The ObamaMedia is beside itself right now .. it can’t seem to understand why or how Barack Obama’s economic policies aren’t translating into jobs and growth. This must be the case because they seem to be caught quite off-guard with all of these “unexpected” jobs figures. Unwilling to blame their savior, Barack Obama, they are now trying to come up with other ways to justify this lousy economy.
I know … let’s blame the Republicans!
Take a look at this headline: Are Republicans Intentionally Sabotaging Economy For Political Gain? Can you believe that? The headline doesn’t ask if Democrats are scaring the diapers off old ladies for political gain. Not, it’s the Republicans sabotaging the economy.
Even though the Democrats held the presidency and the Senate since 2009 (the Democrats have held both houses from 2007 until last year), somehow it is all the Republicans’ fault. The Democrats haven’t presented a budget in how many years now? And it’s the Republicans who are sabotaging the economy? I believe based on the decisions that Obama has made as president, that he has a fundamentally different idea of what makes this nation and our economy great. He is a man who believes in a centrally planned economy and bigger government. How is that working out for us?
If the rate of labor force participation in June 2011 were the same as it was in June 2009 (65.7%), the reported unemployment rate would be 11.2% rather than 9.1%. If June 2011 labor force participation were 66.2%, which is where it was when Obama promised that his “stimulus” program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8.0%, the June 2011 unemployment rate would come in at 11.9%.
Being a leader means taking ownership of your triumphs and your failures, but with the ObamaMedia in tow, Obama isn’t really forced to do that.
The scandal-plagued ACORN may no longer exist, but its tarnished legacy lives on in court, as the activist group and its former employees face criminal punishment.
So far this year, at least 18 former workers have admitted guilt or been convicted on varying charges of election fraud. The punishment has ranged from probation to several months of prison time.
ACORN, once a powerful advocate for low-income and minority voters, shuttered its operations amid plummeting revenues in March, six months after conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute caught on video some of the group’s employees offering them tax advice.
But the group is still facing charges in Nevada on conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters.The trial, originally scheduled to begin Monday, has been postponed likely until next year.
Former workers across the country already are being punished for their criminal activities.
In Miami, seven former ACORN voter registration canvassers were convicted of “false swearing-in an election,” and sentenced to probation and community service and banned from participating in future political campaigns, according to court documents.
In Pennsylvania, six of seven former ACORN workers who were charged in an investigation were convicted of unsworn falsification and interference with election officials. Four have reached a plea agreement on reduced charges and will serve two years of probation. Cases against two others who entered pleas to reduced charges are pending.
Do you truly understand what is happening tomorrow? Yup, tomorrow. Here we are … just one day away. The next 48 hours are surely going to be interesting. It seems certain that the Democrats are going to lose the House of Representatives. The question is by how much. Most analysts think the loss will be in the neighborhood of 50 seats. Some say it could be up in the 70s.
This is by far the most important election in my lifetime. I’ve been doing talk radio for about 20 of these elections. Half presidential, half midterm. I can’t remember one this important. Getting rid of Jimmy Carter was important … but beginning the process of moving these radical leftist Democrats out of power may be even more important. This could be another voter revolution. Tomorrow stands as a tribute to our founding fathers. We are able to engage in revolution without leaving bloody footprints on icy roads or taking bullets in the chest. We can do this at the polls … but you have to show up for the fight. This revolution cannot be fought from a seat in front of a television set.
Democrats know they’re toast … and are now trying to spin defeat. Now there’s something wonderful to behold … Democrats spinning defeat. Spinning it how? Democrats are now admitting that they’re going to get shellacked, but that it is all because of the economy. In a way they’re saying that yes, they’re going to be hit hard … but it’s all Bush’s fault. Later this week we’ll be hearing Democrats telling us that the economy caused them control of the House because the people were impatient and just wouldn’t give the Democrats the time they needed to straighten out the mess that George Bush left for them.
Democrats also have another spin. They’re losing in this midterm election because the voters just aren’t all that bright. This is a line that has been promoted by both Barack Obama and by John Kerry. From these two we’ve heard that the voters just don’t understand facts and science. They’re scared and angry. Remember Obama’s “clinging to guns and religion” line? The spin here is that if the voters were just more appreciative of what the Democrats have done for them .. .and if they were just a bit smarter … and if they didn’t fall for simple-minded slogans so often … they would be keeping the Democrats in power so that all the problems created by the evil Republicans would be solved.
