As you have hopefully heard by now, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) officially called for Anthony Weiner’s resignation today. Per CNN:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for Weiner to step down in separate statements earlier Saturday.

Weiner’s decision to seek treatment and take a leave was not enough to satisfy Pelosi, who wants him to step down, a Pelosi aide told CNN.

“Congressman Weiner has the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents and the recognition that he needs help. I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a member of Congress,” Pelosi said earlier.

Now, while we’re all thinking “FINALLY!” to ourselves, I want to point out something ABC’s Jake Tapper tweeted earlier yesterday that really caught my eye. However, I can’t say that it honestly surprised me:

BUT it is true that this is the first time @NancyPelosi has called for a House Democrat to resign.

Like I said, I can’t say this honestly surprised me. The Democratic Party does have a habit of circling the wagons around their own when one of them is involved, or appears to be involved in, (usually the former) a scandal. Still, though, that’s quite a lot of scandals, and most of them never got anywhere near the amount of media coverage they would have gotten had these members had an “R” next to their name. In fact, had Pelosi been a Republican, I’m certain there would be widespread calls across the media, her own party, and the American people for her to step down (for that matter, she probably would have been defeated for reelection), but no, she’s still there as the top ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives.

So, to refresh our memories, I have compiled a list of scandals that have occurred within her party under her leadership. Though it’s probably fairer to her than she deserves, I have limited this list to scandals occurring or continuing solely during her term as Democratic House Leader, meaning no Barney Frank prostitution ring or Dan Rostenkowski. Furthermore, this list is limited to House members only during that period, meaning no Chris Dodd. I’m also not including Anthony Weiner because his case is fresh in our memory. I cannot claim that this list is authoritative–these are Democrats we’re talking about after all, meaning there’s always more scandals waiting to be uncovered. However, I did the best I can, so let’s take a look:

Read More →

From the diaries by Erick

UPDATE 7: Barring Democratic shenanigans (and they are still possible) I think it’s safe to say Prosser has won. This means that, as others have said, conservatives have been able to match a supposedly hyper-motivated Left blow-for-blow in a typically blue-leaning state with a strong history of progressivism and support for labor. It’s almost certain that there will be a recount, though. Justice Prosser needs your help. Head over to his website and donate to his recount fund if you can.

——–

I’m sure most of you remember that, according to the official results of the initial count, JoAnne Kloppenburg led the incumbent David Prosser 740,090 to 739,886, or by 204 votes. Obviously with results this close, a recount was in order.

Fortunately, things seem to be looking up for Prosser as the re-canvassing has brought more votes in for him. Many more. Hit the jump for more info.

Read More →

I divide my time between Georgia’s 13th district and its 12th district, depending on whether I’m at home or in college. Unfortunately, I’m represented by Democrats, David Scott and John Barrow, respectively, in both districts. Since I’m registered to vote in the 12th district, I’ve been doing what I can to help the Republicans oust Barrow.

Courtesy of NationalAtlas.gov.

Read More →

As the hours have passed today, it has become clear that Bart Stupak intends to sell his soul to Obamacare . As the leader of the pro-life Democrats in Congress, he held the fate of healthcare reform (and I used that word in the loosest possible sense) in his hands. Unfortunately, but probably unsurprisingly, he has chosen poorly, and he has sold America out to this horrid bill.

We must make him pay, and fortunately, there is a way to do so.

Meet Dan Benishek . He Stupak’s Republican challenger in Michigan’s first district. For those of you with a Twitter, you can follow him @Benishek .

He doesn’t have a contributions site yet, but until he does, you can send your donation to:

Benishek for Congress
802 Pentoga Trail
Crystal Falls, MI 49920

I’d like to close this by paraphrasing a famous quote by former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that I think applies to Stupak’s situation:

You had an option, sir. You could have said, ‘I am not going to do it. This is wrong for America, and I am not going to ask Americans to pay the price.’ You had an option, sir — to say ‘no’ — and you chose to say ‘yes’ to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Democratic Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Americans.

