[Editor's Commentary: I wanted to repost this Boston Herald article, not because I agree with every point the author makes, but because I think it's very well written and she has used some very clever expressions. My personal favorite is the "Ward Clever Reassurance Scale." I know a lot of our readers will have to Google "Ward Cleaver" to find out who the heck he is, but it will be a pleasant stroll down "memory lane" for some and new information for others.
Just a reminder......for those readers in Missouri, our primary is this coming Tuesday, Aug., 3. Polls are open from 6am to 7pm. Please be sure to vote and bring somebody with you. Vote for the most conservative candidate available, put a clothespin over your nose if necessary. Vote "YES" on PROP C, to protect Missourians from the tender mercies of Obamacare.]
By: Margery Eagan bostonherald.com
So Mitt Romney – the venture capitalist guru who never sweats – leads all Republicans in a new Zogby poll that has him within striking distance of Obama, 45-43.
Can anyone be surprised? The economy’s a mess. We’re basket cases over keeping jobs and homes. Obama’s reduced to courting Whoopi and Barbara Walters today on “The View,” hoping a cozy chat will reassure the wives of independents and/or Tea Party sympathizers who’ve abandoned the president in droves.
Close your eyes. Envision, for a second, the best known GOP contenders: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul. On the Ward Cleaver Reassurance Scale, none comes anywhere close to impeccable and unflappable Mitt with his crisp Power Point efficiency, his broad shoulders, his Vanilla Cokes, his beatific wife, and all those strapping sons with Talbots wives and Pottery Barn kids.
Does Mitt Romney ever go berserk? No.
He presides like a patient patriarch with that dignified splash of gray around his temples. (How come that gray never advances, you privately wonder).
How come, you may also ask, he seems preternaturally bloodless?
In these troubled times, nobody cares. We’ll overlook a lot: Mitt’s flips. Mitt’s flops. Mitt’s flip-flop-flips. Mitt’s illegal Guatemalan leaf baggers and the poor Irish setter Seamus he once tied to his station wagon’s roof for an eight-hour family trip.
Last time around, GOP “values” voters were supposedly spooked by the Mormon thing. There were unnerving GOP debates over evolution vs. creationism and the CNN questioner who actually asked if candidates believed every word of the Bible.
Today, it’s Mormon, Sch-mormon.
Mitt’s biggest problem: His fellow Republicans will wrap Obama-care around his neck no matter how he tries to wiggle away. And we’ll hear over and over Romney’s infamous quote: “I think the fundamentals of our economy are sound.” Whoops.
Expounding on the wonders of the free market – just months before it stole our 401(k)s – he said this to the New York Times [NYT], among others. When John McCain uttered the exact same words in the summer of 2008, and again after September’s Wall Street meltdown, it all but killed his chances along with, of course, his choice of running mate, Ms. Palin.
Suppose McCain had picked Romney instead. I, for one, am rooting for Mitt to get the GOP nod. What great fun for Massachusetts. And it’ll guarantee no repeat run by Palin, whose hokey-pokey candidacy, Part II, my shattered nerves will not survive.
After months of saying NO to Washington, the Missouri legislature has given voters something to say YES to. The language that will appear on the August 3 primary ballot, Proposition C, will be as below.
Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:
Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?
Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?
It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.
[Editor's Commentary: Kudos to the Missouri Legislature for having the courage to put Prop C on the MO. Primary Ballot so that it's citizens can finally get a real say in how our health care is managed. I know that "Kit" Bond, our Republican Senator voted against this monstrosity as did all the Republican Senators and Rep. Todd Akin voted No as well. We still feel that this is being shoved down our throats because the federal Government has no Constitutional authority to impose a national health care system on the states. But because of Prop C, Missouri voters will get a chance to join other states, like Arizona with their new law to enforce existing federal law, in opposing the relentless encroachment of state's rights by the leftists in Washington.]
On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.
In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’spreemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcementpractices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.
The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.
Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can’t ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like “a thing apart.”
The ruling ignores that, in the much later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that “No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws.”
However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.
