Democracy...Democrat Style!

Since earlier this month when Unions began their temper tantrum in Wisconsin, one of the mantras repeated with regularity was that "This Is What Democracy Looks Like!" I guess the protesters think they have cornered the market on "Democracy".

Never mind that Union protests only represent a portion of "Democracy". Never mind that "Democracy" usually requires a *second* (sometimes more) side to an issue. Never mind that "Democracy" spoke in Wisconsin last November via an obscure procedure known as an "election", when the the current Governor was elected by a majority of Wisconsin voters on the very issues he is pushing, and the Unions are protesting. But don't try to tell that to the Unions....

But somebody had better tell that to Eleanor Clift..."Since When Does Scott Walker Represent 'The People'?"



[h/t - @mattsheffield]

Same Old Song and Dance

For many years, at least since the heady days of the Clinton Machine, I have been sure of one thing when it comes to watching national politics...if the Democrats/liberals accuse their opponents of doing something outrageous, it is almost certainly an attempt at mis-direction, as the Democrats/liberals are usually the ones committing those outrageous acts themselves.

Over at the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto makes the same observation about what is being done on behalf of leftist ideology in modern-day Wisconsin (and soon a state government near you!):

"It's quite striking the way almost every lie the left ever told about the Tea Party has turned out to be true of the government unionists in Wisconsin and their supporters..."

Shocked! Shocked, I am...

Taranto also says: "To make sense of what's going on in Wisconsin, it helps to understand that the left in America lives in an ideological fantasy world...."

While at first I would tend to agree with his point, but the more I think about it, I think they know exactly what they are doing....taking pages directly out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. Primarily, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

But Democrats/liberals should heed a warning from their radical guru, for he also said "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

The public's tolerance for whining on the part of public sector unions that translates to "Gimme gimme gimme!" is already wearing thin in its first instance. If other state's public sector union decide to follow Wisconsin's lead, they may well be in for a heap public opinion trouble....

[h/t - Instapundit]

Democracy Sucks!

To quote Bill Hobbs, "Democrats believe in democracy - except when they lose". This is evidenced most blatantly by Wisconsin's run-away Senators.

But I particularly like this pair of Democrats who apparently are disaffected with the form democracy they live under:

Lets follow the logic here...a Governor who won a legitimate, regularly scheduled election by 6 points and has been in office just over one month, is somehow comparable to a military strongman who ran his country virtually unopposed for the last 30 years by putting most political opposition in jail or worse? Sure...

To take it one step further, these geniuses are suggesting that a recent legitimate election be invalidated because they are unhappy with the result, and....what...have the Wisconsin National Guard take over the state government??

And I wonder how the protesters in Egypt feel about folks with pretty well paying jobs (or any jobs for that matter) appropriating the Egyptian cause for their own selfish ends?

Adios Ciro....

My absentee ballot is in the mailbox.

Adios Ciro Rodriguez! Holà Quico Canseco....and one step closer to taking back the House of Representatives!

Press' Predominating Storyline About Beck Rally

Jim Treacher has ferreted out the MSM's "un-diverse" implications about a rally held in the capital city of this predominantly white nation....

Presented without comment:

“Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King’s message.” — Associated Press

“Attendees at the rally Saturday largely honored organizer requests that they not bring banners or political signs. Instead, the predominantly white crowd, many seated on folding chairs and accompanied by their children, wore t-shirts with slogans including ‘Got principles?’ and ‘Restoring Honor.’” — AFP

“Meanwhile, many in the predominantly white crowd bent over backward to insist that they are not racists and to note that the crowd was courteous, despite heat and density.” — James Hohmann, Politico

“Beck says he and his overwhelmingly white followers ‘are the inheritors and protectors of the civil- rights movement.’” — Ben Adler, Newsweek

“Though the audience at the event was overwhelmingly white, many of the speakers were African-American, including a woman who sang a song about unity.” — Brian Montopoli, CBS

