THE INTIMIDATION FACTOR

Today's the big day!  If the polls are right, this could be a real nail-biter.  But there's a chance that those polls aren't right.  Ace of Spades has a great rundown on why he doesn't have faith in the polls.  I tend to agree. 

As Ace points out, the most glaring problem with many of the battleground polls is that they assume the electorate will turn out in droves for democrats.  Not just keeping on par with the historic turnout of 2008, but often surpassing it - sometimes by half.  That just seems wrong, coming on the heels of the historic loss of the House in 2010 and the Wisconsin recall elections, if nothing else.  Add in the rather consistent fifty-two-ish percent of the electorate that disapproves of issues such as healthcare, the economy, the deficit, etc., and it just doesn't seem like the President has much wind at his back.

But there is another dynamic that has been ignored by the press - the intimidation factor.  For the past four-plus years, since Obama was still a senator running for president, those who don't support him or his policies have been called racist, sexist, and homophobic.   They have been hectored, lectured, patronized and treated like simpletons.  When polled, do these people tell the truth, or do they tell a little fib to keep the heat off?

A friend of mine called me the other day and told me that an Obama campaigner had just knocked on her door.  She was looking for the former resident, but upon learning that she no longer lived there asked my friend if she were registered to vote.  She hesitated a moment, then answered that yes, she was, and she had already voted, hoping that would be the end of the conversation but bracing herself anyway:

"Who did you vote for?"

Again she paused, weighing her options.  On the one hand, she could say it was none of the Obama supporter's business, but didn't want to come off combative and rude.  What came blurting out of her mouth instead was:

"Why, Obama, of course!"

The thing is, that's not how she really voted.  It just so happens that we went over our ballots together, researching and discussing the candidates and amendments, weighing the pros and cons.  When she came home from her three-hour odyssey at the polling place (I voted by absentee ballot), she proudly recounted every moment of her experience, including her satisfaction at filling in the circle for Mitt Romney.  For a little background, she had been flirting with a few of the libertarian candidates almost up until the moment she went to the voting booth.  Ultimately, she decided that this election was too important to throw away her vote on a third party candidate. 

She had a tough slog this election cycle.  Not normally political, she has spent the past twenty years in Los Angeles, working in the entertainment industry.  Her knee-jerk reaction to most things tended to be liberal.  But once out of the bubble, she embraced libertarianism, leaning liberal socially and conservative economically.  She spent a lot of time researching and bouncing from one libertarian candidate to another to Romney and back again.  It was a tough decision for her, but ultimately, she was impressed by Romney's record and felt he was the most qualified person for the job, so she did what she felt was best for the country.

And yet, when confronted by an Obama campaign worker, she lied.  Even after all of the thought and consideration, even though she has excellent, intelligent arguments for her vote, she lied.  Why?

"Because I didn't want a lecture."

I don't believe she's alone in her thinking, either.  There are a lot of independents and libertarians like her who have been lumped in with republicans when it comes to liberal hate.  Their moderateness is no shield against the same accusations of racism, etc. that conservatives have had to endure for the past few years.  So they have decided, as many conservatives have, that the best thing to do is keep silent unless challenged.  At which point a fib is often the only other option to a long, potentially contentious debate and/or ad hominem attacks.  And so fib they do. 

It makes me wonder.  That OfA worker went back to her campaign office and reported my friend as a vote for Obama, when in reality she was a vote for Romney.  How many others have done this?  If their internal numbers use this information, and my friend is not alone in her reticence, their internals could potentially be as wrong as the polls showing President Obama with a D+11 edge.

It feels like enthusiasm is on Romney's side (looks like it too), as are independents.  But they are tired of the partisanship and name-calling and ultimately just want to be left alone to live their lives again.  The big question is, how many of them are out there?

The willful blindness of the media - including much of their polling - has helped create a reality in which President Obama, he of credit downgrades, deficit and debt upgrades, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the most unpopular, hyper-partisan social engineering law in modern memory - Obamacare - is competitive against a man who's record on turning around failed companies is, according to Bill Clinton, "stellar" and understands the engine of the economy in a way the current administration never will.  The question is, will that reality stand?  Or will the people who have been pretending to buy it step up and let their voice be heard from the anonymous confines of the voting booth?

Here's hoping George Will, Michael Barone and others are right and that this ends up being a big, red wave that sweeps Mitt Romney into the White House.  A close election will invariably create more bones of contention at a time when there is already a very real feeling in the country that we have had enough.  A decisive Romney victory (there is hardly any talk anymore of a decisive Obama victory, just slim O, slim R or decisive R) would send home the lawyers and even the most partisan, passionate progressive would have to concede the race. 

Hopefully we will have a decision by tomorrow morning.  In the meantime, try to stay calm.

SO LONG, TEACUPS!

Today was a beautiful day. The sun was shining, the birds were chirping. Truly a picture perfect day. But honestly, it would have been a beautiful day even if it was pouring. Because last night, everything changed.  Last night a storm swept through and washed everything clean.


Today is a beautiful day because Alan Grayson is no longer my congressman.

