Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

The following story is the result of an initial look at some of the 2010 elections.

So a young man earns a bachelor’s degree from a university. Sometime thereafter he adds a masters in business administration as well as a law degree. After working in at least one administrative position he becomes the CEO of a firm with annual losses of $50 million. During his tenure at the helm the company realizes profits of $240 million. An impressive accomplishment no matter how you measure it.

This man later enters politics and runs for governor. He narrowly defeats the incumbent. It is said he refuses to enact an income or sales tax in his state. He cuts spending while maintaining ‘essential’ services. He is given credit for expanding access to healthcare, creating jobs, growing the state’s reserve funds as well as economic development and reducing crime.

In subsequent re-election bids this governor dramatically overwhelmed his opponents by margins of 3 to 1 and has enjoyed tremendous approval ratings for some time. In addition this governor’s state is reported to have won awards as the most livable state and the safest.

Does this sound like a conservative to you? On the downside this governor did not veto a bill allowing homosexual marriage even though it is reported he is personally opposed. He also is engaged in a regional global warming agenda and complying with the renewable energy act that may be ill=advised regardless of any good intentions.

If you haven’t guessed already this governor is a Democrat. Needless to say he endorsed Barack Obama for president. The humorous part, if there is one, his wife endorsed Hillary Clinton. And as you might expect as a pediatrician his wife is reported to be active in child obesity causes. So there is plenty of liberal philosophy lurking in the background yet this governor has some history not characteristic of liberals or Democrats, if there is a difference.

So what’s the point of all this? It should be no surprise to anyone that the 2010 elections have been characterized as the potential big comeback for conservatives. The GOP fancies themselves as the big winners given public anger at incumbents and in particular the Democratic party majority. It is not uncommon for the majority party to suffer losses in midterm elections. But what does the GOP offer to the growing trend of conservatism in the US?

Using the story provided here as an example it demonstrates what may be all too common in upcoming elections. In the story presented here, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire may only be vulnerable this November based on polling data. Rasmussen Reports indicates Lynch has slipped from 50% in March to 47% now. His challengers at this point are in the mid 30’s in voter share. One conservative activist competing against Lynch for governor has a compelling bio and professional history. The others, one Democrat, one Republican are by no means political heavyweights either.

It would not necessarily be going out on a limb to suggest a victory for Lynch at this early stage of the game. The minority party, in many cases around the country including the US Congress, may not present strong conservative candidates in 2010. Like it or not those challenging liberal incumbents need a compelling resume’ to compete. After all, election outcomes are unfortunately driven by politics and that requires more than good intentions.

How many contests will the GOP concede for lack of a competitive conservative candidate or the willingness to spend what’s necessary to win?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If anyone cares to offer a compelling argument to explain the results of the following roll call vote it would be appreciated. The only condition for the argument is that it does not offer political strategy as an excuse.

While the GOP would like to be viewed as the loyal opposition to the Democratic party’s far left agenda some Republicans defy explanation for their voting choices. The roll call vote presented here deals with earmarks. Senator DeMint offered an amendment described as an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. More than a dozen members of the GOP voted to table the amendment along with the Democrats. One Democrat, Russ Feingold from Wisconsin voted ‘no’ with most Republicans. But that may be due simply to political considerations in a re-election year.

That DeMint’s amendment clearly limited the earmark moratorium to 2010 and 11 should have made it easy for anyone to support it given current economic conditions. If you cannot support what may amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture of disapproval for wasteful government spending how serious can you be about reducing the national debt and deficits? Earmarks are reported to account for ‘only’ a tiny amount of government spending. But eight or nine billion dollars per year is real money to most people. Money that could be used to solve real problems that get postponed due to lack of funding. How’s that for twisted logic?

It is understood POLS regularly tout their ability to direct federal taxpayer dollars to their respective states. You can visit many websites of Congressional members of either party listing all the, let’s face it, PORK, they provide their constituents. But isn’t it really a select number of constituents? Isn’t this simply more election campaigning and vote buying sponsored by the American taxpayer?

This sort of thing needs to stop. It may explain in part the popularity of what some call the Tea Party Nation. The GOP and even the Democratic party should adopt measures like the one Senator DeMint introduced mentioned earlier. It is just common sense. And it would go along way to convince the public that politicians are actually serious about controlled spending, deficit reduction and retiring the national debt.

