Thursday, January 27, 2011

Who owns the Democrats and Obama's future

Fifteen special interest heavy hitters Democrats cannot ignore

THESE 15 INDIVIDUALS ARE AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT POWER BROKERS WITH UNDENIABLE LEVERAGE TO MOST SHAPE CAMPAIGNS, CANDIDATES AND POLICIES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. There are other Democratic heavy hitters, to be sure, but these 15 are must-haves on any list of those who cannot be ignored.

Big Lawyers:

Come July, the American Association for Justice, the chief political and lobbying voice of the class-action trial lawyers industry, will be headed by GARY M. PAUL, a name partner in a firm -- Waters, Kraus and Paul in Los Angeles -- that proudly claims to have filed more class action asbestos plaintiffs suits than any other firm in the country.

MEMBERS OF PAUL'S FIRM CONTRIBUTED AT LEAST $366,000 TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES DURING THE 2010 CAMPAIGN, with more than $364,000 of the total going to Democratic candidates and committees. And the AAJ PAC is the biggest among all legal PACs, according to, giving more than $2.7 million in 2010 contributions, all but $68,500 going to Democrats......

Big Labor

Big Green

Big Insiders

This is a do not miss article. You will get the names, contributions, etc. that make these people the heavy hitters the Democrats can’t ignore. And there is a bonus section at the end with 25 major players beyond the 15.

A spotter's guide to the Left's side of the political universe

The quick analysis is that special interests have set the agenda of the White House and Congress for the past two years, isolating the Democratic Party on the Left, abandoned by the center and the Right.


The agenda is the easy part. The last two years of White House and congressional actions can be accurately summed up in two words: MORE GOVERNMENT.

The structure of the Left, however, is harder to sort out, especially when seeking to identify leaders with sufficient clout among key leaders in the White House and Congress to capture the elite level of the Democratic Party.

Today’s Democrat Party is far more leftist than any time in its history. What’s caused that and what does it mean to the party?

Is today 1979, or 1995?

In 1979, of course, Jimmy Carter was the incumbent President, and NO SOPHISTICATED, INTELLIGENT PERSON IN WASHINGTON THOUGHT RONALD REAGAN HAD A SERIOUS CHANCE OF BEATING HIM. The RNC was convinced Reagan would be another Goldwater, and its entire focus was to deny him the 1980 nomination. You know what happened.

In 1995, President Clinton had just suffered a shocking, historic defeat in the midterms, with the Republicans taking both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. At first, he seemed to be on the same trajectory as Carter. BUT HE PIVOTED TO EMBRACE THE POLICIES OF THE NEW REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, WHILE STILL MANAGING TO PLAY OFF THEM TO HOLD HIS DEMOCRAT PARTY BASE. The Republicans nominated the clueless Bob Dole in 1996, and you know what happened.

Hence the question, is today 1979, or 1995? You can't answer that question by looking at where we are today. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING TRENDS TO GAUGE WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE IN THE FALL OF 2012.

Will Obama be Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. You have to read this article to get the author’s take on it.

A Quick 65 Points (!)

By Jay Nordlinger

Well, like you, maybe, I watched the State of the Union address, and also the Republican response. AS I WAS WATCHING, I JOTTED NOTES, WHICH I SHARE WITH YOU NOW. As usual with these things — major addresses, presidential debates — I have read no commentary before launching my own. What others think, I don’t know. I’ll get to them sometime later…..

…..22) I HATE THIS US-AGAINST-THE-WORLD STUFF. Like we’re in some kind of economic Olympics with other countries. It’s not true. Prosperity, economic vitality, is a shared blessing; it is not zero-sum. We rejoice in others’ success, and we continue to succeed our own bad selves. Small, small, what Obama is saying. I have a feeling he does not comprehend abundance.


23) In many sentences, Obama is giving a Republican address. REAGANESQUE, KEMPESQUE — Chamber of Commerce-y.

24) OBAMA IS HAILING OUR FREE-ENTERPRISE SYSTEM? Has he recently joined Rotary? What will his friends in academia say? Is he going to maintain this pose through the ’12 election? If so, we — we Republicans — may be done for . . .

This is a fun read.

SOTU: Plagiarized?

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what can be said of plagiarism? President Obama’s second State of the Union address CONTAINED ENOUGH RECYCLED IDEAS AND LINES LIFTED FROM SPEECHES OF OTHERS TO MAKE HISTORIANS WINCE. I suppose this is what one does when one not only has nothing new to say, but is required by custom and Constitution to come forth with a report of some kind by a certain time and day.

Had Obama or his writers been considerate enough to have informed listeners of where some of the president’s best lines and offered-up ideas originated, the speech might be remembered for its cutting and pasting of great and not-so-great moments of the past performance of others. AFTER QUOTING ROBERT KENNEDY EARLY ON, OBAMA TRIED TO HAVE HIS LISTENERS BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING ELSE HE SAID THAT WE MIGHT REMEMBER WERE HIS OR HIS WRITERS’ CREATIONS. Had the president submitted the text of his second State of the Union Address in the form of a college term paper, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT FORTHWITH TO THE NEAREST ACADEMIC DEAN. Once again, our public affairs are such that we have one standard for presidents and another for undergraduates. Now is as good a time as any to let Obama’s listeners in on what the late Paul Harvey would have termed “the rest of the story.”

This isn’t the first time, BHO has flagrantly “borrowed” lines, ideas, and even whole paragraphs from another speaker. I’ve made this a don’t miss (red headline) so you can see just how much he did plagiarized.

Regulatory review: Look out EPA!

On Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on Government Oversight and Investigations met for the first time this year to discuss President Obama’s executive order to review of all federal regulation. Among the Republican majority on the subcommittee, there was clear consensus: REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY HAS BEEN HARMFUL FOR THE ECONOMY AND NEW REGULATIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) NEED THOROUGH SCRUTINY.

Rep. Cliff Stearns, chairman of the subcommittee, pointed out in his opening statement that in THE REGULATORY AGENDA RELEASED LAST FALL, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REVEALED IT WAS DEVELOPING MORE THAN 4,000 NEW RULES. The EPA alone has implemented 928 new regulations in the last two years.

Stearns went on to call the number of new regulations “breathtaking, given the nation’s dire economic situation.”

Hmmm, so they can’t get the people’s representatives to pass these laws, so they plan to do it be executive fiat. The last election was definitely a restraining order.

The Obama Presidency remains in a dangerous state of denial

If there is one big takeaway from Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last night, it is that THIS PRESIDENCY REMAINS IN A COMPLETE STATE OF DENIAL REGARDING THE MASSIVE THREAT THE UNITED STATES FACES WITH ITS BUDGET DEFICIT. Obama’s speech was a major lost opportunity to address the number one menace to America’s long-term prosperity – the towering mountain of debt. Ironically, Obama’s head in the sand speech came just a day before the release of the Congressional Budget Office’s latest economic outlook, which revealed that the deficits generated under the Obama administration are the largest since 1945…..

Read this and be frightened, very frightened.

No comments:

Post a Comment