I'm happy that Queen Nan has been kicked to the curb, that so many states will now be governed by conservatives, and that Marco Rubio has won. But my dearest heart's desire, to see Alan "Teacups" Grayson sent home after one term. has come to pass and I'm fairly giddy with it!

We had to have line work done to our cable/internet connection (a tree grew through the line) today, so I was unable to watch the post election wrap-ups. What I have seen has given me the impression that there are others who are just as happy as me that DisGrayson will no longer be darkening the halls of Congress and it's just so nice to know that it was a shared dream and a successful effort.

Last night was a resounding repudiation of the Pelosi/Obama agenda.  It wasn't the messaging, it wasn't the weather, it wasn't anything  but their policies and the offensive, patronizing, arrogant way in which it was implemented against the will of a majority if Americans.  We still have a long two months of lame duck session to go, but there is now a light at the end of the tunnel. A rebuke was delivered and a mandate presented. The people have demanded a course change. Now it is up to the republicans to deliver and the White House to triangulate.

The big question is this: Will Barack Obama move to the center and compromise or will he remain firmly entrenched on the left - damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead? Compromise will get him reelected, entrenchment will get him primaried. 

There is plenty of time to ponder that question. Tomorrow.  For now, it's time to bask in the glory -

Alan Grayson is NOT my congressman! 

DANIEL WEBSTER 1, DEVIL 0 Updated

Ding, dong, the psycho's gone!!!!

No more shall I hang my head in shame that Alan Grayson is my representative.  Praise God, haleluia!!  Congratulations, Daniel Webster.  It was a dirty fight, but you handled it with dignity. 

It looks like Nancy Pelosi will no longer be Speaker of the House.  Fox News is projecting a 60 seat gain for republicans, far more than the 39 needed to take the majority.

I just want to know when they will be airing footage of Pelosi handing over the gavel to Boehner on CSPAN.  I want to DVR it so I can watch that sweet, sweet moment over and over and over again.  January 3rd just can't come soon enough....

With all of the heady projections of 70+ seats going red and a possible Senate takeover, all I really wanted was three things:

1. Alan Grayson loses reelection.  Badly loses.  I'm talking double digits.
2. Nancy Pelosi loses the majority and thus her Speakership.
3. Harry Reid loses reelection.

Well, I've gotten two out of three so far, but I'm really hoping for a hat trick.  I'm waiting anxiously for the returns from Nevada and will post an update when there is some news.

UPDATE:  With 30% of precincts reporting, Harry Reid is in the lead, 51-44.  Well, two out of three ain't bad....

DIS-GRAYSON STRIKES AGAIN

Wow.  Just....wow.  My jerktacular congressman is up to his usual shenanigans again.  He made an appearance on MSNBC today.  This piece of...work is actually trying to indignantly deride his opponent, Daniel Webster, for "These blistering, evil negative ads". 

That's right, the guy who has called his opponents terrorists, klansmen and neanderthals, the man who so thoroughly, viciously twisted words out of context that even lefties said 'whoa', the self-same fellow who accused republicans of wanting people to die, is lecturing on constructive dialogue. 

Wow.

And, of course, being a good lefty, he throws down his victim card for good measure.  The guy who has ads calling his opponent an extreme, unpatriotic, draft-dodging terrorist is concerned about being called a loud-mouthed, national embarrassment of a liar on tv because of his own boorish behavior.  After all, Grayson's kids are being harmed by this reckless pointing out of obvious character flaws.   I'm sure Webster's six kids weren't bothered at all by hearing their father being called a draft-dodging member of the Taliban.  It's quite obvious Grayson is the injured party - nay, the helpless victim - in all of this.  Big Poor baby.

This clown's attempt at righteous indignation simply adds a new level to his obnoxiousness.  At the end of September, the polls showed Webster up by seven.  Let's hope that holds.  I just don't think I could go another two years with this national joke representing me. 

Hey Grayson - the reason people are "out to get you" is because you are an obnoxious embarrassment that lowers the level of every debate you participate in.  You have diminished the standing of your office with your words and deeds on a near-daily basis. You are the nasty little bully on the schoolyard, Mr. Grayson.  Nothing is too low for you.  And when someone stands up to you and gives you just a taste of your own medicine, you run home crying to mommy.  There is no place for you in the grown-up world of national politics.  Take your ball and go home, no one wants to put up with you anymore.

I got my absentee ballot this week and can't wait to not vote for Grayson.  I've put it off so that I can savor the anticipation first.  I'm planning on filling in the ballot in reverse, saving the best for last.  Who says politics can't be fun?

GRAYSON MANAGES TO SINK EVEN LOWER Updated

In the past week or so, I have been flooded with emails from my embarrassment of a congressman, Alan Grayson.  The latest campaign ad, which I received on Saturday night, is yet another hit piece on Daniel Webster.  What a surprise.  I posted about Grayson's last attack ad, accusing Webster of dodging the draft, when actually Webster received routine deferments while he was in college and was rated 1-Y status (which was later reclassified as 4-F) and wasn't allowed to serve.  I also mentioned his ad on how he allegedly "saved our schools" here in the 8th district. Yet again, lies.    

