Showing posts with label 2010 midterm elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 midterm elections. Show all posts

Friday, November 12, 2010

Media Assault: Proof that 2010 was the Year of the Conservative Woman

image Want proof that 2010 was the year of the conservative woman? Look no further than the Culture and Media Institute’s report that the mainstream media mounted a full scale assault on the conservative women who led the Tea Party’s Tsunami on November 2.

Conservative women shatter the liberal narrative.  Women are supposed to be liberal.  They’re supposed to be Democrats.  The women of 2010 are precisely the kind of success story that the feminists of the left are supposed to be all for.  They are multitasking monsters of success—managing successful careers, successful small businesses, successful marriages, successful families and successful political campaigns.

The problem that the left and its propaganda wing have with all this success is that it’s producing conservative women instead of liberal ones.  This comes as no surprise to the right—people who are successful due to their own efforts tend to be politically conservative. But it comes as a stone cold shocka to the left, whose pigeon-holing view of the world holds that people of certain demographics are expected to behave in a certain way.  Blacks, Hispanics and women are supposed to be liberal, dammit!


Earlier in 2010, CBS reported that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was ridiculing the Republican Party over its women. “As Democrats head into what is expected to be a tough election year for them, the party says it has a solid lead over Republicans in one respect – its number of women candidates.”

As it turned out, the GOP fielded about 100 female House candidates, and ended up expanding the number of women in its House ranks by more than 40 percent. In California, it ran strong conservative women candidates for governor and the Senate. In Nevada, Sharron Angle ran a tough campaign against the sitting Senate Majority Leader. And it was remarked more than once that women were driving much of the Tea Party enthusiasm. It was the “Year of the Republican Woman,” not that the media would let on.

When they weren’t ignoring it, liberal journalists were flailing about in attempts to understand and explain the meaning of conservative women’s sudden rise in politics. After all, as Taylor Marsh wrote in The Huffington Post Sept. 30, “This is what the Republican Tea Party stands for today, the marginalizing of women on the most extreme terms. Something all Independents thinking of joining their ranks should note.” On the same site, this time on Election Day, writer Marcia G. Yermin wondered, “Why does the ‘Mama Grizzly’ phenomenon, and right-wing women candidates staking a claim to the feminist legacy, leave me both incredulous and aggravated?”

From the Daily Caller story that covered this report:

image The report’s author, Matt Philbin, told The Daily Caller that many media outlets, but specifically Politico and MSNBC, have a double standard when it comes to how they report news regarding conservative female politicians as opposed to liberal female politicians.

“She’s [Bachmann] dangerous to them. I think, like Sarah Palin, they find her dangerous. Women are supposed to be liberal,” Philbin said. “They’re supposed to vote Democrat, just as blacks and Latinos are supposed to vote Democrat. Having a strong conservative woman that voices conservative concerns and understands conservative economics is very disconcerting to the left and to the media.”

Debbie Lee, a member of the Tea Party Express and founder of America’s Mighty Warriors, a non-profit that helps families of fallen soldiers, said she agrees that the media is harsher on conservative women than liberal women.

“I think we’ve seen a huge prejudice with attacks against conservative women. We don’t see that with the liberal, left-leaning women that are in there,” Lee told TheDC. “I think it is a pattern, a concerning pattern, when the media continues to attack conservative women, but, on the other side, lets things slide and doesn’t have the same consistency [for liberal women].”


Philbin’s analysis is particularly insightful.  The left and the media are, quite frankly, scared witless of people like Bachmann and Palin. Because they also shatter the left’s demographics=politics narrative, people like Allen West and Tim Scott are also a threat. But perhaps no one shatters the narrative better than New Mexico’s Susana Martinez and South Carolina’s Nikki Haley.  These two are minority women, and they’re GASP! conservatives!

Having been married to a conservative woman for more than two decades, one of the things I’ve seen from this group surprises me the least, but shocks the left:  They don’t take the smears and media heat in silence and submission. When these women are attacked, they fight back in ways that would make a “papa grizzly” whimper and slink away.

image Sarah Palin’s influence has grown as the result of the media attacks on her.  You can expect women like Michele Bachmann, Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez to see their influence grow as well.  The more the media and the left assault these people, the more others like them—and there are millions and millions more like them—see the smears as an attack on their own values.

A thirty- to fifty-something woman, having established herself through successful endeavor after successful endeavor, isn’t simply going to sit idly and have her conservative sisterhood derided and ridiculed by white liberals like Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann.  Everything these women have accomplished, they’ve accomplished through their own determination and hard work. They’re not going to let the left dictate their behavior to them any more than my wife lets me dictate her behavior.

These women have achieved success because they are principled, disciplined and determined.  The attacks mounted by the left and its propaganda mouthpieces at MSNBC, CNN and Politico show the threat these women are to their narrative, and show that 2010 was indeed the Year of the Conservative Woman.

You go, girls!

Thursday, November 11, 2010

An Uncivil Civil War: Democrats call for Pelosi’s ouster grow louder

Politico, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times…  They’re all breathlessly yakking about a “civil war” between “Tea Party” Republicans and “establishment” Republicans over second-and third-tier leadership positions in the House and the ear mark ban.

That ain’t no “Civil War.”  This is, and the tone is becoming downright ugly. Uncivil, even.


image WASHINGTON (AP) — In a fresh sign of turmoil among defeated Democrats, a growing number of the rank and file say they won’t support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a politically symbolic roll call when the new Congress meets in January.

