Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This is a story that demonstrates why voters distrust politicians, especially career politicians. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s explanation for not campaigning against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is suspect. To characterize it as a polite gesture or an effort to ‘return some of the decorum’ to politics doesn’t pass the smell test.

That is supported by the notion that other POLS were ‘rankled’ by Frist’s 2004 campaigning against then Minority Leader Tom Daschle. In a year when voter anger toward incumbents has reached a fever pitch, tea party influence has elevated party outsiders and both major parties are worried about re-election deals between Dems and the GOP smell of the joke called ‘bipartisanship’.

That term exclusively defines the only time both major parties work together. When they are equally vulnerable and broker deals to retain their collective power in politics. That is to say, they will work together to defend their stranglehold on business as usual in Washington and elsewhere.

McConnell will not campaign against Reid, according to GOP sources, despite the fact that the Majority Leader is among the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents on the ballot this year.

McConnell’s decision, which follows Reid’s move to avoid directly attacking the Minority Leader during his somewhat competitive 2008 re-election bid, is an unspoken deal between the two Senators to return some of the decorum lost in the chamber in 2004. That year, then-

Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) traveled to South Dakota to campaign against then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a deviation from tradition that rankled even many Republicans who were otherwise happy to see Daschle ousted.

“McConnell’s view is that we can have the most aggressive opposition possible. But at the end of the day, the Senate has to run,” the Republican source said. “To do that, the two leaders need to have a relationship.”

That ‘relationship’ is part of the problem in pursuing good governance. Let the sentiment be expressed yet again. Take a stand. Stand on principle. If you cannot do that you do not belong in public office. Making deals and compromising principle is responsible for what is wrong in American politics. Expose the corruptocrats and send them packing.

Throw the bums out and repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You probably did not notice some changes in this blog’s sidebar. For some months now the sidebar has been used to feature and promote conservative prinicples. For instance, when Sarah Palin’s book ‘Going Rogue’ was read by this blogger it was featured in a few posts and a link to Amazon as well as an image of the book were placed in the sidebar. About the same time other authors released books which made the NYT best seller’s list and began something of a trend. Along with that this blog’s first choice in the 2008 presidential election was featured in the sidebar as well.

But for now, both Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have been removed. The initial reason for the removal was their unyielding support for RINO and shamnesty politician John McCain. To claim you adhere to conservative principles while backing an establishment GOP incumbent with a track record comparable to most liberals is dishonest.

To vote for McCain in the 2008 presidential election with the only other viable option being Barack Obama is one thing. And yes, this blogger held his nose and voted for McCain then. But to continue to support such a candidate when conservative options are available is simply wrong.

At a time when voices like Palin and Romney could support lesser known and certainly less well-funded candidates with conservative principles guiding their decisions they choose to support questionable GOP establishment candidates that improve nothing.

Here’s a recent story about Sarah Pain to emphasize the point.

Sunday, 13 Jun 2010 04:33 PM

To critics who said Fiorina was a Republican in name only, Palin countered: “Most importantly, Carly is the only conservative in the race who can beat Barbara Boxer. That’s no RINO. That’s a winner.”

For some conservatives, that’s also a problem.

Shelby Blakely, executive director of the Tea Party Patriots’ online publication, New Patriot Journal, said Palin’s endorsement has become “so undependable, it’s marginalized itself.”

While she once thought highly of Palin, Blakely said that over the past two years the “Going Rogue” author has gone more establishment, and Palin’s failure to criticize her own party is bothersome. “There’s room for criticism (all around),” Blakely said. “If you’re not willing to call it where you see it, that’s useless.”

And Romney’s situation does not appear any different. Just like the Reno, NV mayor who refuses to support Sharron Angle against Harry Reid. He said she is too far to the right for his liking. And he said he will campaign for Reid. That’s no conservative. But it is becoming clear that this is not uncommon in the GOP. Take our establishment pick or take a walk.

