Archive for the ‘Kennedy’ Category

Bob Vander Plaats is a undeniably a heavyweight amongst social conservatives in Iowa. That’s why his statements this weekend sting Mitt Romney. Additionally, it says Mitt isn’t a serious contender in Iowa. Here’s what Vander Plaats said:

“Romney was the only one who stiffed us,” influential Iowa social conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats complained after a presidential candidate forum organized by the family values-focused organization he runs in the state.

“I think that’s gone with his persona and how he’s treating, Iowa, which happens to be a swing state. And he wants to win the presidency, which tells me that he lacks judgment,” Vander Plaats told reporters. “And if he lacks judgment I think people all across America have to say, ‘is he the right candidate?’”

Vander Plaats isn’t the only Iowa Republican who isn’t happy with Gov. Romney:

Romney’s absence was also felt at an event hall in nearby Altoona, Iowa where the state’s Republican Gov. Terry Branstad was celebrating his 65th birthday at a fundraising dinner.

“I would’ve preferred if Mitt Romney had came, had come to the event,” Branstad told ABC News at his party where he mingled with the same six candidates who spoke at the earlier forum.

It was the latest in a torrent of criticism directed at Romney by Branstad, who has been scolding the former Massachusetts governor for spending far less time in this state than he did as a presidential candidate four years ago. The governor said he was “assured that Romney is intending to be back this coming week and spend a lot more time here,” but offered no words of praise for the candidate who ranks third in support among Republican voters here, according to a poll released last week.

Mitt’s hiding from Iowa voters is stupid. Whether he realizes it or not, he’s writing Iowa off, both for the caucuses and in the general election.

Shame on Mitt for not embracing a robust 50 state strategy. That’s what confident candidates do. Hiding from serious talk shows, starting with Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Meet the Press with David Gregory and the other Sunday talk shows says that he’s too intimidated by the media.

Whoever is the GOP nominee will get hit with the Obama smear campaign barrage. Newt gets that and isn’t hiding from it. Instead, he’s preparing himself for the inevitable barrage.

By comparison, Mitt’s strategy has been timid, like the weakling who’s afraid of his own shadow. Mitt’s defense of his strategy is timid or worse:

In an interview at the party, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, hardly mentioned Romney’s name, but the influential congressman ticked off a list of reasons why several of his opponents were better positioned to chart a path to victory here. Iowa holds the country’s first presidential caucuses, the results of which will help shape expectations for the rest of the primary season.

From more than 1,000 miles away, Romney defended his decision to skip both Republican events in Iowa on Saturday.

“We’ve had a couple of events in Iowa I’ve been there several time I’ll be there this coming week,” Romney said after a campaign event in New Hampshire, which took place at roughly the same time his rivals assembled together in Des Moines. “I’ve said form the very beginning we intend to play in Iowa and I want to do very well there.”

People understand that Mitt’s actions don’t automatically match his words. Saying that “from the beginning, we intend to play in Iowa and I want to do very well there” is meaningless if it isn’t backed up by actions. He’s only made 4 appearances in Iowa since jumping into the race since June. What’s with that?

Mitt’s unwillingness to take a stand or to lead is infamous:

“Whether it’s the debt ceiling debate, the Ohio ballot initiatives, or military action in Libya, Mitt Romney has been either unwilling or unable to offer a clear position on issues important to voters,” said Tim Miller, candidate Jon Huntsman’s spokesman. “Leadership requires taking a stand on tough issues, even if it carries political risk.”

Huntsman’s campaign isn’t the place where Mitt’s taking criticism from:

For as long as he’s been the Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney has avoided taking firm positions on high-stakes Washington spending debates.

This week’s example: The former Massachusetts governor’s refusal to endorse or oppose a deficit-cutting plan introduced by members of his own party, with a key deadline looming. Romney’s cautiousness builds on the play-it-safe approach he has employed on issues ranging from Medicare overhauls to debt-ceiling negotiations, drawing criticism from GOP rivals and raising questions among uncommitted Republicans.

“It’s a risky move to not take a position,” said Michael Dennehy, a New Hampshire-based Republican operative who led Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid four years ago. “When there’s going to be intense scrutiny in these final seven weeks, voters are going to want to see someone who is showing their capacity to lead.”

Mitt could continue with his general election campaign strategy because the previous non-Romneys didn’t have the talent and staying power and star presence that Newt has. Now that activists are making final decisions or are preparing for making their final decisions, people will focus on three things: vision, fight and leadership.

Saying that Mitt isn’t a leader isn’t accurate. It’s more than accurate to say that he hasn’t displayed an overabundance of leadership during the campaign. Saying that “and I’ll get it done” during debates sounds nice but where’s the proof?

At some point, Mitt will have to show he’s willing to go all in. He’ll have to prove that he’ll take fight for conservative principles. Signing Ted Kennedy’s health care legislation into law isn’t proof that Mitt will fight for conservative principles.

Not staking out detailed principles on the debt ceiling fight isn’t proof that Mitt will fight for conservative principles, either.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If there’s a theme that’s emerging this election cycle, it’s that We The People, through the help of the TEA Party, is turning inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom on its ear.

