Back From Vacation

To my dedicated (but sparse) readership I apologize for being away so long, especially considering the big election last week. That's a quick way to get my political blogging membership card revoked. Last Tuesday was a big day and I hope all of you went out there and did your part to bring victory and stop the liberal progressive agenda. And if you happen to be one of those liberals here is a souvenir I brought back from my break:

Who's the regional party now?

The danger here is for the Republican Party to misread what happened here last week. It was not an open embrace for the brand of Republican, it was a full out rebuke of progressivism. Quite simply just that, and if they go back to their own big government tendencies they had in the last couple years of their majority, they will be banished to the hinterlands for a long time to come. I do not believe that will happen, for one the leadership is different. John Boehner is a tough bastard and is no Newt Gingrich with higher aspirations. He has set out the course of Congress already by making it clear that they are there to respond to the President's agenda and speak for the voters that sent them there to oppose that agenda. That is all the House can do without having the White House and Senate under the same party rule. Without the authority to override a Presidential veto, you don't really have the power to force their hand. It is the beauty of the design of our bicameral legislative body. What you can do is force the President to sit down with you to get anything through. In the House you have the purse strings, so when Obama sends you a budget replete with big spending, hack it up. In an odd twist it may be a good thing to have the Senate still controlled by Democrats, President Obama can't paint the Republicans as obstructing the agenda or position himself as Harry Truman and call this the "Do-Nothing" Congress. With 30 plus Senate seats up for re-election in two years (majority of them Democrats) the clear incentive for those due to lose their jobs in 2012 is to listen to what the electorate screamed out so loud and clear last Tuesday, "Enough of big government!".

Secondly, and most important, the people going to D.C. are committed to limited government principles and will form a more right leaning coalition than even what was present after 1994's takeover. The force of the Tea Party will also be holding a lot of these Reps' feet to the fire for any acquiescence to liberalism. So it will be interesting to see how the President starts to position himself and if he actually learned anything over the last two years. Will he actually understand the country he is governing, limited government is the tradition and if he doesn't grasp that fact it could be a long two years until we get his replacement.

It's obvious that some on the left still do not get it. Hearing that Pelosi wants to maintain her leadership has some of the few moderates left in the Democrat caucus shaking their heads and openly announcing a challenge to her becoming Minority Leader. It would be a devastating blow to the Democrats' national chances in 2012 if she gets her wish, since it would leave in place the same triumvirate of Obama-Reid-Pelosi as the faces of the party. Ouch.

My Top 10 House Dems That Should Be Unemployed

With a week to go and while processing all the information of the last 18 months I have come up with a list of Democrats that most need to go on November 2nd. These all have a varying degree of possibility but with the final stretch coming, visit the sites of their opponents and Tweet, Facebook or whatever you like to do to promote them. Feel free to add to the list or discuss:

10. Ron Klein (FL-22) - Admittedly he isn't one of the biggest libs in the Congress, National Journal has him at 58% on the liberal side. He is solely on this list for the despicable pathetic campaign he is running against the guy he beat in 2008, Allen West. Lt. Col. West is an articulate conservative voice that is emphasizing America's exceptionalism and a coherent policy on Israel/Palestine. Ron Klein even shipped in the über liberal Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for a recent protest outside of West's office. Lame.

9. Mike McMahon (NY-13) - This is a district that contains all of Staten Island, the only borough of the city that is reliably Republican. McMahon took advantage of Vito Fossella's problems in 2008 to win but he has a real battle on his hands with former FBI agent, former U.S. Marine Michael Grimm. New York would be lucky to have a guy like this in their delegation considering the sad state of politics occurring all around them.

8. Phil Hare (IL-17) - This one is simple, watch here. We need more people who actually understand the document they swore to uphold. So here the choice is easy, Bobby Schilling.

7. Rush Holt (NJ-12) - The race here is much closer than most people think and will be Rush's toughest defense yet. This is personal since this is the district I actually live in and have supported Scott Sipprelle from the outset. Monmouth University polling (which is notoriously inaccurate but the only non-partisan polling available) has this race close to the margin of error, with Rush up by 5. The district went 58-41 for Obama in 2008, so it would be a major upset if Scott somehow pulls this off.

6. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) – Raul is the representative who suggested businesses boycott his own state. In the current economic environment to actually advocate for business going ELSEWHERE is just ignorant. He just figured the heavy Democratic demographic would insulate him. He just didn’t bank on Ruth McClung, a rocket scientist….no really she is.