The GOP spent like liberals last time out. Maybe they are taking more from the liberal playbook for November 2010. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory was previously a liberal phenomenon. But if they continue to support those who are not conservative to protect their power in Washington and elsewhere they are no better than liberals.

Voting for conservative principles may see some losses. But you will see losses in politics anyway. Unless you stand on principle nothing will ever improve. Take a stand. Stand on principle. Over time that strategy will win over and over again.

Supporting RINOs and other nonsense only perpetuates the long sad story of politics as usual. It allows both Democrat and Republican career POLS to continue business as usual in public office. It’s time for them to go.

Throw the bums out until principle wins.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Barack Obama on Tuesday sought to shift the nation’s attention to a sunnier topic: the coming benefits from the Democrats’ recently-passed healthcare reforms.

Surrounded by a sea of seniors in Wheaton, Md., Obama defended the legislation from GOP attacks and trumpeted the arrival of one of earliest benefits of the new law: a $250 rebate to tens of thousands of seniors caught in the coverage gap of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit — a gap known unendearingly as the “doughnut hole.” The government will begin mailing out those checks on Thursday.

That Barry, what a joker. Does he know anything at all about the ‘doughnut hole’? A $250 check to cover the gap would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. Aside from being able to carry your lame-ass live-at-home 26 year old children on your health insurance nothing much happens with Obamacare until 2014. Well, except for all the new taxes and reductions in Medicare to pay Medicaid for all the new participants Barry wants.

No point in retelling all the sad points about Obamacare here. If you have not learned about it by now you are either disinterested or one of those nut cases believing Barry is going to pay for everything you want.

BTW, the only reason President Obama is ‘trumpeting’ Obamacare is he knows most voters will thump Democrats at the polls this November and he is in campaign mode as usual doing damage control. He should have thought about that before the Cornhusker Cash or Louisiana Purchase bribes he gave Democrats to pass his legislation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republicans are banking that anti-health reform ballot initiatives will give them a significant edge in the November midterm elections.

The debate on the measures, which will be voted on in a half-dozen states, comes as Democrats are increasing their efforts to bolster support for their signature domestic achievement during the 111th Congress.

South Carolina and Missouri have health reform questions on their primary ballot, while three states — Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma — will give voters a chance in November to amend their state constitutions to say residents of those states can’t be forced to pay a penalty if they don’t buy health insurance. The amendment seeks to nullify the individual mandate, which consistently polls as one of the law’s most unpopular provisions.

Amending state constitutions for an opt out is good, pardon the pun, ‘insurance’ if liberals maintain a majority after November 2010. But let’s not forget about repealing Obamacare. It’s a good idea if for no other reason than President Obama does not like the term obamacare. He doesn’t like having his name associated with legislation most people oppose. You would think he would be proud of it if he genuinely thinks the legislation is worthy.

Guess what? He doesn’t and neither should you. But if you are about 2 out of 3 voters no one has to tell you that. You already know.

Tell a friend.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republican Rand Paul said Tuesday he differs with the Libertarian Party by opposing abortion and supporting judicious overseas troop deployment, distancing himself from the party his father once represented in a presidential election.

The U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky told syndicated conservative talk show host Sean Hannity that he doesn’t fit the mold of a Libertarian. Paul said his conservative social views and willingness to send troops abroad to protect the U.S. set him apart from the party some have tried to associate him with.

An earlier post on this blog reminded readers that Rand Paul is a Libertarian and not a conservative. It would be nice to think that is responsible for his statements on Sean Hannity’s radio show. But then this is just another insignificant blog and could not possibly influence big time politicians.

Mark Levin supports Rand Paul and from what I heard considers him a conservative. I respect Mark Levin and his opinions but am reminded of Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts. I don’t believe Scott Brown is a conservative either.

Maybe Rand Paul could explain in detail what he means by ‘judicious overseas troop deployment.’ Is this someone carefully dancing around the facts or is he truly a conservative in libertarian’s clothing. Or maybe it’s the other way around.