[Editor's Commentary: Instead of using the news photo that accompanies this article, I have used this 1933 image from our media library to make a point. If we don't take back Congress this November, I fear this country may be headed for another Depression. No matter what the polls say this fall, you must vote in this election and bring as many conservative voters with you as you can.]
~~John Cronin~~
By: Mike Averill Tulsa World Staff Writer
Iron Gate was forced to suspend its food box distribution program Friday morning due to a large, misinformed crowd.
The line started forming at 6:30 a.m. outside the food pantry, located on the south side of Trinity Episcopal Church, 501 S. Cincinnati Ave.
“We estimate there were 2,000 people here this morning,” said Connie Cronley, executive director. “The heat, the crowd and the incorrect information they have received rendered, in my judgment, a situation that was unsafe.”
Cronley attributed the crowd to false information sent via group e-mails and Facebook regarding supplemental food boxes, 30-pound food boxes paid for by a $2 million federal stimulus grant to the Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma.
“It’s like a bad version of the old telephone game in which children whisper a sentence to one another and it is passed around a circle. At the end, the sentence is not recognizable,” Cronley said.
The message that was circulating was that the food boxes were free for anyone, however they’re actually restricted to families with children younger than 18 and there is an income restriction as well.
Through the program families can receive one 30-pound food box for each child and one box for every two adults. Families also receive one household box (toilet paper, soap, shampoo, toothpaste) for every two people younger than the age of 18 in the household. Families may receive these boxes each week.
Iron Gate receives 250 food boxes and 125 household boxes each week that it distributes Fridays and Saturdays in conjunction with its regular grocery distribution program. The program runs through September.
In June it distributed 382 food boxes and 191 household boxes and these served 165 adults and 217 children.
Cronley said distribution should resume in a few weeks once a better system is in place.
“The need seems to be overwhelming, not only in Tulsa but in the surrounding towns. We need to figure out how to better distribute these boxes. Other agencies are sending people to us for food,” she said.
More troubling for Democrat watchers is Carnahan’s big spending. The FEC reports show Carnahan spent quite a bit more than he actually brought in. He only raised $9,375 yet he spent $12,432. A portion of his expenses went to relocating even more staff to help with his campaign. Carnahan now employs two Capitol Hill politicos as his top staffers Angela Barranco from Whip Crowley’s office and Angela Guyadeen from Marion Berry’s office, not to mention another staffer brought in from Louisiana.
Meanwhile Ed Martin continues to show steady growth and common sense spending as he quickly closes in on Carnahan regarding his campaign’s cash on hand. Ed Martin raised $18,207 yet only spent $6,805.
“Even in fundraising Congressman Carnahan serves as a prime example of the wasteful spending that is currently so rampant in Washington. The people of Missouri’s 3rd district don’t want someone who would throw away money on hiring Washington-insiders to help them do their bidding. They want a representative who uses common sense when it comes to money – someone who will take spending seriously. Carnahan’s spending is on track with the deficit problems plaguing our country and mortgaging our children’s future,’ said congressional candidate Ed Martin.
Ed Martin’s fundraising speaks volumes as to what the people want. In these last days before the primary, candidates are required to report contributions over $1,000 within 48 hours. Ed Martin just received two of these from Missourians who are worried about the future. Carnahan has reported none.
The 2,315 page Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that President Obama will sign today should not be called “financial reform.” Instead the bill, which passed the Senate 60-39 last week when Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown joined Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to grant cloture, should be called what for what it is: pages and pages of massively costly, counterproductive and possibly unconstitutional mandates on nearly every type of business except for those government-sponsored enterprises at the root of the crisis. And while the bill claims to crack down on excesses on Wall Street, its harshest impact will likely be on Main Street businesses that had nothing to do with the meltdown.
A front-page Wall Street Journal article this week noted that “far from Wall Street, President Barack Obama’s financial regulatory overhaul… will leave tracks across the wide-open landscape of American industry.” The Journal notes that “the bill will touch storefront check cashiers, city governments, [and] small manufacturers.”
