You Sir, Are Doomed

Excuse me while I laugh. . . ROFLMAO(twice). Sorry, but sometimes the news makes me laugh. It doesn’t make the Democrats laugh, but I sure do. Here’s the latest:

Item 1: Enthusiasm Gap

First up, we have Obama’s rural problem. Obama won the Pennsylvania primary as expected. Nothing to see here, right? Well, some worried leftists looked a little deeper and discovered a wee hint of a problem. Let’s call it an enthusiasm gap, shall we?

Obama ran unopposed in Pennsylvania. But when PoliticsPA looked at the voting data, they found that in 27 of the state’s 67 counties, more than 30% of Democratic voters didn’t vote for Obama. That’s right, they left it blank.

Think about that. These people were enthusiastic enough to turn out for a primary, but then chose not to voter for their own Presidential candidate. Fascinating. They couldn’t even be bothered to lift their pens or chad-pokers or whatever they use to vote in Pennsylvania and poke a hole for old Obamy. Wow.

And this isn’t a new problem. In Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, Obama lost 40% of the primary vote to “not him.” In West Virginia, he actually lost 8 counties to convicted criminal Keith Judd, who is serving time in Texas. In Oklahoma, Obama lost 18% of the vote and 12 counties to an anti-abortion protestor. He lost 12% of Louisiana Democrats to a lawyer from Tennessee. And so on.

Until Pennsylvania, none of these were states Obama was supposed to win, so it didn’t freak too many people out. But Pennsylvania is supposed to be Obama country and it tells us he’s got serious problems. If even 2% of his supporters don’t turn out, he will lose, and this suggests that 30% of Democrats are, to put it lightly, not enthusiastic about voting for him. Moreover, Pennsylvania gives us a strong bit of insight into the key states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. The man is doomed. Maybe he should buy some overalls?

Item 2: I Am Woman, Hear Me Whine!

A couple of chicks just threw an interesting hissyfit about the mistreatment of poor, noble Elizabeth Warren, as well as other representatives of the double-X chromosome set everywhere. What upset them? Well. . .

According to these brainiacs, when male candidates attack female candidates, they always attack their honesty. Why? Because “female candidates generally have an advantage on honesty and ethics,” i.e. they are more honest. So male candidates must destroy this perception. Hence, when male candidates challenge them about their honesty, it has nothing to do with politics as usual or the actual issue being brought up. Nope. It’s just a strategy meant to undermine the biggest advantage female candidates have. . . and that’s sexist. Whined the chickies, “It’s upsetting not only because it is a cheap shot, but also because it is a tactic that disguises political games as a genuine push for transparency.”

Wrong.

For starters, how in the world can something that is true and goes to a candidate’s honesty, integrity and ethics be considered a cheap shot? The cheap shot is actually the idiot who lied and then tries to hide behind their chromosomes to get immunity. Secondly, how is this a “woman’s issue”? Name a single male candidate who hasn’t had his honesty and ethics challenged?

Also, where are the examples of other women similarly attacked? The other examples they give in the article are Nikki Haley being accused of infidelity and Alex Sink losing the voters when she decided to play with her cell phone during a televised debate. Well, let’s consider these. The accusation of infidelity is nothing new. In fact, I can’t think of a Republican who hasn’t been accused of mystery infidelity by the Democratic machine. How is the attack against Haley anything special?

As for Sink looking at her cell phone, notice first that this is not a smear by her opponent, it is something she did herself to hurt the public’s perception of her seriousness as a candidate. Hence, it doesn’t support the argument the chickies are making. Not to mention, this is no different than Mike Dukakis flaming out because he looked stupid in a helmet, Howard Dean flaming out for a scream, or a dozen-dozen other examples. Again, this isn’t a gender issue.

The fact is Warren is flaming out because she’s a liar and an idiot, and she never learned the first rule of politics, which is to stop shoveling when you find yourself in a hole. She tried to sell herself as something she is not and her attempts to defend her lie blew up in her face repeatedly. The fact that she’s a liar and an idiot means she should not be trusted. This has nothing to do with her gender. . . whatever that may truly be.


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Meet Elizabeth Warren—Native American

California is not the only liberal state with candidates who routinely lie and exaggerate those parts of their lives which will appeal to their large politically-correct constituency. If you can’t be a black woman, or a wise Latina, there’s always your popular victim ethnic background—be a Native American. I would use the old-fashioned “Indian,” but the Democrats have already proven they don’t much like Bobby Jindal.

So---here’s Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senatorial candidate. She’s running against Republican Scott Brown. Brown won the seat that had been called the “Kennedy seat” for decades, handing the Democrats a very embarrassing defeat. The Democrats are not about to let that white, pickup-driving man hold onto that seat. So they picked a woman who has in the past claimed to be a Native American. In fact, it was one of the items which originally got her teaching positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.

