I’m going to shock a few people here by saying how pleased I am to see John Bel Edwards win in Louisiana

To regular readers of the blog this might be a shock, why on earth would I want to see the democrats get a morale increasing win at a time when things look very bad for them, much better to see them continue to be crushed without mercy.  Particularly if you look at his record on certain issues:

Edwards campaigned as a moderate Democrat; he is an Obama supporter.  One of the first things Governor Edwards will do is to accept the Louisiana Medicaid expansion portion of Obamacare.

Another problem I saw with Edwards is that he is in the pocket of the trial lawyers and would do little to support the tort reform that is contributing to the anti-business climate in this state.  The business climate in this state is dismal…that is unless all you want to come in is more chain restaurants and tattoo parlors.  Not much else is happening here.

Edwards also wants to raise the minimum wage — another anti-business move.

I also find it unsettling that Edwards seems to have no clear position on whether or not he would accept more Syrian refugees into Louisiana and that he has been obfuscating his earlier positions on this for what is apparently a more popular stance.  The Hayride outlined this word-juggling here.  Initially, Edwards posted on Facebook that he would be an “active participant” in talks with the feds so that “we can be partners in the effort to accommodate refugees…”.  Well, if we can forgive Vitter for adultery eight years ago, (as his wife did, by the way), certainly we can forgive Edwards a little verbal nuance, no?  Everyone’s entitled to change their mind, except when they lie about it.

Initially, Edwards want to accommodate and assist the Syrian refugees coming into Louisiana.  After his Facebook posts advocating this position, and the grief he took for it in the comments, he changed his mind.  Curious.

These are all valid points & if I was a republican whose only goal was victory for the republican party  I’d be pretty upset.

But I’m not a republican, I’m a conservative catholic and when I look at John Bell Edwards this is what I see:

His Catholic upbringing and strong family ties have shaped both his commitments to his own community as well as his family. John Bel’s mother taught him both the compassion he demonstrates as a legislator and his belief in the power of prayer. Meanwhile, his family credits his father with ensuring that John Bel carefully considers all sides of an issue before making difficult decisions on behalf of his constituents. This compassion and good judgment, coupled with his ability to understand the details of legislation, has made him a force to be reckoned with among his colleagues in the Louisiana Legislature.

John Bel is married to his high-school sweetheart, the former Donna Hutto and they live in Roseland, Louisiana, with their three children, Samantha, Sarah Ellen, and John Miller. Donna is a public school teacher in Hammond, Louisiana, and John Bel practices law with his nephew in Amite. The Edwards family attends St. Helena Catholic Church in Amite.

And when I look at him on the issues I care about this is what I see:

Like the governor, he is an anti-abortion, pro-gun rights Catholic; his voting record is unblemished on both issues. Edwards is also known in the House as one of the most studied and disciplined legislators on either side of the aisle. Like Jindal, he has a sharp mind for policy.

and has lived this example: emphasis mine

In the 30-second TV spot, Edwards’ wife Donna describes being 20-weeks pregnant when a doctor discovered their child had spina bifida and encouraged her to have an abortion. `I was devastated,` Donna Edwards says. `But John Bel never flinched. He just said, ‘No. No, we’re going to love this baby no matter what.’`

The commercial shows their grown-up daughter with her fiancee as Donna Edwards says, `Samantha’s getting married next spring and she’s living proof that John Bel Edwards lives his values every day.`

Edwards said the ad was his daughter’s idea `to make sure people understood where we are on that issue as it relates to our Catholic Christian faith, being pro-life.` It also draws distinctions from the national Democratic Party, as Edwards positions himself as the kind of moderate Democrat that Louisiana used to regularly elect to statewide office.

Now there was a time when a Democrat who supported Gun Rights, was opposed to abortion and were actual faithful church Catholics was nothing unusual.  Unfortunately that time was over two decades ago back in the days when I was a democrat. It’s why I left the party in 1992

Now he’s weaseled a tad on funding planned parenthood for my taste but as Jazz Shaw put it:

The answer may not be what you think. One part of the equation is that the Democrats found the right guy to run. Edwards’ biography lays it all out. A West Point graduate and Airborne Ranger, Edwards is pro-gun, hawkish and touts his family’s deep religious faith and ties to the church. If you dropped this guy anywhere else in the country he’d be a Republican. Heck.. .he’d be toward the right wing of the party.

Meanwhile in the Lt Gov race the Democrats ran a fellow named Kip Holden who has argued this on abortion

Kip Holden, a Democrat, said: ”You’ve heard that life begins at conception. That’s disputed by a number of people and a number of those people have scientific backgrounds.”

Mr. Holden said the proposed law ”boils down to the haves and the have nots. Yes, abortions will still be performed on those women who can afford to go to other states.”

Holen is also a member of Bloomberg’s Mayors against illegal guns group.

The result?  While Edwards beat Vitter by 12 points, Holden the pro-abortion anti gun democrat lost by 10 to republican Billy Nungessor.

That’s exactly the type of result I want to see.

Now normally an Obama supporting, pro-obamacare Democrat winning the Gubernatorial race in the south would be a huge story for the MSM and we’d see huge headlines and in depth coverage of the winning democrat from the MSM for a week.

But given that this is also the win of  a pro 2nd amendment, anti common core anti-abortion religious catholic combined with a loss for a anti-2nd amendment pro abortion running mate, I think they might give it a miss.

Closing thought, I’m sorry for my friend Pat Austin that she is going to have to deal with a governor who is going to be bad on a lot of issues that are important to people living in Louisiana.

But if the Democrat party decides to start running anti-abortion pro-2nd amendment candidates for governor all over the nation, nobody will be happier than I


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $5200

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

Just a reminder to all those still defending the president as a great leader:

Before Barack Obama ran for president the Democrat Party had 49 seats in the Senate and two independents who caucused with them giving them control.

After four elections where Barack Obama was either on the ballot or President of the United States Democrats have 44 seats with two independents who caucus with them to make 46 .

Before Barack Obama ran for president the Democrat Party had 233 seats in the House of Representatives and control of the House.

After four elections where Barack Obama was either on the ballot or President of the United States Democrats have 188 seats with three seats still to be decided.

That means that since Barack Obama ran for president the number of Democrats in the senate has dropped by 8.97% and the number of Democrats in the House has dropped by 8%

Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, whatever else he might have done, he certainly transformed the congress.



Malone: lf you walk through this door, you’re walking into a world of trouble. There’s no turning back. Do you understand?

The Untouchables 1987

Sen Jefferson Smith: Mr. President. I stand guilty as framed! Because Section 40 is GRAFT! And I was ready to say so, I was ready to tell you that a certain man of my state, a Mr. James Taylor, wanted to put through this dam for his own profit. A man who controls a political machine! And controls everything else worth controlling in my state! Yes, and even a man powerful enough to control Congressmen, and I saw three of them in his room the day I went up to see him…And this same man, Mr. James Taylor, came down here and offered me a seat in this Senate for the next twenty years if I voted for a dam that he knew and I knew was a fraud. BUT if I dared to open my mouth against that dam, he promised to break me in two. All right, I got up here and I started to open my mouth and the long and powerful arm of Mr. James Taylor reached into this sacred chamber and grabbed me by the scruff of the neck…

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

During the first Iraq war the day that people remember is the toppling of Saddam’s statue (I tend to remember it because it was my wedding anniversary.) but a lot of people forget that after Baghdad fell Saddam’s forces held out a bit longer. It wasn’t until the end of the Month that major combat was declared over.

One might consider it foolish to continue to fight for Saddam once Baghdad was gone, but this ignores a vital fact. They weren’t fighting so much for Saddam but for their perks.

One of the facts of life is any tyranny, while it produces trouble for most, also creates some winners.

It’s axiomatic that if you didn’t play ball with Saddam you took your life into your hands but conversely a lot of people made a very comfortable living keeping the cogs of Saddam’s murder machine going from building the palaces and keeping them clean.

And police states invariably have a lot of paperwork and record keeping someone has to do that, someone provides the supplies, the paper the tech support etc etc etc.

It is the same thing with say a local drug dealer, he buys the expensive car, his front businesses for laundering money employ plenty of folks and hires the big law firm (think The Good Wife) to keep him out of jail.

The bottom line if you go along, you get a piece of the pie and that piece might make your life a whole lot easier.

The Exact same principle works with Liberalism.

When you extract money from the taxpayer to pay for NPR, Planned Parenthood or for liberal friendly NGO’s the taxpayers might be the losers but there are plenty of winners.

The top management of those organization of course do very well, but they have employees, they have staff, their offices buy everything from equipment to stationery.

With the welfare state it’s even bigger, on the government side you have to create a bureaucracy. That involves some well-paying management jobs that can go to political friends, and plenty of low-level employment in positions not subject to the normal risks of a bad economy.

And with NGO’s it’s even better, not only do the top dogs get a very comfortable living but your staff isn’t subject to civil service rules so you have the power to provide jobs, full time, part time and interns within a depressed community. That’s real influence.