“Claiming the legacy of the nation’s Founding Fathers and repeatedly evoking civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., the speakers at the ‘Restoring Honor’ rally exhorted a vast and overwhelmingly white crowd to concentrate not on the history that has scarred the nation but instead on what makes it ‘good.’” — Philip Rucker & Carol Morello, Washington Post

“A relatively dense and overwhelmingly white crowd stretched from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial out past the Washington Monument.” — Mark Benjamin, Salon.com

“The speaker list was diverse, including African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans; Jews and Christians; clergymen, military veterans and sports stars, including Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals. The crowd, however, was overwhelmingly white.” — Michael A. Memoli and Kim Geiger, LA Times

“Out in the overwhelmingly white audience… politics was everywhere, with Tea Party supporters describing the damage they envision for President Barack Obama’s Democrats in upcoming midterm elections in November.” — Mitch Potter, Toronto Star

What are they really trying to say?

Poll Data Tailor-Made for GOP Ads

Polling data released by Rasmussen Reports today would seem to provide the GOP some ready-made script material for Congressional and state-level candidates.

Most Americans Not Willing To Pay Higher Taxes For Public Employees, Entitlement Programs

Most Americans would not pay higher taxes for specific public services in their states, but they are more supportive of paying for education and staffing law enforcement than supporting state employees and entitlement programs.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Adults shows that only 19% would be willing to pay higher taxes to avoid layoffs of state employees. Sixty-nine percent (69%) say they would not be willing to pay more in taxes for this reason. Another 11% are undecided.

Adults feel similarly when it comes to funding entitlement programs. Twenty-two percent (22%) would pay higher taxes to prevent cuts in entitlement programs for low-income Americans. Sixty-three percent (63%) say they would not pay more to keep these programs afloat. Another 15% are undecided.

I can imagine an ad with a candidate looking into the camera...

My name is John Doe, and I am running for _________. I think today's culture of goverment spending and entitlements is out of control. I believe in *smaller* government.

A government that provides for our defense, emergency services, and helps parents educate their children. But I refuse to stand by and watch bureaucrats raise our taxes and mortgage our children's future in order to support bloated government payrolls and spend Trillions on programs that most Americans don't want.

If you agree, vote for me on November 2nd. My name is John Doe, I am running for ________, I say *Enough is Enough*, and I approve this message.

Hey RNC....shoot it and run it!

Thoughts on Arizona

First, critics should read the law. The bottom line is that this law does not create new enforcement actions, but only enforces existing Federal immigration laws.

It is amazing how ignorant most criticism is on this issue. It is way out of control. Not that some Republicans have been any better.

If people want to deride this law as 'Nazi' or 'police state' tactics, 'draconian', or surprise surprise, 'racist', then they need to ask themselves, are all immigration laws are racist?

If this law is racist, then so are our existing federal laws. What say you, Mr. President?

Second, some conservatives like the esteemed Hugh Hewitt are worried that this law is problematic for the Right's efforts to win big in this fall's elections. This is a legitimate concern, as the Dems know how to put on a good propaganda show, especially with the media in lock-step.

However, I think things can turn for the better. If the law were to stand, then the propaganda show could proceed apace. However the liberal interest groups will not be able to help themselves, as they trip over one another to get to the courthouse door to get a liberal judge to order and injunction. In doing so, they will shift the focus.

The easiest liberal argument is that Federal laws trump state law on immigration. While this is a valid legal argument, politically it allows conservatives to turn the tables and point out how pourous and ineffective those federals laws actually are.

If the left wants to defeat Arizona by claiming that the Federal Govt trumps states on the issue, then bring it on. Thats isn't a record of achievement I want to run on going into the November elections.

America, The Gulliver of Nations

Powerline posts a keen insight on how Great Britain's present, may become our future:

Once the federal government becomes so deeply involved in allocating health care, it will come to be a dominant focus of political discourse.

