Thursday, December 31, 2009
If Brown receives support -- financial, organizational, and moral -- from thousands of activists around the country, he will win the special election to be held on Jan. 19 (less than three weeks from now).
Are my activities -- and yours -- really making a difference for Scott Brown? Two days ago I received the following message from a member of his campaign staff:
"I am the policy advisor on the Scott Brown campaign. I have been getting your emails since Sarah was announced as the VP. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Also how many people do generally send this email out to? We have seen an enormous surge of interest in our website.
"Thank you and happy new year." -- R.K.
When the Brown Campaign adviser sent that e-mail, she made my day -- and I hope she's doing the same for all of you who recognize the importance of making Scott the 41st Republican vote in the Senate.
Yes, it is Massachusetts, and voters in that state tend to pull the Democrat lever much the same way Pavlov's dog salivated when the bell rang. And Scott Brown is an underdog.
However, if Scott wins, it would mark the beginning of the end for not only the reign of "Nancy and Harry," but also the Obama presidency.
He's much less an underdog today than he was a few weeks ago.
Scott is in favor of limited government and low taxes, the very policies that are essential if we're ever to restore our country to economic health.
Scott's opponent is Martha Coakley, a former prosecutor. Those of you who want to Google her will find out her specialty was ferociously prosecuting people for crimes they hadn't committed. Her efforts even have a title: "The Second Salem Witch Trials."
Thus, Coakley is against "witches"; she is in favor apparently of all the big government policies promoted by Obama and Reid.
In a sane world, Scott Brown would win in a landslide. As you and I know, however, a one-vote victory in politics is just as good as a landslide.
If you visit Scott's web site -- www.brownforussenate.com -- you can find many ways to help him win on Jan. 19. They have a major effort that will enable people to call in from out-of-state.
My own emphasis in 2010 will be to spend 2,000 hours (I'm semi-retired) trying to elect outstanding candidates. On my blog -- www.stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com -- I'll be writing every day about important races . . . and practical steps we can take to win back the House of Representatives. It may take until 2012 to win back the Senate, but we're due for some big victories.
I'm hoping all of you will share campaign ideas that work. Of course, one approach that always works is to ask friends, family, and associates to join us in voting for great candidates.
Note: Please share this post with all your contacts . . . and encourage them to help Scott win.
There are two caveats that go with the list. First, there are strong arguments for including at least half a dozen other districts on the list. So, not being on this list doesn’t mean a contest is not extremely competitive. Second, since the midterm elections are still almost a year off, this list is likely to change significantly before November.
Louisiana’s 2nd: Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, the only Republican to vote for the House’s health care reform bill, had no business winning this majority-black district. He won only because of the timing of the 2008 elections and the unique problems of then-Rep. William Jefferson (D). This time, Democrats are likely to have an unindicted nominee, which should end Cao’s service in Congress at one term. Two state Representatives have already announced they are running. Expect a turnover.
Delaware’s At-Large: Rep. Mike Castle’s decision to run for Senate was great news for the National Republican Senatorial Committee but bad news for House Republicans. Former Lt. Gov. John Carney (D) was already running when Castle made his announcement, so Democrats have a serious candidate in the race. Since the state leans Democratic, Republicans will need to find a formidable nominee even to contest the seat seriously.
Louisiana’s 3rd: With Rep. Charlie Melancon (D) running for Senate, this open seat gives the GOP an excellent takeover opportunity. The district gave President Barack Obama only 37 percent of the vote in 2008, so the Republican nominee should benefit from normal midterm dynamics. Of course, with a late August primary, the race won’t shake out for months.
Virginia’s 5th: Freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D) seems more interested in doing what he thinks is right than getting re-elected. That’s the only way to explain his votes supporting House Democrats’ cap-and-trade and health care reform bills. State Sen. Robert Hurt (R) is expected to challenge Perriello, and the Congressman is in deep, deep trouble. Obama’s 48 percent showing last year in this district understates Perriello’s challenge next year.
Maryland’s 1st: Unlike Perriello, Rep. Frank Kratovil (D) has voted as if he is trying to be re-elected. But he barely scraped by Republican Andy Harris in an open-seat contest last time, and the midterm electorate will make his re-election bid more difficult. He has a chance to win another term, but the odds aren’t in his favor. Obama drew only 40 percent of the vote in the 1st in 2008.
Kansas’ 3rd: When Rep. Dennis Moore announced his retirement last week, Democratic prospects tanked. While Obama won this district with 51 percent, it generally leans Republican, and the open seat during a midterm election looks like a juicy GOP target.
Ohio’s 1st: Rep. Steve Driehaus (D) knocked off then-Rep. Steve Chabot (R) last year, and now Chabot is trying to return the favor. Expected lower turnout among Democratic core groups, especially younger voters and blacks, places this district at great risk even though Obama won it with 55 percent.