5. Frank Pallone (NJ-6) – Another NJ Democrat who has been safe for decades is finally getting a run for his money. His open support and campaigning for the healthcare legislation has made him relatively vulnerable. This is a guy who usually wins with around 70% of the vote but is barely cracking 50 in all of the polling. Vulnerable for sure and Anna Little is running an active campaign, but I think the demographics will win out and Pallone is back. This is the district I used to live in, so again it’s personal.

4. John Dingell (MI-15) – A Dingell has held this seat since 1933, yep you read that right. His dad held it from 33-55 and John has been there since. It contains the very liberal area of Ann Arbor so for this seat to be competitive at all is surprising but there are some signs that it is. Dingell is actually campaigning and running ads, something he probably hasn’t had to do in 50 years. The fact that he is still there after all this time reflects how robotic this district has voted for him, will the Republican wave be enough to propel Dr. Rob Steele? Let’s hope so. 

3. Barney Frank (MA-4) – Now we get to the real dirtbags. Tough to summarize the negatives on Frank, they are myriad. Another Rep who has been serving way too long. This is his first real challenge and the strain is showing. Sean Bielat is an ex-Marine who has campaigned strong and debated Frank capably so let’s see where this goes. Hopefully Barney’s days are numbered. If around 9pm next Tuesday this seat flips to Republicans it could be a VERY long night for Democrats.

2. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) – As one of the Stupak Democrats who held out for the phony assurance that abortions would not be federally funded in ObamaCare, she has shown herself as the worst kind of politician...pandering. This district is nominally Republican (went for Bush twice and McCain in 2008), so what has she done? But predictably vote against her own district time and time again to be one of Pelosi’s lap dogs. These are the types of Democrats that will find themselves extinct come November 3rd. Mike Kelly looks to take this handily and let’s hope he does.

1. Alan Grayson (FL-8) – Here is the king of all scum progressives here. The fact that he is lionized by the left as some sort of principled crusader says so much about the current state of debate on the Left. Daniel Webster is poised to crush this little angry man out of Congress and sending him to a host chair on MSNBC. I have pointed out the questionable tactics and his over the top rhetoric as good enough reason to never have to hear him debate on the floor of the House, ever again.

So there’s my list, will follow up on November 3rd.

Left In Trouble

The Left is losing credibility every day with the average American. True, the Left will always succeed with sucking in the people who live in echo chambers, L.A.,S.F and New York specifically. What is becoming apparent is that by hijacking certain media outlets with their orthodoxy they have created centers of intolerance, not necessarily to people but to ideas. If you don't share the idea you are out. This is what has happened to Juan Williams over at NPR. What other reason can you cite to fire someone, a journalist no doubt, who you pay for their opinions? Especially when what he said was cautioning about painting with a broad brush and using his own visceral experience to illustrate it...but I doubt any of these idiots listened to the whole 6 minute segment on O'Reilly. This is not to say there aren't fireable offenses when you make opinions, if they are offensive or say maybe directed at your bosses on air then yeah you probably should have thought before you spoke. I think most level headed people would after hearing all of Juan's comments would not think he was offensive.

At the end of the day the reason NPR gave was in not so many words "Hey Juan, we don't like that you go on Fox News". The current leadership at NPR (a federally funded disaster masquerading as serious news gathering increasingly being influenced by the irrational Soros left and whose money was used to employ about 100 or so "reporters") was growing uncomfortable with a man appearing with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on a network they hate. Look I dislike MSNBC's lineup of half wits (Ed Schultz anyone?) but I certainly do not deny their right to talk and give opinion...switch the channel if you don't like it, which by the looks of their ratings it seems most people do exactly that, but I digress. What they would see, if any of these leftists actually watched Juan's appearances, was that he was there to challenge a lot of their views. Especially with Hannity, he was there as a foil most times. Anyone who has listened to Juan or read any of Juan's excellent books would realize he is a man of the left and certainly not a bigot. Granted he's not one of these Soros funded, Kos loving rejects on the hard left....but one of level headed thought and opinion. God knows listening to him sometimes (especially in defense of some of the more liberal aspects of the current administration) made this conservative guy cringe BUT always he was classy and articulate with his opinions. In the end he was spreading those views on a network, where let's face it, most of the audience is not liberal. Isn't that what news opinion is all about? Exposing yourself to someone who doesn't think like you and one that does so without ad hominem B.S. like Olbermann and Schultz?  A-ha but that is exactly what gets him fired, exposing himself to the much hated Fox News. He didn't think like the Soros, MoveOn.org,DailyKos, and Media Matters intellectual midgets so he must be kicked out of the clubhouse.