I refuse to post the ad from his website, because I don't want him getting the viewership hits, so here it is via youtube:



The ad is titled "Taliban Dan Webster".  Because, you know, those republicans are like terrorists, according to Grayson.  In it, Webster appears to be giving a speech of some kind, and he is saying "she should submit to me".  "Submit to me" is used three more times in the ad.  Grayson has also accused Webster of not allowing women to divorce abusive husbands because of his "radical extremist" views.

As usual for Grayson, this ad is chock full of lies and manipulations.  The Orlando Sentinel is the one to call him out this time.

As far as not 'allowing' women to divorce abusive husbands goes, apparently Webster is a proponent of "covenant marriage", which is a "legal union of husband and wife that requires premarital counselling, marital counselling if problems occur, and limited grounds for divorce".  However, those "limited grounds" include abuse, either physical or sexual, of either wife or children as grounds for divorce, among other things.  It is an attempt to make divorce more less of an option, instead relying on counselling to work through problems, but abuse is still grounds for divorce.  Radical, I know.

Webster's comment that "she should submit to me - that's in the bible" is taken completely out of context.  He was speaking at a couples retreat.  Here is what he really said (emphasis mine for context):

"Find a verse. I have a verse for my wife; I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, um, she should submit to me. That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, love your wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it."

As you can see when you hear the entire quote in context, he is advising against using those verses.   Grayson's ad is a gross distortion.  Period.  The blatant manipulation is disgusting. 

I received another email from Grayson's campaign crowing that Webster refused to comment on the ad.  They are attempting to make it seem that his silence is confirmation, when the reality is that this attack is so low, so egregiously wrong that it doesn't deserve to be addressed.  Webster is merely refusing to lower himself to Grayson's level. 

One can only hope that, as the real truth about this ad comes out, it hurts Grayson and shows him for the lying, conniving, ethics-free, Pelosi-owned albatross around the neck of the 8th district that he is.  If he tries to worm out of the controversy by blaming his staff, there is this politico article that points to Grayson as the main author of his campaign ads.  He owns this.

Grayson is a disgrace to District 8, the state of Florida, the House of Representatives and the country in general.  He is the poster boy for all that is wrong with partisan politics today.  The term 'political hack' is too complimentary for this nasty piece of work.  Whereas I was merely embarrassed to be a constituent, now I am disgusted.

Come on, District 8, let's retire this jerk in November!

UPDATE:  The GOP is questioning Grayson's stability.

UPDATE II:  The Sunshine State poll has Webster up by seven (43-36).  This poll was taken before the Taliban Dan ad was exposed as a complete fraud, so hopefully the gap will widen:

Digging deeper, the numbers look even worse for Grayson as 51 percent of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of the Orlando-area congressman.


"Grayson has real problems here," said Jim Lee, president of Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll for Sunshine State News.

"He’s even more unpopular than the president, which is not surprising given how controversial he has been with his rhetoric, overall style and TV ads."

Webster has had a financial boon from the ads of about $70,000.  Unfortunately, Teacups has a war chest of well over a million, and he is personally very wealthy.  If you can contribute to Webster's war chest, please do.

GRAYSON SINKS TO NEW LOW

Regular readers of my blog know that I am no fan of my Congressional "representative", Alan Grayson.  As far as I'm concerned, the man is an embarassment, not just to me, but to the district and, frankly, the country as a whole.  He rode in on Obama's coattails, and hopefully he will be riding right back out again in November.  He is a political bomb thrower who has never been hampered by the inconvenient ethics of honesty and professionalism.

He has sunk to many, many lows over the past year and a half that he has been in Washington.  He's smug, he's smarmy, and he's willing to sink to any level to further his our interests.  The latest example of this is a new ad that he is airing about his opponent, republican Daniel Webster.  This ad is nothing short of an outright lie.  He, being a lawyer, will argue that there is a grain of truth in it.  I, as a voter, argue that it is low, deceiving and, well, par for the course from this piece of work. 

Here is the ad (via the Orlando Sentinel):



Kudos to the Sentinel for reporting the fallacies in this ad.  I have to admit that was surprising - the paper is known to local conservatives as the "Slantinel".

So the grain of truth in the ad is that Webster had six deferments.  He was in college at the time of the Vietnem war, and it was routine to defer college students from the draft.  Neither the Johnson nor Nixon administrations wanted a "brain drain" in the country.  If you were in college when your number came up, you were deferred.  So five times Webster was deferred.  The sixth time, he reported for duty and was found to be 1Y status and was not asked to serve.

There were thousands of deferments issued during the Vietnam war.  Some recipients include former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Al Franken, former VP Al Gore, Sen. Henry Waxman, NM Gov. Bill Richardson and former DNC chief Howard Dean. 

I would love to see an intrepid reporter ask the above mentioned "draft dodgers" how they feel about that label, as well as the fact that, according to Grayson, they should not have been allowed to serve their country because they supposedly refused to back then. Wouldn't it be interesting to see their responses on YouTube?  Giles?  O'Keefe?  Any takers?