But what about Republicans? Hopefully they don’t think that these voters are actually for them, do they? Voters are voting for Republicans for one reason … they’re NOT Democrats. As soon as the 112th Congress convenes in January the Republicans will be on instant probation. A repeat of the debacle after 1994 and the Republicans will likely never get another chance at this. It will be time for a 3rd party.
But what really IS driving this election. Democrat consultant Pat Caddell says that this is the single greatest rejection of a president in his first term in our history. Gotta love that .. but why? ObamaCare, that’s why. Yes, there is high unemployment, but not high enough to explain this level of voter dissatisfaction. Maybe we ought to listen to the consultants … the Democrat consultants … on this one. ObamaCare. That was the killer. More than any other single issue this election is about the Democrat’s attempt to seize control of your health care. Yes … joblessness does play a role. Barack Obama made the tactical decision to focus on getting his healthcare bill passed – by any means necessary – rather than fulfilling his promise to focus on our economy like a laser. People struggling to find work didn’t get it. They had this inane idea that maybe The Community Organizer should worry more about the economy than his grandiose plan for a health care takeover. Well … ObamaCare was everything to The Chosen One, and now the voters will chose someone else.
Sen. John McCain delivered a rousing endorsement Friday of Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle and urged cheering supporters to send her to Washington as part of a historic turnaround in Washington power.
A confident-sounding Angle, locked in a tight race with Majority Leader Harry Reid, predicted “there is going to be shock and awe in Washington” on Nov. 3, the day after the election.
“We need to take back our economy,” she said. “It’s our government and it’s our money.”
McCain, the 2008 presidential nominee, told the crowd at a Las Vegas casino that the “election will change America. The world is watching.
“Sharron brings hope and Sharron brings action,” he said after embracing the former Reno legislator on stage, with an oversized American flag draped behind them.
McCain’s appearance was intended to bolster Angle’s credibility, particularly with moderates, in a campaign in which Reid has relentlessly attacked her as a fringe conservative unfit for office. A succession of speakers, including actor and conservative activist Jon Voight, said her election would help turn back two years of Democratic policies that had damaged the nation’s standing at home and abroad.
The invited crowd cheered, “Dump Harry Reid.”
Across town, Reid was targeting Filipinos, the second largest foreign-born group in Nevada, at a crowded rally with popular Filipino boxer and congressman Manny Pacquiao.
Reid and Pacquiao entered the room to chants of “Manny, Manny.” In a brief speech, Pacquiao endorsed Reid in his native Tagalog.
Reid, a former boxer, denounced Angle’s conservative views, her criticism of Social Security, Wall Street regulation and public health care for veterans.
So says Cleta Mitchell, the same woman who tried to get Scott Ashjian, the Tea Party of Nevada candidate out of the race, in an astonishing fundraising letter:
As Sharron Angle’s campaign attorney, I am sorry to report that the Democrats and their cronies are up to their same old tricks, of trying to manipulate the election in hopes of skewing the results in their favor.
Two days ago, the Democratic Secretary of State announced that voters can be provided “free food” at “voter turnout events.” Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers’ unions are offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid.
Before we were even able to document the reported infractions to report to the authorities, the Democrat Secretary of State slammed the door shut on preventing this behavior and issued a public statement permitting these ACORN-style tactics. THESE are the kinds of shenanigans that can turn this race.
Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can’t win it outright. As a result, we need to deploy literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics at a cost of nearly $80,000. That’s over and above our current budget. We need to raise $80,000 and we need to do it RIGHT NOW, because even as I am writing this, Harry Reid and his Machine are trying to steal this election. I’m sorry that we have to come to you yet again and ask for you to reach deep and contribute, but we must.
Understand, EVERYTHING we have worked for in the last year could be destroyed by dirty tricks and criminal acts in the next 8 days. As Sharron’s first line of defense on these matters I am absolutely committed to making sure this won’t happen.
What Harry Reid is doing is clearly illegal. Nevada law (NRS 293.700) provides that, “A person who bribes, offers to bribe, or use and other corrupt means, directly or indirectly, to influence any elector in giving his or her vote or to deter the elector from giving it is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.”
Democrats aren’t the only incumbents in trouble this November. With a crop of feisty, fresh-faced conservatives making noise in the House and a wave of Tea Party-backed newcomers determined to join them, senior Republicans could have a mutiny on their hands.
The gap between the old and new schools of the GOP has become apparent as Election Day nears and polls show Republicans increasingly likely to pick up seats — lots of seats.
Election guru Larry Sabato, at the University of Virginia, released new projections showing a possible 47-seat GOP pickup in the House. Gallup’s latest generic poll showed Republicans with a 10-point lead over Democrats in the fall, the largest gap in 68 years.
