Stories #1 through #3 relate what we can look forward to in the 2012 election. #1 lets us know it will be nasty. #2 tells of how the Democrats are jettisoning the working white man. #3 explores this move further as the Democrats look to try and become a majority minority party. #4 discusses the possibility of a third party candidate. #5 related Barney Franks role in the financial crisis. #6 tells of how Barney beat back the repeated warnings by the Bush Whitehouse regarding Fannie and Freddie. #7 tells how the TEA Party is under investigation after complaining about different treatment they received vs OWS in Richmond VA. #8 talks of the connection between Hollywood and Hypocrisy. Even the word Hypocrisy comes from the greek word
1. Get Ready for a Nasty Election
YOU COULD ALMOST HEAR THE HANDS RUBBING TOGETHER IN GLEE IN PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLITICAL SHOP AT THE FAILURE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPERCOMMITTEE. How the president’s politicos must welcome a new count in the indictment against the “do-nothing Congress.”
The phrase famously originates from the 1948 presidential election, when Harry Truman used it to lambaste a just-elected GOP Congress and claw his way to an upset re-election victory.
Hopeful Democrats think “GIVE ’EM HELL, BARRY” CAN USE THE 1948 TEMPLATE TO OVERCOME
It’s a plan, but it isn’t likely to work. It’s the economy stupid.
2. Obama Jettisons the Old Democratic base
Bear in mind that the group that is being jettisoned was once the backbone of the Democratic Party, just as the big business/country club sets were once the backbone of the Republican Party.
I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but from what I’ve seen around here, THE WHITE WORKING CLASS IS QUITE USED TO FEELING ABANDONED. LIBERALS ARE SEEN AS THE SORT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY AND WHO DISDAIN BLUE COLLAR JOBS OF ANY KIND, instead gravitating towards elite positions at universities or jobs in government or public policy where they can tell their inferiors what to do. While the universities are filled with the latter, local community colleges are inundated with white working class kids seeking to obtain for themselves what they failed to get from the public schools: basic literacy and numeracy — and job skills which are of actual use in the real world.
Aside from the irony that anyone with a high school degree should have to go to college in order to learn to read and write, A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A VALUABLE REAL-WORLD SKILL IS WELDING. Public school teachers (who reflect the view of the educrat class) tend to hold such “dirty” and “dangerous” work in disdain, and they steer kids away from it. GUIDANCE COUNSELORS ATTEMPT TO PUSH THEM INTO UNIVERSITIES WHERE THEY GO INTO A LIFETIME OF DEBT FOR WORTHLESS DEGREES THAT IMPART ZERO JOB SKILLS. But some of the kids are smarter than that. They realize that if you have a skill that is worth something in the real world, you can actually feed your family.
They also know something that the Occupy movement (often holders of useless degrees) has missed: that THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM’S INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AGAINST PROMOTING REAL WORLD SKILLS HAS LED TO SHORTAGES — IN SOME INSTANCES NOT OF JOBS, BUT OF SKILLED WORKERS TO FILL THEM. SUCH AS WELDERS. JAY LENO EXPLAINS.
But you’ll have to follow the link to see Jay. This is a crisis we’ve inflicted on our children. Everyone shouldn’t go to college, but everyone should be educated. It’s time to bring back shop.
3. The Emerging Democratic Minority
Back in 2002, JOHN JUDIS AND RUY TEIXEIRA PUBLISHED A BOOK TITLED "THE EMERGING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY," IN WHICH THEY ARGUED THAT DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS WERE THE DEMOCRATS' FRIENDS--specifically, that the donks were fated to benefit from rising numbers of "minority voters, including blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans; women voters, especially single, working and highly educated women; and professionals," while "the ranks of white working-class voters will not grow over the next decade," spelling trouble for the GOP.
If history had stopped in 2009, they would have been able to claim vindication. Republicans made modest congressional gains in the 2002 and 2004 elections, and George W. Bush was re-elected decisively though not resoundingly. But 2006 wiped out the GOP's congressional majorities, and 2008 bolstered those of the Democrats. Barack Obama achieved the biggest popular-vote majority of any president in 20 years and of any Democrat in 44 years--that is, since before Kevin Phillips published "The Emerging Democratic Majority," (1969) to which the Judis-Teixeira tome was a rejoinder.
