Vote with your wallet. . .
September 25, 2009
Dissatisfied with the Democratic agenda? Frustrated that Pelosi struck down a bill that would have required them to actually read the bills they are voting on? Confused by Reid’s unwillingness to require background checks on ‘czars’? Angry that Obama claims he is not increasing taxes when he increases ‘levies’? Scared by the unprecedented deficit spending? You aren’t alone.
Millions of Democratic donors are voting with their wallets. Democratic fundraisers across the board have seen a steep decline in their fund-raising efforts this year – more than 20-30%. Paul Kane suggests that the decline is “a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party’s harsh rhetoric about big business.”
The midterm elections this year will be perhaps the most important of our lifetime. Take a moment to fund the opposition – you don’t have to agree with the GOP – but if you give them a few more seats in the Senate they can block Obama’s agenda. Got a credit card? Send the Republican National Committee $25, $50 or $100 – small contributions matter most!
On second thought, fire all the Democrats!
September 23, 2009
Earlier today I reported that, “Democrats and Republicans Agree!“ Democratic Representative Brian Baird sponsored a bill that would require Congress to actually read the legislation they voted on. Democratic leader Pelosi and other Democrats struck down the legislation in a partisan vote this afternoon. The bill would have required Congress to release legislation 72 hours before voting on it – i.e. so that Congress and the public could read and comment on the legislation. I think 72 hours is a pretty tight window, but Democrats voted the measure down despite sponsorship by one of their own – Brian Baird of Oregon. I just don’t understand how they can tell the American people they don’t need to read the legislation before they vote on it. Really, I don’t understand. Democrats suck. Please take a moment to contact your representative and express your displeasure – unless you agree with this idea…
Hypocrisy isn’t necessarily bad. . .
August 28, 2009
Yglesias has a post titled, “Strange Hypocrisy” suggesting that it is silly to call Massachusetts plan to change the rules for filling Senate vacancies as ‘hypocritical’. Really? Surely we can agree on the definition of words.
hy·poc·ri·sy 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.
The Massachusetts legislature argued, during Mitt Romney’s term as governor, that holding a special election would be more democratic than allowing Mitt (a Republican) to appoint Senators when vacancies occur. At the time Romney argued that the legislature didn’t care about being more democratic than they sought to ensure a Democrat continued to hold both Senate seats in Massachusetts. Romney argued that leaving the seat vacant until a special election could be held would leave the people of Massachusetts without representation. The legislature was unconvinced.
Today, the same legislature has taken the same position they rejected from Romney and argued that it is more important to have a Democrat in office than waiting for a more democratic outcome. This is the very definition of hypocrisy. Of course, the legislature is allowed to be hypocritical – it is perfectly legal. I am just shocked that Yglesias would try to argue that they aren’t being hypocritical.
Fighting over Kennedy’s Campaign Funds?
Kenneth Vogel has the scoop. Kennedy has over $4.5MM in campaign funds. The Democratic National Committee has suggested they might be a worthy recipient. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee hopes they will get the funds. Finally, the Massachusetts Democratic Party is making a case for the funds as well.
Who gets to decide? Keith Lowey of Foxboro, MA will be the decider. Rick Kahn doesn’t think Lowey, a CPA, should be left with the important decision. Instead Kahn thinks that a small group of Kennedy loyalists should decide who gets the cash. Maybe they should send the money to MADD’s Victim Services…
Reid doesn’t support public option?
In a confusing about face, Harry Reid suggests he supports a public option as long as it is run by a private entity – most call this option the ‘co-op’ model. The left HATES the co-op model because it doesn’t provide a road map to a single payer system. Reid is likely going to lose his Senate seat next term, this might be an attempt to save his job as Senate Majority leader.
Kennedy: The Rule of Law Doesn’t Apply to Me.
August 21, 2009
In 2004 Ted Kennedy pushed through a change in Massachusetts election law that would have prevented the Governor from naming a Senate replacement in the event Senator Kerry was elected President. Why? Because Romney, a Republican, was governor at the time. Kennedy was victorious and Massachusetts mandates that a special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. Now that the state has a Democrat as Governor Kennedy wants the change the rule back.
