choosing people based on their skin color is a racist act. That is what an large amount of the American electorate did and that makes this a racist country.
Now to be sure about 30% of the voters would vote for the donkey if the Democrats ran it but what about the other 23%? Yes, some of them fell for the hope and change gambit because Obama is the quintessential conman. Yes, some people voted not for Obama but against McCain and/or Palin. None of these can explain the entire 23%. Let's look at which part of the electorate that voted for Obama who usually do not bother to vote based on historical trends. The clear answer is the blacks and the under 30 group. They turned out in droves for Obama. Why did they suddenly do that? It is hard to come up with any other explanation but the color of Obama's skin.
Now that is not to say that most of these folks had other motives besides just the color of his skin. White guilt about this country ever condoning slavery comes to mind. Perhaps some thought that doing this would prove that America is not a racist country when it had the exact opposite effect. Perhaps others just like supporting the "disadvantaged" people in this country. None of these motives disguise the fact that they made a racist tinged decision. This was what could be rightly called the ultimate affirmative action. The fact that affirmative action is reverse racism does not make it any less racist.
Let's face facts: both Obama and his wife have been affirmative action bonus babies their entire lives. They have had everything handed to them on a silver platter primarily because of the color of their skin. Who paid for their expensive college education at top flight schools? It certainly was not them. Did they get passing grades in school based on their merit or was the color of their skin factored in? Perhaps this is why Obama's college records are sealed? Did they get jobs because they were the best qualified candidates or because they were filling a racial quota? Who knows, but the suspicion remains based on their attitudes. Like most people who get something they do not deserve, they resent it. This might explain why neither of them seems to be either grateful for living here or being proud of their country.
I am well aware that this little opinion piece is going to get me called a racist, but somebody had to say it and I just did. It will not be the first time nor will it be the last time. Over thirty-five years ago, four U. S. Senators stood on the capitol steps and told the assembled media that I was plainly a racist. Why did Senators Ted Kennedy, Birch Bayh, Phil Hardt and Alan Cranston do that? It was because I refused to buckle to the demands of Cesar Chavez and his gang of thugs to help them recall the Governor of Arizona. That led to an FBI investigation that showed no evidence of that but that part never got publicized unlike the attack on me personally. Still I will be in the good company of the town hall protesters and the tea party folks who also got called racists without any evidence to support it other than a few signs held up by people who were not even part of the protest.
Of course, calling Republicans racists is pretty much par for the course and has been ever since 1964 when it was applied to Barry Goldwater and his supporters like me. You did not hear Republicans called racists prior to that because the blatant racists were the Southern Democrats who voted against every piece of civil rights legislation ever proposed while the Republicans were by and large supporting them. This certainly included Lyndon Baines Johnson prior to 1960 but you never heard a peep about that because those real racists were all Democrats. They can even be members of the Klu Klux Klan and still be elected to the U. S. Senate. This double standard about racism has been with us for over 55 years now and is still going strong.
What? You thought that the 2008 Presidential Election proved that America is not a racist country when we elected a black President when only one out of eight Americans are black? On the contrary, that election proved we are very much a racist country. Let's take a look at why Obama got elected. Was it because of his sterling record of accomplishment and his clear abilities to lead? That question answers itself because his resume would fit on the back of a postage stamp. Was it because he showed a knack for picking the right people to give him advice? A quick look at his choice of mentors like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Recko refutes that notion. He has continued showing a poor choice in choosing his associates as his various czars bear witness.
Then look at what people seemed to admire in him. His rhetorical abilities to read a good speech and to pick good speechwriters might be a reasonable choice. Was that enough to pick him to be the most powerful man in the world? Come on, people, let's face it, he was picked because of the color of his skin and just about nothing else because there was nothing there other than that. Picking on or choosing people based on their skin color is a racist act. That is what an large amount of the American electorate did and that makes this a racist country.
Now to be sure about 30% of the voters would vote for the donkey if the Democrats ran it but what about the other 23%? Yes, some of them fell for the hope and change gambit because Obama is the quintessential conman. Yes, some people voted not for Obama but against McCain and/or Palin. None of these can explain the entire 23%. Let's look at which part of the electorate that voted for Obama who usually do not bother to vote based on historical trends. The clear answer is the blacks and the under 30 group. They turned out in droves for Obama. Why did they suddenly do that? It is hard to come up with any other explanation but the color of Obama's skin.