But one thing it will leave totally untouched is the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which new research by Congress’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and other bodies shows was even more of a prime factor in the subprime boom than originally assumed. The Federal Housing Finance Agency now reports that Fannie and Freddie purchased 40 percent of all private-label subprime securities in 2003 and 2004. Indeed, according to Edward Pinto, housing scholar and Fannie’s former chief credit officer, millions of mortgages to borrowers with credit scores of less than 660, considered by prominent researchers to be the dividing line for subprime loans, had been labeled by Fannie and Freddie as prime going back as early as 1993.
Rather than wait for Congress’s own Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to issue its report in December to examine the role of the GSEs and other causes, Congress passed a bill that will not prevent future bubbles and imposes untold costs that will put the country in danger of slipping back into a recession.
New collateral requirements on derivatives could cost U.S. companies as much as $1 trillion in lost capital and liquidity, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. And as the WSJ piece notes, these costs would hit not just big banks, but farmers who use derivatives to hedge the price of their crops and fuel for their tractor. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could also hit retailers that issue credit tangentially related to their business, such as small stores that offer layaway plans.
On the other side of the retail ledger, some of the biggest retailers also got an unjustified mandated benefit with the Durbin amendment that puts price controls on the interchange fees they pay to process credit cards. This corporate welfare for fat cat merchants will mean higher costs to consumers, community banks, and credit unions.
In addition, the bill contains provisions that will empower special interests at the expense of ordinary shareholders and that may exceed the limits of the U.S. Constitution. The bill’s “orderly liquidation” authority will allow the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department not only to bail out firms whose failure is deemed to be a threat to “financial stability,” but to actually seize firms that are not even asking for a bailout.
[Editor's Commentary: I have not done a search of Roy Blunt's voting record on other issues, but the abortion issue was the first to come up on a very helpful site that I was not aware of until a reader of this site gave me the heads up.
I am happy to report to you that, from a pro life point of view, Roy Blunt's record IS PERFECT!!]
2009 Representative Blunt supported the interests of NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2009.
2008 Representative Blunt supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2008.
2007-2008 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 0 percent in 2007-2008.
2007-2008 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2007-2008.
2007 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2007.
2006 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2006.
2006 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 0 percent in 2005-2006.
2005-2006 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2003.
2001-2002 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2001-2002.
2001 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.
2001 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.
2000 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.
1999-2002 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 0 percent in 1999-2002.
1999-2000 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 1999-2000.
1999 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 1999.
1999 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 1999.
1999 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.
1998 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 1998.
1997-1998 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 1997-1998.
1997 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 1997.
1997 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 1997.
1995-2004 On the votes that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association considered to be the most important in 1995-2004, Representative Blunt voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
1995-2003 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1995-2003.
1995-1998 Representative Blunt supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1995-1998
For your information as we head into the 2010 mid-term elections.
Elections
2010 Elections
Endorsements
NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC has made a number of endorsements in 2010 races:
Senate
Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA)
Sen. Russ Feingold (WI)
State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (IL)
Rep. Paul Hodes (NH)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL)
Rep. Joe Sestak (PA)
House
Ami Bera (CA-03)
Rep. Rick Boucher (VA-09)
Paula Brooks (OH-12)
Suzan DelBene (WA-08)
State Sen. Ted Deutch (FL-19)
Denny Heck (WA-03)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (NM-01)
Ann McLane Kuster (NH-02)
Rep. Betsy Markey (CO-04)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
Rep. Scott Murphy (NY-20)
Rep. Gary Peters (MI-09)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Rep. Mark Schauer (MI-07)
Dan Seals (IL-10)
Manan Trivedi (PA-06)
Rep. David Wu (OR-01)
Washington Senate: Murray Falls Behind Two GOP Challengers
Washington’s Senate race looks increasingly like a referendum on incumbent Democrat Patty Murray with two Republican candidates edging past her this month.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Washington State finds Republican hopefuls Dino Rossi and Clint Didier both earning 48% support in match-ups with Murray. She, in turn, picks up 45% of the vote against the two GOP challengers. Less than 10% of voters in both cases prefer some other candidate in the race or are undecided.