And on the receiving side, you know where that next meal is coming, you know the money is supposed to be there. There is no incentive to try to do something better for yourself in fact it’s a disincentive because once you are no longer one of the people on the receiving end of these benefits, you are someone who is paying for it.

Now imagine how those people would react if someone threatened to take it away.

Actually we don’t have to imagine we can see how it worked in Wisconsin. When Scott Walker tried to end the sweetheart deals that Unions had, deals which cost the taxpayer a fortune but padded Union coffers he was pilloried and attacked like no other pol in the country. You had legislatures flee the state, you had recalls of supreme court justices and a recall election to bring him down. The left, the media and the unions went all in to destroy him.

They failed but even after their defeat the hate still remains:

the government employee unions — which failed to block his legislation, failed to recall him, and failed to take back the state legislature — still have it in for him.

“Stokes was a state prison guard for 32 years and is now retired. Waiting for his takeout order at Milwaukee’s Water Street Brewery, Stokes couldn’t even name Walker’s opponent. That she was running against Walker was enough for him….I saw the health care was free, and I thought that was a pretty sweet deal,” the woman tells me at the Capital Tap Haus in Madison. “I had been in the private sector and I felt like half my paycheck was going to insurance.”

and that hate, from start to finish is completely understandable  this man put it best.

Ron, a bartender at Buck Bradley’s in Milwaukee for more than 20 years, is backing Walker again. He understands the unions’ anger: “If someone yanked away your gravy train, would you be happy?” Ron asks with a laugh…“They don’t like their safety blanket being taken away,”

An even better illustration comes from this graphic in Investor’s Business Daily.


As the story states

A Brazilian economist has shown a near-exact correlation between last Sunday’s presidential election voting choices and each state’s welfare ratios. Sure enough, handouts are the lifeblood of the left.

In a Twitter post, Amorim showed a near-exact correlation among Brazil’s states’ welfare dependency and their votes for leftist Workers Party incumbent Rousseff.  Virtually every state that went for Rousseff has at least 25% of the population dependent on Brazil’s Bolsa Familia welfare program of cash for single mothers, given for keeping children vaccinated and in school.
States with less than 25% of the population on Bolsa Familia overwhelmingly went for Neves and his policies of growth.

A lot of new Tea Party voters were shocked at the tactics used to repress them and attack them, but it’s completely understandable.  Control of the government means control of where or IF money is spent and the people who are getting it will do all they can, legal or otherwise, to keep those dollars flowing.

And if that means rolling over you, so be it.  They are not going to give up their fiefdoms without a fight.


UPDATE:  Jazz Shaw provides exhibit A at Hotair

Covered California issues $184M in no-bid contracts

Who do you think those contract winners will be spending their money on?

UPDATE 2:  Exhibit B: Blaming the GOP for Ebola.

Any card to save the gravy train.



Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting Datipjar below and help keep the bills paid.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup , in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


by Fausta Rodriguez Wertz

Colombia, the closest Western ally in South America, has been waging a war for half a century against narco-terrorist group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The FARC, which the U.S. considers to be a terrorist and drug trafficking organization, relies heavily on cocaine trafficking to finance its activities.

Previous president Alvaro Uribe brought the FARC to its knees. Current president Juan Manuel Santos began peace negotiations with the FARC in Havana, Cuba, in November 2013. Throughout the negotiation period, the FARC have continued their criminal activities, attacking the Colombian army, killing military and civilians, kidnapping an American, and sheltering international terrorists, as

the FARC continues to control swathes of territory and mount attacks on army patrol and oil pipelines.

Now Santos is running for re-election, after having promised the FARC’s unelected guerrilla leaders seats in Congress

Voters would pass a referendum containing unpopular measures such as the transformation of the FARC into a political party and special treatment in the justice system for crimes committed by guerrillas, as part of a package that ends half a century of bloodshed, Santos said.

In addition to Santos’s sweet deal deal, FARC leader Timoleón Jiménez, a.k.a. Timochenko, in a rambling video celebrating the FARC’s 50th anniversary (video in Spanish), asked for the abolishment of the Colombian military. Essentially, this would place the the closest Western ally in South America in the hands of the terrorist group, their ‘dream of effective peace.’

On Sunday’s election, opposition candidate and

former finance minister Oscar Ivan Zuluaga finished atop the five-candidate field with 29 percent, setting up a June 15 runoff with Santos, who was second at 26 percent.

The main issue that separates the two candidates and has become the central debate of the campaign is the Havana-based peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

The president launched the talks in 2011. He says he is committed to a settlement with the narcoterrorists that will end the conflict while delivering justice to their victims. But the rebels publicly insist they won’t spend even one day in jail. Many Colombians don’t trust a deal between thugs and a president who seems too eager to get a deal. They prefer Mr. Zuluaga’s emphasis on security. He believes the only way to end the violence is to defeat the enemy militarily.

From the start of his campaign, Zuluaga has said that he will only continue talks with the FARC if the rebels “cease all criminal actions against Colombians.”

Experts agree that Zuluaga would jack up miltary and police operations against rebel groups across Colombia, as he would likley not be involved in negotiations with the guerrillas. This would lead to greater confrontations with armed groups, but possibly would increase security for people who work in the countryside, who are most subject to kidnappings and extortion at the hand of the guerrillas.

Since neither Santos nor Zuluaga were able to get more than 50 percent for victory, there will be a runoff election on June 15.

faustaThe results will have consequences affecting the security of the entire hemisphere.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin America politics and culture at Fausta’s blog.

Harry:  (Wounded & Dying)  Chris…

Chris:Yes, Harry?

Harry:  l´d hate to die a sucker. We didn´t come here just to keep an eye on a lotta corn and chilli peppers. There was something else all the time, wasn´t there?

Chris: Yes, Harry. You had it pegged right all along.

The Magnificent Seven 1960

At the start of the movie The Magnificent Seven Chris is recruiting guns for the poor Mexican farmers when one of his old friends turns up inquiring what the action is, Chris replies that it’s just $20 & eating money to help out some farmers plagued by bandits, but Harry the high roller isn’t about to be fooled like that no matter how much Chris insists there is nothing more that what he says Harry just won’t believe him insisting that whatever going on, he was IN>

Harry: Sure, never mind. Tell me when you can.

Chris: Harry, please don´t understand me so fast!

Harry: l said never mind. l´m in. You dirty dog!:

The idea that things could actually be what they seem and that Chris might actually be acting to protect the people simply never occurred to him.

And that brings us to the Tea Party and both the left/media and the GOP establishment.

First our friends on in the left and the media (but I repeat myself).  They  look at the tea party and simply seethe.

That’s not a surprise the overwhelming national victory for the GOP they fueled in 2010 at the time of redistricting preventing them from retaking the house in 2012 and likely beyond. But what really drives them nuts are the crowds.

The left has made a career of producing Astroturf crowds. Paid union members, paid homeless, folks who don’t know what’s on their own signs who exist only to be in front of a camera to give the illusion of the support of people spontaneously turning out.

Then comes the tea party, rally after rally, crowd after crowd all without people paid to be there and if that isn’t enough for three years the media have been waiting for Tea Party violence, tea party thuggery or even tea party members not cleaning up after themselves after a rally.

They know there’s got to be a catch, a gimmick, there just couldn’t be this many people who opposed the left in general and Obamacare on their own without being paid.  They’re sure that someone in Koch industries is promising all these people well-paying jobs, or free meals for life at Chick-Fil-A or something.

If only they could figure out what!


But while the Tea Party confusion might generate frustration to the left, they cause outrage to the Establishment GOP that has been fighting them for nearly a decade.

One of the things our friends on the left like to insist is that the Tea Party movement was born over the election of Barack Obama. Today on Morning Joe Chuck Todd says the tea party is out for the money Joe Scarborough asked the question: Where were the these people when he was arguing against the spending of the Bush Administration?

That narrative conveniently forgets the movement known as Porkbustersporkbusters 1

The very first post on Porkbusters went up at Instapundit on Sep 18, 2005 at 7:00 pm and it said this:

SO THE EARLIER PORK POST — in which various bloggers posted and emailed about pork in their states — looked kind of promising, and N.Z. Bear and I got together to figure out a way to take it up a notch.

How are we going to mobilize the blogosphere in support of cuts in wasteful spending to support Katrina relief? Here’s the plan.

Identify some wasteful spending in your state or (even better) Congressional District. Put up a blog post on it. Go to N.Z. Bear’s new PorkBusters page and list the pork, and add a link to your post.

Then call your Senators and Representative and ask them if they’re willing to support having that program cut or — failing that — what else they’re willing to cut in order to fund Katrina relief. (Be polite, identify yourself as a local blogger and let them know you’re going to post the response on your blog). Post the results. Then go back to NZ Bear’s page and post a link to your followup blog post.

The result should be a pretty good resource of dubious spending, and Congressional comments thereon, for review by blogs, members of the media, etc. And maybe even members of Congress looking for wasteful spending . . . .

Feel free to copy the cool logo by Stacy Tabb (or this larger version) and use it on your own posts.

Technorati tag: .