Now that is not to say that most of these folks had other motives besides just the color of his skin. White guilt about this country ever condoning slavery comes to mind. Perhaps some thought that doing this would prove that America is not a racist country when it had the exact opposite effect. Perhaps others just like supporting the "disadvantaged" people in this country. None of these motives disguise the fact that they made a racist tinged decision. This was what could be rightly called the ultimate affirmative action. The fact that affirmative action is reverse racism does not make it any less racist.
Let's face facts: both Obama and his wife have been affirmative action bonus babies their entire lives. They have had everything handed to them on a silver platter primarily because of the color of their skin. Who paid for their expensive college education at top flight schools? It certainly was not them. Did they get passing grades in school based on their merit or was the color of their skin factored in? Perhaps this is why Obama's college records are sealed? Did they get jobs because they were the best qualified candidates or because they were filling a racial quota? Who knows, but the suspicion remains based on their attitudes. Like most people who get something they do not deserve, they resent it. This might explain why neither of them seems to be either grateful for living here or being proud of their country.
I am well aware that this little opinion piece is going to get me called a racist, but somebody had to say it and I just did. It will not be the first time nor will it be the last time. Over thirty-five years ago, four U. S. Senators stood on the capitol steps and told the assembled media that I was plainly a racist. Why did Senators Ted Kennedy, Birch Bayh, Phil Hardt and Alan Cranston do that? It was because I refused to buckle to the demands of Cesar Chavez and his gang of thugs to help them recall the Governor of Arizona. That led to an FBI investigation that showed no evidence of that but that part never got publicized unlike the attack on me personally. Still I will be in the good company of the town hall protesters and the tea party folks who also got called racists without any evidence to support it other than a few signs held up by people who were not even part of the protest.
Of course, calling Republicans racists is pretty much par for the course and has been ever since 1964 when it was applied to Barry Goldwater and his supporters like me. You did not hear Republicans called racists prior to that because the blatant racists were the Southern Democrats who voted against every piece of civil rights legislation ever proposed while the Republicans were by and large supporting them. This certainly included Lyndon Baines Johnson prior to 1960 but you never heard a peep about that because those real racists were all Democrats. They can even be members of the Klu Klux Klan and still be elected to the U. S. Senate. This double standard about racism has been with us for over 55 years now and is still going strong.
Obama's Spending Freeze- Big News, Or Is It?
First a video, via Think Progress of Barack Obama scoffing at the idea of spending freezes when John McCain spoke about it during the presidential campaign season debates.
Fast foward to today's news, big headlines and buzz across the blogosphere.
New York Times' Headline "Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs", (the headline has since been changed to "Obama to Seek Freeze on Some Spending to Trim Deficits ")
Wow, what difference a year can make huh?
This news is not being taken well by the far left liberals though, as evidenced by Paul Krugman, columnist for New York Times.
Paul Rosenberg over at Talk Left is a little more blunt, headlining with "It's Official: Obama is an idiot."
Ouch. Harsh.
No need to show all the reactions, you can go and see them for yourself at Memeorandum, they are coming out a mile a minute and from the left they are all pretty much rants, raves and hissy fits.
Big News isn't it?
Well, come on, it is easy to rile the base but what are the chances that all this talk will become reality? Congress and the Senate would have to pass this....sooooooooooo, how about this is Obama wanting to sound good and drag those dwindling poll numbers up in his State of the Union Address and absolutely nothing will really come of it. They will put on a big show, sing and dance a little and then walk off the stage.
How about this is a whole lot of talk.. not action and the liberals, once again, are prematurely having a cow?
The irony here is that these same folks who have been ranting and raving about Obama not keeping his campaign promises to them are actually taking these newest talking points to heart and believing him again.
Say Obama is going to attempt to freeze spending, isn't that a little like closing the barn door after the horses escaped? I mean he has tripled our deficit in one year, Obama and the Democrats in Congress and the Senate have managed to go on a spending binge that would make a drunken sailor proud and NOW he spews about freezing spending?
.
Fast foward to today's news, big headlines and buzz across the blogosphere.
New York Times' Headline "Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs", (the headline has since been changed to "Obama to Seek Freeze on Some Spending to Trim Deficits ")
The freeze would cover the agencies and programs for which Congress allocates specific budgets each year, including air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks.
But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Wow, what difference a year can make huh?