That Grayson is willing to lie in a campaign ad is nothing new.  The man has to look up to see the gutter.  As a constituent, I have received pamphlets in the mail touting the millions in pork he has brought home.  In the anti-earmark political climate that exists today, running on the amount of pork he has pillaged from the wallets of taxpayers isn't a winner.  Then, of course, there is the infamous "Alan Grayson saved our schools" ad - a creepy bit of work that is one lie after another (be sure to check out this WESH news report on just how false this ad really is).  If Alan Grayson saved the schools, why did my daughter's high school just have to let staff go and juggle the students' schedules to accommodate the $380,000 budget cut they just got hit with at a time when they are trying to comply with class size regulations in overcrowed schools?

Alan Grayson cannot run on his record in Congress because he was in lockstep with Pelosi.  He cannot run on what he wants to do in his next term, because it will be more of the Pelosi, Reid, Obama progressive agenda.  So all he has left is smearing his opponent.  It's not just a cheap shot, it's an outright fabrication - and this isn't his first time peddling lies.  They say that everyone eventually finds their own level.  The question is, do we, as a district, really want to sink to Grayson's?

Remember in November.

GRAYSON SUPPORTS THE TEA PARTY?

Today a gentleman from Alan Grayson's campaign knocked on my door.  His purpose was to have me sign paperwork so that Mr. Grayson and his campaign could help me register to vote, because apparently I'm not capable of doing it myself.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I have been voting for many years now, and have never once had someone working for a candidate come to my door to offer to take care of registering for me.  I prefer to register the legal way, all by myself.  I find it difficult to trust the "congressman from ACORN" with my voting information.   After all, the man is implicated in election shenanigans already:





Please note the use of Alinsky Rule #5 when deflecting questioning about the tea party allegations in an interview with CNN:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

This rule seems to be his personal motto.  Hopefully Alinsky meant  he should make a complete ass out of himself in the process, because if so, Grayson nailed it.
 
Grayson denies any connection to this scandal, but he seems to think he is too smart by half and that Tea Party supporters are idiots, so why not try to pull the wool over their eyes?  After all, he's been so very supportive of the tea baggers partyers in the past (warning: Joy Behar is in the linked clip - those with weak stomachs should not view).  Why wouldn't they fall for it?

The question is, would he really stoop to such things? He can certainly afford it - he's the 7th richest member of the House (ranked 12th when you include the Senate). In addition, on a list of 30 vulnerable House seats, he ranks 13th. As an accomplished lawyer, there is a good chance he knows how to set up organizations and make it nearly impossible to discover who controls them.


That covers means, motive and ability. All that's left is a concrete tie to Public Opinion Strategies. Channel 6's Tony Pipitone seems tenacious, so hopefully he will find more information. 

In the meantime, Grayson seems to be taking a two-pronged approach to this election.  He understands his district is historically republican, so attempting to split the ticket by setting up and funding a 'tea party' candidate seems like a logical way to pull out a win in November.  The 'Congressman from ACORN' is also apparently taking on the voter registration duties of the allegedly defunct organization now as well, if the door-to-door experience I had today was any indication. That's a scary thought.

With a little luck, Pipitone will uncover the missing link, and the story will get legs.  Until then, please be sure to check out Grayson's legitimate opponents:

 Patricia Sullivan, Bruce O’Donoghue, Dan Fanelli, Peg Dunmire, Kurt Kelly, Todd Long and Steven Gerritzen (Whig).

BACK TO THE PLAYBOOK

Democrats are apparently going to be foregoing standing on a platform this election cycle, preferring instead to just proceed directly to the mud slinging, an event which is traditionally deployed in the final weeks of the election.  Guess they don't have much else in their quiver these days.

According to the Washington Post:

Jon Vogel, executive director of the DCCC, said Democrats are merely pointing out that some Republican recruits in competitive House races are "flawed candidates."

He added, "We have made this election a choice. . . . They're trying to run this national message in part about fiscal discipline, but they've recruited a number of candidates not credible to carry that message."

The problem with this strategy is twofold. 

First and foremost, voters are highly motivated this year, are issue driven and are paying very close attention.  They want to know what the voting record is for the candidates and they want to know their stand on the issues.  They won't have much patience for backbiting and mud slinging.

The second problem also lies in the unusual level of voter awareness this cycle.  This time, though, what they are aware of is the playbook that is being used.  This line of attack is directly, practically verbatim out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, in the "Tactics" section - number four, to be exact:

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Perhaps it's time to remind them of tactic number seven - "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".
 
Stop changing the subject and clouding the debate with mud.  It's time to deal with the real issues.
 

MOTORING OVER VOTERS

In the newest bombshell revelation in a series of them from J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ attorney asserts that the Department of Justice is not interested in prosecuting so-called 'motor voter' cases.  'Motor voter' laws were created in the 1990's to, among other things, ensure fair and legal elections, primarily through cleansing the voter rolls of people who have moved, died or are no longer eligible to vote for various reasons such as incarceration.