The conventional wisdom says that Mike Castle was the only Republican who could win Vice President Biden’s U.S. Senate seat in Delaware. The last couple days, outside-the-box analysts like Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich have said that they think Christine O’Donnell can win Biden’s seat.

Glenn Beck framed it perfectly when he questioned the validity of the CW that a self-described Marxist would trounce a fiscal conservative. I’ll admit that O’Donnell wouldn’t have a shot if the economy wasn’t struggling as badly as it’s struggling. It’s time that we figured out that this year isn’t like any other year in U.S. history.

This morning on FNS, Nina Easton pointed out that 6 weeks before the special election, Scott Brown was 25 points behind and was best known for posing nude in a magazine. He was considered an empty suit. Now he’s a U.S. senator.

When Ted Kennedy’s seat is won by a candidate who pledges to be the vote to kill health care, it’s time to discard the old paradigms.

People have never been so starved for honesty. Never have people been this starved for accurate information about specific issues as the times we’re living in. In fact, people are most starved for genuine conservatives who say what they mean and mean what they say.

They want people who campaign as conservatives to govern as conservatives. In case people haven’t noticed, they’re rejecting unprincipled politicians like Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and Charlie Crist. In general election polling, they’re rejecting liberals like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and Patty Murray.

At no time have I seen more people this informed and demanding that politicians listen to them. When Rick Santelli took to the floor for his now famous rant, people were appalled. That’s what got them informed and engaged.

Here in Minnesota, that’s led to the gubernatorial candidates to not only put together budgets but to have the Department of Revenue score their budgets. Now Sen. Dayton’s budget has been exposed. Even though he’s got 100 percent name recognition, his slide is starting and it’s bound to get worse.

It’s time for the parties to understand that we’re living in a issue-driven political environment. That’s because politicians aren’t trusted, which led people to do their own research.

That’s a huge shift. Prior to Santelli’s rant, politicians didn’t fear the people. They worried about gaining their votes but they didn’t fear the people. After the GOP primaries, they’re now paying attention. After November, we’ll have their undivided attention. Those that won’t listen will be swept away.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If ever there was a campaign tactic that’s doomed for failure, it’s the tactic that the Wisconsin Democratic Party is deploying against Sean Duffy. Here’s what’s being reported on the Democrats’ stunt:

The campaign for the Wisconsin 7th District House seat being vacated by retiring Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey took a strange turn on Friday as the state Democratic Party claimed to have obtained a copy of Republican candidate Sean Duffy’s as yet unannounced economic plan.

“The Democratic Party of Wisconsin on Thursday got its hands on Sean Duffy’s economic plan in advance of its planned release next week and found that, in it, Duffy has applied his life lessons of getting drunk on television and being a mediocre political appointee,” the Wisconsin Democrats’ press release said.

This smacks of desperation. Sean Duffy has garnered endorsements from Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, which means that they see Duffy as a serious candidate with a legitimate shot at winning. RCP rates WI-7 as leans Republican.

According to this article, this isn’t the Democrats’ first desperate attack against Sean Duffy:

Recently the campaign got ugly and desperate when The Democratic Party of Wisconsin sent out a press release on April 14, 2010 attacking Sean Duffy for being a white supremacist and used racial overtones to do it.

The press release stated, “Duffy was scheduled to appear at a Wausau Tea Party event Thursday alongside white supremacist Alabama militia Col. John Eidsmoe (Eidsmoe since canceled).” It continues, “But even before not answering questions about the Tea Party scandal, Duffy was not answering questions about his unexplained role at a Wisconsin Dells resort where he reportedly fled the scene after his wife got into a shoving match with GOP rival Dan Mielke. Shortly thereafter, his campaign manager either quit or was fired.”

Wisconsin Democrats know that this seat is lost if they can’t muddy Sean Duffy through a prolonged smear attack, something that I’m familiar with as an observer of the Dayton family’s attempt to buy the gubernatorial election for Sen. Dayton through a series of dishonest ads against Tom Emmer.

The Democrats, whether they’re located in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Ohio, know that they’re running uphill into a stiff headwind. They’ve been told to run away from the legislation they’ve passed. This administration’s economic policies have stunk up the joint. That’s the context in which this race is set in.

Is it any wonder that the Wisconsin Democratic Party is hurling one smear after another at Sean Duffy? It pains them to think that the seat that David Obey has occupied the last 20 terms will soon be held by Republican Sean Duffy. It’s the Wisconsin equivalent of Martha Coakley losing Ted Kennedy’s seat.

What’s great to see is that the Duffy campaign gives better than it gets. check this response out:

Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm fired back with a press release. It stated, “In response to the baseless claims of racism thrown at Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy, Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm, said the Democrat Party of Wisconsin (DPW) owes the Republican congressional candidate and his family an apology. Today, the DPW and its Chairman Mike Tate accused Duffy, who is married to Rachel Campos-Duffy, a Mexican-American, of being a white supremacist.”

Seaholm said, “Sean Duffy is proudly married to a Mexican-American and together they have six wonderful children. The DPW crossed the line by blatantly playing the race card and insulting the Latino community. The Democrats owe the Duffy family an apology and Mr. Tate should resign immediately.”