This news is not being taken well by the far left liberals though, as evidenced by Paul Krugman, columnist for New York Times.
Obama Liquidates HimselfIt’s appalling on every level.
It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)
It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.
And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”
Paul Rosenberg over at Talk Left is a little more blunt, headlining with "It's Official: Obama is an idiot."
Specifically: He's going to announce a spending freeze on domestic programs (but not, of course, on the military) that is "projected to save $250 billion." The rationale is that he wants to appease folks worried about runaway deficits. Which is just what FDR was worried about in 1937.
This is Bush-style idiocy. There is no other word for it.
Adding insult to injury, at the same time, he's also proposing more Ronald Reagan/GW Bush tax cuts... which will, of course, increase the runaway deficits.
And he's also talking about privatizing NASA. Because privatizing the Pentagon turned out so great!
It's time to seriously start talking about primarying Obama in 2012. He's now officially the most conservative Democratic President since Grover Cleveland. And the dumbest one since James Buchanan.
Ouch. Harsh.
No need to show all the reactions, you can go and see them for yourself at Memeorandum, they are coming out a mile a minute and from the left they are all pretty much rants, raves and hissy fits.
Big News isn't it?
Well, come on, it is easy to rile the base but what are the chances that all this talk will become reality? Congress and the Senate would have to pass this....sooooooooooo, how about this is Obama wanting to sound good and drag those dwindling poll numbers up in his State of the Union Address and absolutely nothing will really come of it. They will put on a big show, sing and dance a little and then walk off the stage.
How about this is a whole lot of talk.. not action and the liberals, once again, are prematurely having a cow?
The irony here is that these same folks who have been ranting and raving about Obama not keeping his campaign promises to them are actually taking these newest talking points to heart and believing him again.
Say Obama is going to attempt to freeze spending, isn't that a little like closing the barn door after the horses escaped? I mean he has tripled our deficit in one year, Obama and the Democrats in Congress and the Senate have managed to go on a spending binge that would make a drunken sailor proud and NOW he spews about freezing spending?
.
Monday, January 25, 2010
CNN: Americans applaud Democrats' loss of supermajority
"The poll provides more evidence of the dwindling appeal of the Democratic party in the wake of last week's special election in Massachusetts," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Fewer Americans have a favorable view of the Democrats, and fewer support Democratic control on Capitol Hill."
CNN:
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday also indicates that 7 in 10 Americans believe that the Democrats' loss of their 60 seat supermajority in the Senate is a positive move for the country.
Our political system was set up to be separate entities, checking each other, stopping any one political class from railroading the whole country and it looks like Americans are starting to see this and registering their opinion on how Washington is being run right now. The filibuster was also created to put the brakes on any one party who took majority, and yet we hear many crying about how it isn't fair.
History does indeed repeat itself. When Republicans controlled all three branches it led to dysfunction and instead of looking towards that time and seeing what not to do, the Democrats have replicated it instead and have become just as dysfunctional.
Gateway Pundit makes a valid point here.
Of course, the fact that democrats just tripled the national deficit in one year probably didn’t help them much either.
Handicappers regarding upcoming November elections
The Rothenberg Political Report with "28 House Seats move toward GOP"
We are adding a dozen new seats to our list of districts “in play” – all of them currently held by Democrats. In addition, we have moved 16 districts within our list – two held by the GOP and the rest currently represented by a Democrat. All of the moves benefit the GOP, either because Republican districts now look safer or Democratic districts appear more vulnerable.
Given that we expect more Democratic retirements in the next few months and anticipate that more Democratic-held districts will increase in vulnerability between now and the fall, we are raising our target for GOP gains to 24 to 28 seats, with higher Republican gains possible. Of course, changes in the national mood between now and November could also benefit Democrats.
In addition, we can no longer dismiss the possibility of a Republican wave so large that Democrats could lose their House majority. We stress, however, that we currently expect Republicans to fall short of the 40 seats they would need. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate will win in November.
Come November there is a good chance that a portion of balance will be restored.
The Cook Political Report:
Democrats currently have 49 seats listed as Lean or Toss Up.
Republicans currently have 10 seats listed as Lean or Toss Up.
Cook's rates 87 Democratic seats and 26 Republican districts as being competitive.
Democrats currently have 49 seats listed as Lean or Toss Up.
Republicans currently have 10 seats listed as Lean or Toss Up.