By Sept 19th 2005 Michael Barone had written about the movement calling it a worthy idea. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post discovered it the next day. PBS had Glenn Reynolds on Marketplace the next day and before that day was through CNN was talking about it.

On Sept 22nd Townhall.com wrote this about the clash between the porkbusters & the GOP

the real debate isn’t happening in Congress as a whole – it is unfolding within the Republican Party. The debate will shape the future of the GOP. If Republicans – the one-time party of small government and fiscal restraint — cannot support spending cuts now, then they will officially signal their abandonment of fiscal conservatism, a once valued part of the Republican platform. . . .

Ironically Nancy Pelosi at the time was the only member of congress with a “committed cut” but later in the day they got an e-mail from Tom Colburn

Sen. Coburn will call for a freeze on non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. Over two years, that alone would save $112 billion compared to our current spending path. Combined with any number of the different specific savings options, more than enough money can be saved to pay for our efforts along the Gulf Coast. In addition, Sen. Coburn will call on the president to veto any new spending bills that allow for increases in non-defense, non-homeland security spending.

porkbusters By Halloween 2005 Porkbusters had a much cooler logo and within a week was already hitting Karl Rove was already a target on Nov 15th the bridge to nowhere was defunded and internal Senate GOP e-mails already were lining up against the porkbusting bloggers.

By January the WSJ was hitting the GOP for supporting incumbents over ideas and by April Trent Lott had enough:

I’ll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. We in Mississippi have not asked for more than we deserve. We’ve been very reasonable.”The government just spent $300 million to repair the rail line that Lott and his fellow Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran want to tear up and replace with a highway to serve the heavily populated coastal region.

I guess he’s hearing from people he’d rather not. You know, the ones who don’t have their checkbooks out.

The establishment GOP was determined that these “porkbusters” had to be stopped…and then in 2006 they lost the congress.

Suddenly John Boehner was speaking against spending and the late Bob Novak had this observation concerning Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, newly elected chairman of the Senate Republican Conference and a McConnell ally, is also an appropriator. So are Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Conference vice chairman, and the canny Robert Bennett, McConnell’s close adviser who sits at the leadership table as the minority leader’s counsel. These Senate GOP leaders opt for pork as the party reaches a fork in the road.

That fork offers choices not only for current government spending but also for the Republican future. One way pressed by conservative reformers would either block an omnibus bill or stop it by sustaining a presidential veto, insisting on a CR that would save taxpayers $30 billion a year. The other course makes a deal with an omnibus bill $8 billion to $11 billion over Bush’s guidelines, virtually forcing him to sign it by inserting troop money, further depressing the demoralized Republican voter base. That was the course McConnell clearly indicated last week.

Those names sound familiar As Glenn Reynolds put it at the time

Most likely result: McConnell will remain an effective minority leader for some time . . . .

The house’s newly found love for spending cuts were not enough of a selling point in 2008 but in 2010 lost in the wilderness the GOP in the house were suddenly delivered from the wilderness not only nationally but in state after state and the Republicans leaders once again had their chairmanships and with redistricting would keep them for a decade….

…but then there were those pesky voters.

The chairmen and their leaders once again had the power of the purse and the attention of K street, but the tea party children of the porkbusters who sent them there insisted that they really wanted spending to be cut, even corporate welfare but that’s not what K-Street wants to hear so they ran their own candidates:

With Mitch McConnell’s help, Grayson raised half a million dollars from business PACs, including Obamacare backers like Pfizer and the American Hospital Association, bailout beneficiaries like the American Bankers Association and the Managed Funds Association and Beltway bandits like Northrop Grumman. At least a dozen lobbying firms and industry trade groups funded Grayson. Republican senators-turned-lobbyists like Trent Lott backed Grayson, warning, “We don’t want a lot of Jim DeMint disciples.”

Rand Paul, meanwhile, pocketed only $25,000 in PAC money before the primary. Where did Paul get his loot?

The Club for Growth was Paul’s biggest source of funds, giving him $105,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Senate Conservatives Fund kicked in $36,685. These two groups, together with FreedomWorks, also spent big on independent expenditures for Paul.

Ted Cruz also came to Washington by defeating K Street. The Club for Growth spent more than $2.5 million helping Cruz in the Texas GOP primary, while the SCF spent about $800,000. K Street was backing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst — he got $500,000 from business PACs (33 times Cruz’s take), and GOP lobbyists hosted a fundraiser for him at the Capitol Hill townhouse of Democratic superlobbyist Tony Podesta.

As Cruz put it, “Everyone who makes their living from continuing the government-spending gravy train is supporting Dewhurst.”

To Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and the Tea Party going to Washington or even becoming president is about saving the village from the Bandits who are pillaging it.

But the Establishment GOP will always be Harry looking for that hidden gold in the mountains and they’ll be damned if they are going to put themselves at risk of losing fat donors for the sake of the votes  nor do I expect them to come over the hill to help those Republicans fighting for them when they’re trapped in a corner.

They just don’t have that final Harry spark in them.

Update:  Fixed a sentence that was out of order


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Tuesday and I’m still 14 $20 hits shy of my $305 paycheck.

Unlike Harry & the establishment GOP everybody knows where I stand and what I seek that’s why no establishment GOP candidate has ever run an ad here.

But unlike next week when I’ll need 17 people to fund Me, Chris, Vin & Harry 15 people (14 to go) will be more than enough for me. If you care to be one of them please hit DaTipJar below.

Senators Lee, Cruz and Rubio have gotten a lot of attention recently with their assertion that this is the last chance to rid the world of Obamacare. In the upcoming debt negotiations, they are offering a strategy to refuse to fund Obamacare, even if that means shutting down the government.  Now, no one wants the government to shut down, but this may come down to who blinks first.  Already pundits and some Republicans are saying that this is a bad strategy claiming that Obama will win eventually and Republicans will have another public defeat that will be difficult to recover from.  In the end, some say, the GOP loses.

I say nonsense. Here are 6 reasons why this is a good strategy and we should stand behind it:

1) This really is the last chance to substantially weaken the law.  Democrats knew all those years ago that they needed to build in a phased approach to the law.  Let’s face it, if Obamacare’s implementation had gone any more quickly, we may have still had the backbone needed to do something about it.  But, as it stands, years have gone by and sleepy-eyed members of Congress are tired of fighting Obama, tired of losing.  However, since the law has not been implemented yet fully (though the federal worker bees have been busy prepping to take over the free market ever since the bill was signed into law), the GOP does have a card to play here.  We would be dumb to not use it to its full advantage.

2)  We already lost the Presidential election. There seems to be perpetual hand-wringing  and whining in the Republican Party.  It goes something like this, “if the GOP stands up against Obama, Obama will win and it will make us look bad and lose the next election.  We can’t let that happen, so we need to look like we are working with him.”  This is the most asinine logic I’ve ever heard.  First of all, it doesn’t work.  We already lost!  There is nothing we can do to go back and win.  And, giving in to Obama has gotten us nothing.  In 5 years, I challenge anyone to think of what the GOP has gained strategically by compromising to Obama.  I can’t think of anything.

 3) The law is so bad that it is worth any political risk.  I’m not going to go back and conjure up all of the reports that show how bad this law is.  You can go Google or Bing that yourself.  However, at this point it is well-known that this law will have a substantial negative impact on our economy, on jobs and businesses, and on the healthcare industry as a whole.  Is anyone confused about that?

4291562_eagle_and_american_flag) Obamacare contracts our freedom.  Make no mistake, this is the definition of socialism.  The Executive Branch should not have the power to mandate whatever rules it wants to the healthcare industry.  Going forward, the government gets to design coverage for all Americans the way that it wants. The free market is no longer at play here and people are forced to pay for whatever the government deems to be “basic mandatory coverage.”  I’m not confused about how bad the health care industry was before Obamacare was passed.  But, let’s face it, this takes an existing problem, multiplies it by infinity, and then perpetuates it into eternity.

Obamacare is also a threat to religious liberty.  This is no surprise.  Anytime the government expands its reach, religious liberty is at risk.  The contraceptive mandate is only the beginning.  What other religiously controversial mandates will come out of the Obama (or any future liberal) administration that offend people of faith?

 5) If the GOP loses short-term, we win long-term.  The fact is that this may not work.  However, does the GOP become a strong party again by doing whatever Democrats want?  This battle gives us an opportunity to stand together and fight for something.  It shows voters that this Party is not in retreat.  It provides us with fuel for next year’s elections.  Doing nothing will only hurt us next year.  I’m sad about last November just like everyone else, but the reports of the GOP’s long and slow death are only going to end up being accurate if we let them.

 obama6) Sometimes you just have to do what is right.  If we don’t fight for this, then MSNBC has won, Obama and his Chicago thuggery have won, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their dishonest cram-down-our-throats tactics have won, and who we are as a party (or as a nation) may never be the same.  There is a time for compromise, and that time has passed.  The President didn’t compromise when he forced his will on the American people with this bloated takeover of the health care industry.  We cannot compromise as we fight back.

Republicans, this is about doing what is right and doing it now.  Visit the site dontfundobamacare.com and see where your Senator stands.