And it could all be done without the political risk of attacking the real problem. Entitlements like the latest healthcare legislation or the majority of the annual budget that is, go figure, entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Less than two weeks ago the news was dominated with stories surrounding the contentious health reform debate. Opposition to President Obama’s obsession with his top agenda item in Congress mirrored that of the voting public.

The U.S. Congress appears headed for a final battle over health-care reform legislation in the next several days, and the political stakes for President Barack Obama, his Democratic allies and opposition Republicans are enormous.

Health-care reform has been President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority, and the president is making an energetic final push for support, including a recent visit to Ohio.

‘An energetic final push for support’ keeping President Obama in campaign mode since taking office was necessary as most Americans oppose the plan.

Public support for the Democratic health-care plan has eroded during the past several months, and Mr. Obama must now rely on Democrats alone to get the legislation through Congress.

There never was strong support for Obamacare as demonstrated by public opinion polls and the need for Democratic party leadership to strong arm their membership, buy votes with special deals at taxpayer expense as well as abusing their majority status in Congress to force a simple majority vote on the measure that would otherwise require 60 votes in the Senate.

Democrats including President Obama could not muster 60 votes of support in the Senate nor more than 40 percent in public opinion polls. Even without the ever-present political considerations politicians evaluate common sense opposition from the voting public demonstrates healthcare legislation forced through Congress by the Democrats is seriously flawed. And that Democrats have nothing but contempt for those who oppose their questionable agenda. That includes about sixty percent of the American public.

Health Care Bill Still Under 40% Approval

The polls above are from last week. You can click on the link to read more.

Perhaps the sixty percent opposed can send the Democrats home in November 2010 and retire the one in the White House in 2012.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A column by Dana Milbank at WaPo may be representative of the liberal view on healthcare reform and the associated politics in Washington DC. And right out of the gate Milbank is wrong. In the first paragraph he tries to be cute and references a Kenny Rogers song suggesting the GOP should ‘know when to fold’em’. And two more errors are offered in the next paragraph. One, that healthcare reform is a done deal. And two, bad behavior and death threats ‘no doubt’ were caused by actions of Republicans.

On the topic of folding Milbank should be more concerned about the financial strain another huge entitlement will place on our nation. He should also point out that politics, majority party politics is responsible for the selfish choice to place a favorite liberal agenda item, healthcare ‘reform’, ahead of attending to jobs and the economy.

Perhaps Milbank’s real meaning for his ‘folding’ advice was requesting that the loyal opposition simply roll over and play dead. There are those of us who would prefer they did not. Bad enough that GOP errors caused them to lose the majority in 2006 that led to the leadership mess we’re in now. But the best way to fix that is learn from your mistakes, retake the majority and correct what damage the liberals cause.

To suggest that healthcare reform is a done deal is for Milbank to concede his lack of understanding. Beyond the fact that 37 states have initiated legal moves to opt out of Obamacare and talk about repealing the new legislation there is an underlying problem Milbank ignores.

There are no done deals in politics. Obamacare is no exception. Most new legislation alters older legislation and the party battles, wins and losses, perpetuate the process. And if Milbank thinks other liberals are content to stop meddling in healthcare after the bill is signed by the President, he knows nothing.

‘No doubt’ Milbank would prefer you had ‘no doubt’ about who or what is behind threatening behavior directed at politicians. But it is prudent and sensible to withhold judgment until there is something other than guesswork or personal opinions available like evidence. Or we can fan the flames like Milbank and point fingers and hurl accusations. Or just hurl.

For Milbank to jest about viagra for pedophiles misses the point which is government failures in managing programs produce outrageous outcomes. Milbank mentioning Lindsey Graham or John McCain as sensible voices in the GOP confirms they’re RINOs. Thanks for making one point conservatives can agree upon.

There is much about Milbank’s column that is foolish. Not the least of which is getting it wrong on why the GOP won’t fold’em.

The GOP used the majority party’s choice of reconciliation to send Obamacare back to the House allowing liberals one more chance to do what’s right and kill the bill. They also used amendments they knew would be rejected as nearly all have been to date in order to provide a record of many items that are in Obamacare and wrong. And to have those who support Obamacare go on record as promoting and accepting bad legislation.

There may be those who believe the GOP needs to use the record of these proceedings to challenge Democrats in November. It may be necessary to inform those not paying attention. I for one do not require it for opposing those who supported Obamacare. And Milbank does not need it to vote for liberals. No doubt.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Hypothetical 2012 Matchup, Obama in Statistical Dead Heat Against 2 Republicans: Nobody and Anybody

Given the roll call vote (number 165) for March 21, 2010 with a time stamp of 10:49PM in the US House of Representatives the fat lady may not have sung yet on the outcome of healthcare legislation but the situation looks rather dismal.