If politics was an honest living it might not be necessary to be so skeptical. (or cynical if you prefer that word)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Although this battle has concluded by virtue of Carly Fiorina’s primary win, I expect Chuck DeVore to be a force in American politics for some time to come. And we will all be better off because of it.

Politics can be a dirty game with no shortage of bad behavior and actions that run counter to the pursuit of good governance. Chuck DeVore is a refreshing change from all that. This was just one battle. Let’s bring him back for more.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Brewer Backs McCain for Senate

“It’s interesting. Sen. McCain, of course, has represented the state of Arizona for a long time. And J.D. Hayworth has served in Congress for eight years,” the governor said.

“I believe philosophically, they’re different breeds of politicians. And people will just have to make that decision. I’ve known Sen. McCain for a long time, and I think he’s served Arizona well.”

McCain along with Bush, Kennedy and others tried to pass shamnesty in 2007 yet Jan Brewer as well as some others support McCain. It is situations like this that make it hard to believe people are serious about opposing illegal immigration and shamnesty. In this case, perhaps Brewer does it because McCain is establishment GOP and she will need them to survive politically. She gets to do the dirty work on illegal immigration and in return for allowing the GOP to side step the issue gets their support for her career.

Obama says he made a mistake on immigration when he took Napolitano for Homeland Security. It opened the door for then Secretary of State Jan Brewer to become governor of Arizona. Napolitano had opposed any legislation like SB 1070 and Brewer signed it into law.

Brewer first threw her support to McCain in February. SB 1070 was passed and signed in April.

As suspected, the Obama/Brewer sit down appears to have accomplished little. They may whithhold significant details but there is nothing to suggest either person blinked or that anything substantial is in the works.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Support him or oppose him the one thing you can say about Rand Paul is that he is not shy. Fresh off something of a controversy over a discussion on civil rights with Rachel Maddow, Rand is mixing it up again on the immigration issue.

Paul Opposes Citizenship for Babies of Illegals
Friday, 28 May 2010 01:27 PM

U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is stirring it up again, this time by saying he opposes citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal immigrants.

Also in the report above Rand Paul suggests his reason for opposing the above is that Mexican immigrants register 3 to 1 as a Democrat. Is he really against it because liberals are scamming it for votes?

Every indication suggests the Tea Party movement or at least one of the related organizations strongly supports Rand Paul. In another item from Newsmax liberal Lanny Davis has an article entitled ‘Ron Paul Sticks to His Principles.’ That may be. But conservatives may not agree with much of what libertarians have to say. You may remember Ron Paul’s campaign. Not exactly a slam dunk on popular political philosophy.

Here’s part of the Davis’ piece that demonstrates a concern.

That’s when I decided to read the Libertarian Platform, the one adopted at the May 2008 convention in Denver that nominated Rand’s father, Ron, for president. I wanted to understand better why Rand Paul was taking what seemed to be such a politically suicidal set of positions. It explained a lot . . . including about why my and my fellow liberals’ sanctimony about Mr. Paul might have been somewhat misplaced.

This situation is much like that of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Presented as a conservative or anything but a liberal or Democrat yet the new Senator is still an unknown quantity that hasn’t yet passed the smell test. Rand Paul may mirror this situation except that as Davis cites, liberal angst may be misplaced. So may be conservative support.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In the same week that Rand Paul coasts to victory with a stunning voter majority in the Kentucky race for US Senate a ‘controversy’ is manufactured. A reasonable take on the story is offered at the Washington Post.

from David Weigel | May 20, 2010; 12:09 PM ET at WaPo:

I can’t decide whether Paul has benefited or been hurt by the change of focus from the original story — whether his opposition to basically any federal intervention in business practices meant he opposed the Americans With Disabilities Act, opposed FDA regulation of food, etc. Instead, this has become a fairly tired “is candidate a racist or isn’t he?” story — one that Paul thinks he can deflect.

And here’s part of the ‘take’ at PMSNBC:

In his 15-minute interview with Maddow, Paul repeatedly declined or sidestepped opportunities to endorse the provisions of the 1964 law which require hotels, restaurants, and other businesses to accept all customers without discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.