That’s stunning. That isn’t just a response. That’s a Game. Set. Match. type of response. Seaholm’s reply didn’t just counterpunch. It delivered the knockout blow that takes that subject off the table for the rest of this election cycle. You can’t respond more forcefully or more completely.

In that exchange between the Democrat Party of Wisconsin and Matt Seaholm, Seaholm is the clear winner. That doesn’t mean that it’s the last cheapshot that the Democrat Party of Wisconsin will throw at the Duffy campaign. They’ll definitely throw more cheapshots at him. I’m not worried, though, because it’s obvious that the Duffy campaign will consistently get the upper hand in these exchanges.

I suspect that this race is like other races across the country. The Republican is leading the race but they taste victory so intensely that they’ll continue campaigning like they’re 2 points behind with 3 weeks left in the campaign.

Put differently, it’s better to be a Republican than a Democrat and Republicans will keep outworking Democrats through till Election Day.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

This past weekend, numerous liberal bloggers wrote that Sen. Dayton supposedly put Rep. Emmer in his place at the Game Fair debate after Rep. Emmer asked Sen. Dayton this question:

Tom Emmer: Senator Dayton you talk about deathbed conversions. Ive explained why I do the things I do. If you could just explain to me and everybody else here in the state of Minnesota, how is it that you can have an F rating from the NRA and you can sit up here and tell us that you’re gonna defend sportsmen’s rights, you’re gonna defend my right and my children’s right to hunt and fish in this state when you got an F from the NRA? Have you had one of your own deathbed conversions? Well, we wont call it deathbed, but one of your own conversions that you’re sharing with us today?

Here’s Sen. Dayton’s response:

Mark Dayton: Well, I had a D rating from the NRA in 1982 when I ran for the Senate. I had a two- an A rating in 2000. There were two principal votes you can look em up when I was a Senator. One was banning Cop Killer bullets. And one reason that I have the endorsement of the Minneapolis Police and Peace Officers Association, Representative, is because I respect the law enforcement men and women. I was on a ride-along last week to, as I’ve been several times with a police officer in St. Paul. And those guys wear bulletproof vests every time they go out there. Men and women. And anybody who wants to go out there and see them put their lives on the line to protect us.

And when the police chiefs and the police officers of this state and this nation send to us and say, Those bullets are made to kill us, then yeah, I’ll vote to ban em. Does that prevent a law-abiding hunter or fisher, a hunter in this state from, from going out and hunting and fishing? Absolutely not.

How many of you, how many of you own Cop Killer bullets and use em against police officers? Raise your hand. How many ever fire a Cop Killer bullet against a police officer in this state? Raise your hand. Nobody’s, Representative Emmer, nobody. Nobody. And they shouldn’t ever happen.

Not being one to accept a politician’s answer as Gospel fact, I called the NRA about Sen. Dayton’s cop-killer claims. I read the bill’s language. Suffice it to say that it’s frightening. Here’s the provision that likely got the NRA upset:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.

That’s extremely slippery language. First off, it doesn’t say that the projectile would penetrate body armor. The threshold is met if it’s “more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.” Next, the “Attorney General determines, under section 926(d),” whether the projectile fits the vague description proposed in the legislation. Third, they’re talking about “a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability.”

Let’s break this down for people. Just about any rifle cartridge has “armor piercing capability” if it’s a full metal jacket bullet and if the range is close enough. An FMJ cartridge from a 7mm Weatherby Magnum at 50 yds. likely could penetrate armor. I know that a 7mm Remington Magnum will go through a 1/2″ thick railroad plate with ease because I’ve seen it happen.

Let’s flip this question right back to Sen. Dayton. When was the last time that Sen. Dayton heard of a bolt action rifle be used to kill cops? While I’m sure it’s happened somewhere sometime, I’m betting that it wasn’t used in more than .001 of a percent of the cop-killings in the last thirty years.

What’s clear is that many rifle cartridges would’ve been outlawed had this amendment passed. Thankfully, it was defeated by a 64-31 margin:

