Volume 188
Opinion at large
Unemployment at 9.6%, a rediculous budget deficit, a non-decision on the Bush tax cuts, not passing of a budget until after the election, a President who thinks he is a Community Activist/Campaigner and the grand finale,' shoving Obamacare, bailouts, cash for clunkers, stringent EPA regulations killing business, stimulus failure and outright dishonesty by the President and both sides of congress.
We are 14 days from the midterm elections. Recent polls are showing the republicans will take back the House and gain a possible 8 to 9 seats in the Senate. Also, Gubernatorial races are also slated to see multiple republican gains. Two years ago, if you were a democrat, the only thing you had to do is stand next to a cardboard cut out of Obama and you would be elected. The democrats gave the republicans a "what for." The republicans got euphoric with their power, grew government to huge levels. Hence, they got their clocks cleaned. Today, the Tea Party Express, the RNC bus and numerous other conservative activists are canvassing the country spreading the conservative values. On the other side, Barry and Michelle, my belle, are stumping in states, Barry won hands down. I am surprised about the "separation phobia that the incumbent democrats has for Reid, Pelosi and Obama. It is very strong and deliberate. Obama knows that this election is a referendum on his agenda and policies. I have seen commercials showing democrats outright criticizing Obamacare. It will not do much since they voted for it. We conservatives have a long memory. 25% of 2008 Obama supporters are now voting republican. Ouch! That will leave a mark! Has anyone noticed ObieWanKenobi stopped denigrating the Chamber of Commerce? A report came out over the weekend stating the democrats received twice the foreign PAC contributions than the republicans. ($1,020,000 v. $510,000.) I said in a post last week that people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. However, Barry knew he was lying, even the liberal newspaper, New York Times, said there wasn't any evidence or credibility to this accusation. The C of C will not divulge the donor names in fear of Obama Chicago style retaliation. I must admit, it is never a dull moment with BHO in the White House. It will be interesting on November 3rd. I will get up extra early to catch the pundit spin. I heard Obama is going on a long international trip ( to get of the country so he doesn't have to deal a blow to his narcissistic ego.) You know it won't be his fault. He will throw whomever under the bus he needs to. This is his modis operandi. I was listening to radio talk today with Charlie Cook and Hugh Hewitt. They both said (on different shows) that the republicans could pick up close to 100 seats if the republicans show up to vote and the left does not. Whatever number of seats the republicans land (only need 39 for a majority), this will be an interesting next 2 years. As soon as we win back the House, We can start working on 2012!
This is old, but I like it:
Liar, Liar, pants on fire:
The DC Election Outlook: GOP striding toward House takeover
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller
Published: 3:36 AM 10/18/2010
Updated: 1:22 PM 10/18/2010
With the election a mere two weeks away, it would probably take a party-wide Republican scandal of Nixonian proportions to keep next year’s House in Democratic hands.
All major election handicappers are projecting that the GOP will gain control of the House in November, and some have even expanded the number of winnable seats for the party, a sign that there is little Democratic candidates can do other than pull down the sails and try to hold on for the storm.
First, the quick numbers:
Republicans need to net 39 seats to gain control.
Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics estimates the GOP will take 45 seats.
Nate Silver of the New York Times puts the number at 47, which would give the Republicans 227 House seats.
An estimate that seems conservative given the predictions of his peers, Charlie Cook gives the Republicans “at least 40 seats.”
While a Republican victory in the House seems to be conventional wisdom in Washington, the real story here is the money behind that possible victory. In the third quarter this year, about 40 Republican challengers have outraised the Democratic incumbents in the same district, Politico reported. The National Republican Campaign Committee raised more than $11 million in September alone and the independent conservative advocacy group American Crossroads raised $13 million dollars…last week.
That’s not to say the Democrats are cash strapped by any means. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is boasting more than $41 million in cash on hand, twice as much as their Republican counterpart.
The problem is that they have to spread that money out to places that have not needed extra help from the party in years.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, the rate at which Republicans are pulling ahead has left Democrats scrambling to restructure the party’s campaign strategy. The party has abandoned 12 House seats it once thought competitive, choosing to put the money in races that appear more salvageable.