Related Headlines:
Commentary Magazine with "Re: Divided Government Is Back in Fashion"
That’s remarkable, following the pronouncements by the punditocracy that the 2008 election represented a sea change in the electorate and a mandate for a radical restructuring of government. Americans got a whiff of that and of an unchecked Democratic majority and didn’t like what they saw. Had Obama not lurched so far Left, or had he not delegated his agenda to the bitter partisans Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the public might have been more inclined to give him free rein. If Obama had restrained his Left, the public wouldn’t feel compelled to restrain him.
But no more. It is not easy to get 70 percent of Americans to agree on anything, but putting the filibuster back in play seems to be a winner. That, once again, demonstrates just how far out of touch with ordinary voters is the Left, which has gone after the filibuster as “anti-democratic.” Many things in our constitutional system are designed to act as a brake on the power of untrammeled majorities. What is amusing to conservatives, and no doubt distressing to the Left, is that the vast majority of voters want that brake.
The Fix with "Poll shows Democrats slipping, Obama dismisses impact"
....The sentiment clearly expressed in the data is that people like the idea of checks and balances on the two parties. After the 2006 and 2008 elections saw Democrats sweep into the majority and then broaden it considerably, the coming midterm election -- if this poll and others like it are to be believed -- could well be a natural move back toward middle ground for many voters who sided with Democrats over the last two cycles. Obama, for his part, is publicly dismissive of the current surveys, arguing that there is more to governing than positive poll ratings: "I don't want to look back on my time here and say to myself all I was interested in was nurturing my own popularity," Obama said in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer. As we have said before, Obama has the luxury of riding out the current poll dip as he won't stand before voters until November 2012. House and Senate Democrats up for reelection this fall won't be so lucky.
.
The 2010 Election Polling Update
Periodically we will be going through the polling figures for the Senate and House races for 2010.
As Gemimail pointed out earlier, taking the House may be an uphill battle, improbable even, but is not impossible and looks far more possible in today's political environment than it did just 2 months ago.
Rasmussen on Senate Races below:
Indiana
Democratic incumbent Senator Evan Bayh trails his Republican challenger Congressman Mike Pence 47 percent to 44 percent.
Nevada
Democratic incumbent Harry Reid trails both potential Republican challengers, Sue Lowden, ex-chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, and businessman Danny Tarkanian.
Snip
Colorado
Democrat incumbent Michael Bennet trails his Republican challenger, former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, by 12 points.
Arkansas
Democratic incumbent Blanche Lambert Lincoln trails against all four potential Republican challengers.
Pennsylvania
Former Republican turned Democratic incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails Republican Pat Toomey by 49 percent to 40 percent.
Rasmussen on open set races:
Sean Trende over at Real Clear Politics asks the very real question of whether the Senate is also in play for 2010.
Last week I challenged the conventional wisdom that the House of Representatives is not in play. After Scott Brown’s five-point victory in Massachusetts, it is worth asking wheter the Senate is in play as well. If a Republican can win in a fairly high turnout election (with about as many ballots cast as in the 2006 gubernatorial election) in Massachusetts, is there anywhere they can’t win?
The answer is that the Senate is competitive – but barely. There are seven Senate seats that Republicans have an excellent shot at winning. After that, the going gets very tough. Still, there’s at least some chance that Republicans can pick up the additional seats needed to get them to 50, which would give them at least partial control of the Senate. The odds are long. But at this point in 2006, no one thought Democrats could retake the Senate, and at this point in 2008 no one thought a filibuster-proof majority was even plausible. Let’s go through the Republican seats up in 2010, and then address the Democratic seats in more detail.
Read the rest for a more detailed analysis.
House of Representative and Governor's races for 2010:
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Massachusetts
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Expect many more polls on other states because now reports are in that House Minority Leader John Boehner believes that no Democratic seat is safe and is determined to have a GOP candidate running for each and every House seat.
Ten months until November and the GOP has it's work cut out for them if they want to either take the House or Senate or even simply make it tight enough to where Pelosi and Reid cannot jam through anything and everything on Obama's agenda, whether votes oppose it or not.
Thing is, the Democrats seem to be trying to help the GOP.
Gotta love how they can shoot themselves in the foot so often and so consistently and then just limp over to the next highly unpopular part of their agenda and push even harder.
.
As Gemimail pointed out earlier, taking the House may be an uphill battle, improbable even, but is not impossible and looks far more possible in today's political environment than it did just 2 months ago.