What it looks like from here is Obama will sign his Obamacare and the Senate has an opportunity to make fixes or changes. It also looks like Mr Stupak may have been duped. Accepting less than a million dollars in airport funding for his vote in exchange for an executive order from President Obama to protect Stupak’s claimed pro-life interests may be another healthcare scam.

While preparing to publish this post an unproductive search was conducted to determine who the other Congressman were in Mr Stupak’s little alliance. It is almost as if the others have effectively cloaked their names from the media. About all that was found so far was six more names to go with Mr Stupak at Wikipedia. A check of the roll call indicates they all did not vote one way.

But they are not the only ones who may deserve to be politically impaled for this travesty. You can start with the Republicans. Had they not squandered their last Congressional majority with a major fall from grace on conservative principles we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

Add to that the equally disgusting performance of the liberal agenda gone wild and a recurring theme in American politics emerges once again. Politicians are the largest impediment in politics and governing. They are the root of all evil in public affairs. They are what allows lobbyists to exist. For without the pursuit of power, election and re-election by politicians, lobbyists would have no reason to exist.

It’s the ageless battle between greed and corruption versus principle and virtue. So now the next chapter begins. What to do after the mindless tragedy that took place in Congress this past Sunday?

37 states will pursue opting out of Obamacare. Various entities will pursue legal action against Obamacare. And many politicians may have just signed their resignation papers with a vote for Obamacare. And some argue those who voted against it will experience the same fate.

Let the purging begin.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Seems like good timing for a basic blog rant. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m cranky. Keeping the discussion on matters of politics a little review of the current situation seems in order.

Obamanation remains fixated on their, ‘let’s take over everything’ agenda. The central flaw in their quest beyond public disapproval and even outrage is similar to that of a typical spendthrift. They believe there is still money in the bank if they still have checks.

It’s amazing really. Politicians in both parties have frequently if not continuously committed the same financial sins for which they accuse others. Yet they have no shame for their own misguided actions or for political rhetoric employed as unemployment engulfs our nation.

By our votes we bestow upon them a public trust complete with perks for royalty yet we shed that anchor over two hundred years ago. And with the possible exception of the founding fathers those in public office have a two century record of malfeasance in office. If they were not directly involved with corrupt government they were willing participants by the fact of their incompetent objection.

As noted here elsewhere, notable Republicans like Palin, Romney and Scott Brown support McCain for re-election. Yet it is clear McCain is not a conservative. Which casts doubt on the credentials of the aforementioned.

Mr. Romney, who was supported on this blog since 2008, provided a less than convincing excuse for his endorsement. If McCain’s years of service and experience qualify him as the best choice for American leadership what does that say about his support of shamnesty during the second Bush 43 term? And then there’s Lindsey Graham with similar problems. The GOP has not turned the page toward conservative principles. How will they do that with barely half a year to go before the 2010 elections?

Yes, they are fiercely opposing the current liberal push for a totally out of touch agenda. But what else are they going to do? They believe this strategy against the Obamanation will translate to victory in November. What’s new about that? Sound like politics as usual just as much as the Dems failure on every level since the 2006 midterms.

The GOP fell from grace and have not returned in any meaningful way. The libs are apparently willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Worst of all, they have not drained the swamp. The culture of corruption is alive and well in Washington, DC and around the country in all levels of government.

The voters must drain the swamp in November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

editor’s note: The quality of this post has suffered as it is Friday and this month’s budget only allows for beer rather than top shelf single malt Scotch. Po’ Stanford. And no images were chosen for this post as none were available at the time of publication to fit the mood.

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
CBO: The Obama Administration’s Health Care Proposal

Pence Calls President’s New Health Care Bill ‘More of the Same’

Obama vs. Obama: Cost of President’s Health Care Plan Goes Up as Taxpayer Savings Go Down

CBO to White House: We can’t score your health care crap sandwich

Criticism of the Tea Party phenomenon is limited to familiar rants. During last summer’s townhall meetings any attendees raising opposition to the liberal agenda were labeled as paid political thugs or racists or bigots clutching their bibles or guns. Frequently those dismissing the current public outrage over the growth of government, debt, deficits and taxes describe the opposition as mostly white. Yet you can likely compile a list of those opposing the current political climate featuring a significant number of non-white participants.