The truth is that Warren is about as much a Native American as her counterpart, the disgraced Ward Churchill, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The number of Americans whose families have been here for a long time includes a great many who have some Native American blood. Most are proud of their heritage, but rarely declare themselves Native Americans when their genes are 1/32 or less tribal. If anything Warren says about her bloodline is true, she is at most 1/32 Native American.

Warren first tried to establish her political bona fides with the common folk of Massachusetts by calling herself “the Okie from Harvard.” She was indeed born in Oklahoma City, but has spent most of her life living elsewhere, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. But before she tried to pass off that ½ truth, she first did her 1/32 truth in order to get preference for her teaching positions. When early reports came out showing that she had at least distorted her ethnic heritage in order to get preference for teaching positions, she waffled.

Instead of addressing directly the issue of her thin Native American bloodline, she indignantly denied that she had ever used that heritage to gain an advantage over other applicants for the positions. Even if that was partially true, there’s no question that she enhanced the original story as she moved from job to job, by calling herself a “minority professor.” She attended professional meetings and forums specifically as a minority professor. But knowing the best defense is a good offense, she got officials at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas, and the University of Houston to state the she had not used her Native American heritage in order to get teaching positions there.

Well, what else would you expect? The criteria for hiring one potential professor over another are very arcane and secretive, and in this day of affirmative action backlash and anti-discrimination public hiring laws, no institution is going to admit that ethnicity was a determining factor. Still, those same universities proudly went along with Warren’s description of herself as a minority professor. Needless to say, Warren is blaming Scott Brown partisans for raising a “phony issue.” The mainstream media are assisting Warren, of natch. The Washington Post asks "why is this non-issue being treated as if it were important news?"

For a law professor and now a professional politician, Warren is not very good at deflecting criticism or arguing a point coherently (which actually qualifies her to be Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee). At a recent press conference, Warren babbled about her use of the minority professor gambit. “I listed myself for nearly a decade as a minority law teacher in order to connect with others like me.” She then stumbled over why she de-listed herself as a minority professor when she no longer needed the leg up.

And then she managed to prove herself another racist liberal by stating that she never really claimed to be a Native American, "it was all about stories passed on in her family for decades." Most importantly, she identifies with Native Americans because her grandfather “had the high cheekbones possessed by all Native Americans." Is that anything like “a typical white person?” The schools she taught at never listed her as being specifically Native American, but went along with the minority professor gag. She alone embellished her tribal roots.

If Harvard wasn’t affected by her claims which resulted in her hiring and granting of tenure, they did a very good imitation of it. When administration officials were questioned about the issue, the reply was that even though they had never hired a professor from a second-tier law school for a professor’s position, her expertise on debtor/creditor law pushed her into top contention. And they were proud to have such a notable minority professor. The Harvard Crimson was a bit less scrupulous about her claims. The campus paper published several articles in which Warren touted her connections to the Delaware and Cherokee tribes.

In the long run, this may be a tempest in a teapot. But given her exaggerations about being the Okie Harvard professor and a Native American, one has to wonder what else she has been distorting about her life and credentials. If this turns out to be a pattern, she may find that her attempts to blend in with the non-Harvard elite and to match Scott Brown’s genuine middle class values will end up simply looking ridiculous. Better to admit she is a Harvard elitist than to claim to be something she is provably not.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Reid's Jobs Bill (yawn)

Scott Brown is a dirty traitor. (Yawn.) He voted for Harry Reid’s (yawn) jobs bill. Oh, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude (yawn), I just find it hard to care about this bill.

Once upon a time, Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Charles Grassley worked together in harmony, hand-in-hand, as lovers, to craft a truly bipartisanship way to throw away $85 billion. Ostensibly, their plan would have created more than one job. . . though I doubt that. Still, they did center justify the text of their bill, and it looked very pretty.

But then Senatorial Rogue Dingy Harry Reid, aka The Dinge, jammed a knife in their backs within about an hour of the unveiling. Indeed, Reid decided that he wasn’t even going to allow that $85 billion dollar bill to come to the Senate floor for consideration because. . . and I kid you not. . . it included things the Republicans liked. So much for focusing on the American people instead of partisan politics.

As a result of Reid’s crapulence, this $85 billion bipartisan bill vanished in a huff of smoke, and Baucus was. . . well, I don’t know if there’s a Senatorial term for what I’m thinking, it’s like “pistol-whipped” only less cool. . . maybe “gavel-slapped”? Yes, that works: This bill vanished in a huff of smoke, and Baucus was gavel-slapped.