Lisa @ AmericaisConservative.org (This post is a reprint of the original from AmericaisConservative.org.)

There are two things that really don’t make any sense to me in the so-called “Fiscal Cliff” debate.

The first is the considered opinion of everyone involved that “sequestration” is a bad thing when it was a bipartisan law passed by a GOP House with broad democrat support and through a democrat senate with over half of the GOP signing on then signed by the president.

But there is a second question that I found odd that isn’t getting a lot of play.

We are told by both sides that we have to do X because of the election. The left says the GOP has to give into the president because he won re-election, the right says the president has to give some because the members of the House won re-election and the senate says nothing because they don’t want to remind people that Democrats have control (and responsibility) for half of congress.

This makes no sense since the congress that WAS elected won’t be sworn in until Jan 3rd.

If we as a nation are going to make decisions, one way or the other, based on the election, why not simply let the congress that is coming make these decisions? Let sequestration come, and then let the new congress do what they were hired to do when they were hired to do it.

And if we don’t like the job they do, well their contracts come up in two, four and six years.

On Conservatively Speaking and to a lesser degree on DaTechGuy on DaRadio we speak about the one party rule in Massachusetts and all the trouble it causes us.

Massachusetts and California may be one side of the coin but the NYT talks a bit about the other side of the equation:

Come January, more than two-thirds of the states will be under single-party control, raising the prospect that bold partisan agendas — on both ends of the political spectrum — will flourish over the next couple of years.

There are risks in such a political situation:

Some politicians are mindful that one-party control carries with it one-party blame — and a risk that a particularly partisan agenda will eventually irk voters and lead to a reversal in the next election.

But there is also a reward in a particular sense.

I am a conservative because I believe it is not only morally right but it produces the greatest good for the greatest number economically and socially and for the future of my children and grandchildren. Let’s work under the assumption that our friends on the left believe the same (we’ll pause for our conservative readers who might have been drinking to wipe off their keyboards after spitting it out).

Previously we have seen the effects of liberal rule in cities like Detroit but now we will be able to actually compare the results between the blue and red state as a whole.

In 2016 we will have years of data to see what states have made it and what states have not, what states have employment and what states do not, and more importantly with four years of Barack Obama ahead of us, we will see which states become places where people are going to want to live and which states are not.

I’m nearly 50, it’s my intention to live and die right where I am, but by the end of the Obama years both of my sons will be out of college and we will see where they will decide to go to make a future for themselves.

May the best states and ideas win. The only question is, will the media report it?

Apparently there is no such animal:

“It’s a shame that … more people don’t do that,” said Amin Sadri, 23, a Florida independent. “That more people, for lack of a better word, they almost feed at the trough. They are set on a certain mindset, so they only listen and gather information that is already predestined to go in a certain direction.”

Yeah Sadri is an “independent”. He doesn’t make judgements based on party…

Sadri for example, supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election and plans to do so again in 2012. Going back to the presidential race between Republican Bob Dole and Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996 — when Sadri was a small child — the disputed 2000 race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, and the 2004 election between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, Sadri said he has always wanted the Democrat to win.

…until it’s time to vote. So why does he not join the side he is actually on? Can you say: Plausible deniability

So why isn’t he a registered Democrat?

“See, that’s the problem,” he said. “As soon as I say that I’m a Democrat, people look at me and say, ‘Oh, you believe in this, you believe in this, you believe in this,’ and I don’t!”

Yeah sure he doesn’t. If that’s the truth, if he doesn’t believe what the democrats believe, then he should be persuadable, right…

This fall, Sadri will count himself as an independent voter. But if the campaigns think he’s persuadable, they’ll be wasting their time.

…or not.

Any Massachusetts voter who has seen a state with 50% vote democrat over and over knows the real story.

For many people, the ability to deny deny deny for social reasons means a lot and the faux message of being “independent” is a matter of self-esteem: I’m above the fray.

It’s BS and the NPR story talks about a fascinating study to show it:

Nosek and Hawkins proved the test was measuring people’s real attitudes by asking the volunteers to evaluate different policies. Some were labeled Democratic ideas. Others were labeled Republican. Then Nosek secretly switched the labels. The idea that used to be called Democratic was now labeled Republican, and the idea that used to be Republican was now labeled Democratic.

“What we found was that independents who were implicitly Democratic tended to favor the plan proposed by Democrats,” Nosek said. “And independents who were implicitly Republican tended to favor the plan proposed by Republicans. And it didn’t matter which plan was which. emphasis mine

One interesting thing on this story. I listened to the audio and read the transcript from above there is one difference that jumped out at me

Referring to the tests to identify what independents actually said:

Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But the vast majority did.

But in the online story it said this

Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But many did.

What is the take away? As polls usually show “independents” as 12-16 percent of the vote, the reality is you are talking 3-4% TOPS. The means one thing:

Every election is a base election and a smart candidate will act accordingly.

You can listen to the story here.

Update: I owe a hat tip to Hot Air headlines

We are getting near the end of our CPAC videos that are going up, this one is Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote

I found this video particularly apt considering this story from Shelia Jackson Lee’s district in Texas and the Holder justice department’s challenging of that law:

the group visited addresses and scoured property tax records. The group found many of the addresses were vacant lots or business addresses. Thirty-nine were registered at businesses and 97 of the addresses were nonexistent. One hundred six of the registrations revealed the same registrant registered more than once, and 207 of the addresses turned out to be vacant lots.

As Steve said at Granite Grok:

The researches estimate that 25% of the 3800 registrations in the sample present potential for fraud. If that were to remain consistent across all 19,596 suspect addresses, the result would be 4900 potential incidents of voter fraud in this one district, from this one research profile. No. We don’t need voter ID.

You can find more at True the Vote here.

While everyone is paying attention to the results in South Carolina the final tally is done in Egypt and the results are just what you might expect?

In the vote for the lower house of parliament, a coalition led by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood won 47 percent, or 235 seats in the 498-seat parliament. The ultraconservative Al-Nour Party was second with 25 percent, or 125 seats.

The Salafi Al-Nour, which was initially the biggest surprise of the vote, wants to impose strict Islamic law in Egypt, while the more moderate Brotherhood, the country’s best-known and organized party, has said publicly that it does not seek to force its views about an appropriate Islamic lifestyle on Egyptians.

The biggest oddity is the reaction of Human Rights Watch:

Western democracies should overcome their aversion to Islamist groups that enjoy popular support in North Africa and the Middle East and encourage them to respect basic rights, Human Rights Watch said in a report on Sunday.

HRW executive director Kenneth Roth said in the group’s annual report that the past year’s Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings across the region have shown it is vital for the West to end its policy of backing “an array of Arab autocrats” in exchange for supporting Western interests.

Considering the well known proclivity of Islamic groups support of gay rights this seems a strange reaction. However there is one important point worth making concerning these Islamic groups:

..both (Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi Al-Nour) have a long history of charity work in Egypt’s vast poverty-stricken neighborhoods and villages, giving them a degree of legitimacy and popularity across the country in areas where newer liberal parties have yet to get a foothold.

Your enemies always grow strong on what you leave behind.

Because if you had you might not be saying things like this:

That’s most of the plan. The rest of the plan, as Israel explains, is making life difficult for some of the pro-life Republicans who were swept into Congress last year. The theory is that voters sort of elected them by accident. And they are numerous. At this year’s March for Life, an annual rally against legal abortion, 17 newly elected members of Congress spoke, stretching the speechifying part of the event about an hour longer than scheduled.

The new members include lots of people who took over suburban districts that had been trending more liberal. The Republicans who won, in most cases, didn’t run on abortion. They got pro-life support—the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List endorsed 14 Republican congressional candidates who took over Democratic seats. But Democrats remain convinced that the new class was never smoked out.

Take Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., one of the Democrats’ favorite examples. She started in politics as a spokeswoman for Operation Rescue in the 1980s. She didn’t hide this fact, but when she began running, she said she’d “be really careful not to make this a referendum on abortion.” Her opponent, incumbent Rep. Dan Maffei, tried to make abortion an issue. He lost. And when Buerkle got to Congress she immediately became a prominent pro-life advocate. Pro-choice activists can explain all of this, or try to.

Dave Dave Dave, if you read me and the lonely conservative you would know that it was likely the linkage of Buerkle to the pro-life movement that made the difference for her.

But a large portion of NY25′s voters are in Onondaga County. I did some digging and found out that there were 147,332 Catholics in Onondaga County alone in 2000 (Sorry, I searched for hours and couldn’t find any more recent data, or a breakdown of religious affiliation of registered voters.) I’m sure enough of those Catholics are registered voters who could swing the election in Buerkle’s favor. This race hasn’t been about social issues. It’s been about the economy, the direction of our country, and the failed policies of the current administration and Congress. By running this ad Dan Maffei just gave undecided pro-life voters a reason to vote for Ann Marie Buerkle.

And as Stacy pointed out:

See? Buerkle needed a miracle to win and, by highlighting her pro-life record in the final days of the campaign, her opponent gave her that miracle. Out of more than 200,000 votes cast in NY-25, Buerkle won by 657 votes, and how many of those votes were decided on the pro-life issue?