According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, a political appointee who supervises the voting section at the DOJ, in a meeting scheduled for the entire voting section back in November of 2009, stated that there was no interest in enforcing section 8 of the law.  Section 8 is the deaths, duplicates and ineligibles provision of the law.  She said that it reduced voter turnout, prevented access to the ballot box, not increased it, and they had no interest in enforcing the law because of it.  Proof of his claims lies in a motor voter case that was brought by the Bush administration that was dismissed in Missouri in 2009 and a lack of motor votor prosecutions since then.  According to the Wall Street Journal:

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri's voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue.

This is a huge development.  If Adams' assertions are true, this could have major repercussions for the administration:

Mr. Adams' allegations would seem to call for the senior management of Justice to be compelled to testify under oath to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But Justice is making none of its officials available and is refusing to enforce subpoenas issued by the commission. The more this story develops, the more it appears Justice is engaged in a massive coverup of its politicization of voting rights cases.

No wonder they continue to push through their radical, unpopular agenda.  They are not constrained by the usual political fears for reelection.  These people are Chicago pols - Chicago, where the dead vote and no one ever moves away.  Toss in a few million illegal immigrants and a DOJ that refuses to enforce voting laws, and voila! you have a recipe for perpetual reelection.  This is an issue that should raise serious concerns, because this could signal the end of legitimate elections in this country. 

The neo-pravda media will undoubtedly ignore this latest outrage, and the left is already busily attempting to discredit Adams, namely by saying he is politically motivated.  No doubt accusations of racism will soon follow.  Why change the pattern now?

The jury is still out on whether his allegations are true or not, but, considering these revelations came while he was under oath, there is some weight to them.  The ball is in DOJ's court to prove him wrong.  Accusing him of political motivations and attacking his record does not prove him wrong, it just changes the subject.  Considering their track record thus far on dismissing cases involving voter intimidation and voter fraud, there seems to be enough smoke to warrant an investigation into whether there is any fire.

The problem is, where do the American people turn for justice when the Justice Department is the problem?

DEMOCRATIC DISARRAY

The democrat party seems to be hitting the skids.  They are in deep denial over their prospects in November.  They have plans to run on the passage of Obamacare - a program that is becoming more and more unpopular as time goes by.  Their other option is to have their candidates run against George W. Bush.  Again.  But, then, what else have they got?  Stimulus?  Oil spill?  Foreign relations?  Yeah... better stick with Bush. 

There has been a great deal of turmoil on the campaign trail, too.  They have been unsuccessful in the primaries in more ways than one. The biggest puzzle is Senate candidate Alvin Greene.  The question shouldn't be how did Alvin Greene get the nomination, the question should be how bad was his primary opponent that Greene managed to win without running any campaign whatsoever?  His opponent spent lots of money on a high profile campaign complete with web site and the full backing of the DNC.  Even with all of that, Greene won with 59% of the vote.  And I thought Republican candidates were bad.

Now they have another headache in Texas with their new 22nd congressional district primary winner, Kesha Rogers.  She is a LaRouchie - a follower of Lyndon LaRouche.  These are the decidedly left-wing nutballs that are on the fringes of the Tea Parties, carrying those Obama as Hitler posters.  In fact (and this is my favorite part of the story),  there is photographic evidence that Ms. Rogers supports that meme.  Why is this my favorite part?  Because this will finally debunk the left's narrative that it is right-wing Tea Partyers that are carrying those darned Obama as Hitler posters.  Unless, of course, they manage to sell the theory that she, too, is a GOP plant. 

So how bizarre is this win?  Well, if it's any indication, Ms. Rogers is looking to impeach Mr. Obama if she wins in November.  That's right, the democrat nominee for Texas' 22nd CD wants to impeach Obama.  Although, considering it is Texas, she might just win on that platform....Crazy?  Or crazy like a fox?

It seems that the moderate faction is beginning to rebel against the liberal/progressive leadership who have taken over the party in recent years.  In the meantime, the radical far-left faction is rebelling against the administration for not getting radical enough. 

It's amazing that this was a group that, just two short years ago, managed to unite not just the entire democrat spectrum but many independents and even a good amount of conservatives under their banner.  Not even two years later, everyone is at everyone else's throats, and it seems that the only thing they all have in common anymore is how quickly they are trying to distance themselves from each other.

Considering their gleeful pronouncements that the 2008 election signified the demise of the conservative movement in this country, the irony is rich and deep.  Or perhaps the term 'karma' would be more apt.

BUBBA TO THE RESCUE!

When I first heard the news today that the White House has announced that former President Bill Clinton was the "high ranking White House official" who had approached Rep. Joe Sestak about taking another position in exchange for dropping out of the Specter primary, the comment that kept spinning in my head was "you sneaky b@$#@rds!"

Hours later, it's still what's running through my head. 

Forgive me for the Rahmbo-esque reaction, but, really - Clinton?  Come on!    It's like a soap opera with the dramatic, unexpected return of a former character who seems to stir up trouble wherever he goes.  Cue the cheesy organ music....

