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.

Project Gulf Impact: One chapter closed, many more remain open

Stories in this series:

• From the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, a new Truther movement is born
• EXCLUSIVE: What’s really going on with Project Gulf Impact?
• Continuing the investigation into Project Gulf Impact: Questions, questions, questions
• Project Gulf Impact and passing the “smell test.”

Last night, Project Gulf Impact posted these two documents on their website:

The Statement of Incorporation contains details that are inconsistent with the query results found earlier this week at the California Secretary of State’s website, and the dates of filing on the two documents are years apart. However, PGI deserves the benefit of the doubt here.  I wrote yesterday that if  “PGI’s principals provide documentation showing that they are indeed a legitimate charitable organization and that the use of funds were consistent with the stated goals of the organization,” I’d post it.  They’ve answered the first request well enough and that chapter is closed. 

Interestingly, a few hours after these documents appeared, an accusatory and obscenity-laden diatribe was posted anonymously on yesterday’s comment section, and both site traffic monitors used here pegged the originating IP address to a location in Burbank, California.  Draw your own conclusions there, but the post was deleted and the comments section closed. Let’s behave like reasonable, well-centered grownups here.

While the SOI and Bylaws answer the questions raised regarding PGI’s operation under a legitimate corporate umbrella, a number of other key matters remain unresolved.  Specifically:

Why was PGI’s donation page significantly altered after PGI was contacted with a request for information about it?  PGI made significant changes to their primary fundraising solicitation document—the document they used to solicit the charitable contributions—but only after being alerted that someone was digging.  More troubling is the fact that the changes made to that document removed all of the language that described how the organization would use those funds—after the bulk of the funds were raised.

If I were going to make a donation to a charitable organization, I’d want to know exactly how the organization planned to use my money. Wouldn’t you? And, if the organization suddenly changed its plans to something I was less comfortable with after I’d made my donation—or removed language describing those plans altogether—I’d be pretty upset.  Wouldn’t you?

One of the stated objectives was to “provide teach-ins and workshops on health-related issues.” How many of these events were held?  What were the dates and locations of these events? 

Another of the stated objectives was “to provide aid in the way of supplies, gas cards and other necessary materials for Gulf residents.”  What supplies were provided?  Meals?  Clothing?  Medicine?  Infant formula?  How many gas cards were purchased?  What were the denominations?  Who were they distributed to?  Did PGI conduct any type of eligibility testing to insure that only those truly in need received these resources? It’s unthinkable that PGI went down to Plaquemines Parish Louisiana and simply threw money into the air. 

“Health hazards and prevention will be the primary focus,” PGI’s website said.  What specific health hazards were the focus, and how did PGI endeavor to prevent them?  Did they distribute TyVek© suits? Gas masks and respirators?  To whom?  The website also makes a bare allegation that “residents are currently breathing and being poisoned by toxic elements.” What data has PGI collected to document the alleged poisoning of residents?  Have those data been analyzed in controlled scientific investigations?  What were the results?

The website also flatly stated that “funding will also be used towards independent air and water testing.”  Who are the independent labs PGI used to conduct the air and water tests?  What were the sampling procedures used?  What were the testing protocols employed? What were the results?  How did those results compare with the results of extensive air and water sampling performed by EPA?  EPA’s results found no significant human health hazards.  Does PGI’s data dispute those results? 

Who are the “doctors and experts” that PGI were allegedly connected with?  How was their independence determined?  What were their qualifications?  Are they physicians licensed to practice medicine in the states PGI visited, or are they quacks?  What in their curriculum vitae establishes that they are suitably qualified to serve as experts, and what exactly were they consulted about?  What were their conclusions?  Have their data, analyses and conclusions been peer-reviewed?  Are their analyses published in any scientific journal? 

The number one priority in the now-deleted statements was to “get back down to the Gulf.”  PGI felt that was so important, it was stated twice.  And, by all accounts they did indeed get back down to the Gulf.  What did they do? The aspiring actor, the Southern Cal grad student and the grad student’s girlfriend promptly threw a party for themselves and a few dozen of their very best friends.

Two other questions regarding PGI’s objectivity should be addressed as well. It’s already been established that Mr. Garrison produced a government-funded documentary on global climate change. It’s also been established that PGI has “partnered” with Coffee Party USA, an astroturfed leftist response to the much larger conservative-minded Tea Party grassroots movement that will likely shape the November 2010 election.  And, the aspiring actor’s address to the Netroots Nation 2010 Convention firmly establishes a relationship with that left wing organization.