Ohio’s 15th: Freshman Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) has many of the same problems — and the same challenges — that confront Driehaus in the state’s 1st district. Unlike Driehaus, Kilroy faces a rematch against an opponent who has never won district-wide. But former state Sen. Steve Stivers (R) should be a formidable foe.
Florida’s 8th: Rep. Alan Grayson (D), another freshman, has gone out of his way to be partisan and inflammatory. That’s a good way to raise money and attract the fawning admiration of liberal activists, but it isn’t the best way to get re-elected in this Republican-leaning district that went for Obama with 52 percent. The GOP doesn’t yet have a “name” challenger, and the party may never get one. But given Grayson’s recent behavior, they may not need one to take back this district after a single term.
New Mexico’s 2nd: Rep. Harry Teague faces former Rep. Steve Pearce (R), who gave up his seat in 2008 to run for Senate. Teague has tried to vote his district, but he isn’t being helped by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Obama, who drew 49 percent of the district’s vote in 2008. Definitely a midterm problem for Democrats.
New Hampshire’s 2nd: The Granite State has swung strongly Democratic of late — probably too strongly considering the state’s fundamentals. This open seat, and the likely candidacy of former Rep. Charles Bass (R), should give Republicans at least an even money chance of winning back the district during the midterm elections. But attorney Ann McLane Kuster, the early favorite for the Democratic nomination and the daughter of a former liberal Republican state legislator, should be a formidable standard-bearer for her party.
New York’s 23rd: Special election winner Rep. Bill Owens won his seat with less than 50 percent of the vote, and if Republicans find a nominee who can appeal to both conservatives and moderates, Owens will find himself in trouble. His first vote was for the House health care reform bill.
Tomorrow (New Year's Day), I'll be writing (and not for the last time) about what Republicans must do to take back the House of Representatives . . . and end Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker of the House.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
If John F. Kennedy were still alive, he would be a Republican. Remember his Inaugural Address where he said, "Let every nation know, whether friend or foe, that we shall bear any burden, pay any price, to ensure the survival of liberty." Can you imagine any contemporary Democrat, including Barack Obama, making a similar statement? JFK never apologized for America.
Also, confronting a serious economic slowdown, Kennedy cut taxes sharply, in order to spur economic growth and job creation. In contrast, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are raising taxes dramatically.
The Kennedyesque candidate in the special election for a US Senate seat in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 is . . . Republican Scott Brown. If Brown wins -- when he wins -- he will be the critical 41st vote in the Senate. As such, he'd cripple the left-wing's effort to impose on us their socialist agenda.
You may not live in Massachusetts, but you can play an important role in his electoral success. Make no mistake, the special election is one progressing under the radar. If patriots around America step up to support Scott Brown, he will become the first Republican in 40 years to win a Massachusetts Senate seat.
What can you do?
First, visit Scott's web site and sign up for e-mail updates;
Second, make a donation, either small or large;
Third, ask anyone you know in MA to support Scott;
Fourth, volunteer for the nationwide call-ins to MA (see below in
This election will be a lot closer than the clueless MSM believes. Voters in Massachusetts, like voters in your state, are fed-up with Washington, DC's wild overspending of your money. Lifelong Democrats are reconsidering their commitment to a Party which has contempt for their values -- American values.
If you want to join the call-in effort, you can do so either be going to Scott's web site or by writing to Brad, who sent me the following:
We do have a mechanism [for call-ins] If you would have people contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org I can set them up with an online username and password to call from the comfort of their own homes on behalf of Scott Brown.
In the mid-1770s, Massachusetts basically launched the first American Revolution. Our forebears sacrificed everything for the causes of independence and liberty.
Now, it falls to use to rescue our beloved country from the cynics and socialists in Washington, DC. The Second American Revolution has begun.
It's up to us. Let's amaze the world be electing Scott Brown.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.
Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.
Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Unlikely to be much recalled this week is the fact that, in 1983, Senator Edward Kennedy offered advice to the USSR on how to defeat U.S. efforts to build up the Western nuclear deterrent in Europe; sought the assistance of the USSR in Democratic Party efforts to defeat Ronald Reagan in the election campaign of 1984; and proposed the staging of a public Kennedy visit with Yuri Andropov in Moscow to help attain these ends. Senator Kennedy's intermediary in his communications with the KGB and Yuri Andropov was John Tunney [Kennedy friend and former Senator from California].
An internal Soviet memorandum detailing Kennedy's offer of assistance to the USSR was unearthed by a Times of London reporter in the 1990s when, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the KGB files were opened.
The memorandum was written by Victor Chebrikov, who succeeded Yuri Andropov as head of the KGB when Andropov became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Chebrikov directed the KGB from 1982 to 1988.
