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.

What's VAT?

Ugh.  So, just yesterday, in comments to the New York State Historical Society, Paul Volker -- White House economic advisor -- indicated that the idea of a value-added tax "was not as toxic of an idea" as it has been in the past and he also said a carbon and other energy-related tax may become necessary. 

As stated in the Washington Post, a VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer.  Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer.  It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor.  But, VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for healthcare for every American (read...return of "Single Payer" healthcare) -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.  (sounds like Washington politicians know what we want...or at least are willing to tell us what we want...whether we want/need it or not)

Leaving aside for a minute Barack Obama's empty pledge that if you earned less than $250,000 a year, "your taxes won't go up a dime"...a dollar figure our fact-challenged president subsequently lowered to $200,000.  You get the drift -- or, the drift as the case may be is the downward trend on the income-level that will be taxed.  Even the left-leaning post states that a VAT tax is regressive.

The floating of the VAT trial baloon -- which Volker likely did at the prodding of the White House -- fits in with other comments from Congressional Democrats about a VAT.  On May 27, 2009, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, declared that a VAT should be part of any debate to close massive deficits projected under Obama's policies.  You can read the full article here.  And, in October of 2009, California's illustrious Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, spoke favorably of a VAT when she appeared on the Charlie Rose show.  Read good old Nancy's comments here.

Taken together, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have one goal in mind...to institute European style socialism in America.  You see, a VAT is essentially a national sales tax.  Imagine this national levy added to already skyrocketing state and local taxes.  The VAT ranges as high as 25% in Europe.  Accompying the VAT is a corresponding growth in big government programs -- you get the picture.  When Obama pledged to be "transformational," what he was talking about was changing the way America has functioned for quite some time and replacing it with a failed European model.

The VAT, coupled with cap-and-tax, about which I've written earlier (it's the new socialism), would really make America the envy of the rest of the world...they'd be envious because our manufacturing, jobs and services would flow to China, India and other places less expensive than America at an even quicker rate...further eroding America as a world leader.

Oh, and to make matters even worse...the VAT may be in addition to an increased tax on high-income individuals AND added to, not instead of, our current income tax.  So, what is VAT?  VAT sound is Washington, DC shoving its hand deeper and deeper into our pockets to take our hard-earned cash to pay for a bloated, inefficient big government.

California, Cap-And-Trade and the AB 32 Folly

For global warming alarmists, efforts to curb greenhouse gasses has moved far beyond a legislative priority, it's reached a religious or philosophy level. I've said and written for quite some time that environmentalism is the new socialism -- a means by the few to control the behavior of the many, irrespective of costs or impact on society at large.

Governor Schwarzenegger and his other "green-thumbed" buddies hailed the passage of AB 32 a number of years ago as ground breaking, a piece of legislation that would be copied by other states in the effort reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ha! Thankfully that's not the case.

This morning, the San Diego Union Tribune editorialized about the folly of the greenies...saying that in everywhere but California, cap-and-trade legislation has been put on hold. Why? Because it's very costly and it is a job killer, not a job creator. My favorite part of the editorial is:

But in Sacramento – even with unemployment at a 70-year high of 12.7 percent – this common sense is assailed. Even as the respected, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that AB 32’s implementation would force the loss of jobs, proposals to suspend AB 32 by Republican lawmakers and GOP gubernatorial candidates are ridiculed by the governor and the likely Democratic candidate to replace him.

California's Legislative Analyst Office, in a March 4, 2010, letter to State Senator Dave Cogdill indicated that in the near-term, AB 32's implementation would result in job loss. Shockingly (really?!?) the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and AB 32 supporters indicated that it would actually create jobs -- let me guess, those are those mythical "green jobs" that everyone crows about. You can find a copy of the LAO's letter to Cogdill by going to Greg Lucas' California Capitol blog (one of my favorites, by the way, if you're interested in what's happening in Sacramento).

Nationally, seven Democrat United States Senators, including Dianne Feinstein, called for cap-and-trade (really, it should be known as cap-and-tax) legislation to be put aside in favor of job creation and economic revitalization. With the Democrats already facing HUGE electoral losses this November, attempts to move a job-killing national energy tax - which would not make one bit of difference in reducing greenhouse gases - is simply not palatable. This tax would devastate the American economy and ruin many states on a permanent basis. But, going back to my original thesis -- cap and tax is not about legislative priorities. Environmentalism is the new socialism, whereby a "few" control the actions of the many...regardless of the costs...because the "few" know what we want better than we do.

But, in the ideological world of California's greenies, jobs and economic recovery be damned. They mindlessly push AB 32 in spite of its HUGE costs, its job-killing potential and, ultimately, its negative impact that will re-make the Golden State into a worker's paradise...where greater tax revenue flows to the state, government workers grow in number while private sector employment declines and business flee the state. This cycle will create the need for further tax revenues to feed the beast. You get the picture.

AB 32 needs to be suspended now, if not canceled permanently. Politicians can ignore the facts...but they are the facts and they do so at their own peril.

Public Sector Outpacing the Private Sector

USA Today posts a very troubling article today that points out one of the main reasons why the U.S. is in so much trouble -- a phenomenon that's being played out in Washington, DC right now, but is also being repeated at the state and local level throughout our country.

Essentially, to summarize the article, it states that federal employees earn more money than do their private sector counter parts.

My friends who support a big government say, "So what. What's wrong with that?" The answer is simple. Historically, men and women worked for the federal government (substitute state or local, as you see fit). They did so because while they made less money than private sector counter parts, they got a better retirement package, better health benefits and fewer hours (come and go as they please, plus all those holidays). Well, now because of the power of public employee unions, the government employees still have the "primo" retirement package, cadillac healthcare benefits and ample holidays...but their salaries exceed the private sector. I don't blame the unions for being effective advocates for their members...but I do blame the elected officials for caving to them on these unsustainable demands.

No wonder our local, state and federal governments are broke!

Creating and Saving "Green" Jobs...In China

I've always believed that the federal "stimulus" was a total crock -- a $787 billion boondoggle that funded big government and Democrat pet projects, but would do little to create jobs (or save them, too...but since that's a totally made-up statistic, I won't mention it here). Mind you, Barack, Biden and his Democrat pals all crowed about how the stimulus would halt unemployment at 8 percent...it's now at 9.7, having dropped from 10 percent. And, Barack indicated that it would create 3.6 million jobs...with 90 percent of those coming from the private sector. So much for the Obama Administration's prognostications.

Now, there are two interesting articles -- one in the Washington Post and another in Politico -- that calls attention to the fact that 79-percent of clean energy stimulus money grants were given to foreign firms. Maybe I've been looking at the "stimulus" all wrong. As the articles point out, four Senate Democrats -- yes, the President's own party -- are furious that the "stimulus" monies have been doled out to foreign companies.

In Obama's quest to make big oil and carbon-based fuel taboo, and in the quest to create the always illusive "green jobs," the President will do anything and everything in his plans to create these jobs...irrespective of where they are actually located. Heaven forbid that we have ample supplies of domestic energy supplies -- coal, natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. -- locally. Instead, Obama has to outsource these jobs to foreign countries. Interestingly, doesn't this just trade one "dependence" on foreign sources of energy for another?

Further proof that the "stimulus" is a sham. And, ultimately, who cares if jobs are green, red, black or brown. America just need jobs -- something that the Obama Administration has yet to create.

Klink Comments on CA US Senate Race

Today, the segment I taped yesterday on Fox News ran during its national political segment -- at 3 p.m. PST. Fox News correspondent Anita Vogel and I spoke for quite some time about the California Senate Race...which is potentially competitive for the first time in quite some time.

Check out the video here.




Click here for a link to an Internet story about the same newscast.

Obama's Love-Hate Relationship with Carbon

President Obama is on his anti-carbon-horse again. In a Las Vegas town hall today, he made the case that many Americans depend on "dirty" forms of energy and that there needs to be a transition period to make costs not hit folks quickly -- i.e., get ready to pay more...just not now...we'll spread out those costs over time. Thanks, Chuck Todd for your post on this (the italics are mine).

In a separate Chuck Todd post, he mentions that President Obama tried to make the case that setting carbon standards will jump-start innovation, just like mileage standards did with automobiles.

I'm continually struck by the Obama Administration's fanaticism about carbon (he must be channeling his inner-Al Gore)...specifically with the need to regulate carbon and have the federal government consume the massive revenue associatd with doing so.

Look no further than the "Cap and Tax" legislation that's now bogged down in the Senate. While it passed a Democrat-controlled house, there were massive Democrat defections. In the Senate, it's stalled, in a large part because of unanimous Republican opposition and because Democrats in key states (read, those up for re-election) fear the huge costs associated with implementing such a tax scheme...for LITTLE if any environmental benefit.

Recently, Obama spoke about the need for nuclear power -- specifically he mentioned that he favors the construction of two new plants. These words hopefully show some flexibility in his approach to energy, in that the President isn't "locked in" to just "green" energy sources (wind, water and solar cannot possibly cover America's needs)...but two nuclear plants alone doesn't make a national energy policy. The reality is that these plants will take a decade to permit...so any "relief" will take a LONG time.

If the President were serious about "energy independence," he would look under every rock domestically to make that occur with a diversity of energy sources. America is blessed with massive oil and natural gas reserves in all parts of the US. And, we can't forget about clean coal. Talk about job creation and a jobs program...there it is. These sources should be tapped ASAP so that our dependent on foreign sources of energy diminishes over time.

As for the ever-popular "green" energy that Obama says will yield jobs...the reality is that if we lose hundreds or thousands of jobs from what he terms "dirty" energy and replace them with tens or hundreds of jobs for "clean" energy...America loses in the short-term and in the long-term. What Obama has either ignored or fails to understand is that American can do BOTH -- we should enhance our domestic energy resources and look to develop green energy.

Barack Obama has yet to find a balance on the energy front. He is driven by a green energy quest -- one that runs counter to his top priority, job creation and retention. Until he can find a way to achieve this balance, expect that Republicans, some Democrats and majorities of the American public will oppose his plans.

I've said for quite some time that overwhelming majorities of Americans fancy themselves environmentalists...until specific costs are attributed to so-called "environmental reforms." That's what is happening now.

Obama, Las Vegas and Harry Reid

Tomorrow, Barack Obama will visit Nevada to stump for embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Obama's attendance is a mixed blessing for Reid, who trails all his Republican challengers for his Senate re-election bid.

Obama's attendance is a positive because among the Democrat faithful, he can still "rally the troops" and he can raise money with the best of them. So, Reid's already swelling campaign coffers will grow by that much more -- money he'll desperately need to run a negative campaign in the general election...largely because the Majority Leader's numbers are so bad.

But, Obama's attendance may prove to be a curse. Obama stumped for Creigh Deeds in Virginia, for John Corzine in New Jersey and for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. And, well, let's just say that we all know how these races played out. Don't think that Reid isn't worried about being the second Democrat Majority Leader (recall Tom Daschle) to go down in flames.

I'm sure that Reid called in a favor and Obama was obliged to respond to Reid's request...after all, the Senate Majority Leader has tried to carry Obama's water in the Senate. Also, President Obama is looking to make nice with Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goldman. (By the way, wasn't Oscar Goldman Steve Austin's boss in the Six-Million Dollar Man...sorry...couldn't resist!).

On the "thumb in your eye front," Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman rejected the White House's invitation to attend the Friday event. As you may know, Obama has now twice criticized Las Vegas...telling Americans "not to blow money on a weekend in Las Vegas" and one other time...again, focusing on Las Vegas and spending money you don't have.

Note to President Obama...you should heed your own words to Las Vegas visitors about controlling your spending -- this coming from an Administration that is the biggest spending in American history.

...Thoughts on the California Senate Race

Finally! It's been a long time since California has had a competitive U.S. Senate race, largely because Republicans have nominated nice but unelectable candidates. According to the Los Angeles Times, liberal CA Democrat Barbara Boxer is vulnerable, largely because her poll numbers are stuck in the mid-40 range...a sign of trouble for any incumbent.

For her three Republican challengers, the news appears to also be good. Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell each trail Boxer by 4 percentage points and Chuck Devore trails Boxer by five.

