9 YEARS AGO: BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS LINK ARMS AND SING ‘GOD BLESS AMERICA’

.

h/t: Breitbart TV

Lt. Colonel Allen West's Debute on the Sean Hannity Show on Fox News

.


Lt. Colonel Allen West is running for Congress from the 22nd District in South Florida.

Scarborough: Does Obama Want Dems to Retain Control of Congress?

.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t: NewsBusters

Gibbs Concedes GOP Could Win House

.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t: Breitbart TV

Reflections on the Up Coming Congressional Election from American Elephant and Rndguy

This evening HotAir ran a piece about the head of the DCCC saying that the Democrats do not have much to worry about in the election in November. It deserves a reading. I reproducing below four reader comments from that thread because I feel that what American Elephant says here is an excellent analysis and deserves wide dissemination. I agree with the Elephant and fear that if, the RNC is trusted to raise to the occasion. the Democrats will have a distinct advantage with their control of two branches of government and the MSM. The RNC has little concern about the constitutional and cultural issues that motivate most conservatives. One could characterize the RNC as just another lobbying firm whose main concern is raising enough money to pay their own inflated salaries. They are a creature of the Republicans in Congress and the Senate, most of whom have grown out of the habit of entering into two way communication with the citizenry. Concerned conservatives must become involved with individual candidates and keep working to inform themselves. If large numbers of individuals do not become deeply involved the most that can be hoped for is what I believe the RNC would be quite satisfied with: a still alive splinter party with a little loyalty to conservative principles that continues to limp along.

----*****----*****----*****----*****----*****----*****----*****

I’m afraid he is right. Democrats are WAAAAY out in front in terms of defining the upcoming election. Say What? Yes, Democrats, not Republicans are defining, or I should say, redefining the next election.

Democrats have a strategy, Michael Steele is bumbling along without a clue.

Notice how quickly the “narrative” is switching from this being a anti-Democrat year to an anti-incumbent year. This is the Democrat strategy (so naturally the media is helping push it). You see, in an anti-Democrat year, Democrats lose whether they are incumbent or challenging the incumbent. However in an “anti-incumbent” year, Democrats can beat Republican incumbents, thus stemming their losses.

But it doesn’t stop there. Notice how many Democrats are quitting? Again, this is not pessimism on their part, but strategic optimism. If they can define the election as a referendum on INCUMBENTS instead of a referendum on Democrats, as they are already doing, then all they have to do to hold their majority is get incumbents who look likely to lose, to forgo re-election so that they can run brand new Democrats instead, and suddenly those new Democrat candidates can label themselves as the Washington outsiders fighting corruption, fiscal conservatives, etc, while simultaneously reminding voters how horrible things supposedly were when Republicans were in charge.

Michael Steele and the rest of our pathetic party leadership have already ALMOST ceded this point to Democrats, which is evident in polls that consistently show that Americans WRONGLY blame Republicans for the recession and financial crisis despite the fact that the Recession didnt even BEGIN until Democrats controlled both houses of congress (and thus the laws, the budgets, the purse strings and the agenda) for a full year, and the financial crisis didnt happen (despite Republicans many blocked attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie and avert it) until Democrats had controlled congress for TWO years.

In fact, the economy kept growing fairly robustly, and Republican budgets were on track to eliminate the deficit by 2012, until Democrats took over.

If the GOP wants to take control of one or both houses this fall, they MUST make sure this election becomes even more of a referendum on Democrats, and the best way to do that is to remind voters that the economy didnt start going to hell until well AFTER Democrats took control,

If Dems are successful in making this an “anti-incumbent” election, Republicans will be lucky to take control of either house.

And yes, I am the first person to offer such an analysis, and yes, I want credit from anyone who realizes that its correct and promotes it on their site.

American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Also, keep in mind that Democrats are far outraising Republicans because, like the mafia they represent, they are now getting protection money from businesses hoping to stem onerous taxes, regulation and outright seizure.

American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 9:18 PM

American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 9:16 PM

What is missing from your anaylsis is the red hot anger in the electorate. I agree the RNC is fumbling and fumbling badly, I don’t agree that we have to only rely on the RNC to fund conservative canidates.