“The reality is that she is politically toxic,” said Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, one of several Democrats who are trying to pressure Pelosi to step aside as her party’s leader in the wake of historic election losses to Republicans last week.

…

There’s “starting to be a sense that this may not be as much of a done deal as people might have thought,” Rep. Jason Altmire said of Pelosi’s quest to remain the top Democrat.

…

“If enough people come out and voice a little discomfort with the idea of her continuing on, maybe she would reconsider,” said the Pennsylvanian, one of a handful of Democrats who said he won’t cast a ceremonial vote for her.


The private, secret ballot voting for party leadership is typically done behind closed doors. Neither party wants the press or the public to be privy to any intra-party squabbling. In this case, the squabbling behind the closed Democrat doors is likely to be much more like verbal warfare.  The Democrat Caucus is smaller, and the liberal element now makes up a much larger percentage, now that so many conservatives and moderates have been ousted.  So it’s likely that if she decides to stick it out, Pelosi will become the Minority Leader.

But Altmire and a handful of others are threatening to vote against her in the very public, usually symbolic roll call vote when the new Congress convenes in January.  Party defections in those events are exceedingly rare, and they would be seen as betrayal.

IF those vocal Democrats make good on their promises not to support Pelosi in the roll call vote, and if Pelosi predictably retaliates by stripping them of any sweet committee assignments they have left, then the real likelihood of party switching comes into play.

1994, anyone?

Monday, November 8, 2010

Obama in India: “Midcourse corrections” coming

From half-way around the world, President Obama told an audience in India that his administration would make “midcourse corrections” in the wake of last Tuesday’s devastating midterm elections.

He provided no specifics, but it’s increasingly clear that El Presidente hasn’t gotten the message. If he thinks that the only thing needed is a tweaking of staff and message to restart the domestic policy agenda he and the Democrat leadership began in January 2009, the wakeup call is going to come in the form of a bucket of ice water thrown at the White House.


NEW DELHI – Hampered by heavy election losses at home, President Barack Obama promised from India on Sunday to make "midcourse corrections" to reinvigorate his embattled domestic agenda in the face of a testier American public and more combative Congress.

…

Domestic politics followed Obama across the globe, and he tried to explain how he will recalibrate his presidency from the rubble of this past week's elections. The topic came up not in response to a question from a Washington reporter but rather an Indian college student, who told Obama: "It seems that the American people have asked for a change."

The president agreed that people vented their frustration about the economy by sacking many incumbents. A "healthy thing," he said, even though his Democratic Party suffered, losing control of one of the chambers in Congress. He said he would not retreat on spending money for energy and education, and offered no specific policy changes.

But then he added that the election "requires me to make some midcourse corrections and adjustments. And how those play themselves out over the next several months will be a matter of me being in discussions with the Republican Party."

Obama's words reflected the new political reality, sinking in by the day, that he must give ground to have hopes of advancing the leftover promises of his 2008 campaign.


Three things, here.  First, a simple recalibration of the message isn’t going to fly when he returns to Washington and sits down with congressional leaders ten days from now. Although he has said that he would listen to good ideas wherever they come from, his performance at the Blair House Healthcare Summit indicates otherwise.

Secondly, note the exquisite irony in the fact that an Indian college student, with absolutely no skin in the game of American politics at all, gets the message of last Tuesday’s vote better than the President whose policies were so soundly rejected.

Third and most striking is his characterization of last Tuesday’s bloodbath as “a healthy thing.” Tell that to the dozens of conservative and moderate Democrats who lost their jobs on Capitol Hill last week. Or to the members of the 19 to 23 state legislatures who lost their jobs as well. Do you think they believe the rout they took was healthy? He’s the reason so many of them are dusting off and updating their resumes this week. Obama, in the midst of a long, expensive and flashy Asian vacation thousands of miles away, cavalierly calls the results “healthy.”

If there’s one surefire way to consolidate your losses, it’s to remain as out of touch as humanly possible, continue to isolate yourself from anyone who matters in American governance,  abandon anyone who once considered you an ally and continue to insist that all you need to do is tweak a little here and there.

The Narcissist in Chief has weeks, not months, to wake up and realize what happened last week. If he doesn’t, and he continues with his aloof, arrogant attitude towards the Congress and the American people, he will cast his 2012 fate in stone.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Another liberal Democrat who didn’t get the message

A former staffer for Alabama Representative Artur Davis (D, AL-07), lawyer and defeated candidate for the Alabama House of Representatives (2006) and Alabama State Treasurer (2010) weighs in on the political Tsunami that swept Republicans into the majority in the US House of Representatives as well as both houses of the Alabama Legislature. His name is Jeremy Sherer, a Birmingham attorney whose practice specialty is labor law.

Guess what, sports fans? He didn’t get it:


Frankly — and I say this as an Alabamian who has twice sought elected office on the Democratic ticket — as definite as last week’s Republican tsunami was and as predictable as it might have been, it also was long overdue.

For too long, Alabama Democratic leaders have fallen short in crafting and implementing a dynamic, progressive agenda in a state that is riddled with public policy faults.

Over the past 136 years, despite controlling both the Alabama Legislature and governor’s office for all but approximately 13 years, Democrats have failed to reform Alabama’s Constitution, balance its regressive tax structure, implement substantive environmental protections and clean up campaign finance and electoral processes.

…

The 136-year reign of Democrats in Montgomery began with populism and ended with populism. Too many of those who would most benefit from traditional Democratic ideas regarding taxation, educational opportunity, campaign finance disclosure, environmental protections and occupational safety regulations were disaffected due to Democratic ineffectiveness or lack of action.