Additionally you might notice that the polls have steadily been trending toward life for years, advances in science and medicine has changed the viability equations additionally democrats haven’t grasped the idea that killing off your own voters for two generations tends to shrink your potential voting base. Additionally the growing Latin population is heavily Catholic and not the Nancy Pelosi flavor of Catholic either.

Like all great Evils abortion will eventually fall, in the end Americans are basically decent people. Dave is betting on the wrong horse.

Update: Stacy Points out that Buerkle is going to need your financial help in the short term.

In 1941 Governor Lee “Pappy” McDaniel ran in a special election for an open Senate seat created by the death of Senator John Sheppard (an interesting fact is that a son of Sam Houston the 1st president of Texas born in 1793 was appointed as a “placeholder” senator during the time between the death and the election). His primary opponent was Lyndon Johnson then a congressman from the 10th district. The two primary candidates fought it out and both were involved in some underhanded tactics however at the end of the day it looked like Johnson had the game won until (According to Robert Caro in his book The Years of Lyndon Johnson the Path to Power) O’Daniel’s enemies contrived to steal the election FOR him to get him out of the governors office.

It turned out that Pappy although corrupt had one “virtue” and that was dislike for alcohol. Convinced it was the devil’s brew he was prepared to keep “dry” zones around military bases and his foes in the liquor industry wanted him out.

I thought of Pappy O’Daniel when I read this surprising quote from Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Fidel Castro:

Over the course of this first, five-hour discussion, Castro repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism. He criticized Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and explained why the Iranian government would better serve the cause of peace by acknowledging the “unique” history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence.

It was quite a shock to hear one of the monsters of the 20th century excoriating a modern monster for antisemitism and going on about the long history of Jewish suffering, that’s when I remembered Pappy.

Pappy was an opponent of the dangers of drinking, but it didn’t make him any less a corrupt pol.

Castro if this interview is to be believed believes that antisemitism is a centuries long disgrace and that Israel has a right to exist, that doesn’t make him any less of a murderous thug. I’m not going to fall for his pap any more that the Babliu blog guys will.

As the Doctor once told Margaret the Slitheen it doesn’t matter, you can oppress millions because every now and again you can speak up against an injustice that has nothing to do with you.

memeorandum thread here

Just as the state starts to swing in a more conservative direction our one party state legislature decides that our votes will no longer count.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

After all who cares what the voters of Massachusetts think, If enough other states think differently our votes and our decisions are don’t matter. We no longer have control of our own franchise. To say this is an abomination is too weak a word. Why even have a state?

Allahpundit is poo pooing this. He doesn’t live here.

Smitty is as angry as I am:

Abso-effing-lutely. This is what Article Five is about. Understood, there seems to be a psychological joy, which some find, in taking words to mean whatever they wish. Hence the Commerce Clause becoming the Constitution over the last century. Hence the “judicial deference” doctrine, where Congress can emote whatever it wishes, and We The People get to watch the 14-ish trillion dollar debt pile up due to Federal over-reach.

Any legislator who voted for this bill doesn’t deserve his office, PERIOD!

Ironically Under Article 2 section 1 the legislature has the power to do this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

So in theory if the legislature that electoral college electors would be selected by putting pictures of the candidate on the ground, cutting the head of a chicken and giving the votes to the person in the photo closest to where the body finally drops, they can do it.

And don’t give me the “oh we still need x amount of electoral votes states to go along, it’s this kind of incremental change that is quietly done and unnoticed. In fact it is designed to give legislators that out to minimize what is actually going on so when it takes effect they can claim surprise. The ultimate goal? To make it easier to steal a national election.

Remember we get the government we deserve, for decades we voted a one party legislature into office. We willingly elected legislators who voted away our franchise. We’ve done this to ourselves. It’s our fault.

memeorandum thread here.

…at this story:

The revelation that tax increases could hurt the economy has recently been heard from Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and, most surprising, even from Kent Conrad of North Dakota. On a scale of unlikely events, this is like the Pope coming out against celibacy. As Senate Budget Chairman, Mr. Conrad has rarely seen a tax increase he didn’t like, but this week he averred that “As a general rule, you don’t want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.”

Granted the writer is not aware of the rules concerning married priests in the church but I digress. he continues:

Over in the House, Bobby Bright of Alabama even dared to defend the rich Americans who Democrats have been pounding for years. “I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy. You don’t raise their taxes,” he told The Hill newspaper. “In a recession you don’t tax, burden and restrict.” Better don the body armor on your next visit to the Speaker’s office, Bobby.

The citizen in me is very pleased as HotAir points out:

It’s the wealthy who drive consumer spending and the last thing you want to do in this economy is reduce that by raising taxes on them

No politically this might anger their base a bit but I don’t think it will lose them the votes people think. In fact making the right economic moves makes it more likely that the recession will end and may sustain their re-election.

Now the partisan in me doesn’t like anything that helps the democrats re-election so in that sense this is bad news.

However the citizen always has to trump the partisan. I didn’t become a republican because I like the letter “R”, I vote republican because I have a set of views and beliefs that I believe in and I think are best for the country, I’d just as soon have them soon have them advanced sooner than later. If it means an issue is off the table so be it.

Stopa is one of the republicans/tea party candidates running to oppose Jim McGovern:

Stopa on the Mosque in NY: The Cordova initiative is funding this and is not good cross cultural, moving the Mosque would be a good outreach by these people, will they?

On the NASA topic: The greatest symbol of American exceptionalism is the space program, would be an ideal thing for them because it squashes American exceptionalism while promoting Islamic outreach. The president is a dilettante. He has no interest in outer space, it’s not on his agenda.

On Arizona: He brings up the apologizing for the Arizona law to China. Points out the reaction of the district to this is negative. He says the first thing we should do in the next congress is helping the states enforce the existing laws.

He looked good but really didn’t have a lot of screen time to work with. With Juan Williams and S. E. Cupp that’s some heavy competition for attention. He needed to be jumping in more, but he make some pretty good points. He certainly helped himself tonight.

…and the waiter checked my ID to be sure it matched.

Naturally if I’m a progressive person I must never go there again. After all if it is a violation of basic rights to show ID to prove who you are to do a thing as important as voting how much more a basic violation of rights is it to request it for something as trivial as breakfast?

Boy it must have been painful to say that, but that is the story at Politico:

Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.

Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff.

They stressed that she is a targeted weapon to use but that is true with every poll except maybe George Washington and James Monroe. Even Reagan, Nixon and Roosevelt managed to lose at least one state.

To win election Sarah Palin doesn’t need to be popular in 50 states she just needs to be popular enough in states that get her to 271 and she is a young lady (well younger than me anyway) with a lot of time to get there.

I just received the following statement from the Cory Ruth campaign I reprint it in full:

ATLANTA, GA—Republican Cory Ruth issued the following statement related to the NewsMakers Live candidate forum.
“I was asked to participate in this important forum months ago, and said at the time I would be honored to do so. I am still looking forward to sharing my message of independence and fiscal conservatism to all voters of every race in Georgia’s 4th District.”

“One of my fellow Republicans has accused the event coordinator of excluding her because of her race. That ugly charge has been vehemently and adamantly denied by the producer and moderator for tonight’s event.”

“While I do not know the source of this misunderstanding, I would never attend an event that excluded candidates based on race. This is 21st century America, and we’re better than that.”

“I respect all my fellow Republicans in this race,” Ruth said. “That includes Liz Carter, Victor Armendariz and Larry Gause. We are not opponents, we are competitors on the same team. I am privileged to take our conservative message to a large segment of the black community this evening.”

Ruth added: “I regret that old-fashioned racial division threatens the civil tone of this campaign. The 4th District is made up of people of all ethnic backgrounds who celebrate their diversity. I am who I am, and I’m running for office as a conservative Republican.”
To find out more on Cory Ruth and his campaign, please visit www.coryruth.com

I like it a lot better than the Newsmakers statement.

I received the following written statement from the Newsmakers live Journal. As I consider it a reply to my e-mail I include it in full along with my comments in bold italic:

NEWSMAKERS Live/Journal Unfairly Assailed

It has come to our attention that a disgruntled, long-shot Republican candidate for the 4th District Congressional seat is unfairly disparaging tonight’s NEWSMAKERS Live political forum and the credibility of its ownership team by falsely reporting and blogging that she has been excluded from the event because of her race! This is interesting, she is considered the front runner for the republican nomination yet she is considered a “longshot”. Yet Mr. Ruth (who I like) is apparently not a long shot.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There was never any effort to make this a “black only” affair, as has been alleged by the candidate and her supporters. This forum was conceived and set in motion back in April based on Congressman Johnson’s schedule Interestingly enough congressman Johnson’s office informed me personally that he was not attending due to “scheduling conflicts” and the candidates we were then aware of in the race. It took me all of two minutes to find this list of ALL Ga candidates for office, how is it I could do this and they could not? The candidate in question was not on our radar screen at the time, and has been alarmingly indignant and combative when we explained that the lineup was set for tonight, but that another Republicans-only forum is planned for the very near future.If there is a republican only forum later, why is Mr. Ruth invited for tonight?