But then in 2010, the tide shifted back. REPUBLICANS MORE THAN MADE UP FOR THEIR 2006-08 HOUSE LOSSES AND WON 24 OF 37 SENATE CONTESTS. THE DEMOCRATS HELD THEIR SENATE MAJORITY, BUT LARGELY BECAUSE 40 OF THEIR SEATS, WON IN 2006 OR 2008, WOULD NOT BE CONTESTED UNTIL 2012 OR 2014.
As 2012 approaches, Teixeira has dusted off his decade-old thesis. He and John Halpin have produced A REPORT FOR THE LEFT-LIBERAL CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS TITLED "THE PATH TO 270: DEMOGRAPHICS VERSUS ECONOMICS IN THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION." The argument is that "demographics" are on President Obama's side, while "economics" are not. (One might summarize the latter point this way: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.")…
…THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS WITH TEIXEIRA AND HALPIN'S "ECONOMICS VS. DEMOGRAPHICS" analysis--one economic and one demographic. For the first, consider Edsall's list of "voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment": "professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists."
Notice anything missing? THIS LIST EXCLUDES NOT ONLY BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS BUT ALSO MOST PRIVATE-SECTOR BUSINESSMEN AND WHITE-COLLAR EMPLOYEES. The only group here that comes mostly from corporate America is "human resources managers"--people whose job consists largely of complying with government employment regulations.
In other words, THE ECONOMIC GROUP THAT IS MOST PRO-OBAMA CONSISTS OF THOSE WHO MAKE THEIR LIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OFF GOVERNMENT. To some extent, this group's interests are at odds with those of Republican-leaning private-sector workers. But only to some extent. WHEN GOVERNMENT GETS SO BIG AND INTRUSIVE THAT IT SUPPRESSES ECONOMIC GROWTH, IT HURTS THE PUBLIC SECTOR TOO. THE WORST THING A PARASITE CAN DO IS TO KILL ITS HOST….
The Democrats are in a high stakes game. Abandoning part of your base is always risky and it appear the Democrats are giving up being the party of the working man to being the party of the government supported man.
4. A third Party Candidate?
Despite the Democrats salivating over the possibility of one of the Republican hopefuls running as a third party and syphoning votes away from the Republicans, the likelihood is almost nil that any would do it (funding and desire eliminates them). So who should be wary of a third party candidate?
…SELF-FUNDING WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM FOR NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG. The multi-billionaire media mogul could easily follow the Perot model and launch a national campaign. This would hardly be a Republican nightmare, however, despite Bloomberg's occasional affiliation with the GOP. There are few Republicans who would rush to the side of a notorious gun-control advocate who has pursued government mandates on salt use in restaurants and restrictions on outdoor smoking. Bloomberg's most likely impact would be on northeastern states such as New York and Connecticut, two Democratic strongholds in which Republicans wouldn't contend otherwise. BLOOMBERG COULD ALSO DRAW VOTES AWAY FROM OBAMA IN RUST BELT STATES LIKE PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO, WHICH WOULD FATALLY WEAKEN OBAMA'S ALREADY SLIM CHANCES OF WINNING A SECOND TERM.
OF ALL THE INDEPENDENT BID POSSIBILITIES, BLOOMBERG'S IS THE MOST LIKELY — or at least the least likely. Bloomberg took aim at Obama’s lack of leadership in the super committee debacle last week, perhaps signaling some consideration of a run for the White House. He could build an organization nearly overnight with his own funding, and Bloomberg might gain traction among those on the center-left and traditional Democratic donors on Wall Street who have grown disenchanted with the class warfare adopted by the Democratic Party, perhaps especially after the incitement of the Occupy movement — which Bloomberg also recently and repeatedly criticized.
IF WE SEE A SIGNIFICANT INDEPENDENT RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE NEXT FALL, IT MAY WELL BE THE DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE THE MOST TO FEAR FROM IT.