It seems that conservative canidates are bringing in huge amounts of cash through money bombs (see Rubio, Brown, NY-23 Hoffman, Stupak’s challenger). This is cash that would have otherwise gone to the RNC. To me RNC = GOP Moderate/Beltway RINO’s. I don’t want any more RINO’s.

If I send money to the RNC it would be going to RINO type canidates (or strip clubs). I don’t want that. I rather give to the canidate that best represents my fiscal conservative views.

Thus, long of the short, this mid-term has the making of a different paradigm for us conservatives. Conserviates/independent grassroots will be there when they need to be. Let the primaries play out. The big donors will give. See DeMint’s PAC and Rove’s new adventure. Both have gotten some good money streams started and have the ability to pick up where the RNC is currently fumbling.

That is the power of a true grassroots movement.

So, I say have faith…Faith that things will work out in the end, no matter how bad they seem today! Get out and work for a conservative canidate…volunteer and/or give money to them. That is how we make an impact. Complaining about the RNC won’t get us a single Congressional chamber. Focus on the goal, GET OBAMA IN CHECK RAPIDLY!

Rndguy on April 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM

No, the anger of the electorate is not missing from my analysis. It fits right in there. Americans are angry at Democrats, but are also angry with Republicans. One of my major points is that Democrats have largely succeeded in getting Americans to wrongly blame Republicans for the economy. The economy was GROWING when Republicans lost control, and continued to grow for another year after they lost control of congress to Democrats.

So Republicans leave a growing economy, Democrats through promises of tax hikes and massive regulation turn it into a recession, and voters are still angry with the wrong party.

Voter anger has everything to do with my analysis. Democrats plan is to run new candidates in the place of at-risk incumbents by changing the narrative from anti-Democrat, to anti-incumbent, and then their new candidates will remind everyone not to vote for Republicans because no matter how mad they may be with Democrats, it was Republicans, they will say, who caused the mess.

And their strategy is already half complete since Republicans under Steele’s inept leadership never even bothered to refuse to accept the blame for the recession and financial crisis that happened because of Democrat policies, while Democrats were in charge, in spite of Republican attempts to avert it.

And lasty, I do work for campaigns. And I know how elections work. I know how Democrats scheme and strategize.

And no, just trusting that things will work out in the end is about the most naive, useless, reckless attitude anyone could possibly have. I think that was the Republican strategy in 2006 and 2008 — worked out AWESOME didn’t it?

Pollyanna-ism is great. Republicans need lots of happy volunteers. But actually winning as much as possible, on the other hand, requires strategy — figuring out what your opposition is up to, what their strategy is, and figuring out how to defeat it.

And considering nobody else has written about how this is what Democrats are up to, I’d say its a pretty safe bet that its because they haven’t figured it out yet. Whether its Jim DeMint, Karl Rove or the GOP.

And waiting for clueless leaders (all of whom were working to elect Republicans in 2006 and 2008, I would remind you) to figure out on their own what I already know, when they show no signs of being able to figure it out — leaders who by the way haven’t won an election in the past six years — is dangerously naive, pollyannaish, and submissive.

We dont get Obama in check by trusting that the same leadership who lost the last two elections (DeMint, Rove, etc) are going to suddenly shape up.

By allowing Democrats to define the economy as Republicans fault, they have already proven they are not leading, they are following. So PLEASE dont ask me or anyone else to put faith in the very same people who were in charge when we got where we are.

American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Music to Deliberate by: Bach and Vivaldi

Bach: Concerto for four harpsichords (BWV 1065)


Vivaldi: Concerto for four violins in B Minor (RV 580)


But another postponement of the vote would show that the critters are thinking long and hard about the recent elections.