Clinton and Obama met yesterday to have lunch and get their stories straight.  While they were at it, they should have figured out why an unpaid advisory position in addition to regular congressional duties would be so appealing that Sestak would be willing to bypass a senate seat for it.  'Cause right now, it just doesn't add up, fellas.

The use of Bill Clinton as the fall guy is inspired, really, but ultimately a bad idea.  Did they figure Clinton would get around the 1939 Hatch Act (Sections 2  & 3) because he is no longer technicallly a paid federal employee?   How, exactly is Clinton a high ranking official in the White House anyway?  Wasn't that the phrase Sestak used on numerous occasions?  Or was he speaking in the past tense?  The problem is, Clinton was asked to intervene on behalf of Rahm Emanuel, so it still constitutes a bribe offered by the administration.  He's a great choice, though, because you have your fall guy, but no one needs to get fired or resign. 

It's very revealing that Rahm Emanuel is so important to the Obama administration that they are willing to throw a former president under the bus for him, isn't it?

Above and beyond all of that, why has it taken over three months to get this story out?  If it's so innocent and above board, why all the evasion?  Ten weeks of stonewalling for something that they are desperately trying to spin as unimportant just seems...off.

The fact is, today the White House and Sestak confirmed a bribe was offered.  Even if it really was an unpaid advisory board position, that is still a powerful position and that means the offer had value.   

It's funny.  The one era in modern politics that hasn't been glossed over or altered has been the Watergate affair.  This is a period in our history that the left is very familiar with and loves to rehash.  You'd think they might have learned something from it - like that the coverup is sometimes worse than the crime.  Ring any bells? 

And quite frankly, if anyone in the world should know this, it's Bill Clinton.

PRIMARY ROUNDUP

Last night was primary night for Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas.  The good news?  Benedict Arlen Specter has lost his primary.  The people of Pennsylvania have spoken, and they are saying "enough!".  Was it his switching parties (again) in an obvious attempt to save his career, or was it his numerous gaffes during the campaign that sank him?  Most likely a combination of things.  Quite frankly, he was the poster boy for term limits for this election cycle.  Buh-bye, Arlen!

The democrats are crowing over their victory in Rep. Murtha's district, of course.  The voters are sending Democrat Mark Critz to Washington to fill Murtha's seat.  While the democrat establishment is over the moon on this victory, it's really a mixed bag if you take a closer look.  The thing is, Critz ran against Pelosi, against Obama and against ObamaCare.  So, is that really a victory for the democrat machine? Although a democrat won, it was still a vote against the current establishment.  No doubt that will be ignored and it will be spun as a victory for the Democrats and Pelosi.

In Kentucky, Rep. Ron Paul's son Rand won his primary.  This is a victory for the Tea Party, who heavily backed him against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pick, Trey Grayson.  No doubt the democrats will label this as more proof that the "radical fringe" is taking over the Republican party.  This from the party that is shedding moderates like Evan Bayh  and Bart Stupak without a second thought while forcing the remainder to toe Pelosi's party line.

Arkansas is a wash - Sen. Blanche Lincoln technically won the primary with 45% of the vote to her opponent's 43%, but a 50%+ majority is required, so there will be a runoff.

All in all, it was a bad day for the party in power.  Even when they won, it wasn't really a win.  Which means the spin will be aggressive and vehement this week.

But, then, what else is new - they have been sounding more and more shrill as the weeks pass.  Pretty soon they will reach a pitch that only dogs can hear.

THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE

Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight.  In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue".  This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such.  It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark.  A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes. 

In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda.  On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that? 

But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end.  For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it.  As Horner says, it's all about power and control.  The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue".  It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not.  The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.

This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back.  Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.

The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far.  The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet.  That is just the bill of goods we were sold.  That bill was all about consolidation of power.  It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power.  That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.

The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us.  It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health.  If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.

Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector.  Period.

The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush.  I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time.   Suggestions are appreciated.

The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections.  But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air.  It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).

The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation.  This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months.  Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs.  Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow.  Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser.  When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet.  Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance".  Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"

It's a brilliant strategy, really.  When you have no answers, start asking the questions. 

The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now.  You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party member extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s).  The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right.  In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".  The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag.  It's time to start calling them out on it.

The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion.  It promises to be an interesting summer campaign.  The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue. 

It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.

A SUPREME MESS

The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations, lobbyists and unions could freely donate to political campaign advertising.  You would think that the democrats would be thrilled at the prospect, because this frees up their beloved unions to more fully support their campaigns.  And out in the open, for a change.  Although daylight might be the last thing the union heads want, bloodsuckers that they are.

Instead, the democrats are in an absolute tizzy about the ruling and even had the audacity to announce they would try to pass a Constitutional amendment to bypass it.  Good luck with that.  President Obama, in one of his less than presidential moments, even scolded the Court publicly during his State of the Union speech.  Justice Samuel Alito silently mouthed the words "Not true" as the liberals in Congress stood up and cheered Obama on.

Chief Justice John Roberts finally made a statement on the whole episode last week.  He called the scolding "very troubling" (via the New York Times):

The chief justice painted a harrowing picture of “one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless.”