He made an astute observation in his interview today with George Stephanopolous, he said that  growing up in New York and being a man of the left, he "always thought it was the right-wing that was inflexible and intolerant" and how this episode has made him re-think that position in regards to the type of leftists controlling NPR. He notes the ad hominem attack, which is the favorite tactic of the intellectually dishonest. I mean look at all those who stood up for him, all on the right and some on the left. Coincidentally it is many of the same people on the right who called out the administration for firing Shirley Sherrod this summer without having the whole picture, um why did the left direct their outrage at the media outlet for leaking the speech (breitbart) and not the government for the knee-jerk reaction? Two words: partisan hackery.

It is clear that the American public have a distaste for political correctness but even more so if their media outlets display it. They feel that commonsense has left the building and that many times they are being talked down to (that's because we are) by their traditional media outlets. In many cases they are correct, the Juan Willams situation only reaffirms that we have a long way to go to marginalize this type of 1st Amendment application by convenience. The establishment clause guarantees that we have a right to a free press and free speech, not sure if MediaMatters or NPR got the memo. One called for his firing and the other actually did it, pathetic. Their continuing position is one of pettiness and now they are upset that people on the right are defending him? Laughable stuff here. Hate to break it to the irrational left, the sales pitch of your ideology to the American public (outside of your usual precincts) is becoming stale. Americans thankfully are smart enough to see knee jerk hypocrisy when it occurs. Talk to me on November 3rd...

UPDATE: Suggested reading: Is Nina Totenberg Next? or Is Mara Liasson Next? That last piece from Mediaite points out that Boehlert of MediaMatters has already contacted NPR about Mara. That's where it all started with Juan. I sometimes wonder if the progressives thought 1984 by Orwell was a playbook and not the cautionary tale it was supposed to be. These are just more examples of, if you don't employ "goodthink" you are out of the left...you just aren't liberal.

12 Days Left....

I am not usually one for hyperbole on this blog or in my personal life. Sometimes in my rhetoric I get heated and passionate but I try not venture into the realm of partisan hackery and the illogical. I support conservative and libertarian principles, and those on either side of the aisle that just don't get it will have me looking askance at them. That being said this is the most important election in our lifetime. I know that the phrase gets thrown around every four years like clockwork for the Presidential elections, but this time I actually agree with it. Why is it that important?

In the last two short years (and to a greater extent the last 4) we have seen a fundamental shift in the way America conducts itself here at home and abroad. We have for the first time since Woodrow Wilson, a man in the White House combined with both houses of Congress so married to the Progressive agenda. I say Wilson and not FDR because in Wilson's day both parties were progressive, it wasn't until the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1920's and 1930's did Conservatives (classical liberals) start to take root in American politics (Calvin Coolidge being elected is the prime example). They did so out of response to the obvious similarities between the Progressive agenda and what was happening in Italy, the Soviet Union and to an extent Nazi Germany (minus the part about rounding up Jews). Having all those progressives so entrenched in everyday legislation brought on policies that ran so far afoul of the Constitution. Some of the highlights of the Wilson era: Federal Reserve Bank, Revenue Act (our lovely progressive income tax established), Lever Act (our first real agribusiness subsidies), and of course his love of nation building (which is a true progressive infatuation). Won't even mention many of the civil right crushing initiatives during WW1. He was the stereotypical elite technocrat, believing our society was best run by people like himself....former president of Princeton, published author,etc.

So why on earth do I invoke Wilson in my call for electoral upheaval on November 2nd? We currently have a ruling class in Washington that believes very much like those turn of the 20th Century progressives. The technocrats and bureaucrats have a better understanding of how this country should be run is their line of thought. They know better than our Founding Fathers and documents, that is the crux of their argument and why they desire power. I along with millions of others in the majority soundly reject this viewpoint. This election will be about America's exceptionalism, whether we want to be grounded in the founding documents that created the world's greatest human experiment or, whether we want to continue down the road of progressivism and the failing road that Europe has so expertly laid out for us. The choice is clear, the modern Democratic party has no place for believers of individual liberty and the free market system. This video here sums up the choice (H/T Red State and Ben Howe)