Bart Stupak had an option, and he sold us out. Let’s show him the consequences of his choice.

H/T to this tweet by Ben Domenech for alerting me to it.

A while back I did a post on the “Beer Summit” highlighting Obama’s lack of concern for those around him. The picture from Ben Domenech’s tweet reminded me of that. Take a look at it:

The man comforting the child is Harold Ford, a man who unsuccessfully sought Bill Frist’s old Senate seat in Tennessee back in 2006 (he lost to Bob Corker, for the record), and he’s trying to primary Hillary Clinton’s replacement in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Obama, meanwhile, is minding his own business in the background looking off into the distance somewhere seemingly unaware of what’s happening in front of him.

Looking at that picture, I couldn’t help but think about how President Bush might have reacted in this situation, and how different the two men are.

So, then, how would Bush have reacted? There is ample evidence from which to judge. Perhaps most notable is this one image:

Says the Cincinnati Enquirer:

In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager’s head close to his heart.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president’s hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

“This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11.”

Bush stopped and turned back.

“He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man,” Faulkner said. “He looked right at her and said, ‘How are you doing?’ He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest.”

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

“I could hear her say, ‘I’m OK,’ ” he said. “That’s more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, ‘I can see you have a father who loves you very much.’ ”

“And I said, ‘I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.’ It was a special moment.”

Ron Boat has this picture posted on his Facebook and had this to say as the caption:

From Ron Boat: In contrast to our current insensitive, politically opportunistic pres, people i know who know Bushs 41 & 43 say the family is truly caring and concerned. Even the Friday of Ft. Hood, Pres and Mrs Bush secretly went to the hospital to see the wounded and INSISTED that the press not know or tell anyone. Only the week after did the word leak out they went to show their concern. What a difference a year makes. I needed to add this: From Valerie Geibel-Wells “I am from the area (this was at a rally in Lebanon, OH) and know this family. Her mother was lost in 9.11 and was a wonderful humanitarian. They never found her remains and the girl was devastated – this was honest compassion from the leader of the free world who as he walked by her someone yelled to him “she lost her mother in the Trade Centers… See More” and he stopped and turned around and came back and hugged this girl for what seemed an eternity – something we don’t get now. He is true to America and never put us down.” Thanks Valerie. (Thanks for posting this Ron!)

Looking at these pictures, with the one of Sgt. Crowley I discussed earlier, and comparing them, I can only come to the conclusion that he just doesn’t care.

It’s not a conclusion I want to make about the leader of the free world, but it’s what I see when I look at these pictures.

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

EDIT: I’d like to point out that even Bill Clinton, Obama’s most recent Democratic predecessor didn’t have such a tin ear. He wouldn’t have been so uncaring, and he certainly wouldn’t have let such a moment slip past him. After all, remember he feels your pain.

So, let it sink in…

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks.

As this piece by the American Thinker points out, it’s entirely possible that the Republicans could have 52 votes in the Senate come 2010. That’s a gain of 11 seats, added on to the 41 we now have since Brown won.

Good quote:

Moreover, [Dan] Coats’s decision to run this year [for Evan Bayh's seat] is an example of the great vulnerability that Democrats face if 2010 continues to look like a strong Republican year. A few months ago, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas were both considered pretty safe placeholders for Democrats in the midterm election. The number of possible gains by Republicans was very small. In fact, after November 2008, net gains by Democrats in the Senate in 2010 were considered possible. Today, it is a sure bet that North Dakota Governor John Hoeven will become a conservative Republican senator, replacing the liberal Democrat Dorgan. It is just about as sure that Senator Lincoln in Arkansas, who won reelection easily six years ago, will lose to a conservative Republican.

Republican candidates are running ahead of the Democrats in Colorado, Nevada, Delaware, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. If those poll numbers hold up, a Coats victory over Bayh would give Republicans 49 seats in the Senate. Coats, like Hoeven in North Dakota, represents a very strong candidate against a leftist Democrat in a blue state. Congressman Michael Castle in Delaware is a RINO, but not a leftist. He also represents the best Republican candidate in Delaware, and polls which had shown Castle beating Biden’s son will almost certainly show Castle well ahead in the wake of Biden’s decision not to seek his father’s old Senate seat.