Michael Hirsh's Hair Caught Fire

A guy named Michael Hirsch has a column in the latest Newsweek that seems to be hectoring the Republican party for Barack Obama’s failure to have not passed an economic stimulus package his first week in office, It says, “The reason Obama is getting so few votes is that he is no longer setting the terms of the debate over how to save the economy. Instead the Republican Party—the one we thought lost the election—is doing that.” Maybe this is new kind of satire or something because I’m having a hard time taking it serious. The man is saying Obama had the most votes in the presidential election so congress has to vote ‘yes’ to anything he proposes. Has Hirsh read the Constitution? Has Hirsh ever paid any attention to what happens in congress? I am hearing more and more of this foolishness out of Washington: there is an emergency so we need to pass a bill, some bill, any bill that claims to fix the emergency. It might not get fixed but friends of the guy with his hair on fire end up with a lot of tax payer money. And then after a while I begin to think that maybe the sky isn’t falling as fast as the screamers say. Sometimes I wonder if it is not just normal economic cycles and people who want money for their friends, don’t have a good case to make for it and get their friends in the media to greatly mischaracterize the economic situation to their benefit.
Some more from Hirsh:
“Obama's desire to begin a "post-partisan" era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending. This makes very little economic sense when you are in a major recession that only gets worse day by day. Yes, there are still some very legitimate issues with a bill that's supposed to be "temporary" and "targeted"—among them, large increases in permanent entitlement spending, and a paucity of tax cuts that will prompt immediate spending. Even so, Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough. When you are dealing with a stimulus of this size, there are going to be wasteful expenditures and boondoggles. There's no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles. It comes with the Keynesian territory. This is an emergency; the normal rules do not apply
“But the public isn't hearing about that all-important distinction right now. And by the time Obama signs a bill—if he can get one approved—many Americans may have concluded that the GOP is right and that the Democrats have embarked on another spending spree, as if this were just another wearying Washington debate.”
Hirsh’s main enemy seems to be a deliberative body acting under the rule of law. If this was SO important why wait for the Tueday issue of Newsweek. If there is such an incredible and dire emergency Newsweek should have sent out a Friday edition. But it is not so great an emergency that Hirsh should disrupt his regular schedule. But he feels reasoned discussion in government should take a holiday. There is something in me that says that fixing everything can’t always happen with screaming people running around in circles with their hair on fire. And the constitution placed the power of the purse in the House of Representatives and the voters have put more than a few Republicans in the House. There are also Republicans in the Senate. And they might, much to Michael Hirsh’s distress, have some input into the legislative process. Deal with it Hirsh.
Here’s an good reason to shut the Republicans up: “Proof that that Team Obama and his party are losing the debate can be found in a new poll out Wednesday. The Rasmussen Reports survey found that, even though Obama still has a very high approval rating, only 37 percent of Americans now favor the stimulus legislation, compared to 45 percent two weeks ago.” For God’s sake shut up the opposition before anyone hears what they have to say.
Look at the harm the Republicans have done already by merely asking questions: “The decisive issue here is leadership. The lack of it is what is plaguing the Obama administration. Every war needs a successful general, and this administration doesn't have one yet. Geithner is still wounded by his soul-scourging confirmation vote (he was the first tax controversy of course, barely escaping on a 60-34 vote; had his vote come after the Daschle news, it's likely that Geithner would be the one leaving town today).On Wednesday the taciturn new Treasury secretary delivered all-too-brief remarks at a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying he was working to "help lay the foundation for long-term recovery, [develop] a comprehensive plan to help get credit flowing again and address the housing crisis." Sounds great, but Geithner is apparently going to wait until next week to announce a lot of this, and that seems a long way off.” Where I came from it was not considered such a bad thing for law breaking to have negative consequences. And did Geithner even have to pay the penalties and interest that is the lot of normal people? Makes me wonder why we never hear from Rahm Emanuel any more. Is he in hiding waiting for the next shoe to drop?
Some more from Hirsh: “And White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel appears shell-shocked by Taxgate and other defeats. An administration that two weeks ago set out to change the world, having claimed the first Democratic majority victory in a presidential race since Jimmy Carter, now looks like it's engaged in a Pickett's Charge—without the benefit of being led by Pickett. Meanwhile, the Senate Dems took off part of Wednesday for a "retreat."
“This is all too leisurely. Speed is of the essence now. No one understands this better than Geithner, whose formative experience as a young Treasury official in Tokyo came in watching Japanese authorities dither and muddle about for a decade after their own giant bubble of an economy collapsed in 1989”
Either we do this bill that might work today or we will take ten years to do something while the economy collapses? These are the two alternatives Hirsh sees. Even noneconomist, nonpolitical scientist little me can see other scenarios. How about we discuss this, have some give and take and bring it in in two or three weeks? Maybe the senate Dems’ day off in the midst of Hirsh’s emergency tells us exactly how grave and immediate they actually feel the threat to be. (But I have to admit I always wonder if they even care. And they know they’ll get paid since they take theirs right off the top.) In the mean time maybe Michael Hirsh can pour a pitcher of water on his burning hair.