He repeated several times that he opposes racial discrimination. “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” he said. At the end of the interview, Paul added, “I don’t believe that any private property (owner) should discriminate either.”

But he did not say whether he supported using federal law to enforce non-discrimination in privately owned businesses. He said “had I been around” in 1964 “I would have tried to modify that.”

He also said the debate over the civil right law’s limits on rights of private property owners “is still a valid discussion.”

Suffice it to say that in the liberal camp you are a bad person if you want to ‘modify’ any legislation they support or ‘discuss’ any part of their self-approved agenda. Hey libs, everything is subject to discussion, even your tired old race card tactic.

Below is a link to Rand Paul’s site and his press release on the story.

Rand Paul Sets the Record Straight
Published on 20 May 2010 by Jesse

In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

Seems clear what Rand Paul was saying. He obviously opposes discrimination as does this blog author. But he also is concerned about government overstepping its constitutional limits as well as other threats to freedom and liberty as layed out by the founding documents of our nation. While this blog author does not necessarily agree with everything Rand Paul or his father Ron may express, any differences of opinion would benefit from more discussion.

Discussing issues is an idea lost on liberals. They would prefer you surrender your freedom and allow them to control everything, no questions asked.

Stanford Matthews
Morewhat.com

There are dominant themes in political chatter this election cycle. That is not what distinguishes this year’s political season from any other. Public anger against business as usual in Washington DC and elsewhere has POLS operating outside their typical comfort zone. Where tax and spend typically applied to Democrats plenty of Republicans have earned the liberal moniker. And liberals calling the GOP the party of no while they enjoy majority party status indicates their ranks are not aligned.

An example of this bizarre political climate demonstrates a Democrat feeling the heat from organized labor. A relationship that represents a staple alliance in liberal politics may be changing.

In Arkansas, dissatisfied labor unions worked hard against Lincoln

Willie Holmes moved to Arkansas last year to push Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) on the union membership bill known as “card check.” He lost, but he stayed to sway her vote on health care.

That did not go his way, either, but Holmes is still here. On Tuesday, he sat with four colleagues in the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 155 union hall and waited for the votes to roll in. He was hoping that, this time, Lincoln would fall.

There was a time when organized labor supporting Democrats was as reliable as the sun coming up in the east. And there was also a time when the ‘establishment’ GOP chose the winning candidate in a primary.

Sen. Arlen Specter loses Pennsylvania primary; Rand Paul wins in Kentucky

In the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky, Paul, a political novice and a son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), stormed past Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who had the support of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and much of the Bluegrass State’s political establishment. With almost all of the vote counted, Paul had 59 percent, a sign of the power of his and the tea party’s small-government message within the GOP.

You may have noticed the inclusion of Arlen Specter in the title of the excerpt from WaPo. After his defeat in PA that is about all you’ll be hearing from Specter after this year. More signs that the public has a serious opportunity to change the way politics work in the US. Let’s hope it does not go to waste. Better yet, rather than hope, let’s make sure it does not go to waste.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

The great divide between the political left and right often described as the degree to which America has become ‘polarized’ is present in every debate on issues of the day. National defense, border security, terrorism and illegal immigration are related issues featuring this obstacle to good governance.

Two recent columns from the Washington Examiner highlight the problem. In one, Diana West recounts the Times Square bomber episode and reactions from Mayor Bloomberg and others including the MSM. While they were hoping the bomber was some ‘right wing militia man’ or someone angry over Obamacare or a foreclosure one media marvel hoped it wasn’t someone from an Islamic country and slipped in the race card while she was at it.

West makes valid points throughout the piece not the least of which places responsibility where it belongs.

If our leaders faced facts, you see, they might also have to act. They might have to consider such measures as halting Islamic immigration to stop the demographic spread of Shariah.