In place of the $85 billion bill, Reid produced a “$15 billion” bill. Here is what it does:

• It provides $20 billion to fund highway and transit programs through 2010.

Boy does this sound good, until you realize two things. First, these projects are already underway and have hired all they’re going to hire. So don’t look for new jobs. Secondly, this only spends $20 billion on these projects, which is less than 10% of what the vaunted stimulus bill spent on roads. . . and you know how well that turned out.

• It provides a $1,000 exemption from social security payroll taxes for employers who hire unemployed people.

Now you may recall that I have advocated cutting the payroll tax to provide an incentive for companies to hire new workers. But this ain’t that. First, this is only for one year, meaning there is no incentive to hire anything other than temporary workers. It also appears that you only get the $1,000 credit if the employee stays the entire year, i.e. it’s risky. And it only applies to currently unemployed workers, which means there will be a mismatch between available labor and needed labor. Nice work Harry. Maybe next time, you can limit the tax cut to one-legged men with hunchbacks and an aversion to clowns. Not to mention, if this is a $15 billion bill and it’s already spent $20 billion on roads, that doesn’t really leave much for these tax cuts, does it?

• It extends a tax break for businesses that spend money on capital investments like equipment purchases.

Ah ha! This is the cut in capital gains that I advocated. . . only, it isn’t. This isn’t a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Thus, it doesn’t change business behavior by encouraging businesses to sell their old equipment and replace it with new equipment. This is just a one-time discount on new equipment, which you don’t need if you’re still depreciating the old stuff. And even then, it’s so targeted that even our one-legged man with the hunchback and the aversion to clowns probably won’t qualify.

• It expands the use of Build America Bonds to put states further into debt on capital construction projects.

As I discussed the other day, sometimes infrastructure spending can be a good idea. But this sounds like a gimmick. First, we’re talking about only a couple billion dollars, in an economy that rates in the tens of trillions. Think of it like getting a $20 raise. Woo hoo! No more dog food for you! Secondly, state budgets are so bad at the moment that adding debt is about as wise as telling a junkie where to buy discount crack (Sam's Discount Crack Club. . . on Third and Main).

All in all, these are sort of the right ideas, but done wrong. It's like boiling a steak. Typical Democratic SNAFU. All told, Lawrence Mischel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, thinks this bill will “create no more than a couple hundred thousand jobs.” I think he’s certifiable for even giving it that much credit.

But frankly, at this point, what’s another $15 billion tossed down Harry Reid’s crapper? Thus, I don’t care at all that Scott Brown voted for this. This was hardly an earth shattering vote. Indeed, even Mitch McConnell couldn’t bring himself to care.

But wait, you say, can’t Dingy Harry trumpet this bill as a massive senate success and thereby achieve his re-election? Are you serious? This bill does nothing. It achieves nothing. Moreover, here is what the bill specifically does not do, which the prior version did: it does not help people or states. . . the two groups you’d think it should help.

Indeed, unlike the $154 billion House version, Reid provides no additional funds for state budgets. . . because he hates them. That means that all those state employees who were kept on the job by the stimulus bill will now lose their jobs. It also does not include an extension for unemployment benefits or a subsidy for COBRA health insurance. . . because he hates the unemployed too.

So yeah, let the Dinge trumpet this achievement, if he's stupid enough to try.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What Can Brown Do For You?

Last night’s election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts could be one of the most significant elections in American history. Not only will Brown become the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 30 years, but his election may signal the fall of the American left. . . before they even have their rise. :-)

So what lessons can we take from last night?

Lesson 1: The Republican Electorate Is Getting It

In three elections now, New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, independent-minded Republicans (read: conservatives) have pushed aside “safe” establishment candidates in primaries, finding instead candidates with perfect pitch. What’s interesting, is that their perfection comes not from being perfect but from being common.

Like Christy in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia, Brown comes across as his own man. He doesn’t sound like he’s part of the machine and he doesn’t sound like he owes anyone anything. He doesn’t get his views from talking points memos or consultants. But he also isn’t taking on the role of faked-outsider like some others. Indeed, like Christy and McDonnell before him, he doesn’t seem to be playing any role at all.

Moreover, Brown can do something that has eluded Republicans for so long now -- he speaks in common sense terms. He doesn’t talk about procedures or minutiae, he doesn’t speak in bombastic tones, and he doesn’t fill his sentence with words he thinks you want to hear. Indeed, unlike so many recent candidates, Brown, Christy and McDonnell actually seem to understand the things they believe and can articulate those without the aid of speech writers or scripted appearances.

The lesson for Republicans is clear: forget the professional politicians who stink of K Street and the fake outsiders and phony mavericks, and start supporting common sense, no-nonsense conservatives. Look for the candidates for whom conservatism is second nature.