The need for the dynamic, progressive ideas that Democrats are most likely to provide is still present in Alabama. But the length of the journey through the political wilderness for Alabama Democrats is only beginning, and will last until the party refocuses itself and develops ideas that truly serve the public instead of those that nurture career politicians and entrenched interests.

…

Tuesday’s results were conclusive that Alabama’s Democratic establishment has strayed from its cause and lost sight of the dream.

Depending upon the degree of denial by some within the party regarding its waywardness, and depending too on Republican effectiveness in redistricting, I and my fellow Democrats could have more than ample time to not only rededicate ourselves to the cause, but to also dwell upon a dream that, if not lost, has at the very least been deferred.


 

Sherer doesn’t get it.  Like most flaming leftists, Sherer thinks that Democrats got their clocks cleaned last Tuesday not because they had strayed too far to the left, but that they hadn’t strayed far enough. In an excellent column at The Right Sphere, RB precisely describes the mood of the electorate last Tuesday. Americans weren’t upset over the inability or unwillingness of Democrats to push their progressive agenda.  It was the opposite—the audacity of the Progressives shocked and angered the center-right majority of the country to the point where no one felt it acceptable to go along with it anymore. They’d had enough of the left’s progressivism, and they rose up to smite the leftist beast.

In my own Straight Ticket column on October 22, I wrote:


As it is now, The Democrats have a far left-wing party that is completely out of touch with the center-right majority in America today, and it is actually the Republican Party that now embraces the conservative Democratic ideals that allowed the party to rule both houses of Congress for a generation.  Until the good and decent Democrats—like my old friend—have no choice but to take back their party and restore the American ideals it once held, they can’t be allowed to return to office.

The Democrat Party needs to clean house.  It needs to rid itself of elitist, progressive left-wing ideologues who think you’re about to vote against them out of fear and frustration. It’s a ruling class arrogance that convinces them that you aren’t smart enough, elite enough or nuanced enough to know what’s really good for you.  You need to leave important things like Health Care, Climate Change and Amnesty up to them, you peasant. In fact, the only reason why they still tolerate peasants at the polls is because of that pesky Second Amendment thing.


Some of the more reasonable, sane and centrist Democrats got the message. Others, like Sherer and members of the “professional left” elitist bloggers, obviously have not. For Sherer and those liberal elitists with their fingers still stuck in their ears, let me lay it out for you.

The Progressive Experiment has failed.  The people have rejected it altogether, in a historic election that overturned not only the arrogant Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate, but overturned 136 years of Democrat control of the Alabama government. It wasn’t because you didn’t do enough to move the progressive agenda forward. It was that you pushed too hard and tried to exert too much control over the lives of ordinary Americans.

Sherer’s ideas on “taxation, educational opportunity, campaign finance disclosure, environmental protections and occupational safety regulations” would translate into:

  • Raising taxes;
  • Trying to force equal education results vs equal opportunity;
  • Forcing conservative political contributors to be outed so that they can be harassed by the labor and environmental  interests he represents;
  • Further erosion of private property rights and the principles of contract law in the name of “environmental protection;”
  • Greater state and union power over private sector hiring and the right to work.

The people of Alabama, and the people of the United States, have had enough of that crap.  THAT was the message you got last Tuesday. You can choose to “get it,” or you can continue down the River Denial. When the Democrat party rids itself of such ideological nonsense as professed by its radical left wing, then they might regain the trust of the center-right electorate.

Until then, have a nice journey in the wilderness.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Tea Party Losses in the Senate: Bad candidates or worth the risk?

Establishment-minded Republicans, like Karl Rove and Lindsey Graham, have been in the news pointing out that the reason why Tea Party favorites Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck ran into so much trouble is because they were either (1) too conservative for the electorate whose votes they sought or (2) they were just bad candidates with bad campaigns. Or, both.

Lost in that message was the success of Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Nikki Haley. How did such Tea Party conservatives do so well while equally conservative O’Donnell, Angle and Buck fare so poorly?  Was it really that the former group were better candidates? Perhaps, but it doesn’t matter, especially in the Senate, and here’s why:

The rules of Senate debate limit the power and authority of the majority party. If you’re reading this blog, you’re already politically astute enough to understand what a filibuster is and what it takes to invoke cloture. Because only one-third of the US Senate is up for election each cycle, the house is naturally more resistant to wave changes like that which occurred in 1994.

As a result, when your party is poised to make significant gains in a midterm election it makes sense to take some risks with ideologically better candidates than play the safe cards with politically better candidates. We already knew, or at least should have known, that the Republicans were unlikely to take the Senate outright. And even had we done so, the effect of the victory would have been largely symbolic. The minority Democrats would still have had enough votes to filibuster any major legislative measure.

So why put liberal Republicans like Mike Castle in the US Senate? He’s no conservative and would have been a natural target for Democrats pushing cap and trade and amnesty. Why run such a candidate, have him win, and then have him turn coats and vote with liberals?

Why not take a risk with a Christine O’Donnell who, while admittedly a long-shot politically, would have been a slam dunk vote for a conservative legislative agenda? She only lost by 27,000 votes or so, in a deep blue state. With a little luck and a little more support, who knows what could have happened there?

Why put party apparatchik Sue Lowden up for US Senate in Nevada? Would she have had a better shot at knocking off Harry Reid than Sharron Angle did? Perhaps, but why not take the risk of installing a bona fide conservative?

