Archive for the ‘2010 Election’ Category

Election 2010 and the Unmentionable Sailer Strategy

November 27, 2010

Interesting take on the mid-term emections from a demographic perspective

From VDare.com:

The 2010 mid-term elections were a dramatic reversal from the 2008 Presidential election year. But current commentary is losing sight of that—because it had looked like the election could have been even bigger, particularly for patriotic immigration reformers. Richard Hoste, among the most brilliant of younger commentators, has even suggested sadly that Sharron Angle’s loss to Senator Harry Reid in Nevada calls into question what VDARE.COM has called the “Sailer Strategy”—the idea that inreach to its white base, not outreach to minorities, is the key to future GOP success. I disagree.

Read the rest here.

 

Advertisements

Was Harry Reid’s Re-election a fraud?

November 16, 2010

From the Canada Free Press

Harry won his hometown, Searchlight, Nevada by a whopping 3 votes…Sharon Angle’s attorney, Cleta Mitchell has filed a complaint with the Justice Department alleging voter intimidation on behalf of the Reid campaign…She noted in a letter to the Las Vagas Sun, that the Democrats and their cronies are up to their same old tricks, of trying to manipulate the election in hopes of skewing the results in their favor. “Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers’ unions are offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid”…Attorney Mitchell said that “what Harry Reid was doing is clearly illegal”…

A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Clark County and SEIU Local 1107 puts the union in charge of servicing all voting machines…Given that SEIU Local 1107 technicians run Clark County voting machines, any glitches in the end must be the responsibility of these workers. And these glitches appear to have been more than an accident…during early balloting, for example, a number of voters in Boulder City complained Reid’s name already was checked.

Read the rest here:  Ballot Fraud

DJH

Pelosi – Denial and Conquer

November 10, 2010

In an op-ed in USA Today, Nancy Pelosi spins the party line that she expects will negate the disastrous mid-term election results the Democrats have suffered. Refusing to admit that there was any message in those results regarding the agenda she, along with Obama, has been pushing, she is advocating a tactic of denial and conquer to win the hearts and minds of the American majority.

To Pelosi, the mid-term elections were all about jobs. Nothing else seems to have been at issue. She “humbly” admits that Democrats are disappointed with the rate of job growth, but goes on to tell us “it does not diminish what we have accomplished”. The idea that some of those “accomplishments” even had many Democrats distancing themselves from the fallout never registers with Nancy.

She touts the “experts” calling the 111th Congress the most productive in half a century, “putting the American people before politics”. This is a denial of the forced partisan passage of bills that blatantly disregarded the majority of American’s wishes. It also displays her misguided idea that the mere passage of a bill, any bill, is “productive” and a sign of success. In reality, the passage of a few of those bills was the catalyst for the disastrous election results.

Throughout the op-ed, Pelosi stresses the need for Democrats to “create” jobs, the focus of her denial and conquer strategy. The problem with this is that it is not the government’s responsibility to create jobs. It never was. Jobs are created by businesses, and government should only be concerned with helping to create an atmosphere that is favorable to business growth. It may be that Pelosi considers growing the bureaucracy of government to be job creation, but that is one of those issues that hurt Democrats in the elections.

Pelosi seems intent on denying any message of agenda rejection in the elections. This is already the direction many Democrats have taken and Pelosi is trying to maintain her leadership. It seems that the lemmings are headed to the sea with Pelosi in the lead once again.

David J. Hentosh

What the Next Speaker Must Do

November 7, 2010

From the Wall Street Journal, an editorial by John Boehner, who will likely replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, (thank goodness!):

I grew up in a small house on a hill in Cincinnati, Ohio, with 11 brothers and sisters. My dad ran a bar, Andy’s Café, that my grandfather Andrew Boehner opened in 1938. We didn’t have much but were thankful for what we had. And we didn’t think much about Washington.

That changed when I got involved with a small business, which I eventually built into a successful enterprise. I saw firsthand how government throws obstacles in the way of job-creation and stifles our prosperity. It prompted me to get involved in my government, and eventually took me to Congress.