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea, Alexander (R-TN), Nay, Allard (R-CO), Nay, Allen (R-VA), Nay, Baucus (D-MT), Nay, Bayh (D-IN), Yea, Bennett (R-UT), Nay, Biden (D-DE), Yea, Bingaman (D-NM), Nay, Bond (R-MO), Nay, Boxer (D-CA), Yea, Brownback (R-KS), Nay, Bunning (R-KY), Nay, Burns (R-MT), Nay, Burr (R-NC), Nay, Byrd (D-WV), Nay, Cantwell (D-WA), Yea, Carper (D-DE), Yea, Chafee (R-RI), Yea, Chambliss (R-GA), Nay, Clinton (D-NY), Yea, Coburn (R-OK), Nay, Cochran (R-MS), Nay, Coleman (R-MN), Nay, Collins (R-ME), Nay, Conrad (D-ND), Nay, Cornyn (R-TX), Not Voting, Corzine (D-NJ), Yea, Craig (R-ID), Nay, Crapo (R-ID), Nay, Dayton (D-MN), Yea, DeMint (R-SC), Nay, DeWine (R-OH), Nay, Dodd (D-CT), Yea, Dole (R-NC), Nay, Domenici (R-NM), Nay, Dorgan (D-ND), Nay, Durbin (D-IL), Yea, Ensign (R-NV), Nay, Enzi (R-WY), Nay, Feingold (D-WI), Yea, Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting, Frist (R-TN), Nay, Graham (R-SC), Nay, Grassley (R-IA), Nay, Gregg (R-NH), Nay, Hagel (R-NE), Nay, Harkin (D-IA), Yea, Hatch (R-UT), Nay, Hutchison (R-TX), Nay, Inhofe (R-OK), Nay, Inouye (D-HI), Yea, Isakson (R-GA), Nay, Jeffords (I-VT), Nay, Johnson (D-SD), Nay, Kennedy (D-MA), Yea, Kerry (D-MA), Yea, Kohl (D-WI), Yea, Kyl (R-AZ), Nay, Landrieu (D-LA), Nay, Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea, Leahy (D-VT), Nay, Levin (D-MI), Yea, Lieberman (D-CT), Yea, Lincoln (D-AR), Nay, Lott (R-MS), Nay, Lugar (R-IN), Nay, Martinez (R-FL), Nay, McCain (R-AZ), Nay, McConnell (R-KY), Nay, Mikulski (D-MD), Yea, Murkowski (R-AK), Nay, Murray (D-WA), Yea, Nelson (D-FL), Yea, Nelson (D-NE), Nay, Obama (D-IL), Yea, Pryor (D-AR), Nay, Reed (D-RI), Yea, Reid (D-NV), Nay, Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting, Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea, Salazar (D-CO), Nay, Santorum (R-PA), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea, Schumer (D-NY), Yea, Sessions (R-AL), Nay, Shelby (R-AL), Nay, Smith (R-OR), Not Voting, Snowe (R-ME), Nay, Specter (R-PA), Nay, Stabenow (D-MI), Yea, Stevens (R-AK), Nay, Sununu (R-NH), Not Voting, Talent (R-MO), Nay, Thomas (R-WY), Nay, Thune (R-SD), Nay, Vitter (R-LA), Nay, Voinovich (R-OH), Nay, Warner (R-VA), Nay, Wyden (D-OR), Yea

The vote wasn’t even close. Is Sen. Dayton prepared to accuse people like Patrick Leahy, Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of voting against protecting police officers? Seriously, these senators don’t have a history of being stalwart supporters of the Second Amendment.

Sen. Dayton, despite all his huffing and puffing on the issue, voted to essentially outlaw rounds that big game hunters use each year. What’s most aggravating is that the Attorney General would have the final say in determining which ammunition is on the list.

Sen. Dayton’s statement that the MPPOA wanted these bullets banned doesn’t mean that they should’ve been banned. Certainly, you take the MPPOA’s recommendations seriously but that doesn’t mean they’re infallible. In this instance, they weren’t. Had Sen. Dayton done his due diligence, he would’ve known that the bullets he voted to ban had a legitimate hunting purpose.

There’s a reason why Sen. Dayton had a failing grade. Voting to outlaw bullets that sportsmen use each year is a major reason for Sen. Dayton’s failing grade from the NRA.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday afternoon, Megyn Kelly aired Part II of her interview with J. Christian Adams. (Follow this link to watch Part I, this link to Part II.) Following Part II of her interview of J. Christian Adams, Megyn then interviewed legendary civil rights attorney and former RFK confidant Bartle Bull because Bull was an eyewitness to the NBPP’s threats and intimidation.

Before getting into today’s interviews, let’s recap what we learned yesterday. We know from the Election Day video and from yesterday’s interview that 3 members of the NBPP, including one of their high-ranking officials, Minister King Samir Shabazz, intimidated white voters, threatened people by saying “now you’ll know what it’s like to be ruled by a black man, Cracker”, and attempted to intimidate election officials.

We also know that the cases that were dropped were reviewed by Eric Holder, though it isn’t known if he signed off on dismissing the cases. We know that Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, 2 Obama administration political appointees, ordered that the case be dismissed after the DOJ prosecution team won a conviction.

Finally, we know that the DOJ issued a statement saying that “the facts and the law don’t support the case.” This statement was issued after the DOJ prosecution team had won a conviction. What’s telling is that the trial judge didn’t rule that the law didn’t apply or that the facts presented as evidence didn’t measure up to the case.