The risk versus reward ratio is so off the charts here that anyone making the argument that candidates like Castle or Lowder would have made a real difference is doing so from an establishment perspective, not a conservative one. If your goal is to change the ideological makeup of the US Senate, you understand that its worth taking a risk on a less-than sure bet, if that risk pays off by installing a bona fide conservative. And, the payoff for settling for someone with and “R” after their name just to have enough votes to change majority leaders and committee chairmen is nothing more than political expediency.

We’ve had enough of politically expedient, establishment Republicans.  They do more damage than good.  If we have a chance—even a long shot chance—of installing a real conservative in the Senate, we should take it.

We did, and I for one have no regrets.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Beaten, unbowed: Nancy Pelosi says Dems lost because they didn’t do enough

image The capacity of the Democrat leadership to persist in their state of utter denial either represents psychosis, or an incredible ability to look straight at the American people and lie through their teeth.  Never was that made more apparent than Nancy Pelosi’s interview with Diane Sawyer yesterday afternoon.

Does she really believe that Tuesday’s historic election sweep was not a strong, clear message for Washington to stop and change course?  Or is she just psychotic?

Both?

Via the Daily Caller:


“Let’s understand the message,” Pelosi told ABC’s Diane Sawyer. “The message was not, ‘I reject the course that you are on.’ The message is it didn’t go fast enough to produce jobs.”

…

“I believe that Barack Obama will serve eight years as President of the United States,” Pelosi said, citing the “investments that he’s made.”

“Some of them are longer term, because he thinks in a statesman-like way, and that’s why they didn’t get the full impact now.”

…

But again, no regrets about the health care for all Americans, consumer protections of an historic nature, Wall Street reform, the list goes on,” Pelosi said.

“As to the agenda that we’ve put forth, progress wasn’t fast enough. And that’s really what the challenge is,” she said.

“No regrets. Because we believe we did the right thing,” Pelosi said. “I feel very at peace with how things have proceeded.”

She also blamed money from outside conservative groups for tipping the scales toward a GOP House takeover.


Shorter Democrat party line: “It’s never our fault when we lose elections.  We were doing everything right. It’s just that those mean old Republicans didn’t let us do enough, they distorted our message and brought in all those evil, nasty corporations and foreign money to pay for negative advertising.”

Pelosi’s comments were little different from the President’s, or of Harry Reid. “Um, no. The peasants didn’t really reject our policies or our agenda. They dislike that it wasn’t enough. No, we’re not gonna change a thing.”

Don’t let the arrogance of these statements escape you. Elitists like Obama, Reid and Pelosi are convinced—perhaps psychotically—that you don’t know what’s good for you and that it’s their duty to shove what’s good for you right down your throat.  Yesterday really wasn’t a civil revolt.  To Pelosi and her ilk, this was just a petulant child escaping the clutches of abusive parents and running for it.  To them, as soon as they can get their claws back on the little peasants, they’ll go right back to serving up dishes of tyranny in lethal quantities.  And smile the whole time.

For the incoming majority in the House of Representatives, and for the incoming majorities in most of the statehouses in the country, this is no time for compromise with these people. In fact, there is no room for compromise with these people, because there is no common ground between liberty and tyranny.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Diane Sawyer to interview Nancy Pelosi

h/t JammieWearingFool:

I'm almost tempted to watch what's sure to be a sobfest as hard-hitting journalist Diane Sawyer helps poor Nancy come to grips with the harsh reality she may soon have to fly coach.
Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) will sit for an interview Wednesday with ABC News as House Democrats wait for a decision on her future in Congress.
The decimated Democratic caucus is “in a holding pattern,” one Democratic aide said Wednesday, hours after the party suffered a landslide loss of their House majority.
Unlike Republicans, who are now jockeying for leadership posts in the 112th Congress, House Democrats are keeping their powder dry until they get a signal from Pelosi, who has given no indication of whether she intends to remain in the party leadership or stay in Congress at all.

A pity party, courtesy of Diane Sawyer.
What’s the next stop—The View? 

A Crimson Red Tide sweeps Alabama

image For the first time since Reconstruction, the Alabama Legislature will be controlled by the GOP. Combine that with a win by Republican Robert Bentley in the Gubernatorial race, a win by Republican Kay Ivey in the Lieutenant Governor’s race, Republican Luther Strange’s win in the Attorney General’s race, complete control of the Alabama Supreme Court and there is no other conclusion: Alabama is now a Crimson Red state.

Via the Mobile Press-Register:


An apparently energized electorate painted Alabama a deeper red Tuesday as Republicans hammered Democrats, winning the governor's office easily and a majority of seats in the Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction.

Dr. Robert Julian Bentley, who until June was a little-known Republican legislator and retired Tuscaloosa dermatologist, was elected Alabama's 53rd governor.

…

Republican Kay Ivey rode the anti-incumbent tide to upset Jim Folsom Jr., who was seeking a third term as lieutenant governor.

With 95 percent of the vote counted, Ivey, who is completing a second term as state treasurer, had 740,522, votes or 51.3 percent to Folsom's 702,239, votes or 48.7 percent.

…

Republican Luther Strange defeated Democrat James Anderson in the race for Alabama attorney general tonight.

"I'm honored, I'm happy with the results and I'm ready to go to work for the people of Alabama," Strange said from his campaign celebration in Homewood.

Strange, 57, of Birmingham, campaigned on a pledge to fight public corruption and restore integrity to an office held since 2004 by Republican Troy King.


Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby also cruised to reelection, as did AL-01 Representative Jo Bonner.  But in yet another example of the wave that swept the state last night, Montgomery’s Martha Roby swept political rival Bobby Bright out of the AL-02 race, leaving Alabama with one gerrymandered blue District, the AL-07. But with GOP control of the House, the Senate, the Governor’s Mansion, the AG’s office and the whole state Supreme Court, you can expect that District to get retooled in years to come.

Late last month, I implored you to vote a straight ticket.  It looks like many of you heeded that call and I’d love to take credit for starting the ripple that became the wave.  But I can’t pat myself on the back. In truth, the credit goes to the candidates and the Alabama Republican Party, all of whom worked tirelessly to make last night such a historic event. But I don’t doubt that the bloggers, facebookers and twitterers in this state had an impact.  You made history last night.

From the Shoals to the Wiregrass.  From Little River Canyon to the Fish River Bridge, Alabama is now painted in a cheery new shade of Crimson Red.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The Narcissist-in-Chief: Strategy sessions were all about Teh One

imageIn today’s online edition of the Wall Street Journal, writers Pete Wallsten And Jonathan Weisman describe some very tense meetings between the White House and Democrat Party officials. 

According to the report, party leaders wanted Obama to reconfigure his inner circle, even going so far as to fire some of his key staff members, after several  strategy sessions failed to produce a consensus on strategy they could use to minimize some of the catastrophic losses that Democrats will almost certainly suffer tonight.

From the story:


Tensions have come to the surface after meetings over the past few weeks in which Obama senior adviser David Axelrod discussed communications strategy with senior Democratic strategists and party officials. Some Democrats were so unhappy with the White House meetings, they started their own.

The strategy sessions aired a range of disagreements over how to help Democrats forestall an electoral drubbing at the polls—a defeat party strategists believe could have been minimized with a different White House playbook.

Among the complaints: Mr. Obama conveyed an incoherent message that didn't express what Democrats would do over the next two years if they retain power; he focused more on his own image than helping Democratic candidates; and the White House picked the wrong battle when it attacked Republicans for using "outside" money to pay for campaigns, an issue disconnected from voters' real-world anxieties.

…

"The money thing could work, but there's never been a larger frame around it to connect it to people's lives," said Dee Dee Myers, a consultant who worked for the Clinton White House when Republicans swept the 1994 elections. She said she participated in an Oct. 8 meeting with Mr. Axelrod and about 15 Democratic strategists at the White House.

A White House official defended the Obama Team's strategy. The pushback against the flood of advertising from outside conservative groups was vital, he said. "Candidates were being pummeled by those ads. Unless we raised the issue of who was paying for it all, they were going to get swallowed alive."


Would it have mattered if the Obama White House had agreed with Party and Congressional leaders on a consensus theme for defending themselves against a coordinated, nationalized Republican assault?  Perhaps.  But the Narcissist-in-Chief was hearing none of the larger party complaints.  While the election is indeed a referendum on the policies that they had jointly agreed to press forward, El Presidente appears to have been more interested in defending his own brand, rather than the Democrat brand.

They started on this great progressive journey together. Two years and an aggressive legislative agenda completed, and now it’s time to work together to defend their record and describe precisely what policies they would pursue together. What does the Narcissist-in-chief do?  He balks. “You’re on your own,” he seems to have told them.

Despite the fact that anywhere from 50 to 70 of “them” will lose their jobs tonight for sticking their neck out and voting with the Party leadership; and despite apparent pleas from Party and Hill Democrat leaders to help craft a common message that might help reduce some of those losses, they’re done.  The faithful have outlived their usefulness and they’re getting thrown under the bus.

Tonight, the most oft-gored ox will be the conservative Blue Dog caucus. Conservative District after Conservative District is likely to turn Crimson Red. And the message being sent to ordinary Democrats is that the far-left leadership of the party doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you.  That’s why it was so important for people to go to the polls and turn ALL Democrats out, which would force the good guys in the party to clean house and return the party to its mainstream base.

The left does not rule this country.  The center-right does.  Centrist Democrats and right-leaning Republicans can work together on common sense ideas that will restore the fiscal health of our great nation, and get it back on the path it’s supposed to be on.

The Narcissist-in-Chief isn’t willing to work with you on that, but we are.

Final Gallup Poll: “Get a paddle.”

image On the day that Americans go to the polls, Gallup has published its very last set of data on voter enthusiasm. The verdict? Record smashing Republican enthusiasm. If these numbers pan out during voting today, Republicans could be handing Barack Obama a butt whipping that are in line with even our most rabidly optimistic predictions.

There’s a little good news in there for Democrats.  They’re also expected to get some fairly good turnout numbers. Second best at 44% but well behind their numbers from 2006, when they peaked at 53%.  But that’s where the good news stops, ladies and gentlemen.


The record level of overall enthusiasm is primarily the result of Republicans’ heightened excitement — 63% of Republicans (including Republican-leaning independents) say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting. That not only greatly exceeds Democrats’ expressed enthusiasm this year, but also is substantially higher than what Gallup has measured for either party’s supporters on the eve of a midterm election.

The high level of Republican enthusiasm has led to the largest gap in enthusiasm by party of any recent midterm elections, 19 percentage points. The prior highs were nine points in favor of the Democrats in 2006, and nine points in favor of the Republicans in 1994.