The full text of the Chebrikov memorandum was published in the appendix (pp. 317-320) of Paul Kengor's book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
In his book, The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World, (pp. 197-198), John O'Sullivan also discussed the 1983 Kennedy overture to Andropov, noting that "Kennedy made several subsequent attempts to advise the Soviets on the best way to outwit Reagan", adding that "The only mystery is why Andropov turned down Kennedy's offer. The answer seems to be that, when it came to left-wing Western politicians hoping to assist the Kremlin's foreign policy, the Soviets were suffering from an embarrassment of riches."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
By Adam Brickley, aka "ElephantMan"
Doug Brady wrote a great post earlier proposing August 29, the anniversary of Gov. Palin's nomination as the Republican vice presidential candidate, as "Sarah Palin Day". This is a fine idea. He also nominated yours truly for some kind of award (thanks!). However, I would be remiss not to throw in a few nominations myself. I get a lot of credit for launching the original Draft Palin site, but there are definitely two or three people who did at least as much work as I did and hence deserve awards. So, I would place the following nominations for the Sarah Palin Day Award:
1. Steve Maloney - Steve was the second-ever Palin blogger, and my lonely partner in crime for most of 2007. To be honest, Steve drove some of our earliest endorsements and did a lot of heavy lifting during a time when I couldn't (retirees have more time to blog than intern/college students). No Steve, no Palin Movement - period. By the way - Steve is still involved with a large network of Palin bloggers, C4P is big, but Steve and his gang do a lot to keep together all of the little bloggers for Sarah. If you don't know him, you should.
2. Kristopher Lorelli - Started his own Palin site in early 2008, PalinForVp.com (prompting me to buy up PalinForVP.net, PalinForVP.org, and PalinForVP.info). Despite the odd name similarity, Kris was a great partner, and did even more work behind the scenes than he did with his site. From what I heard, quite a large amount of pro-Palin literature and email was sent to McCain campaign officials by Kris. He's now one of the major brains at the other team blog I contribute to - Race42012.
Commenter of the Year Award - "The Original Ted"For any hard-core, long-time Palinite who was involved in the movement before Sarah's nomination, Ted needs no introduction. If you got involved later - I'm sure many old-schoolers in the comments section will be happy to tell you about his efforts. I will leave the Ted stories to the commenters - as it seems only right that our commenter award nominee should be lauded primarily by his compatriots below the fold.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
by Lloyd Marcus (see http://www.lloydmarcus.
I am on the email list of a dear black friend of 20 years. He is a minister, writer and professor. He has mentored and advised me with great wisdom on numerous occasions. With me being a black conservative Republican and he a Democrat, we avoid talking politics. Since the election of Obama, my friend will talk about nothing else. He is in Baltimore. I'm in Florida. Every time he calls me, he turns the conversation into trashing all who oppose Obama's agenda. Thank God for caller ID.
I received a mass email from my friend in which he vilifies the Christian community for not chastising ministers who speak against Obama and for not attacking Sarah Palin. He said the Republicans used Palin as their "attack dog against Obama." He said watching a McCain/Palin rally was like watching a KKK lynch mob and he personally heard the crowds yelling, "kill him," referring to Obama. Folks, my dear friend is a liar.
In 2008, I traveled the U.S. attending forty rallies on the national "Stop Obama Tour" with Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Not once, did I hear any violent or racist comments. Seeing through his smooth speeches and charisma, people were simply terrified of what was to come with an Obama victory.
Behind all of my friend's intellectual yada, yada, yada, festers a deep hatred for the rich and white people. In a conversation, he said with great glee that Obama was going to "reign in Wall Street" and CEO's salaries should be limited to $500,000 per year. I thought, "Who the heck are you to dictate how much someone should be permitted to earn. This is America. The sky's the limit."
Anger caused me to write a passionate reply to my friend's hate filled email. I stated numerous reasons why Obama's agenda and the health care bills are wrong for America.
Included was abortion. Fifty percent of black babies are aborted. (www.BlackGenocide.org) Also, Obama voted three times against protecting babies who survive an abortion. So, how does my black minister friend justify supporting Obama. And why does he consider anyone opposing Obama's policies non Christian, racist or an Uncle Tom if you are black?
Ready to hit "reply all," I remembered the White House requested all emails against ObamaCare be forwarded to them. I thought, why give them more ammo to attempt to shut me up? The folks on my friend's liberal email list are all infected will Obama Brainlock Syndrome. They do not want to know the truth. In the current climate set by our "I'm gonna make you a Health Care offer you can't refuse" president, I could be setting myself up for physical attacks.
Many sincere white Americans thought by electing a black president America could never again be characterized as a "racist country." Shamefully, this characterless administration betrayed Obama voters by exploiting race, using it as a tool to implement their far left agenda.
If you don't agree with everything Obama wants, you must be a racist. Rather than the election of America's first black president bringing the races together, Obama's administration is tearing us apart. They will continue to play the tired, old and tattered geriatric "race card" as long as it is effective.