Rasmussen on Senate Races below:
Indiana
Democratic incumbent Senator Evan Bayh trails his Republican challenger Congressman Mike Pence 47 percent to 44 percent.
Nevada
Democratic incumbent Harry Reid trails both potential Republican challengers, Sue Lowden, ex-chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, and businessman Danny Tarkanian.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Nevada finds Reid earning just 36% of the vote against his two top Republican challengers. That’s a seven-point drop from 43% a month ago.
Snip
In a match-up with Reid, the GOP’s Lowden now earns 48% of the vote while Tarkanian picks up 50% of the Nevada vote against Reid. . In December, both had 49% support.
In both races, the number of those who prefer some other candidate and are undecided remain in single digits.
In September, Lowden led Reid by 10 percentage points, 50% to 40%, while Tarkanian bested him 50% to 43%.
Colorado
Democrat incumbent Michael Bennet trails his Republican challenger, former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, by 12 points.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Colorado finds the top Republican candidate with a 12-point lead over Bennet, 49% to 37%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided.
The results are little changed if Bennet is defeated in the state’s Democratic Primary by former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. In a match-up with Romanoff, Norton also leads by 12 points, 47% to 35%. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate, and 14% are undecided.
Arkansas
Democratic incumbent Blanche Lambert Lincoln trails against all four potential Republican challengers.
State Senator Gilbert Baker leads Lincoln by 12, and State Senate Minority Leader Kim Hendren holds an eight-point edge over the incumbent. Curtis Coleman, a private businessman, and Tom Cox, head of the Arkansas T.E.A. Party, both lead her by 10 points. In reality, however, the numbers reflect very little about the challengers and are best viewed as a referendum on the incumbent.
The two-term senator, who was reelected with 54% of the vote in 2004, appears more vulnerable because of her visible and pivotal role in the Senate debate over health care. Lincoln was the last Democrat to vote for allowing the debate to formally begin, but she took a lower profile in the vote for final passage.
Pennsylvania
Former Republican turned Democratic incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails Republican Pat Toomey by 49 percent to 40 percent.
Republican Pat Toomey now leads incumbent Senator Arlen Specter 49% to 40% in Pennsylvania’s race for the U.S. Senate. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters also finds Toomey with a 43% to 35% lead over Democratic challenger Joe Sestak.
Rasmussen on open set races:
Republicans lead open-seat races in Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio. Democrats lead in Connecticut, and the race is close in Illinois.
Sean Trende over at Real Clear Politics asks the very real question of whether the Senate is also in play for 2010.
Last week I challenged the conventional wisdom that the House of Representatives is not in play. After Scott Brown’s five-point victory in Massachusetts, it is worth asking wheter the Senate is in play as well. If a Republican can win in a fairly high turnout election (with about as many ballots cast as in the 2006 gubernatorial election) in Massachusetts, is there anywhere they can’t win?
The answer is that the Senate is competitive – but barely. There are seven Senate seats that Republicans have an excellent shot at winning. After that, the going gets very tough. Still, there’s at least some chance that Republicans can pick up the additional seats needed to get them to 50, which would give them at least partial control of the Senate. The odds are long. But at this point in 2006, no one thought Democrats could retake the Senate, and at this point in 2008 no one thought a filibuster-proof majority was even plausible. Let’s go through the Republican seats up in 2010, and then address the Democratic seats in more detail.
Read the rest for a more detailed analysis.
House of Representative and Governor's races for 2010:
Arizona
State Treasurer Dean Martin for now looks like the Republican who’s offering the biggest challenge to likely Democratic candidate Terry Goddard in Arizona’s race for governor.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Arizona voters finds Martin with a nine-point lead over Goddard, 44% to 35%. In November, the race was a toss-up, with Goddard up by two. Given this match-up, six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.
Colorado
Now that Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has said he will step down rather than run for reelection, Democrats may be more competitive in this year's gubernatorial race. Ritter trailed former GOP Congressman Scott McInnis by eight points a month ago.
New Rasmussen Reports polling of likely Colorado voters shows that two of McInnis' potential Democratic opponents are a bit closer than that.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper trails McInnis by just three percentage points, 45% to 42%.
But Hickenlooper appears to be waiting to see what Ken Salazar decides. Salazar resigned as a U.S. senator early last year to join President Obama's Cabinet as secretary of the Interior. If Salazar decides to seek the governor’s mansion, Hickenlooper said, "I'd probably be his first volunteer.”