…

The party with the advantage in enthusiasm has won the greater share of the national congressional vote, and gained seats in the House, each election year since Gallup began tracking voter enthusiasm in 1994.


Here’s a snapshot of the “enthusiasm gap” as measured by Gallup in the last five midterm elections. Nineteen points is unprecedented. It would be a mistake to try to correlate the enthusiasm gaps measured versus the number of seats that swung in each election, and then use the correlation to predict the landscape come tomorrow morning.  Why? Because the 2010 numbers are off the charts. 

image

The White House has announced a 1:00 pm EDT news conference tomorrow.   No word yet if John Boehner will attend, or if he’ll have a short, flat wooden object in his hands.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Two “Blue Dog” Districts that are almost certain to flip

I’ve talked about and linked to Nate Silver’s Five Thirty Eight blog about 373,384,288 times during this election cycle.  I’ve also mentioned two key, southern Blue Dog Districts several times.  Those are MS-04, where conservative Democrat Gene Taylor is locked in a dogfight with Steven Palazzo; and AL-02, where conservative Democrat and former Montgomery mayor is locked in a battle with former Montgomery city council member Martha Roby.

As of tonight, Election Eve, Silver has both races flipping to the Republicans.

Click this link for his forecast for MS-04.

Click this link for his forecast for AL-02.

Early in this cycle, both of these seats looked like safe holds for the Democrats. Congressional Quarterly had them both reliably blue. But Taylor’s support has eroded quickly in the face of a fierce media campaign by Palazzo and Martha Roby’s been getting tremendous Tea Party and national GOP support.

As of the opening of polls tomorrow morning, it looks like they’re both going Crimson Red.

“We don’t call them ‘enemies.’ We call them ‘patriots.’” UPDATED

RedMeat

Scroll down for an update.

John Boehner is going after Obama in a closing argument aimed at making sure this election is a nationalized referendum on the President’s politics.  At a rally tonight in Cincinnati, Ohio the man who will replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House will remind the nation that this election is about complete repudiation of Obama’s divisive, arrogant and hyperpartisan rhetoric.  As reported on America’s Newsroom on Fox News and in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal, Boehner released an advance copy of the remarks he’ll give tonight.


“We have a president in the White House who referred to Americans who disagree with him as ‘our enemies.’  Think about that. He actually used that word. When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators – enemies of the United States.”

“Sadly, we have [a] president who used the word ‘enemy’ for fellow Americans…fellow citizens. He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda for bigger government…people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government.”

“Mr. President, there’s a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution and the values of limited government that made our country great. We don’t call them ‘enemies.’ We call them ‘patriots.’”


Preach it!

Fired up rhetoric like this doesn’t make much of an impact this late in the game. But it does fire up the base, demoralize the opposition base and perhaps push a few of the dunderheads who haven’t yet made up their minds.

But it also shows that the GOP leadership is listening to its base.  The “enemies” comments got little criticism in the mainstream, legacy media.  Most of the scorn and outrage came from blogs, talk radio and social media.  The GOP has long been derided for not having its finger on our pulse.  Indeed, that’s one of the reasons they lost their way after the 2004 election and got “fired” in 2006 and 2008.  If they really are listening then it’s a wonderful thing.

We have a lot to say, Mr. Speaker.  And yes, we are Patriots.

UPDATE: Via Politico, Obama is now trying to un-ring the bell.


In Monday’s radio interview with Michael Baisden, Obama said: “I had a conversation with a Hispanic radio outlet, Univision, and during the course of that conversation, one of the things that I had to say to the Latino community, which is frustrated that we haven't seen progress on immigration reform, was that they can't sit out of this election. There were arguments being made that because Democrats hadn’t gotten this done, that Latinos should vote against Democrats or just sit out the election.

“And I said, well, you can't punish your friends when — the folks who’ve been supporting it. Now, I did also say if you're going to punish somebody, punish your enemies, and I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of ‘enemies.’ Now the Republicans are saying that I'm calling them enemies. What I'm saying is you’re an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different.”


Umm, no.  Sorry.  No do overs.  He let the truth of his attitude show in the first interview with Univision. Conservatives, in his sick little mind, are his enemies and they must be punished. Now that the mask has slipped and he learns that the soon-to-be Speaker of the House is going to hoist him with his own petard, he’s out there with another media outlet trying to walk it back.

This is the same thing as a racist saying he really didn’t mean to use the “N” word.  Or, the same as Jesse Jackson saying he really didn’t mean to refer to New York as “Hymie Town.” You don’t get to un-ring the bell.

Can we party like it’s 1773 yet?

image Um, no.  Vote first please, and if you have the opportunity, please take someone to the polls with you so that they can vote, too.  And call a few folks that you aren’t sure about and ask them to go vote, too.  Then, if the numbers shake out like they’re projected to, you can start to boogie at about 7:00 pm tomorrow night.

Gallup’s final look at the generic Congressional ballot shows an “unprecedented” gap in enthusiasm.  Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight notes that damned near every polling outfit—even the ones that don’t like showing a lean to the GOP—are showing a strong lean towards the GOP.

From Gallup:


It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained.

Additionally, efforts by state legislatures in recent years have attempted to insulate incumbent members of Congress from strong partisan tides such as are in force this year. Congressional district lines have been drawn to make them safe for specific parties, which may reduce the impact of national trends on election outcomes.


From Nate Silver:


Fox News, whose models haven’t had a Republican lean in the past but have something of one this year, has Republicans up 13. CNN has them up 10. Rasmussen, up 9. YouGov, plus 8.