Folks, please, please, please do not fall for it. The stakes are far too high. Boldly speak the truth and stand up for what you know in your hearts to be right for America. Obama wants to redistribute wealth, punish achievers, decide who lives or dies and control as much of our lives as possible. It is just that simple. His must be stopped. Do not allow yourselves to be manipulated and intimidated for fear of being called "racist."
Ironically, "Black Racism" has blinded my long time friend as well as many other black Americans from seeing beyond Obama's skin color. MLK would not be proud.
Singer/Songwriter of the “American Tea Party Anthem”.
President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color) http://www.LloydMarcus.com
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Again, people who despise Sarah also despise America. It's that simple. Reportedly, Barack Obama is not a big fan of hers.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
The biggest problem with the Dem's health proposals is that they don't really try either to lower costs or to improve quality. Main point: no tort reform because the liberals are completely in bed with the trial lawyers, who extract a hundred billion-plus from our health system.
One fascinating development: hospitals in South America and India -- at least their top-tier hospitals -- are as good as MOST (not all) American hospitals. And insurance companies increasingly are flying people to New Delhi or Buenos Aires (and other sites) for operations. It turns out (rough numbers) that a heart bypass that costs $35,000 in the U.S. might cost $8,000 in India. Thus, the return flight tickets, the operation, and a short stay for recuperation can end up saving, say, $15,000 or more in costs.
The Economist had an article several months ago saying the number of Americans going to India or South America was nearly one million per year! They estimated the number could go to 10 million in the next decade or so. Start multiplying savings of $5 thousand or $10 thousand (or more) by ten million people, and the reduction in costs is immense.
If Americans see the numbers, which indicate they're not more likely to die in foreign hospitals, they are more inclined to take the trip. In some case, people are paying out of pocket (no health insurance) and saving money along with their lives appeal to them.
The Dem's health legislation is completely uncreative and basically will bring a meat-axe to medical costs. It will ration according to age and other statistical factors before it makes economic promises it will not be able to keep.
Thus, Dr. Thomas Sowell is correct: the Dems won't technically refuse care; instead, they will just refuse to pay for expensive treatments. The refusal to pay will not be a "death panel" as such, but it will have the same effects.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Also, take note of the following: See the USNews report on Palin's victory on "death panel": http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/8/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html
The following is my take on the public relations elements of the "death panel" debate:
From a public relations standpoint -- and yeah, I have been in that business since the mid-1970s -- the most important thing you can do is to put your opponents on the defensive. (We sometimes make the mistake of allowing ourselves to be put in a defensive posture.) One goal of Sarah's "death panel" concept is to get people like Obama and Specter (and Paul Begala and other drones) saying, "No, we don't have death panels in the legislation."
Keep them mentioning the phrase "death panel" -- and then hit them hard with statements like, "Gee, won't that be the practical effect of the mandated end-of-life counselling sessions?" Or, "won't that be the practical effect of making massive cuts in Medicare?" Or, "Gee, what about Obama's key adviser, Ezekiel Emanuel, who says a teenager's life is worth a lot more than that of a senior citizen?"
Keep them sputtering and blustering about the death panels. In short, keep asking them loaded questions -- keep passing them hand grenades. Bring up the "Jane Sturm" episode, where Obama was making the case that a healthy 100-year-old woman shouldn't have received a pacemaker -- the woman is now a health 105 year old. Bring up Obama's grandmother, whom he said shouldn't have received a hip replacement. That is, tie them knots, and beat them senseless.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The "Obama Health Care" plan really doesn't exist. What we have is HR 3200. Since Obama has not read a word of it, he's not real good on answering questions about it.
Is there really a death panel, as Sarah Palin charged? Yes, there is, but it will be renamed something like "Life begins at 90 panel."
Actually, it's name is The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Its goal is to turn medical care from Mayo Clinic Model into the Dollar General model. Little secret: it's NOT about effectiveness. It's about reducing costs . . . and doing so at all costs.
In fact, the bill says its goal is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." In other words, no more of those pesky (and expensive) new meds that will cure mom's breast cancer or dad's heart arrhythmia.
And then -- don't tell Barack! -- we will have a gentleman or gentlelady who will serve (with a bureaucracy in the tens of thousands) as The National Coordinator for Health Information and Technology. Sounds great, right?His (Her? Its/) job will be to "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly [key word] following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." Notice the use of the passive voice ("are deemed"), which are always signs that bureaucrats are work, evading responsibility as they go.
What will happen to doctors and hospitals doing cutting-edge work to keep patients alive? As you might guess, those "no adhering to guidelines will face penalties," which will include hefty fines . . . and even prison terms, particularly handed out to conservative doctors who hate the Obama Plan.