This has reignited a firestorm about the decision, and once again the liberals are freaking out.  It's a bit surprising, though, considering their beloved unions and lobbyists will now have free rein.

The real problem is that corporations are also being given free rein, and that includes insurance companies and Wall Street banking firms.  Wall Street was a heavy supporter of Obama during the campaign, but one would imagine that they are having a change of heart after the past year's confiscatory taxation and demonization.  A leading indicator of their disaffection is the fact that they are already switching alliegances. 

The basis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a dispute over a film about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United wanted to air during the campaign.  The film would have been highly damaging to her campaign and was slapped with a lawsuit to stop its release.  The Supreme Court's ruling opened the doors to future films in future campaigns. 

I can't imagine why President Obama is so passionate about overruling this.  It's not like there are any highly placed politicians whose pasts have been shrouded in mystery during the last election cycle or anything....

IN THE DOGHOUSE Updated

I have been riveted to the media today, watching the fallout from last night.  I'd say the mood in Washington is....subdued.  It's rather like the people of Massachusetts rolled up a newspaper and whapped the democrats on the nose with it, and the liberal hangdogs aren't sure exactly what happened or why.  They know they did wrong and are getting punished, but they aren't sure what they got caught doing - probably because there are just so many things they've done - bad dogs, bad dogs!

The Queen of the Kennel is still defiant -

"Heeding the particular concerns of the voters of Massachusetts last night, we heard, we will heed, we will move forward with their considerations in mind, but we will move forward for health care."

God, the woman really has no rhyme or reason to her wild gesturing, does she?  And since when is health care 'reform' all about jobs?  Did I miss something?? 

The once and future 'centrist democrats' are suddenly rushing to prop up their moderate credentials, with Evan Bayh leading the pack.  (via Politico):

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.

There are still those who refuse to acknowledge that this was a referendum on health care, of course.  It's just alarming that one of those people is Obama top dog David Axlerod, who insisted (incorrectly) on the morning shows today that Brown never ran an ad against ObamaCare, somehow translating that into health care not being the prime motivator.

The liberal blogosphere is like a pack of super caffeinated rabid pitbulls who have been hit with a baseball bat.  As usual, their arguments are well thought out, respectful and rational (warning: language).

The election strategies are starting to drift out now, too.  It's a toss-up between vicious negative campaigns linking republicans to George Bush, or, believe it or not, the new 'democrats are down-to-earth populists, just like Scott Brown' tactic.  I'd say they'll most likely combine the two, because, let's face it, they can't run anything but vicious negative campaigns featuring George Bush - they're just going to add in the populist pap like a cherry on top because they apparently think we all suffer from short-term memory loss and won't be able to remember the past year by November.

Seems like the bad doggies need another whap....

UPDATE:  Mark Steyn nails it with a post titled "Happy Anniversary!" .  He perfectly encapsulates the Obama campaign push for Coakley on Sunday - which is still being pushed for November hopefuls, if you can believe it:

"We understand why you're angry. But don't let your anger with George W. Bush allow you to get tricked into voting for a Republican who'll obstruct the reform agenda you're crying out for."

Exactly.

WE HAVE A WINNER! Updated

Scott Brown is the new Senator from Massachusetts!  Martha Coakley has conceded with 92% of precincts reporting a 52% - 47% win for Scott Brown. 

The impossible has happened.  The People's Seat once again belongs to the People. 

Let's just stop and savor the delicious irony of a Republican winning "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and (hopefully) killing Ted Kennedy's nightmare health care bill in one fell swoop. 

Mmmmmmm......sweeeeet. 

Juan Williams is predicting the democrats will put the pedal to the metal on health care and push it through in hopes of winning over the electorate on the bill's merits.  Stuart Varney is saying that will be suicidal.  I'm with Stuart.  Unfortunately, Juan may be right on the pedal to the metal part, because the leadership still thinks we are drooling idiots who just don't know what is good for us until it is shoved down our throats. 

The ball is now in the dems court.  Will they do the right thing and swear him in or will they try to stall and risk further damage by pushing that incredibly unpopular, steaming hot mess of a bill through?

The People have spoken - loudly, inarguably, and definitively.  Let's see if the Tonedeaf Trio hear it.

What's that I see through the dismal fog of wretched Progressive excess?  Could that be a tiny glimmer of the Shining City on the Hill?

Suddenly, there's hope....

UPDATE:  Here's a great clip from Jon Stewart to keep the good times rolling (Warning: content):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

DESPERATE MEASURES

The situation in Massachusetts is like a nuclear bomb detonating in the heart of Washington D.C.  Just about every poll is favoring Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley.  The most tone-deaf adminitration evah is finally coming to the realization that ultra-blue Massachusetts is sending them a big, neon-rimmed sign that their radical, far-left agenda, including (or perhaps especially) the health care debacle currently making it's torturous way through Congress, is being rejected.

Let's face it - if you can't sell your ultra-liberal, far-left agenda in bluer than blue Massachusetts, where can you sell it?