5. Loved by media, Barney Frank Helped Cause Financial Crisis
Establishment media are swooning over the unexpected departure of ultraliberal Barney Frank. BUT THIS "CHAMPION OF THE LITTLE GUY" ACTUALLY HELPED CAUSE THE MORTGAGE DISASTER, THEN KEPT THE SYSTEM BROKEN.
'Congress will now be a little dumber," was the kind of nonsense we heard from the mainstream liberal media after Frank, D-Mass., former chairman of the House Banking Committee, said no to running for re-election next year.
Formally reprimanded by a heavily Democratic House on a 408-to-18 vote in 1990 for ethics offenses regarding his financial relationship with a male prostitute, Frank has for decades been a fast-talking, acidic presence in House debates.
But HE WASN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT THE POLITICALLY CORRECT POISONING OF MORTGAGES WOULD LEAD TO A CALAMITY RIVALING THE GREAT DEPRESSION. "I, LIKE MANY OTHERS, DID NOT SEE THE CRISIS COMING," FRANK SAID MONDAY.
He sure didn't. BACK IN 2003, WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES DESCRIBED AS "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY OVERHAUL IN THE HOUSING FINANCE INDUSTRY since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago," including a new agency to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
FRANK SAID: "THE MORE PEOPLE EXAGGERATE THESE PROBLEMS, THE MORE PRESSURE THERE IS ON THESE COMPANIES, THE LESS WE WILL SEE IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING." Fannie and Freddie, of course, are those corrupt public-private hybrid monstrosities that gave lots of mortgages to people with horrendous credit ratings.
After 1996's welfare reform, liberals like Frank found other ways to redistribute wealth. Yet even after the politicization of mortgages led to the financial crisis, last year's Dodd-Frank reform kept "too big to fail" and other defects in our federally mismanaged banking system
Barney Frank was bright, but not smart. His protection of Fannie and Freddie have cause untold heartache for many Americans. If your house in underwater, you can thank Barney. But when he announced his retirement, the stock market did go up over 290 points.
6. The White House Warned Congress about Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008, Alone
The White House attempts to set the record straight:
FOR MANY YEARS THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE NOT ONLY WARNED OF THE SYSTEMIC CONSEQUENCES OF FINANCIAL TURMOIL AT A HOUSING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISE (GSE) BUT ALSO PUT FORWARD THOUGHTFUL PLANS TO REDUCE THE RISK THAT EITHER FANNIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC WOULD ENCOUNTER SUCH DIFFICULTIES. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)…
But remember Barney was telling us "the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
7. TEA Party to be Audited after Complaining about Treatment
Two weeks after the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice to Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones for costs incurred for previous rallies, we received a letter from the City of Richmond formally stating that the city is auditing our Tea Party. Coincidence? This audit is an obvious attempt to intimidate and harass us for standing up against the unfair treatment and discrimination against our Tea Party.
First some back story: as reported on the front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, THE RICHMOND TEA PARTY DELIVERED AN INVOICE FOR CHARGES INCURRED IN OUR PREVIOUS THREE TAX DAY RALLIES AT KANAWHA PLAZA because Mayor Jones chose to allow Occupy Richmond protesters to convene in the same park for two weeks.
The Mayor not only allowed the Occupiers to break the law, but he visited them in the city-owned park. “Jones said that as a ‘child of civil rights’ and protests, he had allowed the group to remain in the park but understands his mayoral responsibility to uphold laws of the city,” reported the Richmond Times Dispatch.
APPARENTLY HIS MAYORAL DUTIES INCLUDED PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR A GROUP HE SYMPATHIZES WITH IDEOLOGICALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TAXPAYERS.
The blog Virginia Right reported that the city provided services such as portable toilets, trash pickup, etc. The incomplete invoices obtained from the city totaled $7,000. This was only a portion of the actual costs to taxpayers because the costs of police, helicopter and incarcerations were not included. ALSO NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WAS THE 24-HOUR POLICE PROTECTION OF THE MAYOR’S HOME AFTER THE OCCUPIERS MOVED THEIR CAMP NEXT DOOR TO THE MAYOR’S HOUSE. The Richmond Tea Party, conversely, paid for all services for our rallies, including the police, portable toilets, park fees and permits, amounting to approximately $8,500….