Just today, long-time political analyst Stu Rothenberg writes in CQ Politics:

In California, voters aren’t particularly enthusiastic about Sen. Barbara Boxer (D). She’s a polarizing political figure and running at or below 50 percent in ballot tests against either Assemblyman Chuck DeVore or businesswoman Carly Fiorina, two of the leading Republicans in the race.

Still, DeVore doesn’t have the breadth of appeal or money to defeat Boxer, while Fiorina has plenty of baggage.

Boxer’s prospects would take a hit, of course, if California Republicans were to nominate former Rep. Tom Campbell, a moderate who would have considerable statewide appeal — if he could accumulate the resources for an expensive statewide race. But Campbell’s past fundraising isn’t encouraging.

While this news may make Tom Campbell's campaign for the U.S. Senate crow...the challenge that he ultimately faces are two-fold -- and they're BIG ones. First, he simply cannot raise the money to compete against a well-funded Democrat incumbent like Barbara Boxer. Boxer and liberal special interest groups would spend whatever it takes to keep the entrenched incumbent in office...and Campbell would be left on the sidelines with lukewarm GOP support. Nominating him would be foolish for the California Republican Party...but they've done foolish things in the past. Second, Tom Campbell has a well-documented history of supporting tax increases, which should be TABOO in Washington this year. If he is the Republican nominee, he can't now say, "well, that was then, this was now."

On the Chuck Devore front, he is a really nice guy...but too ideologically conservative to get elected in the Golden State. He would notch 40 to 45 percent of the vote in the general election and Barbara Boxer would skate. Historically, California Republicans have placed ideology over electability. Let's hope that's not the case.

While Stu Rothenberg mentions that Carly Fiorina has "plenty of baggage," she has the resources at her disposal to define herself and her opponent -- and her pro-business, tough on defense positions make her infinitely electable. And, the fact that she would be a Republican woman running against Barbara Boxer would make for an interesting race -- two accomplished, tough-as-nails women slugging it out. I disagree with Rothenberg on his call about Campbell.

So, while the California Senate race appears to be in play...it really rests with whom Republican voters nominate to run against Boxer.

Only time will tell.

Of Water and Jobs

So Republican GOP Senate candidate Tom Campbell announced his support for Senator Dianne Feinstein's water amendment in the Jobs Bill, indicating that unemployment is at historically high levels in California's Central Valley.

We don't need another Stimulus Plan -- re-named a "jobs bill" -- to identify the true cause of the Central Valley's unemployment -- the prohibition of pumping because of the Delta smelt! The fact that water has been cut off from California's agricultural community is a significant reason why the Central Valley has high-unemployment.

Start those pumps. Allow farmers to water their crops and farm...we don't need big-government intervention and another "stimulus." We need common sense!

Global Warming -- All Things to All People

Sometimes it sucks living on the West Coast. I'd intended to write a post this morning about how I was positive that the radical enviro community would find a way to "link" the massive snow storms and cold front on the East Coast to global warming.

I arrived at my office this morning -- around the 7:30 a.m. hour -- to find a very detailed post from the Heritage Foundation about global warming called, "Global Warming - Is There Anything It Can't Do?"

I do feel it's important to re-post two interesting -- and contradictory -- articles contained in Heritage's e-mail. The first is an article by Time magazine that says the snow storms pounding Washington, D.C. may be caused by global warming. The second is an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in the Los Angeles Times that says the opposite. In fact, the most telling quote by Kennedy is:

"In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers."

So, rather than re-hash the entire post, I would like to state how impressed I am by the global warming community and its dexterity in making their case that global warming is real...and therefore the United States should pass a massive "cap-and-tax" energy policy that would have marginal, if any, environmental benefits, would swell government coffers (perhaps that's their real goal)...and would require massive taxes on EVERYONE to do so.

Now, the New York Times, in an article called "Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze" also attempts to make the case that "a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events." Convenient...essentially, no matter what global warming skeptics try to argue...it's wrong. Unseasonably hot weather -- global warming. Record cold weather -- global warming. Middle-of-the-road weather -- global warming!