Hat Tip/Ace of Spades

My Latest Stupid Idea

I doubt that you need me to tell you that congress lacks imagination and courage. Few Americans will need any help from me despising and disrespecting Congress.
So here’s my stupid idea. At present, Congress is giving hundreds of billions of dollars to most any company that asks. This is great because everyone enjoys people with money and power making fools of themselves on a large scale right out in public and everything. I think Jon Stewart might thus define the essence of humor. But Congress is passing up a chance to give us even more laughs for our billions. Congress needs to start bailing out future fuck ups (fuck ups who won’t find their way into Congress). For example, there’s an eight year old little girl next door. Her father has a small, successful business. And little Heather is very capable of growing up and running a giant corporation into the ground. Congress should take Couric, Ross, Lauer, Blitzer and a bunch of cameras and give Heather forty or fifty billion. It would be absurdly funny. That wonderful kind of funny that ensues when you have no control over a situation and you have to try to find it amusing to keep from becoming violent or succumbing to paralyzing depression. Add to this the satisfying sense of moral and intellectual superiority that will be enjoyed by everyone not in Congress or the media. A scene like this would provide plenty of fodder for both Republicans and Democrats to glow with self-satisfaction. Congress is going to throw the money away without regard to public opinion or the good of the Republic anyway. We might as well get something out of it.
But here is the sad part. They will not give Heather any money because Heather has never given them any. Congress is going to give trillions away but only to people and corporations that have already given bribes to members of Congress. They call these bribes campaign contributions and they have made it legal for you to bribe them. But a bribe is a bribe. And the bribes are what activate the bail outs.
My advise to America is to not become violent or depressed. Look upon the present Congress as an endless source of laughter. But go easy on the moral and intellectual superiority lest it sap energy that might better be mobilized to throw every last one of those thieving, bribe taking clowns out of office.

Congressional Approval Rating at 9%

“I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God, I have had this Congress!”

-John Adams, 1776

amerpundit




I picked up this quote on Hot Air.com (link at left).

Why Does Congress Have No Respect for the Law and Normal Citizens?

Most Americans feel that people should obey the law.  I feel that it only breeds disorder and anarchy to pass laws and then tell police to not enforce them.  Congress has passed some immigration laws in the past few years but they will do nothing to see that these laws are enforced.  I have frequently written to my two senators (Feinstein and Boxer) to ask for an explanation of why these laws are not enforced.  At first they would not even reply to my questions.  But more recently they have begun to send replies (nothing like an election to get a senator's attention).  But they never send answers to my question.  They just send a generic immigration answer.    
This convinced me that that they don't ever read their mail from the likes of me.       
Why does the congress have so little respect for the law? Because they only see laws as something they sell to the highest bidder. They don’t pass a law unless someone is going to pay them. They’re pissed that they had to defeat comprehensive immigration reform just to not lose their seats. They’re really pissed because the voters have done them out of some money that they feel they are entitled to. They see laws as their commodity. K street is their customer and they sell them laws. Their attitude toward the law is some what like the attitude of a manager in a factory that manufactures paper clips. It pays the mortgage but they could just as well make rain gutters. And he’d be pissed if some normal citizen told him he couldn’t sell paper clips to people who employ illegal aliens. I see congress and laws as flowing out of the great tradition of the Magna Carta, John Locke and Tom Paine. But congress can’t see any difference between laws and paper clips and they see me as their enemy since I might sometimes ask them to pass a law just because it is what the country needs.
 

Stare Decisis When Convenient

Supreme court nominees have started to pledge to apply stare decisis to Roe v. Wade. (I'm waiting to see a senator give up that much of their constitutional power to another branch of government.) But if this stare decisis stuff is so great, let's really put it to use. How about the right to bear arms? There is a much, much, much longer history of citizens being allowed to own guns than there is of the 'right' to abortion. Why, oh why doesn't stare decisis apply here? Could it be that the senate judiciary committee thinks there has been a 220 year long misapplication of the constitution in the case of the second amendment? But I think that if guns could be used to perform abortions the second amendment would be safer. Of course, you'd have a hard time convincing me that any member of congress gives a fat f**k about my constitutional rights. I think they only feel they need to answer to K Street.