Question: what about those doctors (including mine) and hospitals (some in my area) that are doing a tremendous job healing patients and saving lives? Will they be used as examples for other docs and hospitals? Surely you jest. My betting is that they will be the ones facing fines and jail times. They probably aren't following the already cockamamie government regulations and "guidelines."
Sarah Palin is being attacked in the White House, as well as on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Disney Channel, and CNN for describing ObamaCare as exactly what it is: an exercise in the proposition that when you can make sure people are safely dead, they don't "incur" any addional health costs. Can't argue with that. Do you really want to argue with the notion that an Obama who favors "live birth abortion" (i.e., infanticide) won't back a form of "eldercare" that includes euthanasia?
Admittedly, the death panel won't fully crank up until, say, the third term of Barack Obama, by then known as "President-for-Life." By then, we'll all be too numb to notice. Every home in America will have a super-size photo of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
The congressman there is Steven Rothman, who votes 100% liberal and apparently is an enthusiastic participant in NJ's infamous "politics of corruption." Elyse's description of the town halls is below in boldface. Cong. Rothman, like most Democrats in the House, is totally unaware that his cluelessness is producing an explosive situation in the U.S. as his actions, along with those of other leftists, are making our country disappear as if it had all been a dream. The Rothmans of the world believe that it's all fine and good if they extract money from the relative few to buy votes from the many who sit as if they were baby birds waiting for "mom" to put worms in their mouth.s
I went to two town hall meetings yesterday done in my district by Steve Rothman, have two more today. Some of the things I noticed were:
- No muscle in evidence in the afternoon session (mostly seniors) in Wallington. Crowd was civil and almost cordial (heavily Democratic town) Seniors were pretty well informed however he cut them off at the knees when they started talking about provisions in the bill by saying nobody knows what the final bill looks like because there are 3 versions that came out of committee. HR 3200 is listed on dozens of congressmen's websites however I couldn't find it on his. No one asked him why the bills that are out of committee are not available for public view.
- Muscle in evidence last night but a bit more discreet than we've seen nationwide - no identifying shirts etc. at the town hall in Palisades Park. Several people commented about the large menacing man in the meeting room itself (I could not get closer than the hallway) who would glower if the people seated didn't voice their approval. Actually told Michele from the NJ Tea Party organization that he would eject her if she didn't keep it down.
- We were unable to ask spontaneous questions - if you wanted to speak you had to fill out a form that Rothman's staff was passing through the crowd (SRO) giving your name, address, phone, email address and the question you would like to ask. There were 4 "plants" in Wallington and at least 8 last night, called on strictly for their favorable comments.
-The Congressman's remarks were even keeled until the last 20 minutes or so when the blame game started going. The debt is Bush's fault yadda yadda [or "Bada Bing, Bada Bing?"]. No opportunity for rebuttal. You got your two minutes and that was it. Stupidly drew the comparison that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid technically were and are unconstitutional but so what???? Unreal. I couldn't believe he made such a dopey comment.
Bashed Reagan for giving amnesty to 5 million illegals besides! As if there were no objections to that action then. It was one of the biggest gaffes of Reagan's Presidency. Think he's a little desperate?
- The little Obamabot girls, those kids that answered the $11-15 an hour Craigslist ads carrying small signs that said Thank you Mr. President for Healthcare Reform...almost threw up. When I asked the one young lady if she knew what the bill was about she had absolutely NO CLUE. Just making a little extra money before school starts, how utterly capitalistic of her ;)
All in all the attendees for these town halls come prepared and angry. Very angry. I was impressed to see all age groups actively engaged, talking to their neighbors and being very clear that they do NOT want what these idiots are selling. Many did their homework, brought with them facts and were well spoken. Expect that as information regarding the parental rights built into the bill that we do have access to comes out today that the questions will get much much tougher.
Two more town halls today, this afternoon in Englewood Cliffs and tonight in Rutherford. Rutherford should be interesting, that is the hometown of my friend Vince who ran against Rothman this past election ;)Elyse
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama looks at them as non-voters and thus not one of the groups that he wishes to favor. Obama's bad taste joke on Letterman about the Special Olympics illustrates where he stands on special needs kids and adults, whom he supposedly regards as a burden to society.
Obama's "death panel," condemned by Gov. Palin, will appear as the government takes over health care almost completely. It will set "guidelines" that will separate Obama's favorite groups, such as the more militant unions, from his least favorite groups, including those with autism and Down Syndrome.
Does this sound overly cynical? In fact, it is just a statement of the way Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel operate. Oh yes, there may be a bone tossed in the direction of the disabled, but they don't need bones. Rather, they need good health care, including physiotherapy and psychological assistance. That's precisely what they won't get.