Beyond terrorism the issues of national defense, border security and illegal immigration were ignited again in Arizona with the passage of SB 1070. And the rising anger of voters has been felt since last summer’s townhalls and the emergence of the tea party movement. And it should be no surprise that the other column mentioned from the Washington Examiner is another attempt to demonize voter outrage as something it is not.

David Sorota suggests the following:

“I Want My Country Back” — this ubiquitous tea party mantra belongs next to Nike’s “Just Do It” on Ad Age’s list of the most transcendent idioms. In just five words, it perfectly captures the era’s conservative backlash.

And concludes with this:

As a marketing masterpiece, the slogan would certainly impress the old Madison Avenue mavens. The trouble is that as a larger political ideology, its hateful and divisive message is encouraging ever more misguided madness.

Both major political parties in the US would probably like the tea party movement to go away. With the November 2010 midterm elections poised to empty Congress of incumbents both Dems and the GOP are nervous. How else do you explain the preemptive exit by so many POLS? Roll Call has the casualty list. Retirements and resignations alone total 28 house vacancies and 15 in the Senate.

And the first real casualty of the 2010 midterms is Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT). He didn’t make it through the state GOP convention as delegates chose two other candidates who may see each other in the primary.

The story behind this news finds Mitt Romney introducing Bennett at the convention. The same Romney who like Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in his re-election bid. Palin also sinned again by endorsing Carly Fiorina in the race against Barbara Boxer in California. Fiorina was the failed CEO of HP and an adviser to the McCain/Palin ticket in their failed bid in 2008.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate made the endorsement on her Facebook page, saying Fiorina’s experience running a major corporation is sorely lacking in Washington.

In the Thursday posting, Palin called Fiorina a “Commonsense Conservative” who has the potential to beat “liberal” Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in November.

But Eric Odom, chairman of Liberty First PAC, a Tea Party-fueled political action committee, called Palin’s endorsement an “unforgivable sin,” and her second strike after endorsing her 2008 running mate John McCain in his Senate race.

That’s a fair assessment from Odom. Conservatives certainly do not need Bennett or Fiorina any more than they need McCain. As for the actions of Palin and Romney this year it would appear they learned little from the 2008 campaign season.

And last but not least, David Obey (D-WI) announcing his retirement this past week is too much of a coincidence to believe being ‘bone tired’ is the primary reason (pun intended) for his decision. Most of those leaving office voluntarily are controversial and vulnerable. Obey was no exception.

The tea party movement contrary to Sirota’s description demonstrates the public is fed up with the ‘establishment’ POLS in our country and yes, we want to take it back from them. So Mr Sirota, given Bennett, a member of the GOP, is the first 2010 casualty try this mantra for your analysis. Throw the bums out!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: DLTDHYOTWO: Bob Bennett gets the boot. And next… 

Given recent GOP victories in governor’s races as well as at least a temporary setback for Democrats in the land of Kennedy with Scott Brown becoming a US Senator a conservative could get the idea things are turning around. This is supported by polling data suggesting America is once again moving to the right politically and the Democratic majority in Washington is in the tank. President Obama is not having a good year despite the passage of ‘health insurance reform’ that is panned by nearly everyone.

So what does this mean for politicians? Reports about Charlie Crist versus Marco Rubio suggest some of the answers. Senate performance by Arlen Specter compared with Scott Brown illuminate other aspects of party politics. Then there is the Tea Party trend ‘demonstrating’ an awakening of the public across the country.

Debate about a third political party has touched on all the typical talking points with folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others reinforcing the argument of a third party hurting the GOP and helping the Democrats. The dominant point being a third party cannot work and only serves to make things worse politically in America.

Democratic party resources are being deployed to sabotage the Tea Party movement. GOP resources are being deployed to attract Tea Partiers to the Republican party. Or so it would seem given stories that abound in the mainstream media and alternative sources. So how does that square with the argument(s) advanced by leading conservative talkers and others?