Is the Social Contract Broken?

During the Katrina disaster hundreds of very sick patients were stuck in the middle of downtown New Orleans with a few doctors and nurses who felt an obligation to stay and care for them. They had no electricity and had to break windows to get a little ventilation in the heat. Many days passed and only a few helicopters arrived to evacuate the very sickest patients. Those who remained were abandoned. I think that few Americans who looked closely at this situation would feel that these patients and caregivers were treated properly. I, personally am outraged and disappointed in my country. I am 59 years old and I know that America used to be better than this. We expected more of ourselves than this. And Congress has not looked deeply into FEMA's incompetence or done anything to prevent this from happening again.When I was eighteen I was inspired by Socrates' argument that the laws of Athens had made his civilized life possible and he felt that he had no right to turn his back on these laws just because he had lost the trial for his life. I think that he was motivated to cause young idealists such as I was to respect law and civil life. But, if the laws abandon you, if the president is unconcerned about rescuing the sickest and the poorest among us, and if Congress won't be bothered to do something to insure that this won't happen again, what does the average citizen owe a society so run amok? The president and Congress will tell us what we owe them but seem ready to hide behind legal niceties to avoid doing anything for anyone who hasn't done for them. Maybe they need to read the fine print in the contract.

How Do You Bribe A Congressman?

I know this. This is easy. You bundle up thousands of dollars with other people's names on it and give it to the congressman. He grabs it more quickly than you thought possible. Then you give him the proposed bill your lawyers have written . You don't have to say anything else: he knows his job is to get the bill passed. He gets the six figure salary for being a member of congress wether or not he does anything. But these extras require him to produce. And he usually will. This isn't really a 'do nothing' congress. It's a 'won't do nothing unless you pay a whole lot for every little thing' congress. Doctors call it fee for service and they love it.The constitution gives congress all the power to set rules for itself and to oversee its ethical standards. So congress has made it legal for its members to accept bribes. I don't think the founders ever imagined that we would elect 435 people so morally corrupt. The majority of them are taking bribes with both hands while chanting, "Get Bush. Get Bush."Barrack Obama claims to represent ethical purity. With a close care for words that Bill Clinton would respect B. O. claims not to accept money from special interests. But apparently he will accept massive bundles from the same men who give special interest money to other candidates. Part of what is 'new' about B. O. is that he is the 'new' one being given a pass by most reporters.

Freedom of Speech

I almost never listen to talk radio. I am too easily given to anger and hate. And talk radio is too full of both for me to venture there without upsetting my serenity. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh from time to time and have always felt that he calculatedly sets out to rile his listeners up with anger and fear. This is a luxury that some can handle. My soul and disposition are too markedly affected by them. Because of the nature of my personality, I experience more than enough anger and fear in the normal course of things.
But I think that talk radio has been good for America. It has gotten points of view expressed that would not otherwise have been expressed. If we had stuck with the MSM we would not even be aware that people would think or say such things. Talk radio and, now, the internet have freed America from the grip of an oppressive censorship that was only growing worse as college faculties have increasingly frozen out divergent voices. There is some irony that the law, English and political science departments of Harvard have competed with the Jesuits of the counter-Reformation in stifling opposing points of view. (My source for the info in this paragraph is David Horowitz.)
And now there is talk that the Democrats in Congress want to stifle free speech in America by reinstituting the so-called fairness doctrine. I'm old enough to remember when the fairness doctrine was in effect. Stations would present two sides of an issue. But some issues have 5 or more sides. And the 'opposing' view was usually represented by a few of the usual boring suspects that made it plain that the whole thing was a charade. It was a ritual bow to the alter of freedom of speech that lacked all respect for that freedom.
Let us be honest. We all know that few in congress care anything for freedom of speech. They are, with all due respect, a bunch of bribe taking time servers. Everyone knows that the Democrats only want the fairness doctrine reinstituted so that they can shut up some people who disagree with them. I would not be surprised if they follow this up with some measure that will price the internet out of the reach of many people. While talking about freedom of speech they will quiet as many voices as they can.