Despite numerous conversations, and an invitation to attend tonight’s event and be recognized, the caustic candidate continues to condemn and berate Newsmakers Live/Journal in what appears to be a publicity ploy designed to garner her needed name recognition. We lament this political gamesmanship. Let’s talk name recognition. when I was in GA-4 only one voter I talked to even remembered Connie Stokes name, yet she is on the program

In the past candidates have underestimated NEWSMAKERS reach and political impact, much to their chagrin.I would think that wanting to participate in the program is an acknowledgment of your reach and impact Some choose not to show up and answer our piercing and pertinent questions, while others – in a futile effort to enhance their candidacy — falsely accuse us of wrongdoing or racism in our journalistic efforts to enlighten the African American community. It would seem to me if you want to enlighten the African American community on the candidates it would have been normal to include the Hispanic and White candidates in the race


James “Jim” Welcome, Executive Producer
Maynard Eaton, Moderator

I have sent the following e-mail in reply:


Thank you for your statement I have a few questions concerning it:

Your statement says that the event was set in motion based on the congressman’s schedule. I talked to the congressman’s office today and they informed me they would not be able to attend due to scheduling conflicts. This seems to contradict your statement concerning the arrangements.

Are you aware that the congressman’s office states he will not be attending tonight?

Were you aware of the “scheduling conflict” that precludes his attendance and if so when? If the forum was arranged based on the congressman’s schedule why was it not re-scheduled?

Since Ms. Carter is considered the republican frontrunner how is she a “longshot” candidate and Cory Ruth not?

How do you define a “longshot” candidate?

How do you reconcile your claim to: “a long reach and political influence” yet claim you claim all Hispanic and white candidates in the Ga-4 race were “not on your radar screen”?

I was able to find a complete list of all candidates in races in Georgia on this web site in under 2 minutes of searching the web as a news organization how did you establish who was running and who was not?

Is it true or false that Ms. Carter was told when she inquired about the forum that she could participate and then was told she could not. If so why was this the case?

Please explain how a forum that excludes all white and Hispanic candidates not to mention the sitting congressman will enlighten the African American community will more than a forum that includes all candidates?


Pete I: DaTechGuy
Have Fedora will Travel

If I get an e-mail answer I will publish it.

As they were kind enough to take my call and return my e-mail I will not pass judgement myself but I ask my readers:

If the forum in question was all white and the organizers of an organization called NEWSMAKERS LIVE excluded all black and Hispanic candidates claiming they were “not on their radar screen” would you believe them?

Feel free to leave your answers in comments.

Looks like there is an interesting twist going on in Ga-4, I may have come back too soon. Radio Station 1280 AM Newsmakers’ Journal is holding a candidates debate, however admittance is apparently based on skin color.

Just informed “Black Candidates” Only Tonight” So because I’m white I’m not invited to participate even though it is a Democrat and Republican debate? Hmmm- Will you call 1380 am and ask why?

Well this is an interesting turn of events isn’t it. I tried to call the radio station the mail box of the news department is jammed. I reached another person and was told that the station had nothing to do with the event although there were aware of it.

It turns out the event is being organized by something called the Newsmakers’ Journal. I sent them the following e-mail on the subject

Good morning:

Let me introduce myself, I am Peter Ingemi, a blogger out of Massachusetts who blogs under the name DaTechGuy at http://datechguy.wordpress.com

I recently returned from a trip to the Ga-4th district (May 23rd-29th) where I stayed in Lithonia and covered the ga-4 race speaking with candidates, local newspapers and voters to get a feel of the district. I am still writing articles on the trip and will be for the rest of the week.

I understand you are going to be having a candidates event tonight , your home page confirms this.

I am informed that this event is restricted to Candidates of both parties only based on race. This seems such an incredible to hear in 2010 that I can scarcely credit it.

I would like to confirm that candidates Liz Carter, Victor Armendariz and Larry Gause are excluded. If this is true I would like get a both a comment and explanation concerning this.

I should inform you that I am blogging this e-mail and any response to it.

I very much enjoyed my time in Ga-4 and hope to get back there again.

Thank you

Pete I: DaTechGuy
Have Fedora will Travel

As said in the e-mail I’ll let you know what they have to say.

Update: Here is the flyer:

Update 2: Stacy and Dan Riehl are all over this.

Considering the racial makeup of the district this is unlikely to hurt Johnson or Jones or Stokes if they get the democratic nomination but nationally this could be rather nasty for the president if somebody bothers to ask Robert Gibbs about it.

Update 3: Called Congressman Johnson’s office will be waiting to hear back.

Update 4: Peach Pundit takes up the call

I’m told that Maynard Eaton allegedly at first invited Carter to tonight’s debate and discussion but later rescinded the offer based solely, not on the content of her character, but the color of her skin.

Now, three Democrats and one Republican will tonight debate the pressing issues facing the 4th Congressional District. Only one problem: it would seem that whites need not apply for the job in the eyes of Maynard Eaton and James H. Welcome, publisher of The Newsmakers Journal. They’d rather embrace bigotry and dislike for those they don’t look like them.


Update 5: That’s interesting, the update (via Obi’s sister) at Stacy’s site says the following:

Mr. Maynard Eaton, of Newsmakers Live (404.223.5910 and 404.254.8322) claims he’s never heard of Liz Carter.

That’s very interesting. I just got off the phone with Liz Carter and she informed me she was in contact with the Newsmakers group as early as the 21st. Talking to a Mr. Weather and a Ms Kivc. She further stated that she was given Mr. Eaton’s cell number, was informed that he would be expecting his call and called him on the 28th and talked to him this morning.
Perhaps I should give him a call.

Update 6: Heard back from Congressman Johnson’s office. He will not be attending the event due to scheduling conflicts. The office had no comment on the forum but did stress the congressman’s record on diversity as the congressman of all the 4th district. (On a personal note the congressman’s office was very prompt in getting back to me again and continue to be a class act when it comes to dealing with a known political opponent like me.)

Update: 7: Just got off the phone with Mr. Eaton. He told me he had not heard of Liz Carter at the time the forum was set up and only found out about her in the last week as they were talking. This is consistent with Liz’s statement above. He is also sending me a statement via e-mail and there will be a link to where the forum can be seen streaming.

Considering the attention he has been getting today and how flat out he must be it was rather nice of him to give me some of his time today.

Update 8: Newsmakes calls Liz Carter a “a disgruntled, long-shot Republican” in their statement saying she is:

falsely reporting and blogging that she has been excluded from the event because of her race!

Nothing could be further from the truth. There was never any effort to make this a “black only” affair, as has been alleged by the candidate and her supporters. This forum was conceived and set in motion back in April based on Congressman Johnson’s schedule

These guys must be really on the ball, they schedule an event based on the congressman’s schedule yet he is not attending due to Scheduling conflicts?


Update 9: A statement from the Cory Ruth campaign here.

Vinnie and I went to Matthews Cafeteria last night to a Liz Carter event. The food was very good. This might sound hard to believe to Georgia readers but I’d never had a deep fried pork chop before. In the back room Liz Carter met with a couple of dozen voters taking questions and introducing a presentation on the flat fair tax.

A brief talk about the Fair Tax, the basic idea being that it would replace federal income taxes and payroll taxes. Liz endorsed the fair tax and has promised to support it.

A very fair question was asked how we would prevent it from being amended to make it just as big a monster as the current code. The answer is it’s up to us. If we don’t hold our reps accountable that is what will happen. I’m afraid I didn’t show very much journalistic detachment, but then again I’ve never pretended that I am not a conservative republican nor that I want a conservative republican to win.

Joe, Vinnie and the newest member of the Axis of Fedora

Vinnie was very impressed with Liz (who joined the Axis of Fedora) and took a bumper sticker and information. This is exactly what will be necessary after the primaries if this seat is going to flip. She also told an anecdote that was very telling.

I also met her sons, fine young boys although we are only 6 years apart in age she certainly doesn’t look old enough to have boys that age.

It is unlikely that I will get a chance to see her again before I leave, I’m really sorry I didn’t meet her husband, he must be a fine fellow who is nearly as lucky as me.

Update: the first paragraph should have said “Fair” rather than “flat” Thanks to kp for catching that. My bad.

I had the dickens of a time getting these files to upload which is why this hasn’t gone up earlier. But I attended the candidates forum in Norcross, where among many others the republicans running for the ga-7 nomination appeared. I had enough space on my cards for the opening statements and the first two questions.

I’ve alluded to the Memorial Day event at Doraville already, Liz Carter was there and after Col Kings presentation she talked to me a bit about what we heard:

I have to agree Chief King was very impressive and a lot of people would benefit from his presentation.

This morning I swung down to Decatur where Kathy Mitchel of the Champion Free Press kindly gave me some of her time today.