Coincidence? Probably not.
8. Hypocrisy and Hollywood
Some of the most outspoken critics of the "income disparity" that exists within the free-market capitalist system can be found in Hollywood, where you'll also happen to find some of the most beneficiaries of the very system they criticize. What Hollywood so conveniently ignores is the mammoth "income disparity" and gluttonous (by their own standards for others) behavior within its own industry.
THE ORIGIN OF THE WORDS "HYPOCRISY" AND "HYPOCRITE" COMES FROM THE GREEK WORDS , WHICH IN PART MEANS "PLAY-ACTING," AND , WHICH IN PART MEANS "PLAY-ACTOR." It's ironic that engaged in the art of have no problem amassing enormous piles of wealth while at the same time denouncing the capitalist system that enabled them to create that wealth in the first place. Evidently, it's greedy to be wealthy only if you earn your millions while on the outside of their tiny elitist circle of privilege….
…PERHAPS IT'S TIME HOLLYWOOD QUITS THE AND STARTS LIVING BY THE FAR-LEFT SOCIALIST IDEAS IT EMBRACES AND HAS BEEN PREACHING FOR SO LONG. Here are a few ideas that, if implemented, can help save the denizens of Hollywood from the stigma of being hypocrites as defined today.
First: many of the high rollers in Hollywood claim that it's not "fair" that a CEO makes upwards of 700 times the amount of the average worker within a corporation. But a lead actor or actress can make well in excess of $100K a day during a movie shoot, while someone like the prop guy most likely makes little more than $100 a day. IF HOLLYWOOD ELITES TRULY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH "INCOME DISPARITY," THEY SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE -- I.E., STOP "TAKING" SO MUCH INCOME FOR THEMSELVES AND START SPREADING THAT WEALTH AMONGST ALL OF THOSE "EXPLOITED" WORKERS INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THESE MOVIES. Since they condemn what others outside their industry do with their , I think it's fair to ask: do they really to have multiple mansions, dozens of cars, and monthly $150K parties? There's no need to wait for government to force these changes upon them. They are free to start their ascent from the depths of hypocrisy at this very minute….
These are the folks who are part of the 1% but have no qualms about visiting OWS protests and get feted for it. They are getting paid so much more than the teachers or police or even factory workers get, when what they do is make believe.
9. Kagan should recuse herself
…As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and three of his Senate Republican colleagues wrote in a Nov. 18 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, a justice should withdraw from any case in which he or she "HAS SERVED IN GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYMENT AND IN SUCH CAPACITY PARTICIPATED AS COUNSEL, ADVISER OR MATERIAL WITNESS CONCERNING THE PROCEEDING OR EXPRESSED AN OPINION CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE OR CONTROVERSY." The law further stipulates that recusal is appropriate whenever a justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
As McConnell and his three colleagues - Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah - point out to Holder, RECENTLY RELEASED EMAILS SUGGEST THAT JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN'S INVOLVEMENT AS U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION "MAY SATISFY BOTH REQUIREMENTS FOR RECUSAL." Frankly, we think the GOP senators are understating what those emails reveal about Kagan's efforts in the campaign for Obamacare, even though she claimed before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing that her role as not "substantial."
For example, in January 2010, two months before Kagan became aware of her possible nomination to the Supreme Court by President Obama, HOLDER'S UNDERLINGS BEGAN PREPARING THEIR DEFENSES OF OBAMACARE. KAGAN WAS "HEAVILY INVOLVED" IN THAT PLANNING, ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL FROM NEIL KATYAL, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL. In another email, Katyal explained that he had spoken with Kagan earlier in the day about a Justice Department working group on Obamacare defense preparations and said "ELENA WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE OSG [OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL] TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS SET OF ISSUES." KAGAN WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE WORKING GROUP'S DELIBERATIONS "AS NEEDED." Since the key issue facing the working group was preparing legal defenses that would be presented by the solicitor general, it is inconceivable to think that official would be excluded from such deliberations….
Kagan needs to stand up and be recused.