Could the reverse of that argument be valid? Meaning, does the thought of a new conservative third party cause a panic in both the DNC and GOP? Or are conservative talkers correct when they predict such a third party would only serve the liberal cause by splitting the vote to the DNC’s advantage? If so, why are liberal forces opposing the Tea Party trend with such enthusiasm?

And how do the major political parties explain people like Arlen Specter, Scott Brown, Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio? Specter’s RINO tendencies were so obvious he felt compelled to switch from Republican to Democrat to have a chance at re-election this fall. You may remember Joe Lieberman sided with the GOP more often than the DNC would like and had to run as an Independent to have a chance to keep his Senate seat. Now Charlie Crist is reported to be considering a similar strategy in his campaign. And Marco Rubio is riding the current conservative wave to a large lead in the polls against Crist by supporting basic American values and conservative principles.

One report headlines Mitt Romney advising Crist to stay in the GOP and back Rubio. And everyone should know by now that ‘going rogue’ Sarah Palin is supporting John McCain. Which leads to this blogger’s opinion for this post.

Could it be we need the Tea Party movement to lead us to a third party in American politics? The DNC and GOP are working the tea party trend to their respective advantages. Perhaps the prevailing sentiment within conservative circles that dismiss the birth of a ‘tea party’ centers on political party strategy. Many who did not vote for Barack Obama in 2008 held their noses and voted for John McCain. After all, those were the only two choices having a chance to win. The GOP may expect to ride the Tea Party movement to victory in November for a simple reason. Faced with similar choices in upcoming elections they may expect many voters to do the same. Hold their nose and vote for the GOP candidate.

Not only are POLS beholding to lobbyists and the interests they represent but much of what they do is driven by party politics. Maybe it is time to have a ‘tea party’ with enough voting strength to support candidates with basic American values and conservative principles. The back and forth between the DNC and GOP has had little to do with representing ordinary American citizens not to mention preserving the founding principles of our nation.

Once again, this blogger supports the notion to throw the bums out. It is still true that a couple of election cycles of removing incumbents from office would do more to correct politics as usual than any fix current POLS can suggest. This exercise in natural term limits attacks the root cause of leadership failure in Washington DC and around the country. Politicians represent themselves before anyone else. It’s time to show them the door via the ballot box.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The development of public opposition to big government and the Democratic Party agenda known as the Tea Party protests was characterized in one report today as moving ‘from punchline to powerhouse.’ Other media items like the San ‘liberal’ Mercury News focused on the ‘diversity’ angle apparently used to keep the race card alive while trying to act like an objective news service.

If the MSM wants to push the race card how about this for a debating point? If the Tea Party theme of public opposition to big government and a liberal agenda is viewed by some as a single demographic perhaps those not in attendance favor big government, entitlements and the nanny state mindset.

Based on a limited review of the MSM coverage of tax day tea parties this may be one of those times when the ‘established press’ (whatever that means) provided a rather tame assessment of the day’s events.

The NYT fish wrap has a headline that merely mentions the tax day theme of Tea Party rallies along with the word ‘demonstrate.’ The Miami Herald announces the Tea Party anniversary that ‘activists mark’ with ‘more rallies.’ Other news outlets echo similar descriptions in an almost polite and uncharacteristic fashion.

Few seem interested in dismissing or insulting the growing trend this time around. Could it be they have finally realized that most Americans are fed up with the fed? Do they now understand most people oppose Obamacare, the Porkulus package, Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Cash and Mary Landrieu’s Louisiana Purchase? Not to mention the monumental fall from grace of the GOP during their last stint as the majority party in Washington.

That would be expecting too much. It’s a nice thought and would benefit the move to return this country to its founding principles. But one day is not a trend and as mentioned earlier the news review was limited. Your basic quick glance at headlines and excerpts like the following one.

Obama also credited his signature economic recovery package with putting more than two million Americans back to work and with cutting taxes for families, small businesses and students. And he singled out the anti-tax tea party movement that fanned out across the country Thursday to hold demonstrations and rallies marking Tax Day.

“I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes,” the president said, noting the numerous tax cuts pushed by his administration. “You would think they’d be saying thank you.”