On death panels, I urge people to read (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) about Obama's "health" advisers, including Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Jacob Blumenthal, as well as Princeton Professor Peter Singer, an important outside influence. Emanuel is a death-worshipper. Blumenthal thinks rigid government controls are a good way to "control costs." Singer believes that people with severe disabilities have no real right to life.
What about Obama's "advisers" on the other side? Sadly, there are none.
If there are humane, intellectually sound ways to reduce costs -- and there are, with such things as medical liability reform -- they are NOT included in the Obama Plan. Civil liability reform would offend the ambulance chasers (John Edwards is the most famous one) who contributed tens of millions of dollars to Obama's campaign. Such tort reform would save as much as a trillion dollars over the next 5-6 years, but it will never happen as long as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are in power.
My wife and I save for ourselves (and the nation) approximately $1300 a year by ordering prescriptions in bulk. Why doesn't the Obama Administration encourage such savings nationwide? Because it would anger the executives of pharmaceutical stores retailers who have embraced the Obama Plan in order not to be punished by the Administration.
We all like to engage in philosophical debates about health reform. However, if we want to know what's really going on, we need to remember an old line from Watergate: "Follow the money." Obama knows that politics and power have everything to do with money.
This gets us back to autistic and Down Syndrome children. Their contributions to the Obama Campaign (one that's endless) adds up to . . . zero. Therefore, they will get nothing from the man who is pretending to be "our president."
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Of course, the banks, like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and others are the ones who "donated" all that money to the Obama Campaign. Barack Obama takes care of his "friends." He appreciates Black votes, but isn't about to do anything to earn them.
Might it be time yet to start rubbing the noses of yesterday's Obama supporters in such facts? Gee, the first mixed race president is presiding in the most precipitous drop in the standard of living -- and the quality of life -- for Black people. As Michelle Obama said (althuogh not in the way she meant it), "It's time for Black folks to wake up."
Oh, and Barack's and Michelle's combined income last year was $2.8 milion. Sasha and Malia go to a (mostly white) private school that costs $30,000 a year -- for each of them. At least one guy with some African ancestry is doing very, very well.
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD's, when Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had miss-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in Chrysler, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?
Don't worry. He's done all this in 6 months -- so you'll have three years and six months to come up with an answer.
How are Hope and Change going for you today?
Friday, August 7, 2009
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Palin: The Power of Good
Considering Obama and his operatives are beind the campaign of harassment, ethics charges and attacks on her and her children, Sarah Palin is nothing short of divine. The election is over.
It is time to repair friendships with the other party.
Gov. Sarah Palin is doing her part.
The rest of the world cannot understand how, after bitter election campaigns, American politicians can kiss and make up.
For instance, Gov. Palin has invited, to her great state of Alaska , the men who defeated her, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, along with their wives. She has set up a moose hunting trip for their enjoyment and hired three prominent experts in their field to assist them.
Dick Cheney will carry the gun, Ted Kennedy will drive them back to their cabins each evening, and Bill Clinton will entertain their wives.
Sarah is such a good sport! She thinks of everything!
These guys are evil, I hope Palin is not holding her breath waiting on the tarmac.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
And how stupid is someone to believe that Palin is “going away”. For what reason? Why resign as Governor when she would be re-elected if she wanted…if that’s what she really wanted, was to be Governor of Alaska. Why leave office now?
Because the kooks in Alaska kept The Guv from traveling, prevented her from making speeches, raising money for candidates, and doing all the things she needs to do to build a national organization for herself. With her book set to launch in 2010, these same kooks would throw a wrench in her book tour, too, and the assorted Obots assigned to filing bogus ethics complaints against The Guv would complain left and right about her TV appearances, interviews, and other obligations going forward.
Palin is a very smart woman and knows 2012 is her shot if she wants to run for President…but she could not do that as Governor of Alaska. The state’s too far away, but more important than that, the people there are of a very special breed in that they don’t seem to understand a sitting Governor can indeed travel in other states, making appearances, and raising her profile, while carrying out the constitutional duties of the state.
In “the lower 48?, Governors cross state lines every day for one reason or another (just try to come between Charlie Crist and an especially attractive taffeta sale in Georgia…or between Bobby Jindal and an exorcism just about anywhere).
But, not Sarah Palin! Hell, no, she can’t go! Make her stay in Alaska where it’s cold and no one can see her! If she leaves the state for any reason, file more ethics complaints! We must destroy this woman AT ALL COSTS!
Dr. Utopia proves that just about anyone can become President of the United States. He spent less time in the US Senate before he ran for President than Sarah Palin has spent as the Chief Executive of the nation’s largest state, with extremely more important duties than any Senator has.