If Republicans can persuade the most electable candidates to run in other states, the problems for Democrats could quickly mushroom into an enormous political headache. Polls show former Governor George Pataki running ahead of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, where the Democratic Party is increasingly dysfunctional. Pundits see former Governor Tommy Thompson as a very strong challenger to Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Patty Murray in Washington seems safe, according to Rasmussen, but if the former Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi runs against her, he beats Murray by two points. That is a recurring theme in the 2010 Senate election cycle: Republicans are very competitive if the top tier of candidates can be recruited. Those three candidates could give Republicans 52 Senate seats.

Very obviously, this is an optimistic assessment, but it isn’t an unreasonable one. It is very much within the realm of possibility. And, the fact that such an assessment can be made reasonably ought to prove just how bad things have gotten for the Democrats after their banner year in 2008. It hasn’t even taken two years for the Democrats to waste the goodwill and political capital given to them by the American people.

Now, I don’t believe at this moment that we’ll gain 11 seats–Perhaps I’m a little too cautious in my predictions. I believe we could see Republicans pick up 6 maybe 7 seats at this point, but as I’ve already said, it really says something about how fast the public’s opinion has soured on Democrats. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are too busy trying to cater to the far Left while not appearing to be so to do anything effectively centrist like they prefer to advertise themselves as. The public has seen this abandonment of centrism or at least the appearance of such and reacted accordingly. Furthermore, those who favor incremental change are shocked at how fast Obama’s agenda is being pushed through, and those who favor radical change are dissatisfied with how slowly he is trying to change things and how little progress his initiatives have had.

Put it to you this way: it took George W. Bush, “the Chimp”, six years to face losses in either house of Congress. It has The way things are going, it will have taken Barack Obama, “The One”, two. I realize this is common for Presidents in their first midterm, but if we are to believe the hype, Obama is anything but “common”.

As the article also notes, these successes could carry over into the House and into state governments:

What about the House of Representatives? Republicans will gain a lot of seats, very probably enough to gain a majority. Even if Republican gains fall short, though, Nancy Pelosi will be playing with a very weak hand. More importantly, if 2010 is a good year for Republicans generally, then the GOP ought to make major gains in governorships (all polls show that now) and Republicans, who held up very well in 2008 in state legislative elections, will probably come out of the 2010 elections with a majority of state legislative chambers and seats. Special legislative elections are strongly indicating that already, as I noted last October, often by stunning margins of victory.

What would it mean if Republicans have a majority of power in state governments? It would mean that the redistricting process following reapportionment would help elect more Republicans to the House. Reapportionment is already going to move House seats from red states to blue states. Add a redistricting process mainly controlled by Republicans, and an automatic increase of a dozen or so House seats to Republicans is easily conceivable. House Democrats in 2012, faced with new districts and probable minority status for several election cycles, might leave Congress in droves.

I cannot imagine that the Senate would gain seats and the House would not. The Senate, in fact, almost always, if not all the time, follows the direction the House goes, so if we gain seats in the Senate, it should be a foregone conclusion that we gain some in the House as well. And, while I am not sure how this usually translates into state level elections, I should think the successes of McDonnell in Virginia, Christie in New Jersey, and even Brown in Massachusetts would indicate that gains will also be made in these elections as well.

To put it simply, things are looking good for Republicans, and I couldn’t be happier. We may not necessarily be looking at another 1994, but things are certainly setting themselves up that way.

This post was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

I have been wanting to write a couple of posts congratulating Scott Brown for his victory, but I think I’ll put them on hold for now until my concerns explained here are allayed.

I must admit, as a committed conservative, I have my problems with supporting most New England Republicans (there are some Republicans, mainly in New Hampshire, who are exceptions to this, but not many). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine’s two senators, highlight why I am hesitant to support most New England Republicans. Usually, I end up supporting the Republican in a New England race because a) they less Liberal than their Democratic opponents and b) they are usually the best said state or district can offer.