Millions of Americans have had a similar experience. They look at Washington and see an arrogance of power. They see a Congress that doesn’t listen, that is ruled by leaders who seem out of touch and dismissive, even disdainful, of the anger that Americans feel toward their government and the challenges they face in an economy struggling to create jobs.

The political landscape has been permanently reshaped over the past two years. Overreaching by elected officials—in the form of pork-laden “stimulus” spending, permanent bailouts, and policies that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior—has awakened something deep in our national character. This has led to a surge of activism by citizens demanding smaller, more accountable government and a repudiation of Washington in Tuesday’s elections.

Tired of politicians who refuse to listen, Americans who previously were not involved or minimally involved in the political process are now helping to drive it. While their backgrounds are as diverse as the country itself, their message to Washington is the same: Government leaders are servants of the people; the people are not servants of their government.

Read the rest here: What the Next Speaker Must Do

The NRSC’s California Gamble a Bust

November 5, 2010

From the Washington Post by Marc Thiessen:

Monday, I wrote about the gamble the National Republic Senatorial Committee was taking in pouring $3 million into California during the final week of the election — a spending surge that brought the committee’s final investment in Carly Fiorina’s campaign to almost $8 million, far more than any other Senate race in the country. Public polls had Boxer leading by 5 to 9 points, but the NRSC said its internal polls showed the California race to be a dead heat. By spending $8 million to help one of its star recruits, the committee took on added risk in places such as Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Alaska and other states in order to swing for the fences and go for the Senate majority.

Well, the results are in, and the NRSC’s California bet was a bust. Turns out the public polls were right — Fiorina got trounced by 9.8 percent. Meanwhile, Harry Reid pulled off a come-from-behind victory over Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck appears to be losing by the narrowest of margins in Colorado, and Washington State is still too close to call. In Alaska, the final results may not be known for some time, but the NRSC’s final ads actually ended up helping Lisa Murkowski in her write-in campaign against GOP nominee Joe Miller. Instead of attacking Murkowski — the candidate who most threatened the party’s nominee — the NRSC instead took aim at Democrat Scott McAdams, who had no chance of winning. Any support they drove from McAdams was far more likely to go to Murkowski than to Miller — meaning the NRSC effort probably did more harm than good for Miller’s campaign.

Read the rest here:  The NRSC’s California Gamble a Bust

No Mr. President, We Don’t Know

November 5, 2010

President Obama, in his speech and answers to questions after the mid-term election, said “you know” eighty-four times. Such a poor manner of speaking certainly does not jive with the “great communicator” label he has been granted. Answering questions can not be assisted by a teleprompter, but one would think the “great communicator” could do better than that.

It could have been worse. He could have chewed gum the entire time, fully complimenting his valley girl speech pattern, but it was bad enough. Could it be that other attributes bestowed upon him by an adoring media are also nothing more than hype? For example, does he really have the superior intelligence that has been “assumed” for so long?

Obama’s failure to “get it” was evident in his speech and it may shed some light on the question regarding his superior intelligence. Journalist Savannah Guthrie pointedly asked him up front: “Is it possible voters can conclude you’re still not getting it?” He failed to answer that question and everything he said afterwards indicated a refusal on his part to believe it was even possible. It was either a display of mediocre intelligence or just plain arrogance – or both.

While recognizing that admitting failure is not necessarily a good political tactic, Obama could have taken the opportunity to convince the American people that he truly heard them and was willing to reconsider the direction he would now take. He did not do that. There was little indication that he understood what the people really wanted.

So, it seems that we still “don’t know” what Obama really understands even though he continually told us we knew. When pressed further about voter rejection of his policies, he said “voters are not satisfied with the outcomes” of those policies. That tells us nothing – or maybe it tells us a lot. You decide.