Remember the last paragraph of the organization’s bylaws (dated October 5, 2006):

Unlike other non-profits, Coffee Party USA is a 501(c)(4) organization, and its contributions are NOT tax deductible.  501(c)(4) organizations do actively participate and intervene in political campaigns, and can spend money on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office. Many of the self-described “grass roots” organizations associated with Net Roots are 501(c)(4) corporations, as well.

It’s difficult to conclude that PGI has violated its own bylaws through formal relationships with left wing political fundraising organizations. It’s a fine line, and PGI seems to have come awfully close to it.  Regardless of whether that line has been crossed, PGI’s relationship with Netroots Nation and Coffee Party USA, combined with Mr. Garrison’s climate change filmography makes one wonder what the real agenda is.

Is it really about improving the plight of Gulf Coast residents, or is it about pushing a radical, leftwing environmental agenda?

Progressives and the race card

It's a decades-old ploy that the progressive left have nearly perfected.  If any debate or controversy can be framed in race, it is.  Our President was supposed to have been the "post-racial" regime.  It has been anything but.  From the day he announced his candidacy for the highest office in the land, right through the recent weeks' announcements that two prominent black Democrats would face ethics charges, allegations of racially-motivated opposition surface as soon as the progressive left realizes that the targets are black Democrats.

Progressives use race first as a weapon.  They wield it as a massive club, seeking to bludgeon opponents into shamed silence.  "How dare you oppose Barack Obama's policies.  You are obviously a RACIST." Progressives fetch that weapon with such regularity because it works so bloody well, especially against other liberals.  White guilt is a prominent psychological malady among Caucasian upper-middle class liberals.  They're ashamed of slavery.  They're ashamed of Jim Crow.  They're ashamed of the white backlash against the Civil Rights movement, and not just in the south.  The weapon is also effective against moderates, who would rather be caught dead than be accused of having ulterior motives in supporting or opposing a policy matter.  Thus, use of racial bias is effective in cobbling together the however slight majority is needed to implement new progressive policies or seat progressive advocates in positions of power.  Opposition to healthcare reform was framed as racist.  Opposition to Justice Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court was framed as racist.  The ethics allegations against Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are being framed as racist.  It goes on and on because it's effective.

The Rangel and Waters cases demonstrate another way that the progressive left uses race.  When their bludgeoning has failed to produce a desired result, progressives use race as a shield and quickly retreat behind it.  The plummeting approval ratings of both Congress and the White House, according to progressives, have nothing to do with the public's rejection of the radical leftist agenda.  It's because Barack Obama is black.  The charges against Rangel and Waters are racially motivated because well, it's Congress and everybody does it and why single out blacks?  And who can forget what the first allegations against Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and her state's new immigration enforcement law were?


Enough moderate and conservative black citizens have decided to take their own stands.  People like Anita Moncrief, Deroy Murdock, Thomas Sowell, Colonel Allen West and a host of others are weathering "Uncle Tom" and Oreo criticism for recognizing the flaws in progressive policy and standing up as Americans.

Moderates, swing voters and ordinary Americans can stop the race-card foolishness by joining Moncrief, Murdock, Sowell, West et al by simply refusing to play along with the progressives. If you are opposed to a policy change or a candidate, or if you believe charges of corruption are founded in basic American principles of freedom, smaller government and the rule of law, you state that and steadfastly defend your views. Articulate your reasoning and calmly explain the logic behind your position.  Snatch the bludgeon--or the shield--from the progressives' hands, and toss it aside.  Make them defend their views on the merits of their arguments.  If black conservatives can do it, the mushy middle can too, if they decide to use the spine their Creator placed in their backs.

Gimme some feedback in the comments.

Glenn Beck and Paul Ryan, 04/12/10

Audio Link:
The Right Scoop- Glenn Beck with Paul Ryan.


It's a 12+ minute segment, but it's worth the time to listen through. There's a little red meat at around the 2:00 mark, where host and guest both agree that progressivism "is a cancer." That set the lefty blogs into a bona fide conniption.

The impetus for the segment was a post at Hot Air, wherein that blog's resident mooshy moderate misinterprets Ryan's Oklahoma speech and calls him a "conservative progressive," or "progressive conservative," or some other equally oxymoronic half-breed between good and evil. Beck, after reading the post, went nuclear on Ryan. Ryan's people contacted Beck, Beck had him on the show, and a new alliance was formed.