Now, onto Megyn Kelly’s interview of Bartle Bull. Here’s a snippet of the interview:

BULL: The fact is that Mr. Adams was trying to enforce the law and, for the first time in our lifetime, the power of the administration of the United States of America was working against the Voting Rights Act. They were protecting the people who were abusing the law. What I saw, for example, was this guy, King Samir Shabazz, who was the head of the Black Panther Party — he’s the one with the baton — he’s the one who said to me and to a man who was with me “Now you will see what it means to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
KELLY: So when the Department of Justice comes out, after winning this case, and says “the facts and the law and the evidence just aren’t there to pursue this prosecution any further?
BULL: They were absolutely there. That’s what they were afraid of. You’re a lawyer. You understand this. I’ve been a lawyer all my life and the reality of it all was the section of the law was Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965…
KELLY: Voter intimidation…
BULL: Voter intimidation…And the fundamental point to me is Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy did not die to have uniformed thugs blocking the doors to polling places with weapons. And for the first time in our lifetime, the national administration is protecting the abusers rather than the voters.
KELLY: Why?
BULL: Because they want to maximize the vote. The New York Times reported one week before the election, on October 27, 2008, the New York Times reported that ACORN had registered 1,300,000 voters, of which, the Times said, 35 percent of which were fraudulent. That’s over 400,000 ACORN voters. And this was an effort to protect those illegal voters and you do that by intimidating the poll watchers who were challenging them. And that’s what was happening.
KELLY: Why would there be…J. Christian Adams sys there is now, in the wake of this Black Panther case being dropped, there is a mandate at DOJ, that the DOJ doesn’t want the world to know about, that no voting rights cases, no voter intimidation case, from this point forward, if the defendant is black and the victim is white.
BULL: I have no way of knowing if that’s the case but I know that the president of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, has violated his oath of office to enforce the laws of the United States because he’s not enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which he swore to do.
KELLY: Is that incredible to you? As someone who has spent his life devoted to enforcing civil right laws, to…
BULL: It’s a staggering outrage and it’s exactly not the cause that people like Martin Luther King died for. He died to help people to vote. I was in Mississippi working on helping people to vote, where people risked their lives to vote, and here the administration is challenging that system.
KELLY: You know they seem to be trying to discredit Mr. Adams by saying he’s a conservative and he doesn’t like Mr. Obama. That seems to be what they’re suggesting. And he’s been critical of the administration. You konw, where does that leave us?
BULL: It leaves us in a terrible situation where the government is deciding which laws it will enforced based on its political opportunities in the next election. I think this next election will be very dangerous because all those illegal ACORN voters will are on the books all over the country and now, we’re going to be intimidated from challenging their false votes.
KELLY: Do you have an agenda?
BULL: I have the same agenda as I had in the 1960s in Mississippi. I have the same agenda as I had in 1968, when I was Bobby Kennedy’s New York state campaign manager, the same agenda I had in 1976, when I was Jimmy Carter’s New York state campaign manager, and that is to have decent and intelligent government and fair voting all over the country.

It’s long past time to express our outrage and tell the federal government, OUR EMPLOYEES, (After all, they’re supposed to work for We The People) to enforce the laws consistently regardless of race, political leaning or any other factor.

It’s time that we told this administration that we’re demanding that theyput aside their political grudges and their racial prejudices and consistently enforce this nation’s laws, especially as it pertains to the Voting Rights Act.

What the Holder Justice Department is engaged in is nothing short of evil. It can’t be described as anything less than willful corruption.

Here’s a not-so-bold prediction: this scandal isn’t going away. It will be with us quite awhile. This story will get front and center attention Tuesday when Christian Adams testifies before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. I expect that’s when some bombshells will drop.

At minimum, Holder should’ve investigated why the Black Panther case was dropped after Adams’ team had won a conviction. I’d further investigate why Thomas Perez said that “This is a case about career people disagreeing with career people.” In this MainJustice article, Perez admits that “the decision to drop the case” was “a judgment made by then-Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Loretta King.” Here’s what I found out about Ms. King:

Name
Loretta King

Title
Assistant Attorney General (Acting)
Presidential Appointment Requiring Senate Confirmation

Organization Name
Civil Rights Division, Office of the Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice

There’s nothing indicating Ms. King was a career attorney at DOJ. There’s sufficient information indicating that she was a political appointee.

Based on the information compiled, the political appointees in Eric Holder’s Justice Dept. are corrupt and dishonest. Additionally, they’ve ordered that 3 convictions be dropped before the 3 racist thugs could be sentenced.

Finally, Holder’s political hacks have been criticized by one of the most respected civil rights attorneys in U.S. history, Bartle Bull. He’s criticized these political hacks because they didn’t have the view that he did, which is within earshot of the racist thugs from the NBPP.

It’s time to call Holder’s DOJ what it really is: Corruption, Inc.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

I’ve said more than once that Gov. Pawlenty would make a great president. This Time Magazine article talks about one of the potential matchups, Gov. Pawlenty vs. Mitt Romney:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a possible contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, has announced he will join a growing number of states challenging the legality of the health reform law.

This further distinguishes Pawlenty from another top contender for the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (Romney, you may remember, launched state-based reforms in Massachusetts that are very similar to the Democrats’ federal health reform plan. Info on Romney’s probably futile attempts to distance himself from this fact here and here.)

Pawlenty’s move was not unexpected given that Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, a Democrat, declined to join the suit despite the governor’s urging. But Pawlenty also publicly twice rejected the idea of instituting an individual mandate for insurance in his state, while this is a major tenet of Romneycare. Although 2012 feels far away, with the 2010 congressional elections bearing down on us, Pawlenty appears to have already laid some crucial groundwork. Of course, that’s only helpful if health care is a top issue in the 2012 GOP primaries.