Currently, McInnis leads Salazar 47% to 41%.
Florida
Florida’s 2010 race for governor is looking a little more competitive.
A new Rasmussen reports telephone survey in the state shows state Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, ahead of Democrat Alex Sink 44% to 39%. In October, McCollum had a 46% to 35% lead.
Massachusetts
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Massachusetts finds incumbent Democratic Governor Deval Patrick holding on to roughly one-third of the vote no matter which of the most prominent Republican hopefuls is in the race. The governor posts a single-digit lead in both scenarios, but his challengers are gaining.
Michigan
Michigan has been reliably Democratic in recent years, but right now Lieutenant Governor John Cherry faces an uphill battle against his leading Republican opponents in the state’s 2010 race for governor.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Michigan voters finds Cherry, the top Democrat in the race, trailing two of his potential GOP rivals by double digits and a third by five points.
Congressman Peter Hoekstra is the strongest Republican hopeful at this juncture, beating Cherry by 14 points – 46% to 32%. Six percent (6%) prefer another candidate, and 16% are undecided.
In a match-up with Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, Cherry is the loser 42% to 32%. Again, six percent (6%) like someone else in the race. Undecideds rise to 20%.
The race is slightly closer when the lieutenant governor is pitted against state Attorney General Mike Cox. In that match-up, Cox wins 39% to 34%. Nine percent (9%) favor some other candidate, and 17% are not sure whom they’ll vote for.
New York
Republican hopeful Rick Lazio remains ahead of incumbent Democrat David Paterson but badly trails state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in this year's race for governor in New York.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely New York voters shows Lazio ahead of Paterson 45% to 38%. Nine percent (9%) of voters would opt for some other candidate, while eight percent (8%) are undecided. In November, Lazio led Paterson by four points, 41% to 37%. In September, the two men were tied at 38% each.
But Cuomo who is expected to challenge Paterson for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination now leads Lazio by 19 points, 54% to 35%. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) remain undecided. Cuomo had a 28-point lead in mid-November. In late September, Cuomo led Lazio 65% to 26%.
Ohio
Little has changed in Ohio’s 2010 race for governor, with incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland still trailing his Republican challenger, John Kasich.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows Kasich with a seven-point lead, 47% to 40%. Four percent (4%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.
Pennsylvania
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds State Attorney General Tom Corbett ahead of all four of his leading Democratic rivals in potential 2012 match-ups.
Corbett, the front-runner among GOP hopefuls for the job, captures 48% to former Congressman Joe Hoeffel’s 26%. Against Scranton Mayor Christopher Doherty, Corbett wins 46% to 23%.
The attorney general is a 44% to 28% winner over Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato. The closest race is Corbett versus state Auditor General Jack Wagner, with the Republican on top 43% to 30%.
But in every match-up, nearly 10% prefer some other candidate, and roughly 20% are undecided.
South Carolina
With the Mark Sanford scandal still swirling in South Carolina, next year’s race for governor is shaping up to be quite competitive if State Education Superintendent Jim Rex is the Democratic candidate.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in South Carolina finds Rex losing narrowly to two of the top potential GOP contenders and virtually tied with another. If State Senator Vincent Sheheen is the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Republicans have a little more breathing room.
Expect many more polls on other states because now reports are in that House Minority Leader John Boehner believes that no Democratic seat is safe and is determined to have a GOP candidate running for each and every House seat.
Republicans aim to have a candidate in every congressional district in this fall's midterm elections, said the top GOP member in the House on Monday.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asserted that no seat is safe for Democrats after Republican Scott Brown's victory in a special election for the Senate seat in Massachusetts last week.
"There's not a seat in America held by a Democrat that can't be won. Massachusetts proves that," Boehner said this morning during an interview on Fox News. "My goal is to make sure we've got candidates in every single seat in America -- 435 of them."
Ten months until November and the GOP has it's work cut out for them if they want to either take the House or Senate or even simply make it tight enough to where Pelosi and Reid cannot jam through anything and everything on Obama's agenda, whether votes oppose it or not.
Thing is, the Democrats seem to be trying to help the GOP.
Gotta love how they can shoot themselves in the foot so often and so consistently and then just limp over to the next highly unpopular part of their agenda and push even harder.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)