One of the things I’ve continually found fascinating is the way county government interacts with towns and cities here, far different than Massachusetts. Kathy explained to me that about a century ago a law was passed that required that county seats needed to be no more than a day’s mule ride away from any citizen. (Forcing

The Champion one of two free papers in the area
government to be close to the people) The result has been a fiercely independent group of local governments that retain a fair amount of power.

It also means that people involved in county government tend to have real world experience in doing things and in interacting with people…Which Brings us to Hank Johnson.

The congressman was involved in country government on the local level for a long time, where he was known for a slow deliberate style. This served him very well against Cynthia McKinney, both has almost identical positions but Johnson’s style was considered a welcome change.

We talked briefly about the Guam issue. As a person who has known him for years she said this is fitting in with his sense of humor and style, the real issue however is not that particular situation, it is the health issue.

Johnson style is slow and deliberate to begin with (she told me of one county meeting with him that seemed to last forever (shades of the culvert). With the sickness slowing him down even further that is a big opening that Vernon Jones perhaps exploit.

She describes Jones and competent and a man who certainly got things done, but who’s shall we say personality might be too dynamic for the district. To say Mr. Jones has a reputation would be a bit of an understatement. As for Connie Stokes she seems to get lost in the shuffle whenever I talk about the race with anyone. I have yet to have anyone volunteer much about her which bodes poorly for her in the race.

In the End she thinks that Johnson will pull it off but was believed it would be close and would not be all that

Kathy Mitchell of the Champion Free Press
surprised if he ended up in a runoff or if Jones managed to win. Here she differed from Jennifer of the Crossroads News. Where she didn’t vary from was her belief that no republican would be elected nor did she consider the tea party a potent force in this election.

We also talked about the south, how jobs and quality of life had attracted people. She also commented on how the end of segregation half a century ago helped attract national business that had avoided the south in the past.

It was such a pleasant visit that I had to rush to my event in Doraville (more on that later). I was very lucky to have the benefit of her experience and now you do too.

Dr. Mary Kay Murphy has a lot to say both about the forum and about public education:

It was rather amusing that I seemed to be the only person in the room who didn’t know who she was.

Here are a series of photos from tonight’s candidate forum.

I’d do more captioning but it’s nearly 2 a.m. I still have video uploading and I’ve been up since 6 so we will schedule this for the morning and pick things up when I wake.

Update: I should inform you that forum was hosted by the United Peachtree Corners Civic Association.

Chuck Todd, politico and the DCCC continue to spin this election bigtime. However if you look at the factors deep within this race you see that this race was not the Scott Brown race, in fact it was a race that would be tough for a republican. Lets look at the facts:

1. Statewide race vs District race:

On a Statewide level the dynamic is different than on a local level, individual pork projects for example in Boston won’t impress a person in Worcester or the Berkshires, but in a single district pork is much more noticeable. Whatever else you might say about John Murtha he was an incredible “provider” in his district and congressman Critz was worked for him for years. Kennedy’s impact was much less concentrated.

2. Primary Opponents:

What many people may not be aware of is that the democrat and republican primaries for congress were held at the same time as the special election. While economically it was a good move for the county it meant that both Critz and Burns had to win a primary election as well.

Critz took 72% of his primary vote Burns only took 53% With nearly 40k more votes to grab from Critz has a larger margin for error/anger than Burns. That suggests that Burns was not as popular within his own base. Bad sign for Republicans in the fall: Democrat primary 82,000 votes, Republican primary 45,000. In Massachusetts the primary took place weeks before. Brown’s opponent was easily beaten, Coakley won but her opponents supporters were not enthusiastic about her.

3. Other Ballot races.

One of the things often overlooked in Scott Brown’s victory is the fact that due to democrats being too smart for their own good the race was scheduled as a special election. This meant that it was the ONLY race on the ballot everywhere. In a state where democrats have a huge registration advantage in registration there were no races down the ticket to draw democrats to vote. In Pa of course you had a critical primary on the democratic side that drew national attention between Specter and Sestak that drew over 1,000,000 votes statewide.

Consider in 2008 there were 260k votes cast in pa-12 for congress, in 2006 200k. Yesterday there were less than 135k.

4. Registration/party loyalty::

In Massachusetts the majority of voters are NOT democrats. They are unenrolled 51%. That make a huge difference. Scott Brown had an independent base of voters to draw from. In Pa that is not the case. Lets look at the votes totals from 2006 & 2008 again. In 2006 Murtha took 123,000 votes. In 2008 he took 155k votes On the republican side in 2006 Irey took 79k votes, in 2008 Russell (Burns primary opponent) took 113k votes. Critz had a huge number of votes to draw from.

Yesterday Burns took 59k votes. In other words he drew 75% of Irey’s 2006 vote and just over 53% of Russell’s 2008 votes. Critz drew 65% of Murtha’s vote in 2006 and 52% of Murtha’s 2008 vote. In other words Critz drew 10% less than Burns did among his “base” voters from the last midterm and STILL won by over 12,000 votes. Or to put it another way. In order to defeat Burns Critz needed to draw only 49% of Murtha’s 2006 totals or 39% of Murtha’s 2008 totals. Think about that a second. Critz could afford to have over 60% of his base stay home and would have still won!

On a percentage basis Burns outperformed his republican predecessors by 5 and 2 points respectively Critz underperformed by 7 and 4 points. and STILL won by 9 points. Or to put it another way percentage-wise Burns needed to outperform his republican predecessors by 25 & 20% respectively to get to 50% of the vote. This proves that Ali Akbar like Tip knows how to count.

5. Barack Obama:

Scott Brown ran against Barack Obama and his healthcare plan.. Martha Coakley embraced him and the healthcare plan. President Obama campaigned for Coakley in Boston. Mark Critz ran AWAY from the president, saying (now that there is no vote to cast) that he OPPOSED the healthcare plan. He distanced himself from the president and that distance paid dividends. As Steve Maloney put it:

Admittedly, Critz is a good liar. He proclaimed that he was “pro-life” and “would have voted against the health care bill” (that Murtha voted for). He was “against the Medicare cuts” in the health bill. These comments were all incredible, but he said them with a straight face. Pelosi, whom Critz will worship as he once did “Mr. Murtha,” will tell Critz what to do, and he’ll salute and stand at attention.

There WERE incredible but they were made and the people in the district believed him. If he ran as himself it might have been a very different story.

6. No Sicilian in a Fedora:

Finally the most decisive factor. As Roxeanne De Luca clearly pointed out. “‘Every Campaign Needs to Have a Sicilian Guy in a Fedora” Scott Brown had one. Tim Burns did not. Nuff said.

Update: Ruby Slippers has more

Update 2: As does conservatives 4 Palin

Update 3: Robert Stacy who has spent more time than anyone else there puts in his two cents.

1. They are not giving Blumenthal a break on the “misspoke” business you can see Mika is simply disgusted because she knows the person and apparently expected better from him. This is consistent with the Allahpundit report of yesterday. Then again even the NYT editorial page didn’t support him.

2. When talking about pa-12 they pointed out that the democrat ran away from Obama. They are not treating it as a victory for the administration.

You would never know it was MSNBC

Update: They are reading the times editorial and are playing it up. You can see Mika is VERY pained over having to say what she is saying but it didn’t stop her from saying it.

On Pa-12 They now are playing up Capehart column saying that Pa-12 is a loss for the president. Exactly right, they are giving lip service to the NYT can’t win one race how will they win 100 business. Maybe when Todd is on they will spin it more

I’ve been mentioning how Morning Joe and Politico et/al seemed to have suddenly discovered Pa-12 when the polls were trending in their direction:

the plan apparently is to set the race now that the polls favor the dems as a possible or probable loss, so if they win, it becomes a HUGE win for democrats and if they lose, well it was a tight race in a conservative district. This is spin.

This weekend I touched on SEIU money and Mark Critz having to worry about Scott Brown being in the house, but I hit the sack without seeing Brinkley’s Robert Stacy’s latest post reporting on the latest poll, quite a difference:

The special election to replace John Murtha looks to be headed for a photo finish, with Republican Tim Burns leading Democrat Mark Critz 48-47 in PPP’s final poll of the race.

And Stacy had this to say about the numbers:

Sestak’s surge in the Senate race is the probably the only reason Critz isn’t trailing significantly in PA-12. In early April, a Quinnipiac poll showed Specter leading by 21 points and Sestak trailed in every poll through the end of April. Five of the six most recent polls, however, show Sestak leading, so Democrats have a lot more incentive to turn out.

With the latest poll showing a 1 pt difference with only a day left we would expect Morning Joe to mention the race again…

…you would be wrong. They talked about PA all right but only about the Senate race, they discussed it in each segment and even brought in Gov Rendell who talked up Arlen Specter. Not a single word about Pa-12, and Rush would say, zip zero nada.

It couldn’t be that seeing the new poll they decided to focus on the Senate race to bump up democratic turnout in the district could it?

over in PA-12 doing short interviews and highlighting more interesting ads. Huntley who was busy attending a pair of First communions thinks that highlighting the ad is a mistake, since if a person goes to Factcheck.org to see what it says it shows a critique both the Critz ad AND this Burns one.