The CBS/New York Times poll has them up 6, as does the survey from Pew Research, as does an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that asks voters which party they’d prefer to see control Congress (not technically a generic ballot poll, but the questions usually produce similar results.)

…

Nevertheless, if a simple formula and a complex one tell you the same thing — yeah, Tuesday’s probably going to be a really good night for Republicans, but we really don’t have a very good idea of exactly how good — it’s probably time to embrace that conclusion. This is a really strange election, or at least one that pollsters are having an awfully difficult time getting a handle on. To claim you can predict Republican gains within a range of 5 or 10 seats isn’t science — it’s superstition.


When it comes to the science of forecasting elections, pay attention to Silver.  The dude works for the worst of the worstly biased media outlets in the history of modern journalism, but he sticks to the numbers and the numbers give the Democrats about a one-in-six chance of holding power in the House.

In the Hot Air Green Room, Patrick Ishmael has a seat-by-seat cheat sheet that you can print and use to keep up with how far the wave washes inland. 

But please, make sure you vote before you start to party, Ok?  And make sure everyone around you votes, and have them make sure everyone around them votes, too. 

Friday, October 29, 2010

Gene Taylor, conservative Blue Dog from Mississippi, in trouble

As late as last week, Congressional Quarterly had the 4th Congressional District of Mississippi rated as Safe Democrat.

Today, it’s yellow—tossup.

Folks, Gene Taylor would never get elected as a Democrat in a state like California or Michigan.  He’s too conservative.  He’s the guy who said he voted for John McCain in 2008.  He also voted against Obamacare. He’s also one of the Democrats who said he’d support someone other than Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

But his challenger, Steven Palazzo, is flooding the south Mississippi airwaves with an impressive and positive ad, while Taylor has turned negative.

Palazzo is also running his ads on WBUV News Radio 104.9, a coastal Mississippi talk radio station with a strong conservative bent.  The people most interested in news and politics in the three most populous counties in the state listen to 104.9 (including me when I’m in the area for business).  I haven’t heard one of Taylor’s ads on that station, and neither has a business associate of mine who lives in Gulfport.

Taylor and Palazzo meet in their first and only debate of the campaign tonight at 6:00 pm CDT. You can listen live here.

At first, Taylor wouldn’t even respond to Palazzo’s requests for a debate.  That Taylor agreed, and that the debate is happening on the Friday night before the election, has to be a troubling omen for Democrats hoping to hold the seat.

Might as well fold the “big tent.” Dem caucus to shift left in 112th Congress

Nice piece in Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller today, describing an ideological shift in the Democrats’ caucus after the November elections.

That whole “big tent” thing about Democrats embracing diverse views among its party members?  Might as well fold it up and return it to the rental joint.


While members of the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus are relatively safe in a tough year for Democrats, the more moderate Blue Dog Democrats in the House will be on the endangered species list after Tuesday’s election.

In fact, a Daily Caller analysis of House races shows that a member running in a Blue Dog district is about five times more likely to be at least somewhat vulnerable than a Progressive Caucus member.

Based on the RealClearPolitics ratings of House races, 62 of 76 seats held by a member of the Progressive Caucus are “safe.” For the Blue Dogs, the picture is much more bleak. Of the 54 districts held by a member of that caucus, only six are “safe.”

Some of the vulnerable Blue Dogs include members like Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry, Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler and Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor.

…

“It’s clear that the new House Democratic Caucus will be smaller, more liberal, and more California-centric,” remarked one senior GOP aide. “That’s going to make it even harder for them to reach out to the independent and moderate Americans whose support they have lost.”


There are four things that should jump out at you when reading this story.

The first is that moderate and “conservative” Democrats made their own bed in the 111th Congress, especially in the House. They gave into pressure from Democrat leadership in Congress and caved on Healthcare and Porkulus. Had they stuck to their fiscal conservatism and voted the way their constituents expected them to, they wouldn’t be in this predicament.  Sound familiar?  When you abandon your principles, voters pay you back by ousting you, just like they did to Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

Secondly, the chief reason why so many liberal seats are safe is because of gerrymandering.  A huge majority of them are in Districts carefully drawn to make sure that their constituents are leftists.  Houston’s Sheila Jackson-Lee.  Atlanta’s John Lewis and Hank Johnson.  San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi.  Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But the 2010 election is also about downballot races, so giving your governor a GOP-controlled legislature can help fix some of that foolishness and make  these people compete on the quality of their ideas, not the color of their skin or the demographics of a cobbled-together District.

Third, the fact that the Democrat caucus will shift so far left means that their willingness to compromise with a GOP-led House is virtually nil.  What gets accomplished in the House will be accomplished by Republicans, with little Democrat support.

And last of all, the likelihood of those Blue Dog Democrats regaining power in 2012 dims considerably, if their Republican replacements toe the line of fiscal conservativism.  A GOP Congresscritter in a conservative District who sticks to smaller government, lower taxes and better business environment for job creation always wins. Always.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

With a stroke of a pen, let’s make history again

This is a radio ad running in the Mobile, Alabama media markets.

These aren’t actors.  They’re real people on the Gulf Coast whose lives have been affected by the Obama regime’s erosion of our liberties “with the stroke of a pen.”

Let’s make history again.  With the stroke of a pen.



New York City’s Ballot: Worse than the infamous Butterfly Ballot

image The Butterfly Ballot was used in Palm Beach County, Florida in the 2000.  It was so confusing that some media outlets blame it for costing Al Gore Florida’s electoral votes and thus, the White House.