Right Klik: Juan Williams Not Sufficiently Islamophobic for NPR

Nice breakdown by RightKlik:

Right Klik: Juan Williams Not Sufficiently Islamophobic for NPR

NPR...Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work

Will someone please tell me where in today's society we need National Public Radio. They are a worthless cash drain on the American taxpayer, granted it isn't much but anything more than $1 is a waste. Now they have collapsed to the political correctness lynch mob known as thinkprogress.org (not linking to that den of dirtbags) and the HuffPo. The late breaking story tonight is Juan Williams getting fired over at NPR for making some comments on O'Reilly's show the other night. I actually happened to catch it and he really wasn't saying anything off the wall that in post 9/11 America we all haven't thought ourselves. But then again our employer isn't NPR and most of us don't have to answer to the irrational Leftist bloggers.

Here are a couple of the stories linked here:

Screw Free Speech-Big Journalism

Firing Offense - Michelle Malkin

Narratives In Chief

Yesterday two stories went kind of viral but with exactly the same theme. Regardless of facts or history the Left's narrative in the media always triumphs.

First the O'Donnell supposed gaffe in her debate with Chris Coons. In case you have been under a rock or really do not pay attention to the news the last two days, Christine O'Donnell gave this "ridiculous" answer in her debate in response to a question regarding local school boards teaching intelligent design and separation of church and state:

O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
Crowd of ignorant Widener Law students: audible laughing

As I have had many discussions with my liberal friends over the years, they too believe this is in the Establishment Clause. You know what, I used to think that as well because that is what school taught me. That the 1st Amendment creates a wall between church and state, even though it does not expressly say so. The liberals that run the media and your schooling have been peddling this bull since the 1940's in an attempt to marginalize any religious person running for office. This phantom separation was first spit out in a landmark 1878 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. United States. It had to do with the Mormons in Utah or something to that effect (I'm not the legal scholar....yet). In the decision they contort Thomas Jefferson's writing to a Baptist convention in 1802. Ever since then and after another decision in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education) we are taught that there is separation of church and state and it is guaranteed by the Constitution. We are somehow made to believe that a nation founded on religious freedom has no place for a congressman or woman to hold personal religious faith and have it guide their morality. Well that is exactly what the Progressives have in mind, it is to strike religion out of the heart of the people by marginalizing it. Making it seem "wacky" or un-scientific. Ann Althouse breaks down the exchange as such:

Plainly, the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state," so there's nothing stupid there. It's provocative, because many people like that gloss on the text.

Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
He's talking about interpretations of the text, and she was talking about the text. What we're hearing is 2 individuals talking past each other.

She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
She's telling him to pay attention to her limited point about the text.

So as I said earlier what's so ridiculous about her answer? It's a stupid answer to them because it fits the preconceived notions that a)she's an idiot and b)she's a Conservative...usually in the media those go hand in hand. When in actuality she gives a perfectly nuanced answer showing her understanding of the history and the facts. Then she asks him what are the five guaranteed rights in the Establishment Clause and he can't name them...he went to Yale Law. Why does the media not jump on him? Oh yeah it doesn't fit their narrative.

The second story is more of the typical Palin idiocy from the Left. She has been living in their heads rent-free for a few years now. They just can't take it, and it's funny to watch. It stems from a recent speech she made and telling her largely tea party flavored crowd to not "party like it's 1773" and to make sure to get out and vote. Holy cow the immediate outrage from the online Lefties was great and classic. Cuffy Meigs over at Perfunction blog broke it and catalogued all the stupidity on Twitter:

Historic Illiteracy

Well if that doesn't sum up the Left's problem in a nutshell I don't know what does. Before those people could think about what she actually said they jumped all over it as a supposed gaffe. Because once again the narrative is Sarah Palin = idiot. Therefore anything she says or does is idiotic. The Left's reliance on the ad hominem instead of fact bites them in the ass this time. I admit I am painting with a broad stroke as it was mostly the online Left, Daily Kos, etc. but Gwen Ifill? Really? Once again Moe Lane taking the words out of my mouth:

While I understand and expect that your average online progressive blogger has about much awareness of American history as, say . . . Oh, this is awkward. An online progressive blogger would be the actual yardstick for 'abysmally ignorant about American history.' Nonetheless, while I understand that the Online Left is dumb . . . really, Gwen Ifill. You're supposed to be one of the bright talking heads.