There are so many factors involved in the slap in the face that is the special senate election that it will be impossible to blame just one thing.  But fear not, I'm sure the liberals will do what they always do and turn on their own.  It's not the agenda, it's Coakley and her poorly run campaign.  Which didn't really hit the skids until her D.C. cronies stepped in to 'help'.  The votes haven't even been cast yet, and already they don't even know her name. 

They tried to run her against George W. Bush again, but that old saw just isn't biting anymore.  Perhaps if the past year's democratic highlights (or lowlights, if you prefer) didn't include the $787 billion 'stimulus', the $410 billion Omnibus spending package, and a $1.1 trillion spending bill, their message that Bush ran up the deficits and caused the continuing economic hardships might sell better.  Blaming Bush is laughable, and the electorate, even in MA, know it.

So now the powers that be in D.C. are scrambling to salvage ObamaCare. 

The sheer number of trial balloons being floated right now are indicative of how desperate they are.  The current seat warmer for 'Teddy's seat', Paul Kirk, has said that he will cast the 60th vote, even if Brown wins the election tomorrow.  It turns out this is not feasible.  This puts the kibosh on their plans to slow Brown's certification until after a vote for health care has been taken (although I'm sure they will still try).  That would delay Brown's certification for weeks, possibly up to a month, and there is doubt the electorate would go for that.  The dems are desperate, but that is a little too in-your-face politicking even for them.

Their plan to pass it in parliamentary reconciliation with a 51 vote majority is just a lot of hot air.  The reconciliation process is for budgetary issues only, so many of the insurance reforms, such as pre-existing conditions, would not be in a reconciled bill.  Not only that, the bill would expire in 5 years, so there would be massive taxation with absolutely no coverage to speak of in return.  Yeah, that's a winner.

So now Obama is attempting to force the House to pass the Senate version as it sits.  This would mean no vote in the Senate, as they already passed the bill.  Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi is not really hot on the idea.  They were already having trouble reconciling the House and Senate versions due to the core differences with abortion and the public option.  The chances that the House will vote to pass the Senate version are slim.

Unfortunately for democrats, that is also their best option.

Tomorrow will be a referendum on ObamaCare, no matter how much the dems deny, deny, deny.  Let's hope the polls are right, and the people of MA send a message that Obama, Pelosi and Reid can't ignore.

THE FIVE REASONS

Pajamas Media's Victor David Hansen wrote a great essay that is just too good not to share.  Please click the link and check out the whole article.  This piece is about the five reasons people voted for Obama:

Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the “worst” (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obama’s youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obama’s centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.

He then went on to discuss how those same factors that were so vital to getting Obama elected are now moot.  In short:

1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bush’s sins that bothered voters— too much big government and big deficits—were simply trumped by Obama’s gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. “Bush did it” doesn’t work any more. “Obama did it even more” is the new worry.


2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(k’s) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isn’t working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depression—or at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, “Bush’s did it” will transmogrify into Obama’s recession. Obama can’t run against the economy, but must fix it—or take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans don’t run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3) Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, rightly or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obama’s election. Now? A lot of independents, however, won’t seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obama’s supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.

5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

So what does this all mean?  How will the massive deception that was perpertated upon this country in 2008 effect future elections?

That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta— of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of life—is swelling up in the electorate. I haven’t seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.

God willing.

ELECTION RECAP

The final tallies are in and Republicans have taken the VA and NJ Gubernatorial races. Unfortunately, Conservative Doug Hoffman lost the NY-23 race in a four-point squeaker.

It's still a win of sorts, though, because it has (hopefully) taught the GOP a valuable lesson about what kind of candidates should be running - fiscally conservative, low tax, smaller government proponents. One can only imagine how much impact the $900,000 would have had if it had been spent on Hoffman, instead of Scozzafava. Not to mention the 5% of the vote Scozzafava got yesterday could have put Hoffman over the finish line even without the money.

The other bit of silver lining from this race is that we now know that independent candidates can be competitive, even in moderate areas. Which makes sense, really, because many conservatives I've spoken to are fiscally conservative, but more moderate on social issues (as long as they don't raise taxes or smack of socialism).

So although it would have been nice to have a clean sweep, overall I think the message has been sent to both parties.

BTW, Bill Owens, the democrat winner for NY-23 opposes the health care public option (and gay marriage, for that matter - hey, doesn't that make him a closed-minded bigot?), so he's still better than Scozzafava.

CAN I GET AN AMEN?

Came across this when I was doing some research and had to share. From nj.com:

"Obama said the financial state of New Jersey was not Corzine's fault, saying it "didn't start under Jon's watch."
"I have something to report: We have the worst financial crisis since the great depression," he said. "By the way that didn't start under Jon's watch. That didn't start on my watch. I wasn't sworn in yet. We got a little bit of revisionist history, a little selective memory going on, a little amnesia about how we got into this mess.""

The 'It ain't my fault, Mom' routine is getting old, first of all.

Second, beautifully articulated as usual, Mr. President --

""We got a little bit of revisionist history, a little selective memory going on, a little amnesia about how we got into this mess.""

Amen.