Thursday, September 16, 2010

Targeting the Democrats

Democrats unveil new logo: It’s a target.

I remember a Far Side cartoon in which two deer were talking. One had a target on its chest and the other said, “Bummer of a birthmark.” Well the Democrats appear to be looking for someone to put them out of their misery.

Democrats were able to take their share of the news cycle not merely by
nominating scandal-plagued Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., to run for reelection,
but by picking perhaps the absolute most appropriate image they could in this
political climate: a target

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Young Guns bring a glimmer of hope

People keep asking what will the Republicans do to reign in the reign of prolific spending by Obama and the Democrats when they gain control? Here’s a good piece on the problems and possible solutions

I have been, and remain, skeptical of congressional Republicans’ ability to
head off Fiscal Armageddon; the political incentives are all wrong, and it
probably will take a major economic crisis to realign those incentives. But I am
a little less skeptical today than I was yesterday — maybe 5 percent less. I
think there is a non-trivial chance that non-entitlement spending could be
scaled back to 2008 levels — not exactly raging austerity, but a start; combined
with sane entitlement reform and tax reform, that could get us several steps
back from the ledge we’re on. Something good seems to be afoot among

Yes, They Are Electable

The latest meme from the Democrats are the TEA Party candidates aren't "electable." I would ask Scott Brown about that.

Tuesday night was absolutely a precursor to November. It was absolutely a
continuation of what we’ve been seeing since Scott Brown was elected to “Ted
Kennedy’s seat” in Massachusetts. It’s a confirmation that voters are in an
anti-establishment mood.

But it’s more than simply being anti-establishment. It’s a vote against the current liberal rule in Washington. In that way, it is a vote for authenticity in philosophy. And it is a warning to moderate Republicans.

Senator Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican, may
have a more conservative voting record this session because of it. ……..

It may explain why Harry Reid can’t break 50. It may explain why Nancy
Pelosi is working overtime trying to convince her caucus and the rest of us that
it ain’t over. It may explain why Barack Obama has lowered the office of the
presidency to campaigning against the House Minority Leader.

Why things look so good if you are a Republican.

Things keep going from good to even better for the Republicans

Back then:

-The unemployment rate was 9.7 percent; it's 9.6 now.
-Half of the country said in January that the country was on the wrong
track; 57 percent say that now in the new AP-GfK poll.
-About 42 percent of
the country disapproved of Obama's job performance; half does now.
-Democrats had a 49 percent to 37 percent advantage over Republicans on the
party that voters want to see control Congress; the GOP now enjoys a 55-39 lead
among likely voters.
The last one is the big one. Six months ago, the
country preferred a Democrat congress over a Republican on by 12%. Today that
number is a Republican advantage of 16% a 28% turnaround.

Supporters of health reform said it would never happen. Maybe they got
caught up in their own rhetoric. Maybe they just didn't want to believe it was
possible. But rationing in America has started.

This week, the Food and
Drug Administration is expected to revoke approval of the drug Avastin for the
treatment of advanced breast cancer. Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter has
described the anticipated move as "the beginning of a slippery slope leading to
more and more rationing under the government takeover of health care."

It seems that even loyal Democrats have noticed the Obama
administration's not-so-subtle policy shift toward rationing. According to
Politico, many of the 34 House Democrats who voted against the health reform
bill are aggressively touting their "no" votes in campaign ads.

The Obama Bubble

The meteoric rise of Barack Hussein Obama has only been matched by the
rapid crash of his popularity. So what happened?

Fast forward to 2010. The Obama bubble has burst. Political moderates
have fled. His speeches are met with indifference and disdain. His
dependence on the teleprompter has become a national joke. His policies have
exacerbated our problems, not solved them. His endorsements guarantee
electoral defeat. The “I” word — incompetent — is heard with increasing
frequency. Even some media personages are critical.

How did this happen? Quite simply, the Obama bubble, like all
bubbles, was unsustainable. A bubble is not, by nature, a long-term affair.
It always consumes itself, sooner rather than later. So it is with Obama. He
promised so much, too much to possibly deliver. The hype produced the pop.
Did anyone really believe he could slow the rise of the oceans and cool the

Primaries push more women into general elections, but most fresh faces now belong to Republican Party

Democrats used to own the field of women running for higher office. Not

Nearly two years after an anticipated gender bounce - with
predictions that women in both parties would rush into politics inspired by both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin
- it turns out that the momentum is on the Republican side.

If there is a Palin effect, it is not being matched by any Clinton effect at the
other end of the ideological spectrum.

I guess my question is if you are a Democrat and don’t vote for a woman Republican, doesn’t that mean you are sexist?

No comments:

Post a Comment