Over the years watching on C-Span the British Prime Minister's Question Time, I've observed that a large portion of this exercise is devoted to specific questions about the quality care provided by The National Health Service in members' districts. A question on the terrorists threats to the UK will invariably be followed by a passionate query from a Member asking the PM if he's aware of nurses being re-assigned at a hospital in Sheffield. The PM seems to spend as much time on parochial health care issues as on national security.

The politics of deciding who gets what in the way of medical treatment doubtlessly will push aside traditional affairs of state. Every member of Congress will need to hire several staff members just to manage constituents' complaints about their care. Elections will be won and lost on the basis of who can get the most in the way of health care for their districts.

We will become the Gulliver of nations, a great power whose leaders are tied up in strings as they spend much of their time addressing the medical complaints, valid and imagined, of their electorate.

We *will* become the Gulliver of nations. And it will not just be due to healthcare. The more our Federal government becomes so deeply involved in the regulation of anything and everything (education, the environment, banking, retirement, fishing, car manufacturing....etc), the more we tie ourselves down. The more the Liliputians UN bureaucrats will take advantage of us. The more we will make ourselves irrelevant.

Cross Your Fingers

Knock on Wood....



Update: Woo-hoo!

Bay State's Blue State Blue-Collar Blues

I grew up in Massachusetts. Lived there through HS, then went out of state for college, and subsequently into the military. And while I have not really lived there in over 20 years, I do remember a few things about the place.

Michael Barone has a good look today at some polling in bellweather towns in the Bay State, and if I may, I would like to steal a line from him. He says those towns are "emblematic of blue-collar Massachusetts...despite the prominence of the state’s university communities".

This is a great point, especially how it relates to this election battle between Brown and Coakley. Massachusetts is known as a Democratic stronghold, and most people vote Dem because for a long time, there really weren't other viable alternatives, and 'despite the prominence of the state’s university communities' that doesn't mean it is a liberal stronghold. In fact most of Massachusetts comes from 'hearty stock', or in other words a Catholic, blue-collar background. And while perhaps not as conservative as other places in the country, as a voting block it is certainly more mainstream than the liberal crowd pulled in and retained by the magnet of Harvard/Radcliffe/Brandeis/Tufts.

What this really means is that a mildly conservative, blue-collar candidate has a lot of unrecognized and untapped reserve to draw upon when running to tweak the nose of Massachusetts' limousine-liberal elite. Call them the 'Will Hunting' voters.

Unlike the past when a liberal who lives in Beacon Hill, and the plumber who fixes his sinks and lives in Somerville could generally be relied upon to both vote for Ted Kennedy, this year the plumber from Somerville has a choice that easily appeals to *him* and will stick it to all those Ha-vahd snobs who have always looked down at him.

Scott Brown can win, because he authentically appeals to a voting block that has been taken for granted in the Bay State for a long, long time.....

Certification for Me, But Not for Thee!

Just last week, the Democratic Party Machine in Massachusetts threatened to delay the certification of Scott Brown (if he wins) as long as possible to prevent him from casting votes in the U.S. Senate. Most importantly, one of those votes could be on Obamacare.

However just today, one of the most powerful members of that Machine, Rep. Ed Markey, stated:

“We’re all waiting for Wednesday morning when we have Martha Coakley joining us down there."

Did you get that? Wednesday. The day after the special election. I guess Markey doesn't forsee any issues with getting Coakley certified. As they say in my former home state...what a wicked shockah!

But as it turns out, if he wins, Brown would not have to wait for ceritfication in order to take his place as the Bay State's new Senator....

Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August. Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.

[...]

But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

So I guess somebody new will be voting in the Senate starting Wednesday....

More Thoughts on Brown v. Coakley Polls

Somewhere yesterday I read the thought that polls like the PPP poll that showed Scott Brown leading his Democratic opponent by 1-point might motivate Democratic voters to actually come out to the polls, thus negating the enthusiasm of the Brown voters.

This is certainly something to worry about. But if that is possible, then so is the opposite reaction.