Scott Brown is another example of my hesitance. I knew before I became a supporter that he was pro-choice and that he had several other conservative heresies. I reconciled myself with these facts because I knew that Massachusetts likely didn’t have anyone better to offer. However, what really made me a fan of his was what he campaigned on. He called for fiscal restraint nda strong stance in the War on Terror (particularly his quote, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.“). However, my personal favorite moment was he said that he would be the 41st vote to block and defeat the current healthcare legislation.

And when election day rolled around and the time can for his victory speech, I listened to his victory speech with great interest. I wanted to see what this man who I had come to like increasingly more with each passing day before the special election. Listening to his victory speech, I was very impressed that a man like this could win in Massachusetts.

Read More →

Leaving aside for the moment what this means to the agenda of Obama and the Democrats, I just want to point out just how groundbreaking Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1953, a Kennedy will not be the elected holder of this seat (Benjamin A. Smith II and Paul Kirk have both held this seat during this time, but they were appointed to it). Furthermore, for the first time since 1947, Massachusetts will not have a Kennedy as an elected member of its Congressional delegation (the two gaps where the state was Kennedy-less between 1947 and now, but those instances were those of the aforementioned appointed Senators).

For the first time since 1966, when Edward Brooke (coincidentally the first black senator of the modern era) was elected to what is now John Kerry’s seat, the Republican party has won an open Senate seat in Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1972, when Edward Brooke was reelected, the Republican party has won a Senate election in the state of Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1979, when Brooke lost his reelection bid to Paul Tsongas, Massachusetts will have a Republican Senator.

For the first time since 1997, Massachusetts will have a Republican member of its Congressional Delegation. His election also shatters what was heretofore the largest single-party delegation to the United States Congress.

Scott Brown’s election marks the first time since 2002 that Massachusetts has voted Republican on a statewide level. The last Republican statewide winners? The Romney/Healey ticket.

In a state that Obama won 62% to 36% in 2008, a Republican won a little over a year later 52% to 47%.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

According to the atheists and secularists out there, almost all of who happen to be Liberals, the conservatives of today are religious fanatics following a quasi-medieval theology. In their eyes, we “Christianists” are as much a threat to society as the radical Muslims are (in fact, to some the “Christianists” are an even greater threat).

This is why people like Rev. Pat Robertson do us no service when they say things like this:

Read More →

…And he was against it before that.

Some of you may remember I wrote a post a while back on my blog thanking Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska for stalling the Obamacare bill for no other reason than I wished to see the bill fail. Evidently Nelson must have seen my post or something, because soon after had I written the post, it seems, he goes and falls into line with the 59 other Senate Democrats with a sweetheart deal that even Nebraska’s governor didn’t want. Now, he’s pulling a John Kerry and flip-flopping on it:

Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.

[...]

“I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” he said.

[...]

“I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move,” he said.

He seems to be channelling Joe Lieberman while he’s at it with his claim to be concerned about the economy, but you can’t have it both ways, Ben. You are the reason it passed. You should have thought of this BEFORE you sold your soul to Harry Reid and voted for this atrocity.

Read More →

The New York Times is best enjoyed with a fine wine I hear, because one has to be drunk to get any enjoyment from reading the old fishwrapper. The Times must have caught on to this, as it has apparently decided to supply us with some. Unfortunately, someone at the esteemed Old Grey Lady mixed up the homonyms along the way and gave us a whine instead. Today’s whine comes courtesy of supposed conservative David Brooks, you know, the guy NewsHour with Jim Lehrer calls when it needs a “conservative” to slap around. And while wine is suitable for those over the age of 21, Brooks’ drivel is suitable for no one.

Apparently, he has decided to give some sort of praise to the Tea Party movement, yet he apparently cannot do so without whining about how his own class, that of the intellectuals, has lost influence. Observe:

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

Brooksie-baby if this is your form of praise for us Tea Partiers, I think we can live without it.

First, the reason the public has rejected these ideas the educated classes have proposed is because they don’t work. They may seem like nice ideas in the utopias that exist in the minds of those ivory towered navel pickers, but they don’t translate well into the real world, you know, the place where the rest of us live?

Second, if the public has spurned the intellectual class, it is because the intellectual class has spurned us. You see, to them, we are the great unwashed. They are the brahmins, and we are the shudras, the “untouchables”, if you will. They dare not associate with us lest for fear of becoming that which they apparently dread most: a commoner. They reject common sense solutions because there just has to be a better, more intellectual way, and as I said before, while their ideas may sound nice to them, chances are, what fits their ever-so prized philosophy just isn’t going to work out here in the real world.

Finally, I can’t help but think that, as I suggested in the title, Brooks is bemoaning his own irrelevance. He should remember, though, that if he is losing influence among conservatives (if he had any to begin with) it is because he has rejected them, not the other way around. How many times has he gone against what conservatives want? How many times has he said that conservatives should abandon their limited government principles? Remember, too, that he supported Barack Obama and is still apparently under his thrall. These two facts alone ought to be enough to qualify him as a persona non grata to conservatives if he wasn’t already, and to most of them it was but two more reasons in a very large stack not to listen to him.

In short, if David Brooks is irrelevant, it is because he has made himself so. He, and, for that matter, most of the rest of the intellectual class, has dug the hole he finds himself in.

This blog was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

Since my day effectively begins around noon when I wake up (I love being off from school for Christmas), I woke up yesterday to the news that Rep. Parker Griffith, who represents Alabama’s 5th district (around Huntsville), decided to switch parties. This in and of itself is not unusual. After all, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) did the same thing earlier this year, several current and recent members of the House and Senate have done the same. What struck me as both odd and telling about his decision was that he was a Democrat switching to the minority party. What made this especially odd was the fact that his switch was inconsequential to the current balance of power in the House, which now stands at 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. I’ll explain after the fold.

Read More →

I’ve been reading up on the Copenhagen Conference lately and been listening to what the radio hosts have to say about it lately, and I came up with a few disturbing thoughts on these subjects that I’d like to share with you.

First of all, I’m sure we all know that many 2nd world and 3rd world countries have already walked away from the table, with China and India being among the most prominent ones to walk away. If any thing this should tell us one thing: any climate change agreement like Copenhagen will destroy economic prosperity. These countries are like marginal sellers or consumers in economics. They are the first ones to go when economic restrictions like those talked of at Copenhagen are on the table. While many of these countries may be unreliable allies to the US, they are generally reliable predictors of these sorts of things, especially a country as Machiavellian as China. Unlike the US with its do-gooders and would-be do-gooders at the helm, these countries will act in their own self interest. If an agreement will destroy their economy, they are gone (though, to be fair, the people at Copenhagen have coaxed some of the poor countries back).

Read More →

This diary arose out of a conversation I had with Erick on Twitter. Erick tweeted about the RedState Morning Briefing, and I decided to thank him for doing it. While that wasn’t the end of the discussion, I’d like to carry my remarks a bit further on a medium more suited to long discussions.

Unlike most people my age, I’m a bit of a new and political junkie. Since I have to deal with attending your typically Liberal college campus (yes, they’re Liberal even here in the South), I like to make sure that I am well equipped to combat the latest Liberal lies and talking points. Now, I rarely ever have time to peruse my favorite conservative news sites and blogs (of which RedState is my favorite) be tween when I wake up and when I go to class in the mornings, so I have to look for the major events and headlines. Thankfully, RedState’s Morning Briefing provides just such a news feed to fit what I need.

I’ve been getting the Morning Briefing since not long after it was started, and I love reading it on RedState every morning. It succinctly sums up all I need to know about what’s going in politics, and it provides this information in one convenient place. Now that you’ve moved it to a special daily e-mail newsletter at Redstatemb.com, I’ve signed up for that, too. Even beyond it’s initial use as an update for the previous days news and stories, I have found it serves as a nice “Index” of sorts for the days stories that I can refer back to when needed. By clinking on the links in the briefing, I can go to original post here on RedState.