Mr President, either you are not paying attention or you think we are not. Perhaps like most in Congress you did not read your so-called health insurance reform bill either. Even your lap dog Harry Reid stated the bill ‘is not perfect’ but ‘we can fix it’ along with other nonsense he did not utter during the reconciliation scam. The misuse of the procedure known as reconciliation demonstrated lack of support for Obamacare. And the Tea Party movement is a reminder that Americans have not forgotten and will remember it well in November 2010.

Just think of all the votes represented by the Tea Party participants. Add to that the people who did not attend rallies but share the values of those who did. That makes November 2010 all the more interesting. Perhaps Barry from DC won’t be so amused then.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has taken plenty of criticism. Whether you view him as incompetent or an astute barrier between the press and the Obama administration his performance could fairly be described as less than stellar. How does that play with WH plans for his career suggested in a WaPo article?

Robert Gibbs does not seem particularly attached to his office.

Is his post as Press guru simply a waypoint for a larger mission?

Robert Gibbs ‘is considered, along with Obama’s presidential campaign manager, David Plouffe, a top candidate to take the place of senior strategist David Axelrod when the Washington-weary keeper of the Obama message leaves to focus on the 2012 reelection. That isn’t happening anytime soon, which means Gibbs is stuck on double duty.

AS 2012 approaches Axelrod will focus on re-election while Plouffe gets top strategist and Gibbs gets what, exactly? Like you would want to accept the take of a failed communications director.

“Robert is far more of a strategist and plays more of a strategic role than people realize,” said Anita Dunn, the Obama administration’s former communications director. “He is one of the very few people who can sit in on anything he wants to sit in on.”

And it is always a waste of time to accept information from an undisclosed source without the stones to go on record to protect against looking the fool later.

“The idea of Gibbs taking on a senior adviser role was under discussion as a possible arrangement even before the current arrangement,” said one Democratic official with knowledge of staffing decisions during the transition, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

And it gets better. In the quote below it would be more fun to know why the pair left the Kerry campaign ‘abruptly.’

“He’s definitely got the chops for a broader political portfolio,” said Jim Jordan, the Democratic operative who brought Gibbs onto the 2004 Kerry campaign, before they both left abruptly. “He understands campaigns and Washington and the way that politics and policy and communications mesh.”

Number one, if you’re such a hot strategic commodity why would you be burdened and embarrassed by a stint as a press secretary? And why would you be referred to as a ‘confidant’ to a US President when two others are in line for the top strategy posts? Is this just a not so subtle attempt to repair Gibbs’ sad history to date?

Number two, Barack Obama is not a stranger to throwing people under the bus. His approval ratings continue to slide. More and more Americans are expressing their displeasure and disappointment with Obama and the liberal majority in Congress. If Axelrod is point for 2012 and Plouffe is his replacement what does that forecast for Gibbs? When it all collapses he will be turned out as the failure’s scapegoat. Or just one of many who will see the underside of the bus.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It’s a busy day for many Americans. Yup, it’s tax day 2010. Tea Parties are in full bloom like other natural events. Natural because Americans can only take an abusive government for so long before rebelling. The consequence for politicians will be on display in November at the ballot box.

Unfortunately for those in the fine state of Wisconsin a small setback may have been presented today with reports Tommy Thompson will not oppose Russ Feingold in a US Senate election this fall. Thompson’s reason for not entering the race is understandable.

Yes, the Democratic party majority is unrestrained in their quest to force an agenda on our nation. One upbeat note on the topic features a rising interest in repealing Obamacare. Other news indicates liberal incumbents are in trouble if up for re-election this year. Americans in ever increasing numbers oppose the liberal agenda. We’re a patient group but enough is enough. And it is near time for POLS to pay with a career change. That would mean new faces in the White House and Congress over the next few years with most probably moving to work as lobbyists.

This was just a brief post on thoughts for today prior to completing the tax day obligation. More items may be published later in the day.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com