But there’s a new challenger for the crown of the country’s Worst Ballot in the History of the Republic™ and it hails from New York City.

The ballot’s even been nominated by the Center for Plain Language WonderMark Award, given as a booby prize for ambiguous or confusing language on government documents:


New York City's election ballot is so confusing it's starting to get national recognition.

The city's paper ballot has drawn jeers in recent weeks over a series of potential flaws, leading to the firing of the election board's director on Tuesday. Most prominently, the instructions tell voters to fill out the oval "above or next to" a candidate's name, though the corresponding ovals on the ballot are actually below each candidate's name.

…

The nation got a taste of the problems poorly designed ballots can cause during the 2000 presidential election fiasco, when Florida's confusing butterfly ballots wreaked havoc at the polls. Lawrence Norden, with the Brennan Center for Justice, drew attention to the New York ballot instructions in a letter to state officials last week.

"A voter who follows the directions and chooses the oval above the candidate's name will actually be voting for a different candidate than she intends," he wrote.

…

The New York Post first reported that the Queens election ballot was set up so that the name of one of the other Democratic candidates, Ruben Wills, would appear in the same column as the Republican candidates. The Board of Elections fired its executive director George Gonzalez shortly afterward.


I use the Florida 2000 election fiasco often when lecturing on project planning and project management.  My shtick goes something like this:

“I was in a conference in South Florida a year or so back.  After a rather long morning roundtable session, the nine people in my group decided to vote on where we’d all go to lunch.  The conference organizers were paying for lunch, so we had to pick one place so there’d only be one tab.  The choices were a famous chain restaurant where attractive young ladies serve beer and pretty good chicken wings or a trendy bistro with low fat wraps, salads and other healthy fare.

“We discussed it among ourselves and everyone had their say.  Then, we took the vote.

“Four voted for Hooters, three voted for Bistro Lite and two voted for Pat Buchanan.”

“Those were the best damned wings I’ve ever tasted.”

Obama’s defecting coalition is led by Main Street Moms

image A fresh New York Times/CBS poll shows that the coalition of demographics that came together and swept Obama into the White House is falling apart and breaking for Republicans in the midterms.

Click the image on the right to see the New York Times story.

Women, Catholics, the middle class, independents went strongly for Obama in 2008. In 2010, they’re breaking for Republicans in numbers that exceed even those of 1994, the last major wave election that favored the GOP.

College graduates and suburban dwellers, which split about evenly between Obama and McCain, are also now strongly favoring the GOP.

Women are the key this year.  Even in the Glorious Revolution of 1994, women favored Democrats and gave rise to the so-called “gender gap” that persisted throughout the 1990’s and 2000’s.

The “gender gap” now favors the Republicans.  Political analysts and the chattering classes will spend hours upon hours and chew up terabytes of bandwidth trying to explain why women have shifted so strongly.

I think I can sum it up in one sentence:

Women, particularly those who have children or grandchildren, are strongly concerned about the future of their country and  their children.

The 1990’s were a period of transition between the Cold War and the 21st Century, which Bill Clinton skillfully used to campaign on women’s issues while playing on fears that Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, were insensitive to the needs of middle class families.

The Obama coalition played from a nearly identical sheet of music, but then governed in the first two years as a clear and present danger to the long term financial solvency of the country.

No woman who loves her children and wants to see them live in a better future can look at the current fiscal situation and conclude that her children will be better off tomorrow than she is today. I think another strong undercurrent is that many of the most popular candidates running for office in 2010 are women just like the Main Street Mom.  They’re successful, strong-willed and well-educated women who have juggled the hectic concoction of home and professional life.  They are women of character, commitment and confidence.  If they can handle marriage, work, kids and community, restoring America’s commitment to prosperity is a cinch.

GOP Ad: Beautiful in its simplicity

It’s only four lines, and it’s on a three-color sticker that measures 3” x 3” and placed on the front page of today’s Mobile Press-Register final Print Edition.

This ad is beautiful in its simplicity. 

I hope it’s effective as it is beautiful.


image


On Tuesday, November 2

With the stroke of your pen…

Make history again

 

Vote Republican

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

AP Voter Guides Released

The Associated Press has been publishing state-by-state voter guides since I trotted into the voting booth behind my Dad.  I was given the important job of reading, then carrying the newsprint version during this important task.

The 2010 version is out.

The modern versions sadly don’t have the detailed, local flavor that they did back in the day, and I doubt many local papers will run print versions in the days ahead.  Today, they’re a collection of links to useful sites in each state.

Here’s the link to the national summary.

And here are the state-by-state summaries.


Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

  1. (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
  2. Office of the State Election Commissioner
  3. Delaware 2010 Ballotpedia

District of Columbia

  1. (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
  2. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics
  3. District of Columbia 2010 Ballotpedia

Florida

  1. (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
  2. Florida State Voting Information
  3. Project Vote Smart 2010 ballot measures

Georgia

  1. (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
  2. Georgia Secretary of State My Voter Page
  3. Project Vote Smart 2010 ballot measures

Hawaii

  1. (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
  2. Hawaii State Office of Elections
  3. Project Vote Smart 2010 ballot measures

Idaho

  1. (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
  2. Idaho Secretary of State Elections, Campaign Disclosures and Lobbyists
  3. Project Vote Smart 2010 ballot measures

Illinois

  1. (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
  2. Illinois State Board of Elections
  3. Project Vote Smart 2010 ballot measures

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming