A few weeks ago we reported on how the Services Employees International Union was attempting to fix the vote in Sonoma County, California so that Sonoma’s in-home healthcare workers would end up with SEIU representation instead of NUHW representation.

Well, Sonoma wasn’t an isolated case. The SEIU used the same vote fixing tactics in Fresno County.

Andy Stern’s SEIU is playing hardball, using techniques that harken back to the mob-infested old days in order to win the game of representation. And THIS is the guy that President Obama is taking close counsel from? A goon. A thug. A mob-like hitman.

It’s the Chicago Way, alright. From Chicago to Fresno and Sonoma Counties all the way to the White House. This president and his cronies are instituting mob action everywhere they go.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Senator John McCain’s future in the U.S. Senate may be a little less assured than previously thought.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely 2010 Republican Primary voters in Arizona finds the longtime incumbent in a virtual tie with potential challenger J.D. Hayworth. McCain earns 45% of the vote, while Hayworth picks up 43%.

Former Minuteman leader Chris Simcox gets four percent (4%) support, while two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Hayworth, a conservative former U.S. congressman who now is a popular radio talk show host in Phoenix, is reportedly interested in the race but has not formally declared for it.

John McCain ran a disastrous campaign last year. He could have won and been President McCain — I truly believe this — were it not for his own bungling. The stars did not align perfectly for Obama. There were plenty of mistakes made by the Obama campaign, plenty of cards McCain could have played. But his Democrat-Lite reputation pissed off a lot of people in his own party, and he made tons of mistakes. It no doubt left a sour taste in many voters’ mouths. And with amnesty about to rear its ugly head again, I’m not surprised that Arizona voters are considering kicking him to the curb.

Bill Kristol and AllahPundit are floating the possibility of Sarah Palin coming to bail him out. Allah goes over the reasons that this would be politically advantageous for Palin, but frankly, I hope she doesn’t. First, in my opinion, it’s high time we get rid of John McCain. He’s a giant squish who has made a career out of pissing off Republicans as much as possible. We need to be weeding out the RINOs right now, not doing everything we can to help them retain their seats. Second, Palin was treated abysmally by the McCain campaign staff. They handcuffed her, gagged her, and then once the campaign was over, abandoned her and then stabbed her in the back. McCain may himself have not said or done anything, but he looked the other way while it happened and certainly didn’t come to her defense. He is a brave, courageous man in many aspects, but in this one, he was a coward. Sarah Palin was a risky choice for him. He’s the maverick, the one who relishes being the media darling. I don’t think he enjoyed being hammered in the media, and she certainly didn’t lighten that load for him. He plucked her out of relative obscurity, and then left her to be fed to the wolves. Yet now, she’s supposed to come and bail him out? She’s a rising star; he’s an old has-been. He’ll probably need her help, and if I was Sarah Palin, I wouldn’t give it. The only downfall is it makes her look petty and vindictive. I would think the best move for her would be to endorse neither candidate and make some kind of non-committal statement about how McCain is a great person and not say much more.

Of course, Allah’s predicting that McCain will be too stubborn and prideful to go begging for her help. If he won’t, then it eliminates the burden off of her shoulders. Hopefully, that’s exactly what happens, and McCain fades into obscurity after this election cycle. His career’s frankly gone on way too long.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.

As it turns out, neither was true.

But Hoffman’s concession — based on snafus in Oswego County and elsewhere that left his vote undercounted — set off a chain of events that echoed all the way to Washington, D.C., and helped secure passage of a historic health care reform bill.

Democratic Rep. Bill Owens was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party’s narrow victory on the health care legislation.

Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.

In Oswego County, where Hoffman was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes — 12,748 to 11,000.

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed, said John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections.

Under a new law in New York that extended deadlines, military and overseas ballots received by this coming Monday (and postmarked by Nov. 2) will be counted. Standard absentee ballots had to be returned this past Monday.

The state hasn’t certified the election yet, but Nancy Pelosi wasted no time swearing in Bill Owens. Owens then, of course, registered one more Democratic vote for Obama’s government run health care. If all the ballots are counted, and the result is changed, then Owens will have to be removed.

With all of this in mind, Doug Hoffman has un-conceded. His victory could still be a long shot, but with 10,000 ballots to be counted, it’s entirely possible that the result could be different. This could be huge for conservatives if Hoffman wins — and it should serve as a powerful lesson to never concede until every ballot is counted.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In the Washington Examiner Mark Tapscott is decrying the Obama Administration’s bold new directive to rid government of anyone that was hired during the Bush years so that Obama can replace them with his loyal operatives.Tapscott is saying that this violates the spirit of civil service and brings back the spoils system instituting a “partisan political factor” to civil service jobs.

Well I say it’s about time. Unlike Tapscott, I say bring back the spoils system and do away with the professional civil servant. Let Obama fire every Bush appointee and put in their place, his political hacks, buddies and friends. And then let the next president do the same… and so on, and so on.

First let’s explain what happened. As Tapscott reports:

John Berry, President Obama’s director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), has issued a new directive that is clearly designed to weed out any Bush administration political appointees who “careered-into” the civil service.

Tapscott explains that this Berry fellow has altered the rules to make it likely that Bush appointees will not be “approved” by OPM and that leaves their positions open for Obama to fill with his supporters and friends. Sure it’s a Sovietesque system that Obama wants to institute. Sure it’s a disruption of government and a complete slap in the face to honest civil servants that have spent decades in their jobs.

But so what?

Well, I not only support Obama’s new spoils system, I think it should go even farther. Dispense with this whole notion of “qualified” personnel for civil service. Let’s get rid of the OPM entirely and just fire everyone that worked for Bush regardless of how well they do the job. Obama should dump them all and put his own people in. And, as I said, the next president should do the same.

You see, I am for the spoils system, that old fashioned system where a new president would reward his buddies and supporters by giving them federal jobs.

Now, we all know why the spoils system was eliminated. It made the federal government horribly unstable. Jobs were usually filled by ner-do-wells that just wanted a handout and this sysem filled the government with people wholly unqualified for the positions offered. It clobbered the effectiveness of government slowing the wheels of progress tremendously.

And I pine for those days. What we sorely need today is a government that does less, CAN do less, and will do less. We need a government that barely fills all its positions before the next president comes into office to start all over again. After all, the largest number of federal jobs only serve to drag down our economy and feed off our treasury. In fact, it would be great to see a president wasting his time for months on end filling these jobs, too.

Why am I in favor of all this incompetence and wasted time, you might ask? Because if the president is stuck wasting months dealing with hangers-on seeking spoils jobs, if the government finds positions left empty and “jobs” not done, if the whole political system is slowed to a crawl while placemen and job seekers try to get their handout… tell me what will be happening?

Think about it.

Yes, what will be happening is that government won’t be bothering we the people! Government will not be spending time annoying the people, trouncing on businesses, wasting our tax dollars on idiotic faux jobs that don’t need filling anyway. Even better it also means that public employees unions will be gone, baby gone. Who needs to waste federal funds on a pension plan if no federal worker ever gets more than 8 years in their useless, make-work jobs?

Sure, bringing back the spoils system might return us to a day when government is less effective. But just like the Congressional Effect system of economic tracking proves, the country is always in worse shape when Congress is in session, when government is “doing something.” As they say, the most feared words in all of history are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

On the other hand, this effort does prove that Obama is pushing the Chicago Way all the way to Washington. See, here in da Windy City, it ain’t what ya know, it’s who ya know.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Mark Kirk is denying that he’s trying to angle rightward in the run up to the GOP primary next year with his recent reaching out to Governor Sarah Palin to secure her endorsement for his candidacy.

“I think I am who I am. I am a social moderate, fiscal conservative. But this is a big race and we are building a broad coalition and it will be, for a Republican candidacy, a center-right coalition, but for me, I haven’t changed my views.”

This is, of course, rather interesting. Kirk is reaching out to conservatives by courting one of their idols in Sarah Palin, yet is also claiming he hasn’t changed his views. It makes one wonder just why a conservative would want to vote for him if he isn’t even interested in paying lip service to their causes?

In essence, Kirk is saying vote for me… and I’ll ignore all you stand for. After all Kirk’s record is more often center left than center right.

Kirk is rated poorly by the National Right to Life Committee and nearly 100% by abortion supporters. The NRA has awarded him a grade of “D.” The American Conservative Union rates him at 40% for 2007 and 48% for 2008. On jobs the CATO Institute gives him an even 50% saying his record is mixed. And in one of his stronger areas, on taxes Kirk is rated only at 58% by the National Taxpayers Union. As you can see, these hot button, conservative issues put him mostly in the center left category, not center right.

So, it is amusing that Kirk is claiming to be seeking the vote of that “center right coalition” yet also says he won’t change his positions in order to attract their support!

Who exactly is Kirk trying to kid? He’d elicit more respect for himself if he just said that he’ll support the center right position a little less than half the time but that any Democrat won’t even be that weighted to the right. Let’s be honest here. Mark Kirk is a center left candidate, not a center right one.

But, for sure his Democrat opponent is a left/far left candidate. Kirk will be on the side of conservatives more so than the Democrat, but he is positively no center right guy. It’s just that simple.

In the end, there really is no reason at all for Sarah Palin to endorse Mark Kirk before the primary. Maybe, to be a good party member, she’ll endorse him after the primaries when there is no conservative choice. But before the primary there is no reason at all for a conservative minded person to support Mark Kirk.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On November 5 on CNN, Florida Governor Charlie Crist told Wolf Blitzer that he didn’t back the $787 billion Obama stimulus bill. Crist has since said that it isn’t a flip flop when he says he supported the stimulus “in concept” but didn’t support the specific bill.

In essence he’s trying to have it both ways. Claiming he wasn’t a supporter of the actual bill, but hedging by saying he felt something was necessary. It seems to be Crist’s way of straddling the line.

Unfortunately, the facts seem to belie Crist’s delicately balanced tightrope act because in February of 2009 Crist was one of 18 U.S. governors (along with the governor of the Virgin Islands) that signed a letter informing President Obama that they supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). (See pdf of letter here)

Despite being a signatory of the letter Crist is now saying he didn’t support the specific stimulus bill. After speaking at the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Crist told the press, ““I think the question posed to me was, ‘Did you endorse this specific bill?’ And I said, ‘No, I didn’t,’ but the concept I thought, and still believe, was important, necessary and it helped Florida.”

The letter Crist signed, however, does not mention any ideas “in concept” but specifically supports the $787 billion stimulus bill itself. The letter begins quite clearly in support of the $787 billion stimulus bill saying, “We are writing to express our support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).” What could be clearer?

How Crist can possibly claim that he never supported this specific bill when his name appears on this letter is anyone’s guess.

Text of Letter:

February 3, 2009

Dear Mr. President

We are writing to express our support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which passed last week in the House and is under consideration currently in the Senate. As stewards of the economies of our respective states and regions, we urge the Congress to reach prompt resolution of all outstanding differences and you to sign the bill when it reaches your desk.

Families and businesses across the nation are hurting. Credit markets have seized up, which is affecting both business activity and consumer spending. Unemployment is rising sharply. While we all believe in the importance of free markets, we believe that the markets today need stimulating.

We support then objectives of the ARRA and welcome the partnership it offers us as governors. The support for a temporary increase in the federal commitment for public education, health care (including cost control through initiatives such as health records IT), and for rebuilding our public infrastructure will create and preserve jobs today, and represents a sound investment in our long-term economic interests as well. We look forward to working with Congress and your Administration to advance an economic recovery package that puts federal dollars to work in our states in the quickest and most efficient manner as possible.

Signed
Deval Patrick, Mass.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Calif.
Bill Ritter, Col.
M. Jodi Rell, Conn.
Jack Markell, Del.
Charlie Crist, Fla.
Pat Quinn, Ill.
Chester Culver, Iowa
Jennifer Granholm, Mich.
Jon Corzine, New Jersey
David Paterson, New York
Ted Strickland, Ohio
Brad Henry, Oklahoma
Ted Kulongoski, Oregon
Ed Rendell, Penn.
James Douglas, Vermont
Tim Kaine, Vir.
Jim Doyle, Wisc.
John deJongh, Virgin Islands

It is also telling that out of the 19 signers of the letter, only four are Republicans, all from very liberal states.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In the recent race in New York’s 23rd District we saw a perfect example of the way that ACORN tries to undermine the political process.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

His concession speech on Tuesday sounded almost like a sigh of relief.

Yes, a sigh of relief from the residents of NJ. How bad is it when a life-long registered Democrat, who has NEVER voted Republican, votes for Christie? Pretty bad. Thanks, Mom! Her friends did, too.

Considering the career trajectory of Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, a man who spent more than $130 million of his fortune on three campaigns but never seemed comfortable operating in the spotlight most politicians relish, it was not surprising, his supporters say, that one of Mr. Corzine’s most eloquent speeches came as he accepted his humiliating defeat.

But, only humiliating for Corzine, not Obama, right, Fish Wrap?

Mr. Corzine, whose liberal politics made him a misfit on Wall Street, made a brash and expensive debut to elective office by capturing a United States Senate seat in 2000, then five years later seizing the chance to capture the throne of the state’s politics, the governor’s office.

Sound familiar? (except for the part about actually having a real job, of course)

Yet he seemed equally miscast in Trenton, where allies and adversaries considered him too aloof to fully engage in the daily tussle of governing.

Double sound familiar?

Mr. Corzine suffered setbacks that were not entirely of his own making. A car crash almost killed him halfway through his term, and forced him to spend months recuperating. Soon afterward, the worst financial climate since the Depression swept the state, forcing him to make unpopular choices.

Things that weren’t his fault, apparently, despite having served as a US Senator before becoming the Chief Executive of New Jersey. Things he could would blame on others, despite not having worn a seat belt and been a US Senator. Sound triple familiar?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

House Democratic leaders are pushing for a Saturday vote on their sweeping health-care bill, but they are struggling to win over shaky rank-and-file members who could hold up its passage.