It is entirely possible that today's Boston Globe poll showing Coakley up by 15-points, may in fact discourage semi-likely Democratic voters from heading to the polls on January 19th. If those who are luke-warm and not very enthusiastic think that Coakley leads by a country mile has it sewn up (like Dems usually do in MA), then they are going probably less likely to head to the polls, and the Brown enthusiasm could in fact carry the day.

So.....let's have some more of those Globe polls!

UPDATE: Move Along...Nothing to see here!

Boston Globe: Coakley Up Big

The big banner above-the-fold headline in today's Boston Globe:

Senate Poll: Coakley up 15 Points

Its like they were trying to send a message...

Of course this contrasts greatly with the just released PPP poll that showed Scott Brown to be leading by 1-point.

Why the difference? Well the Globe poll is a poll of 554 likely-voters, but was conducted from 2-6 January. The PPP poll was made up of 774 likely-voters, and conducted from 7-9 January. Perhaps the PPP poll is more updated due to the very recent phone-bank ops conducted by the Brown campaign.

What is interesting is the political make-up of the Globe Poll. PPP breaks out its respondents as 44% Dem, 39% IND, and 17% GOP. The Globe is 55% Dem, 15% IND, and 28% GOP.

So the Globe immediately has a heavier disposition towards the Dems. Now perhaps their weighting is better than that of PPP, only time will tell.

But the bottom line is that with widely disparate polls like this, one side is going to be extremely dissapointed on Jan 19th....

UPDATE: Jammie Wearing Fool has some related thoughts and a reminder about PPP's last prediction in NY-23.

UPDATE II: Another item I forgot to add originally....the PPP poll does not address an Independent candidate with coincidental name recognition, Joe Kennedy. He gets 5% in the Globe poll....

UPDATE III: William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection calls the Globe Poll "an outlier", and he has been working the phones at Brown HQ, so he has good feel of the pulse in the race...

Stimulus Subterfuge

Its all a Stimulus Subterfuge, a Recovery Ruse, a GDP Gimmick.

In other words, the 'Great Obama Recovery'® that was announced earlier in October by the White House is all hogwash, a hoax, a fraud...a lie.

Sure, the economy was announced to have grown by 3.5%. However, that has now been revised down (GDP numbers are often adjusted) to 2.8%. 'What's so bad about that?' you might ask. 'Isn't any positive growth a good thing?' Normally, but as the blogprof points out, the only thing making this a positive number, is Stimulus cash....

That "robust" 3.5% GDP growth rate in Q3 that the AP heralded as the end of the recession sans actual jobs? That just got reduced. A lot. As in down to 2.8% now. Even that is deceiving as consumer spending, which comprises 70% of the economy, declined 0.5% during the same period (Positive GDP Fraud! Consumer Spending DOWN 0.5%. GDP Up Because Of MASSIVE DEBT!). So how is it that the GDP increased in the 3rd quarter after consumer spending decreased? Well, that's got everything to do with the 'G' in the GDP - gross. That includes consumer spending, government spending, in fact all spending. So if the consumer spending is down, one way to artificially inflate the GDP number is to increase government spending with money that the government doesn't, by the way, have. In essence, the GDP number is positive due to increased debt! It's purchased on a government card that has no credit limit.

So Stimulus cash, which is created out of thin air and injected into the economy to unknown effect, makes up 118% of the GDP growth....

So what this really means is that we will be seeing increasing GDP growth for many quarters to come, and thus a White House trumpeting a full-throated recovery, just in time for the 2010 elections.

Since only 22% of the Stimulus had been spent by the end of October, that means we have over $600 Billion left to be entered into that 'Government Spending' column that blogprof tells us about. Thus, unless consumer spending craters, this glut of Govt Spending spread over many quarters will prop up the GDP numbers for those quarters. And as it will most surely do, the White House will point to the string of positive quarters, and how their actions have saved the economy, despite the fact that it is really a Potemkin Village of economic figures...

The only problem will be the ever expanding unemployment roles....and the largest spike in employment will be found in GOP political campaigns.

[Hat Tip: Instapundit]