David J. Hentosh

The Observer at His Own Funeral

November 5, 2010

From the American Spectator, by George Neumayr:

At his post-defeat press conference, Barack Obama worked hard to project an air of somber reflection, even as his remarks revealed that he had learned nothing from the defeat.

Amidst the practiced pauses and detached narration of the crash came a litany of excuses, evasions, and arrogant denials. He more or less cast himself as the victim of a “bad economy,” as if two years of sending anti-business signals to employers had nothing to do with the high jobless rate. He made sure to note that other presidents had gotten similarly clocked after two years. And he essentially blamed the American people for a lack of perception and patience.

But since he couldn’t say that directly, he had to couch his self-justification in the form of patronizing blather about how he could have “accomplished” more, made better “progress,” and “communicated” more effectively with the American people. He tried to make some sort of phony distinction between his “policy decisions” and his “policy outcomes,” implying that the people objected to the latter but not to the former. Never mind that the exit polls demonstrated that they repudiated both.

Read the rest here: The Observer at His Own Funeral

 

Warning to GOP: This is Not a Mandate

November 4, 2010

Democrats made a fatal mistake in 2008. They considered Obama’s win as a mandate from the American people to institute a far-left agenda, forgetting that the country has historically had a center-right majority. Obama’s election was more a rejection of the Republican Bush administration than approval of the Democrat ideology.

This November’s election was a rejection of the Obama administration’s far-left agenda rather than approval of the GOP platform. It was spurred by anger over the arrogance of an administration ignoring the will of the people and pushing ideological legislation through a rubber-stamping Congress – and runaway spending.

If the GOP begins to consider that this election gives them a mandate for right-wing policies or for blocking any or all administration initiatives, they will be the losers in 2012. The American people are now getting the hang of voting out arrogant politicians and, finding a voice through the Tea Party Movement, are making demands known. The GOP needs to listen if it wishes to be successful. The Democrats did not listen.

Regardless of this election’s results, the mainstream media is not going to magically begin leaning right. It can be expected, however, that the media will rediscover the investigative journalism they abandoned while shilling for Obama and apply it to the GOP winners. This means that there can be no “politics as usual”. The new House majority will be under an angry media’s microscope and flaws will be magnified.

This could be beneficial. The Tea Party Movement’s demand that all politicians be held to a high standard needs a watchdog media to help their cause. Winning Tea Party candidates, especially, will need to follow those high standards. This could make for better politicians and better governing. It will at least make our representatives more aware of constituents’ wishes.

Perhaps this is the “hope and change” we really need. Arrogance has historically been a catalyst for failure and the GOP needs to recognize its own history of arrogance. It must not let this victory instill a false sense of a mandate. If they do, the pendulum will quickly swing again.

David J. Hentosh

Obama Failed to Energize Youth Vote

November 3, 2010

From the Student Free Press Association

President (Dude) Obama lowered himself and the office of president by granting interviews and appearing on TV shows that were less than politically serious. It was an obvious tactic to energize the youth vote (historically Democrat) but by doing so, he succeeded only in making himself look foolish. His approval rating with the youth is sinking.

Republicans took the House, and the youth stayed home…Recent weeks have seen President Obama making a heavy push for youth voter turnout, including appearances on MTV and the Daily Show, and campuses all over the country. But polling showed Obama’s approval rating had sunk with youth voters…“If this president is truly smart, he will read the handwriting on the wall and move towards the center. There he will meet the American people,” Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt law professor, wrote this morning on Facebook.

Read it here: :  Youth Voters Stay Home

DJH

Barney Frank Preens

November 3, 2010

In a pompous, angry, rambling, accusitory and self-gratuitous manner, Barney Rubble Frank regaled his supporters for more than ten minutes with a victory speech. Unfortunately, Massachusetts’ voters chose the bumbling Frank for another term. He seemed to take umbrage at the audacity of anyone trying to unseat him and trashed-talked about newspapers that dared oppose him. This guy is going over the top and becoming a caricature of himself.

If you can stomach it, the video of his victory screed is here: Frank Victory Speech

DJH