Health care isn’t going away because the GOP will probably be still trying to repeal Obamacare. That won’t help Mitt Romney because health care is a major vulnerability for him:

Reading Collins’ piece, I was suddenly taken back, as if in a dream, to a more wondrous time, for me at least, during the 2008 Iowa Straw Poll at Ames. Back then, Romney was on a different tack, arguing that his past embrace of Ted Kennedy’s health care vision for Massachusetts was something of a badge of honor. This really happened. I have video, though I must apologize for the shaky camera work and poor audio quality.

It’s quite a stretch to go from bragging about consulting Ted Kennedy about Romneycare to calling for the repeal of Obamacare:

Obama calls his accomplishment “historic”; in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process; he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.”

Notice that Mitt doesn’t condemn Obamacare’s individual mandate. That’s because Romneycare relies on an individual mandate, too. That’s a big deal because Gov. Pawlenty rejected including indivdual mandates in his health care recommendations:

Again in a report dated Feb. 1, ’08, another health care group advising Pawlenty — the Health Care Transformation Task Force — suggested that individual mandates be part of the solution.

Cal Ludeman, the commissioner of the MN Department of Human Services, and state Rep. Thomas Huntley (D) co-chaired the commission.

The task force made the following recommendation: “Require that all Minnesotans obtain health coverage by January 1, 2011, unless: No insurance that meets affordability standards is available; and No subsidy is available to make available insurance policies affordable.”

Pawlenty has trumpeted his gubernatorial record frequently on the stump as he’s been increasing his visibility, including what has been done in the state on health care. While Pawlenty may have bucked his then-advisers’ recommendations that he work toward mandates, political adviser Phil Musser emphasized that it simply means the governor has been consistent in his long-standing opposition to mandates.

Even if health care isn’t an issue, the difference between Gov. Pawlenty and Mitt Romney couldn’t be more stark. Mitt Romney apparently thinks that it’s ok for the government to order people to buy things whether they want the product or not. Gov. Pawlenty has consistently rejected that policy.

Instead, Gov. Pawlenty has signed real health care reform. Gov. Pawlenty’s plan relies on people being smart health care shoppers. During his CPAC speech, Gov. Pawlenty posed this question (I’m paraphrasing here):

If I told everyone in this room that they should go out and buy a TV set and that they should send the bill to the Governor’s mansion, how many people would go out and buy a 12″ black and white?

The principle is simple: If the patient only deals with a co-pay, they won’t pay as much attention to how often they visit their doctor or the emergency room.

Gov. Pawlenty thinks that Minnesota’s system of telling public employees that they’ll spend less if they go to a hospital or clinic that is less expensive. In other words, the state contribution stays the same whether they go to an expensive hospital or whether they go to a less expensive hospital. By making people spend some of their money, people have an incentive to be spart health care shoppers.

I’d submit that Gov. Pawlenty’s plan is anchored in the time-tested conservative principles of personal responsibility and fiscal restraint. Romney’s plan isn’t anchored in those principles. Instead, Romneycare’s anchoring principle is government telling people what to do. Romneycare’s anchoring principle sounds like a liberal principle to me.

That’s why I’ve often said that I think Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are history and that Gov. Pawlenty, Gov. Daniels and Gov. Palin are frontrunners if they choose to run in 2012.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

My first reaction after reading Steve Benen’s post was “Keep believing what you’re writing.” Here’s what I’m talking about:

For all the palpable anxiety in Democratic circles, there’s still time. Sinking poll numbers are largely the result of inaction, Americans want to see results, and they’re not getting any. If Dems run for the hills, matters will only get worse.

It isn’t about the Democrats’ tactics. It isn’t about the Democrats’ communications strategy. It’s about their failed economic policies. It’s about the damage that the Democrats’ health care policies would’ve caused if they would’ve been implemented.

When I hear Democrats say that people only have a negative opinion of their health care legislation because they haven’t correctly communicated the provisions in the bill, I question whether they watched the videos from August’s townhall meetings, where informed citizen after informed citizen ‘educated’ their legislators.

I recall Claire McCaskill telling the audience that President Obama never endorsed a single-payer health care system. I loved it when someone from the audience hollared “It’s on YouTube.” It isn’t that we don’t know what’s in these bills. It’s that people like Betsy McCaughey, Keith Hennessey and King Banaian read the bills and published specific language from the bills on their websites.

We knew what was in the Democrats’ health care bill. We rejected the tax increases, the individual mandates and the fines for not buying health insurance policies that the federal government approved.

Another thing that Democrats should do is keep sending President Obama into races where Democrats are currently in trouble:

President Obama kicks off what might be called his “Save the Senate” tour this week, heading west to campaign for two embattled Democrats trailing badly against Republican challengers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

With high-profile Democrats already bailing out of re-election campaigns, Sen. Evan Bayh’s decision on Monday to drop out of the race in Indiana brings the number of retirees to five, Mr. Obama is putting his popularity and fundraising prowess on the line as he tries to help his party hold the majority in the Senate.

If President Obama does for Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray what he did for Martha Coakley and Jon Corzine, we’ll owe President Obama a big debt of gratitude for tying Democrats to his radical agenda.