I'm more convinced now than I ever have been that global warming -- more accurately the "scientific" efforts to control it -- is nothing more than a government-enforced plot to control people. Of course, the "elite" or the "intelligentsia" wouldn't be bound by any carbon-inspired restrictions. They'll simply be able to buy "offsets" for their "abuse" but poor, average Joe and Jane Six-Pack won't be able to do so. Driving will cost more. Flying will become cost-prohibitive. Factories will close down...but, we'll be creating all those "green jobs" so everything will be OK.. PLEEEEEEZ!

Al Gore, we're told, has a massive house that consumes tremendous amounts of energy. He travels the world on private jets...planes that belch massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere...making the problem Al has waxed poetically about for years that much worse. But, all is well, we're told. Al purchases off sets...so, it's all good! Al is planting trees in some far-off rain forest. Whew. I fell better now.

I've told my business partners, my friends, my family -- anyone who would listen for years that this whole global warming thing is over-blown. Everyone, in some way, shape or form, is an environmentalist, especially in California. I love the beach and our parks as much as the next person. However, once governments or elected officials attribute specific costs to any "environmental" measures (cap and tax being the most recent)...that's when support for them declines precipitously.

And, so it (the support) has declined. Obama's cap and tax proposal is all but dead. The rhetorical flourishes by Al Gore and the radical enviro crowd have become less vocal...perhaps it's because they over-played their hand and realize that the American people aren't buying what they're selling.

Of Palm Writings and Teleprompters

So yesterday, White House press flak Gibbs went after Sarah Palin for writing notes on her hand...which she did during her remarks at the Tea Party Convention this past weekend. The notes were apparently "reminders" for Palin to hit hot-button topics of energy and taxes during her keynote remarks at the Convention.

Gibbs, as portrayed in the Washington Post article (with video) makes fun of Palin's crib notes, adding the words "hope" and "change" to a shopping list -- eggs, milk, bread, which Gibbs crosses out.

A couple things strike me as ironic about Gibbs' attempt to poke fun at Palin.

First, even with the "palm writings" Palin utilizes, at least she's using her own words, talking to real people. Gibbs' boss, Barack Obama, uses a TelePrompter for EVERYTHING...even in allegedly "impromptu" remarks...in part because he is known for stepping in it when he speaks off the cuff.

Second, if such antics were even attempted by a Republican press secretary criticizing a Democrat female, such antics would be lambasted by the liberal/left as anti-woman. But, it appears the mainstream media gives Gibbs a pass.

Third, why is it that the Democrats and the Obama Administration so fear Sarah Palin? Clearly, her message has hit a "sore spot" in Obama-land.

My end thought is this..."how's that hopey-changey-thing working for ya?"

Talk about a White House searching desperately for a message...feebly attempting to grasp onto anything that gets traction.

It's All About Small Business...and Stability

Folks in Washington and Sacramento just don't get it. They try and try to appear friendly to small businesses, but their feeble attempts to create a more "business friendly" environment all fall short.

The classic example of this "failure" is Barack Obama's attempt to "stimulate" small businesses -- a second time. The first stimulus failed miserably to entice small business owners to hire new employees...but it did grow government. So, now, Obama and his Democrat minions want to enact a series of targeted tax credits and small business loans. I guess for someone from the non-profit/community organizing world, if all you know is government involvement, hand-out politics, then this approach makes sense. Unfortunately, the Small Business Administration is woefully poor at picking winners and losers (probably because politics and social engineering get in the way), and tax credits don't encourage long-term hiring.

What Washington -- and Sacramento -- need to understand is that small businesses make long-term decisions on hiring based on stability and predictability. By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire -- you know, the ones that supposedly bailed out the rich -- small business owners (many of whom file their tax returns as individuals...and thus exceed the $250,000 limit) will be hit with a tax increase. This environment is not conducive to more hiring. Perhaps this is why the US is stuck at a 9.7% unemployment rate -- a rate that will grow...and California faces a 12.4% umemployment rate.

Obama, Washington Dems and Sacramento politicians need to get out of the way. LOWER taxes, decrease regulation...and magically, small businesses will begin hiring again. We've seen the alternative. Heavy government involvement will only grow government, which in turn leads to the need for higher taxes on individuals and the private sector, which in turn decreases the job-creation environment. We're caught in a dangerous downward spiral. But, for Obama, that may be what he intends!!!