The fact that liberals wailed and cried every time she left the state — declaring how important her job was — proves what great experience she has, and how well she did her job. If her leaving the state’s borders, for even a day, would seemingly trigger a complete collapse of society in Alaska and the end of life as Alaskans knew it, then it’s ludicrous to argue the woman isn’t capable at what she does.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Obama's revealing body language I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing. Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Here's the link:http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/cnn-tells-sells-more-lies-about-palin-its-time-to-expose-the-truth-about-obama.html
Like Pamela, I've determined that the stream of baseless rumors about Gov. Sarah Palin come directly from Obama's political gurus David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. (More about this in coming days.)
You got it: "Our" president is a scumbag. No Mt. Rushmore for him.
American Thinker: Sarah Palin: A Leader Without A Party
Here's an excerpt from Williamson's essay:
The truth is: Sarah Palin is not really a "politician". She did not get into politics to seek power or wealth. She bears no resemblance to the typical politician, who graduated in Law specifically to enter politics; or to the successful businessman who runs for office to gain profit advantage or status; or to the mediocrities who rises through nepotism or dynastic ambition like a Kennedy or a Gore. Or to any party hack out of the Chicago machine.
She has not brought herself into this fight at this point because she wants to be President...or Vice-President...or Senator....or Cabinet member. She is in this solely because she feels, deeply, that our traditional principles and values, already betrayed by both parties, are in serious jeopardy through the aggressive efforts of committed socialists. She is prepared to make a personal sacrifice in the cause of defeating them. If she succeeds, she'll be happy to just go back to Wasilla and the Alaskan way of middle class life she loves.
Remember, she made it clear in her resignation that she was going to remain "outside" the political fences. For she is going to turn her guns on the GOP -- big time. She wants nothing to do with the Republican National Committee, and not just because she has been reading Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny.
She has fought the GOP top dogs since her first days in Wasilla. When she was appointed by the Governor to chair the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission and found out the Republicans were dealing under the counter with the private companies, she resigned and blew the whistle. When her party wouldn't support her for Governor she ran on her own -- against their open opposition -- and won. And promptly attacked waste and corruption within the Republican state government.
Then she was drafted by McCain, sparking some indignation in the RNC. She promptly charged the flailing campaign with her energy and her personality, attracting huge numbers of people to GOP rallies, and most likely some new voters.
But she got no support from the sclerotic RNC managers -- and the great fighter pilot couldn't shoot straight. Then he bailed out on her after the election, and she received no thanks for her valiant effort; not only was she simply dumped, but reviled and mocked by the insiders and elitists she had worked with.
What can you do now to help Sarah Palin? Please go to one of more of the following sites and makes at least a small contribution:
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
House Democrats have cut a deal on healthcare reform with the Blue Dog Democrats.They meet this afternoon to mark up their bill and rush it through the House of Representatives.There is still time to act.
Go here, put in your zip-code, call your Congressman, and tell him to oppose the Democrats' healthcare initiative.
Erick Erickson Editor,
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
My own view of Sotomayor is that she's the woman who graduated "summa cum laude" from Princeton . . . but has no idea how to pronounce . . . summa cum laude.
Sonia Sotomayor wildly mispronounced the common legal term "sui generis." She thought the first word had one syllable -- it has two -- and the second word had two syllables -- it has three. Latina, yes. Latin? Nope. Then she kept saying "eminent" when she meant "imminent." She also talked about her "story of knowledge," when she meant "store of knowledge."
Since Sarah has resigned her day job, maybe Obama could get her out of his hair by appointing her (instead of Sonia S.) to the Supreme Court? We could do worse. We ARE doing worse.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Also today for the first time, Obama's approval index (those strongly approving vs those strongly disapproving) was minus 11 at Rasmussen. His rating will probably always be higher than it should be because the majority of blacks will never admit the truth.
I think Jews might -- some of them. Sadly, some will fit the square peg into the round hole though and figure it is okay for Israel to give away part of Jerusalem -- and it works to make nice nice with Iran.
Seniors are realizing what he wants to do to their health and medicare. People are starting to understand that he is not about anything he said. When he refused to take public funding, when he has changed his mind about lobbyists, people should have already known (opensecrets.org) that as a junior senator Obama had already reached #2 on the entire contributions list after Chris Dodd from AIG, there has never been a president less transparent (maybe Nixon but not so sure).
The biggest hoax on America is that the people elected someone who really doesn't like America -- I honestly believe he really does hate America the way it is structured. He is an elitist who either doesn't know history or he wants to rewrite it in order to go with his socialist agenda. Change -- yes, he is for change -- change that scares the begeezus out of me.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Notice Greta's continual comments on how this-or-that "is really going to raise your blood pressure . . . or get you angry." Frankly, raising the national blood pressure may cause more heart attacks, but it's not going to remove Obama from power. Organizing, calling our congressional representatives, donating money to conservative causes (e.g., www.sarahpac.com) are what will end the national nightmare.
For FOX or anyone else to suggest otherwise is just game-playing. Rush gave Greta a thumping the other night when she expressed her silly "hope" that Obama's Stimulus package, which she apparently knows nothing about, will work. Rush basically told her that a vague "hope" is for losers, and he's right.