The race card is becoming quite the irrelevant insult largely adopted by the political left as are other complaints from liberals that characterize their political opposition as somehow inferior. A piece from Real Clear Politics sums up the situation rather well.

Palin and the Tea Party protests are also united by what is united against them: the liberal base. This is not the wave that brought Barack Obama to the White House. But this too is a people’s movement. It might not be liberals’ people. But grassroots activism it is indeed. And it has summed now to this convention, combining the second biggest political rock star with the hottest movement in American politics. That gets mainstream conservative voters, like my 7th grade girlfriend, to pay attention. This Tea Party might only be getting started.

Reference was made to some of the legitimate criticism or concerns about the Tea Party nation and all it represents. It is reasonable to evaluate developments and trends especially when they pose significant threats to established mechanisms within society. And politics is certainly no exception. Entrenched power structures like political parties have the most to gain or lose by success or failure of ‘movements’ like the tea parties.

The most important point to consider on this topic is not whether the tea party movement or its convention are good, bad, left, right or universal. That the message would be ignored by those in public office even when it represents a growing discontent across the nation beyond the movement itself demonstrates the reason for its existence.

To remove those from office who simply don’t get it or refuse to respond to the public they represent.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

you need to read the following….

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement (Michelle Malkin)

Once again the economic media darlings weigh in. Paul Krugman deserves his lefty description. This is a man who would be a natural for NASCAR; circular motion always moving to the left. And like NASCAR races, each lap is a repeat.

In a column of his last week, Fiscal Scare Tactics, Krugman makes his case with something as appealing to liberals as bashing Bush. That is, bashing Bush. When they’re not bashing Bush they’re bashing Bush or something about Bush.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

‘…even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency’ is exactly the point, Mr. Krugman. For all the disdain elites and political power brokers have for ordinary citizens my fellow ‘commoners’ and I do understand clearly at least one element of this topic.

The following are some things that increase and rarely, if ever, decrease.

-The US national debt
-The US budget deficit
-Taxes
-the size of government
-the pay for those in government including elected representatives
-entitlements
-those receiving entitlements
-legislation that spends taxpayer dollars
-the amount of money borrowed by the government
And did I mention taxes?

Mr Krugman: Continuing to spend money we don’t have is a bad idea. And yes, it is an idea that is not new. That’s the problem. Not like their should be a learning curve on this issue. Spending what you don’t have is what caused much of our current problems. And the agenda(s) being pushed in DC are tantamount to the Madoff ponzi scheme.

Obama-speak, et al (translation): We are taking more of your money (tax dollars) to spend on things we want that will benefit you in the long run.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme to rival Madoff. And where is he currently residing?

And from another media darling comes the following:

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’ “

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

The key ‘economic’ word here being ‘agenda.’ And the attitude of those now governing toward those being governed is as much a part of an economic discussion as anything else. Since it is the dollars of those governed that those now governing plan tu use for their agenda. And the problem is, to pay for it, requires borrowing into the next millennium and continuing to pay for it long after that.

This is why liberals bashing the Tea Party citizens is an idea as bankrupt as their agenda. There is a piece at the Boston Herald from a ‘fellow’ at the Heritage Foundation that should make Mr Krugman cringe.

If spending jumps $12,000 per household, taxes must eventually rise. The president would make a large down payment on that with a $2 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Yet that would still leave the government running up $8.5 trillion in deficits over the decade, setting the stage for even larger and more damaging broad-based tax hikes later.

Ominously, economists close to the White House suggest that a value-added tax of 15 percent and 20 percent is eventually possible to finance Obama’s agenda.

By doubling the national debt over pre-recession levels, he’d push America toward a tipping point - where rising debt levels will become too large for global capital markets to absorb. This could trigger a financial crisis, an interest-rate spike and tax hikes.

And it still comes down to that nothing new concept Mr Krugman alluded to in his column. We cannot continue to spend what we don’t have. Everyone can understand that.

And to couple another item with Mr Krauthammers’ commentary comes the following brief item Charles Hurt at the NY Post. In a small amount of space Mr Hurt condenses the sanity of tea party nation those plain words for plain folks like us, down here, near the voting booth.

These people have come from all across the nation for the first National Tea Party Convention to denounce not just President Obama and the Democrats, but Republicans and all of Washington for getting infected with the same voracious and parasitic plague spawned by big-government liberalism.

Read the rest, it won’t take long and anyone can understand it. Even those lowly voters who have the audacity to raise a loud voice in opposition to leaders with a hearing problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com