However the $142k from SEIU, now that’s significant, can Stacy/Brinkley find some SEIU for Burns people, that would really heat things up.

Meanwhile since neither Tucker nor Ricochet have made an offer to the new conservative Huntley & Brinkley I guess we will have to fend for ourselves.

You will have to wait till the end of the month for my swag/pitch.

not only because of GOP star of the year Scott Brown’s appearance on his behalf but because of a of a new twist.

Pittsburgh TV station WPGH has suspended the latest ad for Democrat Mark Critz for making false claims. The ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee falsely claimed that Republican Tim Burns supports a 23 percent national sales tax and wants to ship jobs overseas.

Dave Weigel notes that Democrats stand behind the claim and the ad remains up in other markets:

…they stand by the arguments in their ad, which are based on Burns’s support of the Fair Tax and his signing of Americans for Tax Reform’s taxpayer protection pledge. Democrats tell me the ad will remain on the air on other TV stations in Pittsburgh and Johnstown, which serve Pennsylvania’s 12th District

they are blaming this on the station’s conservative ownership. I wonder if they will claim factcheck.org is another bunch of biased conservatives too?

But this ad is quite misleading because it fails to mention that the FairTax proposal would also repeal the federal income tax entirely and do away with the Internal Revenue Service. It would also eliminate gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare and self-employment taxes. But anyone viewing the DCCC’s ad could easily conclude that Burns favored slapping a 23 percent sales tax on top of all existing taxes, which is not true.

Usually it would be an issue if factcheck disputed the ad but as Robert Stacy points out:

Well, of course, the Democrats aren’t backing down. They’ve got the MSM to cover their asses and pretend that the Fair Tax represents a “national sales tax” over and above current federal taxes. Of course, they don’t want to deal with the facts.

What is even more interesting and something I’ve touched on before is how a race that didn’t get much national attention when the newest polls showed Burns up by as much as 6 points last month in a heavily democratic district has suddenly become a “must win” for Republicans in a district they haven’t won in 38 years UPDATE: The previous sentence originally said 70+ years, that was misleading, the current 12th district is made up of two additional districts that haven’t elected a republican in 70+ years. In the 12th district that last republican to win was John Saylor in 1972, that’s my bad. when the latest poll give Critz an advantage As Sean Trende points out:

there are over sixty districts represented by Democrats with better Republican performances than PA-12. The Republicans’ path to 218 seats doesn’t necessarily run through this district – in fact, I don’t think their path to a 1994-esque 230 seats necessarily runs through this district.

This is basically extending the Morning Joe spin of yesterday to pretend if the democrats win that the tide of opinion has turned. We all know what the real question is: Can Burns manage to pull it off even without the presence of a Sicilian with a fedora?

As it is already Friday and there is only 4 days left before the Election in PA i’ve concluded that PA-12 will have to do without the presence of a Sicilian in a Fedora. Lucky for Tim Burns he had a much more popular visitor from Massachusetts and Robert Stacy provided the Fedora. Hopefully it will be enough.

Meanwhile My plans For Ga-4 have not yet fallen through. The contributor to Pa-12 agreed to apply his gift to Ga-4 putting me $830 away from my initial goal.

Well there is still a week to make up as much of that as I can. If you think some coverage in GA-4 would be worthwhile and would like to help me get there, hit DaTipJar and get me closer to the prize.

…stalling on Ny-29:

I guess Governor David Paterson, the one who wasn’t elected and isn’t running again, has decided the people of New York’s 29th Congressional District don’t deserve representation in Congress. When the creepy Eric Massa (Demented) resigned, he left an open seat. Paterson refuses to set a date for a special election.

I would feel good about this if I were you. It was stuff like this that made Scott Brown possible.

I suggest that if the democrats had not tried to game the Senate Election in Massachusetts. If Kennedy was simply replaced in Nov at the time of the regular election Brown might not have one and he was the domino that made everything else fall.

and politico called it a bellwether race.

Strangely enough all the time that Tim Burns was leading it didn’t make the cut, but now that the latest poll shows Critz leading it becomes critical.

I could be totally wrong about this, Politico on Morning Joe mentioned that it could go either way but I’m shocked it didn’t warrant interest last month.

Update: Now David Gregory is calling Pa-12 a “toss up race”. The plan apparently is to set the race now that the polls favor the dems as a possible or probable loss, so if they win, it becomes a HUGE win for democrats and if they lose, well it was a tight race in a conservative district. This is spin.

Even funnier than the headline are the reasons that the organizers give for dropping them:

Andrew Chavez, a professional petition circulator involved in one of the efforts, said its backers pulled the plug after concluding they might not be able to time their petition filings in such a way as to put the law on hold pending a 2012 public vote.

Jon Garrido, the chief organizer of the other drive, attributed its end to a belief that the law would have been subject to legal protections under Arizona’s Constitution if approved by Arizona voters.

The actual reason. People in Arizona support the law by 70% and throughout the country by 60%. Plus you have stuff like this going on. They would not only lose, they would lose spectacularly!

When you have the Suns trying to remove fans who disagree with their political views these guys are getting nervous.

The last thing they need is to show just how little support they actually have.

…I don’t know Elena Kagan personally, never met her, never really followed her. I don’t know if she is a lesbian or not and frankly don’t care. It seems to be an “open secret” but I’ve never really gone for “open secret” stuff. If she wants to declare her sexual preference that’s fine, if not that’s fine too. It’s not true one way or another until she says so and either way it’s not my business.

That being said what is really interesting watching Morning Joe this morning is the number of times the words “4th woman” (over and over) vs the number of times “1st lesbian” (never) is being said.

If this is something “everyone knows” the fact that the media won’t and hasn’t said it is very telling. The media has constantly bombarded us with the proposition that Homosexuality in all its forms should be embraced and even celebrated by society. Yet, if this is true, the historic nature of this nomination the “breakthrough” is not being touched. Not even being alluded to.

Why is this the case? In my opinion three reasons:

1. They are convinced that this will hurt them (the administration) in the elections this year. They are already in rough shape and don’t want to make things worse.

2. If it is discussed they want it to come from a conservative outlet so they can cry “bigotry”.

3. Demographics. If you look at Prop 8 the Black community is not on board with the whole Gay Marriage thing. This year there are an unprecedented amount of black conservatives running on the republican side. Cynthia is on the money here. If the black or Latino community move even slightly toward the R column the game will be over for Democrats for generations.

This I think speaks to the hypocrisy of the media more than anything else.

Of course maybe they think she is another Gregg Kravitz.

Presuming she is the nominee I will likely oppose her based on her judicial philosophy (yes I’m going to use the same standard the left uses for us) , however from what I can see there is no question that she is a qualified candidate and philosophy aside certainly can do the job. If she however wants to use foreign or international law as a precedent for ruling then we have a real problem here, but that problem if it exists wont be with who she is sleeping with.

Update: Interesting. I believe the true expression of media bias is not what the media says but what it doesn’t. Take a look at this Media Matters list of “Myths” about Elena Kagan and note what is not said.

Update 2: Legal Insurrection points out another irony.

Update 3: Camp of the saints calls my reasoning fine but doesn’t answer the real question. I know that in the photo at the bottom of his page I’m the guy on the left, which one of the remaining two are him and which is Robert Stacy?

Update 4 Andrew Sullivan and Hot Air address the question Stacy, Cynthia and I have been talking about this morning. Keep track of the relative times. Sullivan is going to be a very important reference at this blog in about 20 days.

Update: Little Miss Attila has the last and the funniest word on the subject:

I’d love to jump into the fray and demand that Elena Kagan disclose any feelings she might have about women as potential life partners, but I’m searching desperately for my gay agenda. I think I may have left it in the closet . . .

That’s a pretty good line.

Here is what appeared on this blog March 24th:

Remember it is a lot cheaper to pay the fine than to actually cover the employee, so who is going to have to pay that cost? Back to Dennis:

Next year you’re going to have to purchase the insurance yourself or pay a large fine and face the possibility of prosecution and imprisonment.

So the end result thousands of dollars spent by people on health insurance that will not be spent on other things, like vacations, or restaurants, or that x-box 360 or COLLEGE or the MORTGAGE.

Well look at what it at Hotair today:

It’s not just the calculus of mandates and penalties that has employers considering the option of dumping health care and paying more in salaries instead. The mandate to keep “children” on plans until the age of 26 has employers seeing a steep cost curve. For Caterpillar alone, the 26-year-old mandate will cost over $20 million a year. Under those conditions, the penalties look pretty good. Add on the “Cadillac tax” on some health plans and the expected jump in medical costs from providers dealing with their own set of mandates, and health insurance looks like a very bad risk.</blockquote

They link to this story that says:

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

And if that doesn’t do it check this article:

Section 9006 of the health care bill — just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document — mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year.

This is a business killer, a large corporation has the staff already doing this kind of thing but smaller business will be paying the price helping to drive them away. I thought the democrats were against large corporations? Amazing how CNN never figured this out before the vote huh?

Remember America, we (collectively) elected these clowns. You wanted Barack Obama and the democrats you’ve got them. Enjoy!