Of course the argument Kennedy used back in 2004 was that a special election was the most ‘democratic’ way to replace a Senator. Of course what he meant was that it was the most Democratic (i.e. big D, not little d) way to replace a Senator. Will Massachusetts Democrats have the gall to change the law back to favor their party? Why bother having laws if we are simply going to change them whenever they don’t favor our interests? The rule of law is important for democracy – and it should be just as important for Democrats and Republicans.
Illegal immigrants to get representation?
August 15, 2009
In a move that states like Louisiana decry as un-Constitutional, the White House will be counting illegal immigrants in the 2010 census. By including illegal immigrants to determine political representation in Congress, states like Texas will gain seats. The downside is that these illegal immigrants won’t be allowed to vote on their new representatives. This, to me, seems un-Constitutional. Everyone should be able to vote for or against those people who will represent their interests in Congress. Will we start to let illegals to vote? Why not? We need to resolve the immigration issue. Ignoring it doesn’t work. Cherry picking solutions based on which party you are a member of doesn’t work either. We need a conservative solution to immigration – not a Democratic or Republican issue. My plan? My 2007 plan is here.
Americans Trust Republicans More than Democrats?
August 13, 2009
Obama, once seen as the Democrats greatest asset, may now be seen as just another Jimmy Carter when all is said and done. The damage his policies have done to the party may never be reversed. In a poll of likely voters more Americans trust Republicans on healthcare than Democrats. First time in the history of polls this has happened. Literally, this has NEVER happened. Republicans usually lead on national security and economic issues, but never on social issues. What else do Americans trust Republicans to handle more than Democrats besides health care?
- Economy
- Education
- National Security
- Abortion
- Social Security
- Taxes
- Immigration
What areas do Americans trust Democrats more in?
- Government Ethics
We tie on Iraq. I was really surprised by these poll numbers.
Democrats Caught Red Handed Carrying ‘Obama as Hitler’ Posters!
August 12, 2009
Just when you think it can’t get worse for Democrats it does. Democrats were caught carrying ‘Obama as Hitler‘ posters at John Dingell’s town hall. I had heard rumors that the Democrats were behind the Obama/Joker posters, but I assumed there were enough crazy people on our side to account for a few posters. Now I am beginning to wonder – maybe the Democrats have enough crazies for ALL of us. Check out theblogprof for the full story.
Democrat Dirty Tricks? You Decide.
The Democratic National Committee was ’scheduling’ meetings between constituents who support the House health care plan and Republican Congressmen. I am not kidding.
The DNC’s Organizing for America (OFA) set up a website (you need to be logged in) that allows constituents to ’schedule’ meetings with Republicans. The OFA changed the word ‘meeting’ to ‘visit’ and suggested they were just helping Republicans by ensuring that they didn’t have too many visitors at any single time. Of course the constituents thought they had a meeting with their Congressmen – they were pissed when they learned that the DNC had misled them. Hopefully they weren’t pissed at their Congressmen too.
The DNC suggests it is all a big mistake:
“DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse dismissed those charges, noting that OFA had only encouraged constituents to “visit” offices and made clear in their materials that a meeting with Members or staff was not guaranteed. “We asked people to pick a time to drop by and drop off a flier in support of health insurance reform,” Woodhouse said. “We asked them to pick a time so that a bunch of people wouldn’t show up all at once.”
According to a Roll Call article,
Michelle Ozanus, communications director for Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), cited an incident Monday when a constituent walked into Neugebauer’s office in Big Spring, Texas, to check in for a 10 a.m. meeting and was told by the district staff that no record of the appointment existed.
“We have a large district; people come from all over,” Ozanus said. “To have them come all this way and be confused is frustrating.”
The constituent said the meeting had been scheduled through OFA and that she had received a confirmation e-mail that said the appointment had been set.
Update: Dianne Feinstein (Democratic Senator from California) has ALSO complained to the White House that the OFA is scheduling meetings at her office. She is taking heat from her constituents who thought they had an appointment with her. Ouch. Dianne is the first Democrat to complain about the program that has largely targeted Republicans.