Democrats tacked new provisions onto the legislation late Tuesday, clearing one of the final hurdles for bringing the bill to the floor. One of the additions would raise $24 billion for the bill by eliminating a biofuels tax break for pulp and paper companies. Another would place tighter restrictions on insurance companies to prevent them from increasing consumers’ premiums without cause.

How do you get to a 1,900+ page bill? Massive beauracratese language, new entitlements, and bribes. Let’s call them what they are. If this happened in the private sector, some people would be hauled up in front of a judge and jury.

But the changes didn’t resolve sharp differences among Democrats over how the bill handles funding for abortion, with some saying they won’t support the legislation until it addresses their concerns. Republican victories in two gubernatorial elections Tuesday night are also making some wavering members uneasy about voting for a $1.055 trillion bill.

Lost among all the hoopla about bribes, abortion funding, and the costs, is the unknown measure of how this will work exactly. No one really knows. The Democrats sure aren’t saying, beyond the typical talking point that it will lower costs and we need health care reform. How. I have been asking “how” for 5 months, at least. I have called my local Congress Critter’s office (Brad Miller, D-NC-13) dozens of times, and Senator Kay Hagan’s office at least 6 times, and no one can actually give me real details. Nor can they explain how my taxes will not sky-rocket.

For party leaders, setting a weekend deadline for passage represented a calculated risk, one that could backfire if the vote — now expected late Saturday or Sunday — fails or must be delayed. But they feared that if members were given more time to consider the legislation, new issues could arise, particularly as lawmakers digest the results from Tuesday’s elections. Most ominous for Democrats were their losses in gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia, although the party did prevail in House special elections in New York and California.

Queen Nancy has broken her pledge to put the final bill on-line for all to view at least 72 hours ahead of a vote. And John Fund reports on the Madness Of Queen Nancy

“It reminds me of Major Nicholson, the obsessed British major in the film ‘Bridge on the River Kwai,’” one Democrat told me. “She is fixated on finishing her health care bridge even as she’s lost sight of where it’s going and what damage it could cause to her own troops.”

I just have to wonder how ugly the tone of the country will be if Democrats manage to pass this suicidal piece of craptacular legislation.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The morning after Republicans lost an upstate New York House seat, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that conservative activists will bring destruction to the Republican Party if they drive out moderate candidates across the country.

“To those people who are pursuing purity, you’ll become a club not a party,” Graham told POLITICO in the Capitol Wednesday. “Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservatism is an asset. Blind ideology is not.”

The problem with people like Lindsay is that they really do not stand for Conservative principles, and warning about the Party moving too far to the Right is idiotic. As I wrote last night in an article about Michelle Bachmann

It’s high time that Republicans realize that being Democrat Lite, wanting to be liked by the media and Democrats, capitulating to Democrats, forgetting what they were elected for, spending too much, and a few more items, gets them nowhere. They need to move back to the middle, otherwise known as Classic Liberalism, ie, American Conservatism. And grow some cajones.

Folks like Lindsay are exactly what is wrong with the Party. Consider

Graham, who has sparred with his party’s right wing on issues ranging from climate change to Guantanamo Bay to Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, warned that those concerned about the state of the GOP should help find candidates who are electable — not ones who adhere to a particular type of ideology. And he said that both the GOP nominee, Dede Scozzafava and the conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman were both out of the mainstream of the upstate New York district – which lead to the victory of Democrat Bill Owens Tuesday night.

Graham is not quite in Olympia Snowe’s brand of RINOism, but, he is darn close. Folks like Lindsay are sitting on the far left of the Republican party, and, like Arlen Specter, were he to switch his Party affiliation, no one would really know the difference.

And, if someone like Doug Hoffman, not the most exiting of candidates, is outside the mainstream because he stands up for American Conservative principles and the 9-12 Principles, well, then so was Ronald Reagan. So were the Founders and Framers.

Instead of making these types of pronouncements, perhaps Lindsay should look inside himself and think about what his constituents stand for, and what his principles have become.

Graham took issue with conservatives taking aim at Rep. Mike Castle (D-Del.), a moderate seeking Joe Biden’s old Senate seat next year, as well as conservatives looking to take out former businesswoman Carly Fiorina, the choice of Washington Republicans to challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in next year’s election.

Perhaps Lindsay could bring Queen Nancy tea and biscuits each afternoon. As Michelle Malkin wrote: Here is one of the loudest messages of the 2009 off-off-year elections: Conservatives in America will no longer let their opponents define them as outside of the mainstream. Lindsay should start acting like a Conservative, rather than a liberal sycophant.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post