The opportunity for a shakeup is ripe, but so is the opportunity for a makeover of the Republican Party itself.
“The Republican caucuses in the Senate and the House will change,” Democratic strategist Kiki McLean said. “A dangerous place for Republicans to be is establishment leadership.”
Establishment leadership likely were not thrilled to read about the contents this past week of the upcoming book being published by self-proclaimed “Young Guns” Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy — three ambitious young members of Congress who’ve been heading up recruitment of other like-minded wunderkinds for the party.
Their book, “Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders,” is due out Sept. 14 — a blueprint for America in the same vein as the policy book then-Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign released in 2008, only with the opposite prescriptions.
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.
Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.
Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.
Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.
“That was very strange,” Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. “I’m not sure I liked it. All my life, I’ve heard, `one man, one vote.'”
It’s the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.
The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.
Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early.
Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.
Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.
“I understand the voting,” she said. “But since I have time, I’m going to learn more about the candidates.”
On Tuesday, Candida Sandoval voted at the Don Bosco Center, where a soup kitchen and day-laborer hiring center added to the activity, and where federal observers watched the voting from a table in the corner.
“I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people,” Sandoval said in Spanish. “I don’t know, but I hope so.”
FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.
Campaigning was generally low key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.
Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.
Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said: “I think this is terrific. It’s good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too.”
Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.
“I think we’ll make it,” she said. “I’m happy to report the people seem very interested.”
But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but “to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice.”
That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, “it won’t be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred.”
The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six.
Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declared “Your voice, your vote, your village,” part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language.
All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids’ backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.
Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.
“It was very different but actually quite simple,” he said. “No problem.”
Sarah Palin endorsed three dark-horse candidates in Republican match-ups this year, and all three won their primaries yesterday: Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California. No wonder Sarah’s being stalked by Joe McGinniss.
Now, she’s got to endorse Rob Simmons for U.S. Senate. Otherwise, Republicans can kiss the possibility of a major upset in Connecticut goodbye.
I wouldn’t ask, but the country is at stake. We have a mere 100 senators; only 16 Senate seats currently held by Democrats are up this year; and only about six of those could possibly go Republican, even in Newt Gingrich’s wildest fantasies.
Republicans have done a fantastic job predicting a landslide in the November elections, but not such a good job of doing anything that will actually help them achieve victory.
Which may explain why Connecticut Republicans rolled the dice and said: Let’s run a professional wrestling “impresario” for the U.S. Senate! … You never know.
Except in this case, you know. Running a professional wrestler in the richest, most highly educated state in the nation is going to force voters to hold their noses and vote for the Democrat, Richard Blumenthal (who’s already been endorsed by a leading group of Connecticut men who lied about serving in Vietnam).
Until recent revelations about Blumenthal’s boasting of his nonexistent service in Vietnam — and the Harvard swim team — Republicans didn’t have a snowball’s chance to pick up Chris Dodd’s old seat anyway.
But now The New York Times has splashed on its front page the news that Blumenthal has been lying about his Vietnam War service. Even knee-jerk Democratic partisans, such as Chris Matthews and Bill Press, refused to defend him.
Blumenthal immediately resigned and pulled out of the Senate race … ha ha, just kidding! That man will never voluntarily stop annoying us. Blumenthal is so churning with ambition that he probably had his first ulcer at age 9.
But no matter how much the local press flacks for Blumenthal, people won’t soon forget that he lied about his Vietnam service. It’s like finding out he likes to wear diapers or he cheated the Girl Scouts out of cookie money — but enough about Frank Rich.
Connecticut Republicans have done nothing to deserve this gift. All they need to do is field a candidate who isn’t inextricably linked to professional frigging wrestling.
Instead, last month, a majority of Republican caucus-goers voted for professional wrestling impresario Linda McMahon, based on her offer to spend “up to” $50 million of her own money on the campaign.
McMahon would be a fantastic choice if money were associated with electoral victory. But it’s not.
We know this because rich dilettantes are constantly thinking to themselves: “I have $300 million, I’ve bought everything I can buy … I think I’d like to be a senator!”
In 1994, Michael Huffington spent $30 million in his bid for a Senate seat from California against Democrat Dianne Feinstein. He lost.
In 2002, Tom Golisano spent more than $74 million of his own money running for governor of New York. He received 14 percent of the vote. That same year, Democrat Tony Sanchez spent $60 million of his own money trying to become the governor of Texas — and lost to Rick Perry.