Finally, I hope DNC Chair Tim Kaine told the truth when he said this:

“In the two governors races, and Massachusetts things didn’t go our way,” he said. “We know it’s going to be a challenging and tough cycle. Historically it always is. But we’re not panicked people. When a couple races don’t go our way, we don’t panic. If we would, we never would have won the White House in ’08.”

What a buffoon. Things didn’t just not go their way in a couple of statewide races. They got manhandled in states that they’ve owned for years. Independent voters rejected their policies by margins of 2:1 and 3:1. They lost Virginia, a state President Obama carried by 8 points, by almost 20 points. They lost Ted Kennedy’s seat by a healthy margin. In all 3 states, the swing from President Obama’s margin of victory to this year’s election was approaching 30 points.

Tim Kaine can act nonchalant all he wants but candidates are panicking. Byron Dorgan, Evan Bayh and Christopher Dodd didn’t suddenly retire because they saw nothing but smooth sailing ahead. (No, I don’t buy this weekend’s polling that showed Bayh ahead by 15+ points. Rasmussen’s polling showed him in a dogfight with John Hostettler and trailing Mike Pence. I’ll trust Scott Rasmussen’s polling. PERIOD.)

Unless President Obama abandons his radical agenda, Democrats will have to plenty to worry about. People want common sense leadership, not Alinsky-style radicalism.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

After reading about the DCCC’s latest baseless attack on Michele Bachmann, I’m thinking that their motto is to “Never let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe.” Here’s the heart of their statement:

“Bachmann voted to protect bonuses paid to AIG executives with American tax dollars,” said Ryan Rudominer, the DCCC press secretary in a statement. “This morning, Americans heard that AIG executives are getting $100 million in bonuses despite still owing taxpayers more than $100 billion. While Representative Bachmann protects these outrageous Wall Street bonuses paid for by President Bush’s bailout, Bachmann does nothing to help hardworking families. Clearly, Representative Bachmann is more concerned about Wall Street, than Main Street.”

Last night, the WSJ’s Stephen Moore confirmed that the bonuses being paid by AIG are to traders and that those bonuses are contractual obligations. An outside party, say for instance Congress, can’t negate terms of existing contracts. Only a bankruptcy court can restructure contracts and then only if a company filed for bankruptcy.

It isn’t that Michele is protecting “Wall Street executives.” It’s that Michele’s voting for the rule of law.

It’s worth noting, too, that Michele voted against the bailout because she felt that it was better if a bankruptcy court dealt with the problem rather than putting American taxpayers on the hook to the tune of $100,000,000,000 for bailing AIG out. BTW, had AIG been forced into bankruptcy court, that court could’ve negated or rewritten the contractual bonuses.

In short, Michele voted to maintain the rule of law while having bankruptcy courts deal with AIG’s assets, something that bankruptcy courts specialize in.

Finally, voting against the tax on AIG bonuses is the constitutionally mandated thing to do. That narrow of a tax would be unconstitutional because it’d either violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution or it could be ruled that it represents a bill of attainder, also a constitutional no-no.

I’d suggest that Michele’s progressive opponents contemplate JFK’s quote:

Only a respect for the law makes it possible for free men to dwell together in peace and progress…Law is the adhesive force in the cement of society, creating order out of chaos and coherence in place of anarchy. John F. Kennedy, 5-18-1963

Without a consistent respect for, and obedience to, the rule of law, there can only be chaos and anarchy. Societies ruled by chaos and anarchy are quickly swept into the dustbin of history.

Not surprisingly, Tarryl’s been singing from the DCCC’s hymnal or vice versa:

“Small business owners see Wall Street bankers getting big bonuses while they can’t even get a loan to expand their business and create jobs. Families are praying that their jobs, or their health care, will still be there when they wake up each morning. Seniors and veterans and families are struggling to make their monthly mortgage payments to keep their house, in the midst of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Depression.”

There’s no doubt that too many people have been hurt during the financial crisis. Still, the crisis that rocked Wall Street is only part of the problem. Irresponsible spending at the state level hasn’t helped the economy either. That’s because too many states voted to raise spending during an economic downturn, then voted to raise taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending.

Had state legislatures not spent irresponsibly, we wouldn’t be in the trouble we’re currently in.

As Assistant Majority Leader in the Minnesota Senate, Tarryl voted for huge tax increases for small businesses and for irresponsible spending increases. Now Tarryl wants to blame conservatives rather than accepting responsibility for her inability to say no to the DFL’s special interest allies.

There was a time when a politician could get away with that. There was a time when publications could paint a target on a politician’s back and there wasn’t much that politician could do to fight back. That’s ancient history thanks to Al Gore’s internet and the information superhighway.

Thank’s to the information superhighway, the DCCC’s trashtalking can be quickly discredited. Welcome to the new paradigm.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

The Citypages’ Hart van Denburg’s post about Michele Bachmann is so over the top it’s pathetic. It’s titled “Michele Bachmann dances on Ted Kennedy’s grave.” What he’s referring to is a simple statement Michele made about the Scott Brown-Martha Coakley special election:

“It is the ultimate political irony that the man who spent his lifetime trying to force socialized medicine on the American people would now see the seat that he occupied taken over by a free market Republican,” Bachmann said. “It really is astounding.”