As for Geraldo, who's a pro-illegals leftist with a history of grandstanding, he should not be on FOX or anything else. Anyone who spend one minute of his or her time watching "Geraldo" needs to find more productive things to do. There is not a conservative bone in Geraldo's body.
There are some great young people on FOX -- one is Patty Ann Browne on the Beck show, another is Greg Gutfield on their weekend late show, and others are Andrea Tantaros and S. E. Cupp -- but there many other big shots interested more in making millions than in winning the battle for America.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Yes, there are Republicans who have "problems" with Sarah Palin. Those were the people Limbaugh mentioned as the DC, NY, Boston "Republicans" (Olympia Snowe? Mitt Romney, Arlen Specter?) who have contempt for some 50 million Americans who always vote for the more conservative candidate. Half of those 50 million people listen to Rush . . . and share his views.
My Republican "friends" who dislike Palin -- or badmouth her -- rapidly become ex-friends. If you love America -- in all its complexity and sheer grittiness -- you are going to adore Sarah Heath Palin.
Rush Limbaugh is a critical ally for Sarah. His support is the way you win primaries in America . . . and his message of freedom, tolerance, love of country, and opportunity is the same as Sarah's message.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Atwater is often looked at as a highly ideological (conservative) political figure, but that's not exactly the case. Atwater believed that people voted much more on attitudes than on ideology. Atwater saw, for example, that Baby Boomer, with all their confidence and power, also had some feelings of guilt about environmental pollution.
He believed people were still putting emphasis on doing good (making money) but there was also a growing interest in being good (in what Christians call "good stewardship" of the earth). Atwater used his own love for rock and roll (and blues music) are a political pathway to young voters. A "good ole Southern boy" in so many ways, Atwater's hero (and one of his best friends) was . . . James Brown. In politics, Atwater, a chronic philanderer, would have seen Bill Clinton (a constant philanderer) as a political adversary . . . but a kindred soul on matters sexual.
The "attitudes rather than ideas" concept from Atwater is very important but rather slippery. People might not want to set the AC at 78 degrees, but they might put a brick in the toilet tank to save water. Modern culture does a great job of all making us feel guilty about various things. ("I have so much and THEY have so little.")
On more important matters, most people may be appalled at partial birth abortion and live-birth abortion, but they really (really) don't want to outlaw abortion. Also, they may be turned off by the phrase "global warming," but they may not regard it as a hoax (I do) . . . and they occasionally feel guilty about using so much energy.
Some of Sarah Palin's "problems" deal with attitudes, especially among married women. It amazed me (it shouldn't have) that some married women I talked to were obviously jealous of Sarah Palin's success. ("Let see, she's the mother of five and is running for V-P and looks wonderful, and I'm a mother of five and my hair looks like a fright-wig.") We've all read about women with high-powered, high-paying jobs who spend most of their time feeling guilty about something-or-other.
It is okay to be ideological, but we need to recognize (at least according to the brilliant Atwater) that attitudes trump ideology.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor graduated "summa cum laude" (highest honors) with a degree in political science from Princeton University. Apparently, poli sci at Princeton, as at many big-time universities, is an easy major, one that doesn't demand a great command of the English language.
On Sunday and Monday, I'll be writing more about Sonia Sotomayor's intellectual limitations, which are many. The other day I was taking notes during the first two days of the Sotomayor hearings. Her comments were legalistic and jargon-ridden to the point of being incomprehensible. When Senator Coburn asked her if we Americans "have a right to self-defense in our own homes," she gave an incoherent answer.
Even worse, she regularly misused common English words. In answering (sort of) Coburn's question she use the word "eminent" (standing out above others) several times when she meant "imminent." (about-to-happen). If she's ever ruled on the concept of "eminent domain," goodness knows what the decision sounded like.
Also, when she was talking about an individual's "store of knowledge" (itself a redundant phrase) she called it "story of knowledge." It was an absurd blunder. I doubt she won any spellingbees at Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx.
(Marnie Delano of New York State pointed out to me that Sotomayor badly mispronounced the Latin phrase "sui generis," meaning originally "of its own kind" and now generally meaning individual or unique. Sotomayor pronounced it "soo jen-riss," whereas the correct form is "soo-eye gen-er-iss.")
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been slobbering (and shedding tears) over Ms. Sotomayor and her supposed "brilliance." Sotomayor once described herself as the "poster girl for Affirmative Action." In her case, truer words were never spoken.
She's not a "wise Latina." She's an unwise one. She wouldn't even be a good candidate for the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.
Oh yes, she's a certain to get confirmed. Her confirmation is imminent, although there's nothing eminent about her.America now is the country where every girl, even stupid ones, can grow up to be a Supreme Court Justice.