Erick, I realize it takes a lot of work just to run this site, and I realize that you could just as easily be doing other things with your life than providing us with the Morning Briefing. However, you still put the time in to bring it to us every morning during the week, and I just wanted to thank you for doing that. It is a fine service that helps me confront and defeat what the Liberal lies and indoctrination from the teachers and students here at my university.

So, if you can’t tell by now, go ahead and subscribe to the RedState Morning Briefing if you haven’t. Don’t let all of Erick and the other contributors’ hard work go to waste! I promise you won’t regret it.

I gave the link earlier in this post, but here it is again for those of you interested: http://www.redstatemb.com/.

If any of you happen to be in New York CIty today, for whatever reason, take a stroll over to the Empire State Building. If you don’t have a chance to be in the city, pay attention to the news if you can. You may notice something…different about its lighting scheme. It’s not always red and yellow, is it?

No, it isn’t.

The reason it happens to be red and yellow is that, for some reason, officials in New York City have decided to celebrate the founding of Communist China.

I was shocked when I read about this, but sadly, I am not making this up:

New York’s iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.

The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.

This should make no sense to Americans. Why on Earth are we celebrating the founding of Communist China. The ideas at the core of Communist China’s founding are diametrically opposed to the ideas at the core of America’s founding. Remember, of course, that these are the same people who continue their oppressive rule over Tibet; who cracked down on the Tiananmen Square protests all those years ago; continue to oppress various religions (including Chinese Christians); censor the press, speech, the internet, etc.; refuse to recognize the democratic Taiwan; and so on.

Why on Earth are we celebrating this?

It would be interesting to see how many times the building has been bathed in the colors of countries whose ideas and philosophy happen to be more in line with ours. Israel, for example.

I must echo the people over at the Minority Report and request that you conact the representatives of the Empire State Building. You can do so by calling (212) 736-3100, or by using the contact form on the building’s website here.

Some of you may remember a few days back how Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) had said that he was willing to introduce a bipartisan healthcare bill to Senate, but if he couldn’t assemble such a coalition he was willing to go it alone with just the Democrats.

Well, guess what? He did:

Sen. Max Baucus’ decision to release his long-awaited health care overhaul bill with no Republicans on board dims the chances for a bipartisan compromise on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

The Senate Finance Committee chairman insisted Tuesday that he’ll keep negotiating with the three Republicans and two fellow Democrats who’ve been in closed-door talks with him for months on the bill he was to reveal Wednesday. Baucus, D-Mont., said he hopes that by the time the committee votes on the bill, as early as next week, Republicans will be there.

But for now, despite numerous gestures to Republicans, Baucus has fallen short in his quest to assemble a coalition of senators from both parties behind his proposal. Obama also hoped for bipartisan support behind plans for reshaping the nation’s $2.5 trillion health care system to hold down costs and cover the uninsured.

In true Democratic fashion, Senator Baucus has essentially given his Republican colleagues the middle finger and decided to go ahead without their input. It is now official, this IS the Democrats’ healthcare plan. This is their debacle. Without any Republican support, they are the ones responsible for it.

But, going back to the excerpt I quoted, let me just point out how big of a pile of crap Sen. Baucus’ assertion that Republicans have not offered their point of view is. There have been, contrary to Sen. Baucus and the Obama administration’s assertions, numerous attempts from the Republicans to get their ideas into the legislation. In fact, between both the House and the Senate, Republicans have offered up 800 amendments and other pieces of legislation to get their point of view incorporated into the healthcare reform debate. The problem? All of them, yes, all 800 of them, have been shot down:

“The thing that’s killing me is that those very members on the Republican side have over the course of the last five months offered some 800 amendments and individual pieces of legislation to the — to the president and to (House Speaker) Nancy (Pelosi) and Harry Reid, to say, ‘Hey, this is our contribution.’ Every last piece has been rejected,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

On Wednesday night, Obama told a nationally televised audience watching his speech to a joint session of Congress that he will listen to a “serious set of proposals” on health care.