All the talk of winning the House appears to be giving Republicans ideas about taking out long-held Democratic strongholds that haven’t elected one of their own in decades. With the release of a few recent polls that show House fixtures like Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and Michigan Rep. John Dingell in closer races than ever before, some partisans are probably a little ahead of themselves in thinking those coveted seats are within reach.
In the case of Frank and challenger Sean Bielat, their personal polls are nowhere near each other. Frank’s poll puts him 24 points ahead; Bielet’s poll shows him to be within ten. Even if you put it somewhere in the middle, the seat still leans heavily toward Frank.
“Polls with an explicit partisan affiliation are on average about 6 points friendlier to their candidate than those conducted by independent groups,” said Silver in a recent post on the Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog. “Our focus, instead, remains on the big picture — and that picture is scary enough for Democrats.”
Shock video of the week:
John Conyers, D-MI, speaking at Democratic Socialists of America meeting on the "One World" scheme. Pathetic!
Rasmussen Predicts GOP Gain of 55 in House
by John Gizzi
10/16/2010
Newport Beach, Calif.—Nationally-recognized pollster Scott Rasmussen last night predicted that Republicans would gain 55 seats in races for the U.S. House of Representatives November 2—much more than the 39 needed for a Republican majority in the House for the first time since 2006.
But the man whose Rasmussen Reports polling is watched carefully by politicians and frequently quoted by the punditocracy said that whether Republicans gain the ten seats they need to take control of the Senate is in question.
“Republicans should have 48 seats [after the elections next month], Democrats 47, and five seats could slide either way,” said Rasmussen in his banquet address at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference. He was referring to seats in five states in which the Senate race this year he considers too close to call: California, Illinois, Washington, West Virginia, and Nevada (or “that mudwrestling contest,” as Rasmussen described the race between Republican Sharron Angle and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).
In recent years, Rasmussen has gained widespread attention for being the first to forecast Scott Brown’s dramatic win in the special Massachusetts Senate race in January (the major networks never knew it was a competitive race until the weekend before the election) and the political vulnerability among Pennsylvania Republicans of Sen. Arlen Specter (who later switched to Democrat and lost his new party’s primary in May of this year).
Rasmussen also brought out some intriguing survey figures regarding the economy for the Western CPAC crowd at the Radisson Hotel here in Newport Beach.
Noting that the top three issues this election year are “one-the economy, two-the economy, and three-the economy,” Rasmussen said his polls show overwhelming support among voters nationwide for cutting spending, taxes, and the deficit.
“And by two-to-one, voters say they prefer a congressman who will reduce overall spending to one who promises to bring a ‘fair share’ of government spending to their congressional district,” the veteran pollster said, adding that a plurality of Texas voters backed Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s recent decision to turn down federal dollars a program because federal strings were attached to it.
The Republicans’ strong position three weeks before midterm elections began, Rasmussen recalled, “when every Republican [in the House] said they would oppose the stimulus package. That’s when the generic ballot [showing support for Republican and Democrat candidates nationwide] started to go up.” He also noted that support fell dramatically for the Democratic healthcare reform bill “when the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] figures showed it would cost more than a trillion dollars.
And support for it never recovered.”
Voter nervousness about the economy, Rasmussen noted, is clear in the declining number of people he finds who feel their own finances are “in good order.” Two years ago, he recalled, 43% of Americans felt their finances were in good order, 38% felt this way the day Barack Obama was elected, and 35% felt that way on the day he took office as President.
“At the beginning of the year, that figure dropped to 32%,” he added, “and today, it is down to 30%.” Rasmussen also said that more than half of homeowners are “unsure if their home is worth more than their mortgage.”
Noting how he periodically polls about different terms—conservative and liberal, for example—Rasmussen said that the term packing the most response is “tea party.”
“It generates the strongest reaction, both positive and negative, among voters,” he concluded, “It’s a defining force.”
Quote du jour:
“It was like the Chilean miners, but he, being the man he is, rolled up his sleeves and said “;I am going to get us out of this hole” Reid said at an “Early Vote GOTV” event.
Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid referring to Obama. Shut up, you ninny!
Pathetic Funnies:
Jibjab-Founding Father's Rap 2010:
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 68
The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet
Friday, March 14, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. [1] I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.
The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.biggovernment.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
John Gizzi
Chris Moody
No comments:
Post a Comment