In 2004, John Kerry spent $6.4 million of John Heinz’s money on his presidential race, and still lost.
Last year, Jon Corzine, then-governor of New Jersey, spent about $24 million of his own money trying to hold onto his job. Despite outspending Republican Chris Christie 3-to-1, Corzine lost 49 percent to 44 percent. (Corzine also out-slimed Christie in that race by an whopping 106-to-1.)
In all, 20 candidates for the House or Senate in 2002 spent at least $1 million of their own money on their campaigns; 19 of the 20 lost, generally to more experienced candidates.
Even in the rare cases when the deep-pocket candidate wins, it’s not a novelty candidate — unless it’s Minnesota. Michael Bloomberg, the sitting mayor of New York City, spent an astronomical $100 million last year just to win his own office back, outspending his opponent 15-to-1. He squeaked in with 51 percent of the vote — and that was only after Bloomberg passed a massive new tax on voting for his opponent.
So Republicans better have a more impressive reason for picking Linda McMahon than “She’ll spend up to $50 million of her own money.”
But they don’t.
Any half-wit knows Connecticut will not vote for a professional wrestling “impresario” for the U.S. Senate. So unless Republicans have secret information that Blumenthal does enjoy dressing up in diapers, Republicans are forfeiting a Senate seat for no reason.
By contrast, Rob Simmons, who recently suspended his primary campaign against McMahon for lack of money, is a Haverford College graduate, a former Yale professor and an Army colonel. Unlike fantasist Blumenthal, Simmons really did serve in Vietnam, coming home with two Bronze Stars.
And Simmons, who remains on the Aug. 9 primary ballot, can win even in moderate-Republican Connecticut. He’s good on taxes, he’s good on defense — and he’s the best Connecticut is ever going to get.
Simmons was elected to Congress three times from a very liberal Connecticut district, beating an incumbent Democrat in his first run. As a result, he had the distinction of representing the largest number of Democrats of any Republican in the House of Representatives. Even in the dark Republican year of 2006, Simmons lost to his Democratic challenger by only 83 votes.
Instead of sitting around, idly predicting massive Republican landslides this fall, how about Republicans work on running candidates who might actually win?
If only we had some popular former governor, preferably a moose-hunter, whose endorsements are gold … Then we’d show ’em.
Here is the full text of John L. Perry’s column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to “resolve the Obama problem” is becoming more possible and is not “unrealistic.” Perry also writes that a coup, while not “ideal,” may be preferable to “Obama’s radical ideal” — and would “restore and defend the Constitution.” Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
The primary elections Tuesday amounted to a night of messages — from the Tea Party, from female candidates and for the Democrats.
With hundreds of primaries held across 11 states, a number of candidates made history while others pulled out come-from-behind wins. The elections helped set the stage for a November general election in which incumbents are girding for a series of hard-fought battles.
In California, the Republican Party has placed two women at the top of its ticket for the first time, nominating former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for Senate and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman for governor.
Fiorina told Fox News on Wednesday that she’s been “itching” for the general election fight against incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer for a while.
“It really feels great to be here on Wednesday morning and able to take her on … As of today, game on, Barbara,” she said.
State Rep. Nikki Haley moved a step closer to her goal of becoming South Carolina’s first female governor, advancing into a runoff with her top competitor. After a bruising primary in which two men claimed they had affairs with her, Haley blew away her competition with 49 percent of the vote; she was forced into a runoff with Rep. Gresham Barrett, who won 22 percent, only because she did not clear the 50-percent threshold.
The big save of the night came in Arkansas, where Sen. Blanche Lincoln defied expectations by beating Democratic primary challenger Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a runoff. She moves on to a tough general election battle for her seat.
And in Nevada, Tea Party-backed candidate Sharron Angle claimed a decisive victory after surging in the polls against a more established GOP competitor in the final weeks of the race.
Angle took 40 percent of the vote to 26 percent for Sue Lowden, a former state GOP chairwoman. Businessman Danny Tarkanian won 23 percent.
Angle will face off against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall. Though polls have shown Reid’s popularity at rock-bottom levels, Democrats are overjoyed that Angle won, saying her conservative stances on the issues are far outside the mainstream
Angle, in her victory speech, thanked the Tea Party for its support
and promised Reid a tough race.
“We are going to dump Harry Reid on Nov. 2,” she said.
Other top Democrats are in for a challenging contest in November following the results of Tuesday’s elections.
While Boxer will face off against Fiorina, former Gov. Jerry Brown, seeking to reclaim his old job, is poised to battle Whitman.