Van Denburg needs a little thicker skin if he thinks that’s dancing on Kennedy’s grave. It’s nothing more than Michele stating her opinion, an opinion that I think many people without a political axe to grind would agree with.

I think most thinking people would agree that tonight’s election results, in addition to being stunning, are ironic. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of ironic:

Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended

Bsed on that definition, I’d say that Michele’s statement is pretty accurate. I’d hate to argue that the results of tonight’s special election were expected a month ago. Heck, they weren’t expected Tuesday morning with any certainty.

This is just another attempt by a liberal whiner to complain about Michele Bachmann. Mr. van Denburg recently wrote this about Michele:

Michele Bachmann, who has turned her opposition to health care reform into a cottage industry, and been busted for lying about it, told a Mississippi talk radio host.

Here’s Mr. van Denburg’s proof of Michele’s alleged lies:

“Where tyranny is enforced upon the people, as Barack Obama is doing, the people suffer and mourn.”

Again, I’ll direct Mr. van Denburg to Dictionary.com’s definition of tyranny:

arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power

I could make a respectable argument that President Obama’s strongarming of GM secured bondholders was an “undrestrained exercise of power.” I might add that President Obama’s telling bank CEOs that he was the only thing standing between them and a roomful of pitchforks was an “undrestrained exercise of power.”

Mr. van Denburg is a progressive apologist. He should check a dictionary before he starts making accusations. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t give you the authority to make things up.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It appears that Scott Brown voters aren’t taking anything for granted. It also appears that a number of Democrats are voting for Scott Brown. If Glenn Thrush’s post is accurate, this might be a fatal blow to Martha Coakley. Here’s what he’s reporting:

A Democratic operative familiar with the get-out-the-vote push by Martha Coakley’s team, and boosted late in the game by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says that outreach workers in and around Boston have been stunned by the number of Democrats and Obama supporters who are waving them off, saying they’ll vote for Scott Brown.

Earlier this week, I saw a poll that said 94 percent of Massachusetts Republicans were voting for Scott Brown. Meanwhile, that same poll said that 17 percent of Democrats were voting for Scott Brown.

Let’s put another myth to rest, namely that high turnout benefits Coakley. If the enthusiasm gap that’s being reported is accurate, then I’d bet that high turnout will help Scott Brown.

Part of that opinion is based on this article:

What’s even more shocking is how little enthusiasm Coakley’s campaign seems to have generated among the women of Massachusetts. According to several recent polls, female voters, who tend to be more liberal, are barely more likely than male voters to favor Coakley over Brown; one poll shows Coakley behind by four points among women, another has the candidates tied for the female vote. One outlier poll, conducted for liberal blog The Daily Kos, reports Coakley enjoys 13 percent more female support than Brown. But strategists would expect the gender gap to be safely large in a typical election, with far more women than men supporting the Democratic candidate. When Ted Kennedy ran for reelection the final time, in 2006, 72 percent of women supported his bid.

If Democrats don’t enjoy a substantial gender gap, they’re history. If this anecdotal account is accurate, then Martha Coakley is in trouble. Other than minorities, there isn’t a demographic group more important to Democrats’ success than a huge gender gap. It’s what fueled Bill Clinton’s victories.

One thing that we shouldn’t accept as fact is that Scott Brown’s political viability is because of health care. There’s no denying that that’s played a significant role in this special election but it’s hardly the only thing that’s triggered what appears to be a big independent turnout for him.

A week ago, David Gergen asked Scott Brown if he was willing to kill health care if he was elected to Ted Kennedy’s seat. Scott Brown’s answer that “this isn’t Ted Kennedy’s seat. It isn’t even the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat” was a showstopper. From that point forward, it was like a threshold had been met. People, independents especially, started flocking to him.

After that tide shifted, President Obama campaigned with Martha Coakley. During one campaign stop, President Obama told Massachusetts voters that they should ignore Scott Brown’s truck, saying that “anyone can buy a truck.” Brown’s quip that people going through difficult times can’t buy a truck reminded people that President Obama’s economic policies haven’t worked.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Massachusetts’ economy is considered as important as health care in terms of importance to Massachusetts’ voters.

One thing that shouldn’t be overlooked is what I will name ‘the Rahm Factor’. Rahm’s quotation that we “shouldn’t let a good crisis go to waste” turns people off. To the average voter, especially independents, they don’t care about passing everything on either party’s ideological checklist. Rahm’s quote told them that passing the Democrats’ ideological checklist was more important than getting America working again.

Scott Brown played that up. BIGTIME. He talked about his solutions to Massachusetts’ and the nation’s problems. To the Democrats’ horror, those solutions resonated with independents and what used to be called Reagan Democrats.

I don’t want Massachusetts’ voters to stop until the polls close. Still, it’s difficult for me not to think that today’s high turnout won’t help Scott Brown.

It’s amazing to see what a motivated citizenry can accomplish to stop a radical agenda.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative