Where are the calls for comity now?

How soon Washington forgets! 

In January of this year, following the tragic shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by an insane individual, elected officials – mostly Democrats, including President Obama – called for a “moderation” of the political rhetoric.  They did so by indirectly – and some directly – pointing fingers at the GOP by attempting to vilify Republican language in talking about big government, opposition to tax increases and hard-edged language on healthcare and immigration reform.  They attempted to gain politically by painting the GOP as extreme...frustration by Democrats after a November 2010 electoral whopping.

In the intervening months, during heated debates about the budget (which the House passed but the Senate still hasn’t done anything about for 800-plus days), we’ve witnessed members of Congress call each other Nazi’s...a pejorative term that, when casually thrown around on issues that, while important, are nowhere close to life and death, demeans the tragedy that tens of millions worldwide experienced at the Nazi’s hands in the middle of the last century.

Are attempts to cut government spending or reign-in entitlement programs really comparable to the extermination of an entire race of people?  It’s sick, sad and pathetic.

Now, with the debt crisis and debt ceiling debate in full swing, the political rhetoric has reached new heights.  Look no further than the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman in his recent column, “Can’t We Do This Right,” where he compares the Tea Party to Hezbollah.  Friedman writes: 

If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.

Really, Tom?

As early as 1999, Hezbollah was listed on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.  To date, Australia, Canada, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States and Netherlands have officially listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.  They have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents.  Your casual – or maybe calculated – characterization of Republicans demeans all those who have suffered at the Hezbollah’s expense.

Where is the rest of the mainstream media in condemning this outrage?  One-sided calls for comity demonstrate, yet again, liberal media bias. The silence is deafening...but, then again, maybe Friedman’s column caters to the dwindling number of liberal elite that actually reads the New York Times and actually believe his b.s.

Pelosi's Pleas For "Most Ethical and Open Congress" fall flat

What a difference 3.5 years makes...and thank God for the Internet.

I happened to come across a November 8, 2006 article in the Washington Post called, "Democrats Take Majority In House: Pelosi Poised To Become Speaker," and the Speaker-to-be's comments then have little, if any, reflection on the reality of the Democrat Party now. 

In the article, Pelosi makes broad, sweeping promises that include:

• A mandate "to restore stability and bipartisanship in Washington.  If anything, during Pelosi's "tenure" in Washington, the "stability" and "bipartisanship" in Congress has gotten worse, not better.  Obama's election in November 2008, despite promises of the being post-partisan, has only provided the spark to a bucket of gasoline.  Congress' approval ratings are at an all-time low.  Overwhelming majorities of the  American people don't trust Congress to get the job done.  Pelosi has failed miserably on this promise.

• "The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty to Washington, D.C." This "claim" is a failure, too.  Look at the headlines recently about Charles Rangel,  head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, as well as Maxine Waters, a deeply entrenched Democrat from South Los Angeles.  Rangel may avoid a formal trial by the House Ethics Committee and get by with a slap on the wrist...not a surprise when Congress "polices its own," but Waters has requested an outright hearing on alleged misconduct.  These are two SENIOR ranking Democrats...Pelosi fails on this account, too.

• "A new direction in Iraq."  News flash to Democrats -- in spite of Obama's inability to acknowledge its success during the campaign and in office -- the SURGE worked!  In fact, Obama's hiring of Petraeus to "work his magic" in Afghanistan is a tacit endorsement of George W. Bush's strategy...one that has worked so well that it will allow a draw-down of forces.  It's really pathetic now, though, to see the dove-like Dems flee Afghanistan when it's getting tough.  It just further proves that Congressional Dems cannot be trusted to handle anything national security-related.  Thankfully, their "influence" on foreign policy is very limited.

Bottom line is that Americans were sold a bill of goods by Pelosi and her liberal minions.  If anything, Pelosi has taken Congress and made it less respected, less ethical, weaker on national defense all the while steering it to the hard left.

Republican control this November may be in the offing...let's just hope that Pelosi keeps talking and that Obama really campaigns hard in those "swing" districts throughout the US through the elections.

Yet Again...Everything Is Related to Global Warming

I've raised the issue before that no matter what occurs -- hot weather, cold weather, rainy weather, drought...even normal weather -- that some "expert" somewhere will find a way to link every event or situation to global warming.

So, I'm reading the Los Angeles Times today, always an adventure, and there's an article by Anna Gorman titled, "Warming could fuel immigration."  This article quotes a number of scientists (specifically the study's author, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University), each of whom makes loosely-worded concerns about global warming and its likely impact on immigration policy. 

It claims, "Between 1.4 and 6.7 million Mexicans could migrate to the U.S. by 2080 as climate change reduces agricultural production in Mexico."  Why just immigrants from Mexico?  What about other countries?  And why would they all want to immigrate to the U.S.?

Mind you, there are virtually NO specifics about the alleged "study," and there are no specific links, but yet it gets a fairly significant amount of "ink" in the Los Angeles Times.  Oppenheimer says, "Our primary objectives were, No. 1, to give policy-makers something to think about and, No. 2, to give researchers a spur to start answering some of the more complicated questions."  I'm sure that the U.N. will jump all over this one.

I've said it before and it's more true now than ever -- Global warming is the new socialism.  Its most hard-core supporters want to control what you do or say, where you go, what you watch, what you eat...EVERYTHING...and unless you're "enlightened" and adopt their radical, tax and regulate policies lock, stock and barrel, you open up yourself to criticism and ridicule.

Obama is full of it on Campaign Finance Reform

"I've always known Chris Van Hollen and Chuck Schumer were political hacks...but Obama is the worst of the entire bunch.  Post-partisan, pleeeez."

The image is still vibrant in my mind.  Obama, during the state of the union, chastises the Supreme Court for its ruling in the Citizens United case.  He calls for reform to remove corporate influence from politics.

Fast forward to today and Congressional Democrats plan to bring "reform" up for a vote in the Senate in the near future.  Majority Leader Harry Reid spurned hearings and instead wants to take the bill to the floor.  Obama has taken to criticizing Republicans recently for their opposition to the "Disclosure Act."  And, of course, Obama's backers in the mainstream media are falling appropriately into line with his views.

But, in reading an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, called "The Schumer for Majority Leader Act," it paints a completely different picture of this "reform" legislation.  Among other elements of the legislation -- conveniently overlooked by the biased, left-wing media, are:

• Yet what they've proposed is a blatantly partisan bill sponsored by two Members whose main duty is electing Democrats. The House version, which passed last month on partisan lines, is sponsored by Representative Chris Van Hollen, who runs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The companion bill in the Senate was introduced by Charles Schumer, the two-time head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee who is in a backroom battle with Dick Durbin to succeed Harry Reid as Majority Leader.
• Even provisions that ostensibly apply to both corporations and unions would in practice mostly restrict the ability of corporations to participate in elections. For example, the government contractor restriction applies to those with contracts of $10 million or more, a threshold met by many corporations but few unions. 

So, we learn that the heads of the DCCC and DSCC are the "authors" of this so-called reform that would serve to silence corporate opinion in the political debate but give left-wing supporters -- unions and others -- the ability to aggressively and actively spew their left-wing rhetoric and, ultimately, influence the election.

For a presidential candidate who campaigned on being "post-partisan," Obama has only served to increase and further divide America along political lines.  Shame on Barack. 

But, come November, America will "right" itself -- literally and figuratively.

Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much

I just love it.  Well-respected but clearly liberal, E.J. Dionne, Jr., writes a scathing op-ed column in the Washington Post today called "Enough of the Right Wing Propaganda."  In this op-ed, he blasts Andrew Breitbart and Fox News for publicizing and then reporting on the Shirley Sherrod "scandal." 

I just love the "mainstream" (note I don't even have to use the word liberal here) media.  Rarely do they talk about the left-ward antics of all the radical groups like MoveOn.org, Code Pink, New America Foundation and others that were so prominent and public when George W. Bush was president -- targeting anything and everything Republican.  In fact, these "mainstream" organizations followed them like sheep to the slaughter.  It even went so far that Nancy Pelosi went to great lengths to praise these groups and the right to protest. 

What's ironic here, though, is that the clip of Sherrod's speech, while aired publicly on multiple news outlets, need not have provoked the rapid and ultimately incorrect response from the Obama Administration.  After all, it wasn't Fox News or Andrew Britebart who fired Sherrod.  It was Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsach who did the deed (probably under the direction of some White House functionary) -- with incomplete facts at hand.  Ultimately, he had to eat crow...as did the Obama Aministration.

Second, what's always bothered me is that the left has pushes left-of-center content out on all other television channels -- ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS and CNN -- yet Fox News, one little tiny station...with a HUGE following...gets raked over the coals and tarred as biased.  Could it be that the "mainstream" media simply can't understand that Fox News has such a following because they report the news in a way that most people want to hear...yes..."fair and balanced?"  The reporters at the Washington Post, New York Times and other well-established operations are witnessing declining circulation numbers and they, essentially, "preach to the choir" and there are just fewer and fewer in that choir. 

The "mainstream" media's monopoly on the flow of news and information is gone...and it's never coming back.  Mind you, I haven't even gotten started talking about the now well-publicized Journo-List, the left-wing cabal that went over and above to boost the Obama presidential candidacy and torpedo anything from the Republicans.  Or, all the negative publicity over the Tea Party Movement...which is wildly popular with many Americans -- Republican, Democrat and Independent.

I wonder what E.J. Dionne, Jr. would have to say about that?

Clinton contacted Sestak for White House...NOT a surprise

Obama told us -- repeatedly -- that he was different.  He told us he would implement greater transparency in government.  He told us that he would end the politics of times past.  America has woken-up to the simple fact that Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his actions.  The President has not governed that way...in fact, his use of Chicagoland politics has made the "problem" that Obama told America about all that much worse.

Look no further in the whole Sestak-gate scandal!

Today, after the Obama Administration investigated itself (I'm sure that the New York Times will give him a pass for that one), we now find out that Obama's White House, under the direction of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, asked former President Bill Clinton to contact Joe Sestak to "feel him out" regarding his willingness to accept a job in the Obama Administration if Sestak wouldn't run against turncoat Arlen Specter.  Sestak rejected the offer and defeated Specter in the Democrat primary.

The White House is now attempting to feebly argue -- and the White House counsel will attempt to clear the president of any ethical wrong-doing -- that the Obama folks had no direct contact with Sestak on this issue so they didn't "technically or legally" violate any laws.

Such a claim is ironic because Rahm Emanuel and Joe Sestak worked for Bill Clinton.  Both have long-standing personal and professional relationships with him.  Ultimately, any "offer" by Bill Clinton would have been 100% cleared by Rahm Emanuel and, ultimately, by Barack Obama in their quest to clear the Pennsylvania Primary Field for Specter -- an "enticement" from the Obama Administration because Specter sold out the Republican Party and became the Democrat's 60th vote in the United States Senate.  But, as Clinton made a standard practice of doing, Obama and those in his Administration will now claim, "my hands never left my wrist," meaning -- we didn't DIRECTLY contact Sestak so "we're cool."

I feel like I need to be hosed off on this one...given that Bill Clinton was involved in so many of these "behind the scenes" raw political efforts/scandals -- that always get exposed.  Now, Bill is back in the spotlight so we'll all become reacquainted with his word parsing (recall, "it depends of what the meaning of the word 'is' is).  Who knows...maybe Barack will get into the game...or, he'll chastise the media for focusing on this.

Ultimately, two things become clear.  The first is that Obama and the people working for his Administration are nothing more than Chicago-style politicians.  They aren't subtle in his use of political power.  He prefers the blunt force approach and his so-called "change" was nothing more than frilly rhetoric delivered by a skilled orator that is papered-over tried-and-failed Democrat politics and policies from a Century ago.

Second, Joe Sestak is ultimately no friend of the Obama Administration.  So, they may "kiss and make up" and while Barack may campaign for him against GOP Senate candidate Pat Toomy, Sestak has proven -- at least for how -- that this long-time military officer is his own man.  Hopefully, he won't get bitten by the Washington bug -- which forces people to abandon their values and promises to preserve the almighty Democrat Party.

Regardless, Obama has proven himself, yet again, to be just another run of the mill politician...one who is more aloof than most and one who's personal and political popularity is suffering for it.

California's U.S. Senate Race -- Two Interesting Pieces of News

In two separate news stories, both highlight the highly competitive nature of California's U.S. Senate race and how long-time incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer is VULNERABLE.

On the survey research front, Rasmussen is out with a poll (with a +/- 4.5 margin of error) that shows Senator Barbara Boxer not higher than 43 percent against any of her Republican challengers.  Now, the Tom Campbell folks will likely trumpet the fact that he finishes "first" in the polling -- which states that he only trails Boxer by 2 percentage points.  Carly Fiorina trails by 3.7 percent -- also within the 4.5 margin of error...so they're essentially tied.  You can see greater detail of Rasmussen's results by clicking here.

On the money front, though, the picture becomes MUCH clearer.  After all, "Money is the Mother's Milk of Politics," -- you can't win in a large state like California without it.  Carly Fiorina reported that she raised $1.7 million in the first quarter of 2010 and that she has $2.8 million cash on hand.  Campbell stated that he has raised $1.6 million since entering the race in January of this year but wouldn't disclose how much money had had on hand -- which leads one to speculate that the answer to that question is "not much."  Boxer has $8.7 million cash-on-hand and will undoubtedly raise buckets more when Barack Obama heads to town next week to raise money for her.  The Los Angeles Times has a detailed article about it.

So, now that the "facts" are on the table, again, it's important for all Republicans to assess -- who can raise the funds necessary to run against Barbara Boxer this November?  There's really only one answer to that question and it is Carly Fiorina.  Whether she raises it through donors (she already has 8,285 donors in 50 states) or contributes from her own deep pockets (she's also loaned her campaign $2.5 million), she will have the funds necessary to compete in what will be a knock-down, drag-out fight this November.