These elections also have shown the key to running a resonant campaign. Internal Democratic polls showed that the most effective attacks Brown made were to describe ObamaCare and Cap and Trade as tax hikes. The same was true in New Jersey and Virginia. Deviate from this at your own peril.

The party establishment is catching on too. Last night, GOP Chairman Michael Steele very astutely noted that Brown’s “message of lower taxes, smaller government and fiscal responsibility clearly resonated with independent-minded voters.” Note the focus on independent-minded voters and the unmistakable message of small government conservatism. This bodes well.

Lesson 2: The Republicans May Have Found A Front Runner For 2012

It’s far too early to say that Scott Brown could or should run for President (not coincidentally, his term will end in 2012). Indeed, we don’t know yet how he will act in the Senate. Everything about him could be an illusion at this point. But in a Republican field that remains as lightweight as it was in 2008, Brown has the potential to become an instant front runner because he has something all the other candidates lack: genuine charisma. He also seems to be quite a formidable campaigner and gives off all the indications of being rather intelligent. But it is too early to tell. At this point, let us leave it that he has shown a potential that is lacking in the rest of the contenders.

Lesson 3: Democratic Dirty Tricks No Longer Work

Christy was fat. McDonnell was a crazed religious lunatic. Brown was a right-wing tea bagger who wanted to force hospital emergency rooms to turn away rape victims. None of those attacks worked. Going negative only served to show us the moment the Democrats knew their races were lost.

Blaming Bush didn’t work either, though the Democrats are too insane to change. Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-Md) notes that Democrats plan to blame Bush for their problems despite this not working for Coakley. They will claim:

“President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident. President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused on repairing the damage to our economy.”

Lesson 4: The Democrats Don’t Understand What They Are Doing Wrong

The most important outcome of this election may be that it will save our health care system. You all know that ObamaCare is a disaster waiting to happen, and you know that the voters intend to punish anyone who supports it -- just ask Sen. Ben Nelson who got booed trying to eat at a restaurant. But the Democratic leadership doesn’t want to hear this.

Rather than recognize the error of their ways, Team Obama tried to shift the blame to Coakley, with an off-the-record smear campaign that hit high gear eight hours before the polls even closed. They accused her of running a campaign that equated to political “malpractice.” Pelosi echoed this and even went further, implying that Coakley hid her failures: “In the House, we don’t have surprises when it comes to elections. We are fully prepared and have been for a long time.” Let’s see about that in November.

Sen. Robert Menendez, head of the Senate Democrats’ campaign committee, claims to have heard the voters: “I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts. There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now.” But then he completely misidentifies the message sent: “Americans are understandably impatient.” Right, because it’s the lack of speed that’s bothering us, not the fact the Democrats have aimed the ship at an iceberg.

Of all people, leftist television hack Gloria Borger probably put the finest point on the message delivered on Tuesday night: “In 2008, people said they wanted change. Tonight they said this isn’t the change they wanted.”

Yet, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) didn’t get that message. He seems intent on passing the Senate bill: “the Senate bill is better than nothing.” Not according to voters. Hoyer’s assertion even comes in the face of the realization by several rank-and-file Democrats of the disaster of continuing this course. For example, Rep. Jim Costas (D-Cal.), one of the last Democrats to vote “yes” on PelosiCare now says that he’d like to go a different path: “I’ve maintained for months now that incremental reform in the health care package would make much more sense.” He then notes that he’d like the formerly-perfect Obama to tell voters that “we may have been overreaching” and then pursue a much more limited reform. Fat chance.

Even Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), one of the leading advocates of PelosiCare, now concedes: “I don’t think it would be the worst thing to take a step back.” He warns, “If there isn’t any recognition that we got the message and we are trying to recalibrate and do things differently, we are not only going to risk looking ignorant but arrogant.”

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) extended these concerns to the entire Democratic agenda. Said Bayh: “It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message. They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.”

So we have the set up for a bloody civil war. On the one hand are the leaders, who refuse to acknowledge the message. On the other are individual members who suddenly see their own political mortality. We can expect this to result in increasing numbers of Democrats bolting from the collective and triangulating against their own party to save their own political careers. That will doom virtually the entire agenda Obama has put forth.

Lesson 5: Obama Has No Coat-Tails

Finally, speaking of Obama, this election revealed just how far Obama has fallen. Obama is zero for three now in the last three significant elections. What’s more, two of these losses (NJ and Mass) occurred in states where Republicans simply don’t win. That means he no longer has the ability to motivate the electorate. That’s disastrous for Obama’s ability to push his agenda.

What a great day for America!


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...