Well, Mr. Obama, and you, too, Sen. Baucus, there are several serious proposals that have been offered up, the only trouble is you haven’t listened to them, despite your assertions. In fact, you have done everything you can to shut opposing plans and points of view out of the debate, despite your paeans to bipartisanship.

What we Republicans and conservatives can hope for now is that a) no Republicans defect to the other side when the final Democrats-only bill is offered up for a vote and b) the Democrats continue to destroy themselves through their infighting, which has been well demonstrated here, over this bill.

We must make sure that they own this bill now.

The Liberal media has sunk to ridiculous levels this time in an attempt to smear Rep. Joe Wilson, of “YOU LIE!” fame. The shocking bombshell? He took some caffeine pills a few years ago. Yes, apparently this worthy controversy these days. As The Hill reports:

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who shouted “you lie!” at President Obama during his Wednesday night address to Congress, admitted to regularly consuming caffeine pills in 2007.

It is unclear if Wilson still takes NoDoz, a brand of pill that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine a pop. By comparison, a seven ounce cup of drip coffee contains 115 to 175 milligrams of caffeine.

For those of you unable to handle the Liberal BS, might I refer you to the Jawa Report‘s or Newsbusters‘ accounts instead?

Really? Is this how far we’ve sunk? I can only say “Big deal!” in response to this. I’m a college student. Does the MSM understand how much caffeine I ingest on a daily basis? I drink so much Coke (the legal kind, mind you) and related products as to make the amount of caffeine in NoDoz pale in comparison.

As Newsbusters pointed out, I was almost certain that this article was from the Onion as opposed to a relatively respected source like the Hill. Is the Liberal Media so desperate to create a scandal around this new conservative hero that this is what passes for controversy? Desperate indeed. Normally, it’s things like a marital affair or some sort of ethical problem that gets the scandal label. Evidently Rep. Wilson doesn’t have any of this, so this will have to do. At least the substance Joe Wilson was taking is legal, unlike the substances various and sundry Democrats have been caught taking (including our own President).

If you support Joe Wilson, let him know.

The trip home from college for the three-day Labor Day weekend allows me to do many things. It gives me a chance to spend some time with my family, catch up with old friends, attend a football game at my old high school….

It also gives me a chance to catch up on the local political scene.

I have written about David Scott’s farcical August in the past. Well, I was looking through one of the local papers from last week when to my eyes did appear yet another story on David Scott’s quest to avoid and dodge his constituents.

Read More →

Hello everyone! I haven’t been on as much the last few days because I’ve been busy moving back into a college dorm, but things are settled down now.

Anyways, over at NRO’s The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson has given us yet another piece of his brilliance with three observations on Obama and how both he and his supporters use the race card.

As we could have predicted, the reason, according to many Liberals, that we disagree with Obama so much is because he is black and somehow the thought of him accomplishing something threatens us white people. They say this not just in hopes of inciting racial hatred, but also because the same faults that were associated with previous Liberal standard bearers cannot be associated with him so easily. Unlike Clinton or Edwards, he appears to have his sexual impulses under control; unlike Gore and Kerry, Obama is quite articulate while at the same time coming off as intelligent and thoughtful (though it should be noted that there is a difference between seeming so and actually being so); and unlike Dean, Obama, at least in public, has his temper under control. He is therefore an almost perfect representative of Liberalism. Seemingly unable to comprehend that people might actually be able to disagree with his policies on principle, the Liberals assert that our disapproval of his actions stems from some deep-seated racial hatred or envy.

Read More →

He’s already written a superb couple of columns about why Obamacare is sinking and why Obama is retreating from it.

Now, he’s got a couple of novel ideas on how we can begin the reform of our healthcare system. He gives us these in his latest piece at the Washington Post.

Read More →