In June, Murray and Rossi were tied as they have been in virtually every survey this year. Since the beginning of the year, Murray has earned 46% to 48% of the vote, while Rossi’s support has ranged from 46% to 49%.
Incumbents that fall short of 50% at this stage of a campaign are considered potentially vulnerable, but worrisome for Murray is that this is her poorest showing of the year. She was reelected to a third term in 2004 with 55% of the vote.
Washington is one of nine states currently characterized as Toss-Ups in the Rasmussen Reports Senate Balance of Power rankings.
Last month, Murray led Didier, a former professional football player, 48% to 40%. Prior to that survey, Didier’s support had ranged from 30% to 37% since January. In the same time period, Murray earned 47% to 51% in match-ups with Didier
A third Republican hopeful, businessman Paul Akers, continues to trail Murray. But in the latest survey, the incumbent leads Akers 46% to 41%, while a month ago she was ahead 48% to 38%.
Republicans will pick their candidate in an August 17 primary, but Rossi, a two-time unsuccessful candidate for governor, is still considered the favorite in the race.
ST. LOUIS – Roy Blunt’s campaign this week announced it raised more than $2.2 million in the last fundraising quarter, trouncing Robin Carnahan by $700,000. Roy Blunt now has a nearly $1 million cash advantage over Robin Carnahan in the race for United States Senate. Blunt also continues to lead Robin Carnahan in the polls.
Respected pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports says Robin Carnahan, “has never led in the race.”
It is clear to a huge and growing number of Missourians that the Carnahan, Pelosi, Reid and Obama policies are a disaster for jobs, the economy, health care and energy.
[Editor's Commentary: It is apparent that Missouri voters are in the process of rewarding Roy Blunt for his conservatism ( the American Conservative Union gives Mr. Blunt a 94% lifetime rating for his conservative voting record) and punishing Robin Carnahan for her leftist tax and spend politics.]
Not looking good for the Dems this Fall. On the national scene, we all saw the polls this week that showed the top three presumptive Republican Presidential candidates have tied or are in the lead against President “Oil Slick.”]
I don’t have time to go into the financial reform bill that was passed by the Senate yesterday, so I just wanted to weigh in briefly with my opinion of the latest Obama Outrage.
This bill is 2,300 pages long and I assume that the same diligence was pursued by Members of both Houses of Congress as was pursued when they were crafting the monstrous Health Care “Reform” Bill that was somewhere between 2,300 and 2,700 pages long….in other words, I assume no one read this bill either.
The bill is nothing more than the “shell” in which multiple new bureaus will be housed. These new government flunkies will have sweeping new powers to further hamstring our financial system. I do recognize that problems existed in our financial system, but adding many new layers of government is not the answer.
Keep in mind that most of the problems we witnessed in the Meltdown of ’08 were the result of the failure of regulators to recognize the excesses and to properly police the system using existing legislation.
As with All Things Obama, the knee-jerk reaction to any problem is 5 or 6 new bureaus, 15-20 new czars, a $ Trillion in new spending, a round of golf, a White House concert that blows another $ million, two staged townhall meetings and then cap all that off with another vacation.
DETROIT — States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.
Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally.
President Barack Obama’s administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law’s backers say Congress isn’t doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it’s the state’s duty to step up.
“Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox’s office, said she was thankful for the support.
We’re coming off a great week at the Team Carly headquarters. Our campaign is heating up, and almost every poll released in the last week has Carly either leading or in a statistical tie with Barbara Boxer.
A SurveyUSA poll released Monday evening shows Carly ahead of Boxer by two points with likely voters, 47 percent to 45 percent. The news outlets are now calling our race one of the hottest Senate races in 2010. They’re reporting what we’ve always known: Barbara Boxer is more vulnerable than ever, and Californians are ready to fire her this November.
There’s no doubt this race is a dead heat. Your generous support has been critical in building a campaign infrastructure to help send Boxer packing once and for all. But we’re certainly not writing Barbara Boxer off. The last finance report filed by her campaign showed she had more than $10 million in the bank. After a costly and hard-fought primary campaign, we are starting at a disadvantage against her. The polls show Boxer can be defeated, but we need the resources do so.
[Editor's Commentary: Although SolidPrinciples does not endorse candidates, we do endorse Conservatism. Replacing the Uber-Liberal Barbara Boxer with the much more conservative and pro life Carly Fiorina is a quantum improvement, in our estimation. Conservatives are racking up big leads in several races around the country, they have leads of 5-7 points in others and there are virtual dead heats in a few states.
Of course, as the cliche says, the only poll that counts is the one they hold on November 2, 2010, so we can't afford to get complacent. I would urge all our readers to get involved in a Congressional race in your home state. Every campaign needs help with phone banks, mailings, yard signs, etc., so please help a conservative get elected this Fall.]
I have grown so tired of listening to the same old shop worn talking points of the corrupt and failed Democrat Party, that basically hasn’t changed it’s spiel since the Depression Era of the 1930′s, that I wanted to give the Sharon Angle campaign the opportunity to counter the vintage Dem line that she wants to end Social Security.
On this YouTube video, she explains that she wants to stop tax and spend politicians like the soon-to-be-defeated Harry Reid, who have used Social Security as their piggy bank for decades.
The Democrats’ populist assault on all things Wall Street, we are told, helps them politically regardless of the legislative outcome.
Democrats, NBC Nightly News reported, “actually scheduled [Monday’s] vote knowing they would lose and they did because they see it as a political win — better able to paint Republicans as too friendly with Wall Street.” Roll Call adds “Democrats got exactly what they wanted Monday night: a concrete way to try to tar Republicans as beholden to Wall Street schemers who would put the country in danger of another financial industry collapse.” The take at Fox News was no different: “Democrats believe the staging of such votes will help them portray Republicans as agent of Wall Street greed.”
Should they succeed in painting the GOP as the slaves of Wall Street, it will surely rank among the most brazen attempts to redefine political reality in quite some time. Why? Because, if campaign contributions amount to any sort of referendum on the 2008 election, the Democrats won going away among these “Wall Street schemers.” Politically, if not culturally, the denizens of Wall Street reside comfortably in the Democratic column.
Conduct a few searches on the Huffington Post’s Fundrace 2008 site and you’ll see what I mean. Search by “employer.” When it comes to all the major Wall Street firms currently gracing our front pages, the results may floor you and should be posted in the cubicle of every editor in every mainstream media outlet in America.
Here are some examples, all of which relate to giving during the 2008 presidential election:
· Over 550 employees of Goldman Sachs contributed enough to one or more of the 2008 presidential candidates to show up on the Federal Election Commission’s data base — 388 contributed over $814,000 to Democrats while only 163 favored the GOP, dropping a more modest $258,000 into their coffers.
· At Lehman Brothers 310 employees voted Democratic with their contributions, to the tune of $642,000; meanwhile, 154 cut checks to Republicans totaling about $262,000.
· Nearly 500 Morgan Stanley employees sent over $834,000 to the Democrats while 247 of their colleagues deposited less than half that amount (under $400,000) in Republican campaign accounts.
· Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees favored the Democrats by a 6 to 1 margin, sending $220,000 to the Democrats and only $37,500 to the GOP.
The Democrats cleaned up in similarly spectacular fashion at other big banks and financial firms, including Bank of America, Bear Stearns, UBS, Wells Fargo, Barclay’s Capital, and Citibank/Citigroup. (Merrill Lynch employees were the sole exception to this rule.)
While these searches are limited (I only searched for the biggest and best known firms), they are nevertheless revealing. Over 3,550 employees of these firms voted for the Democrats with their pocketbooks, sending them over $5 million; fewer than half that number (1,620) sided with the Republicans, whose take was approximately $2.25 million.
Wowie Zowie, so who knows from a recession in the Democrat Party! Obama was in Kansas City Thursday to raise money for Robin “Rubberstamp” Carnahan and the price tag per plate for the dinner was………$30,000!!!
Your eyes are not deceiving you and that was not a typo. $30,000 for the chance to schmooze with the party of the “little guy,” the party of the “working man,” the party of the “disenfranchised.”
How about the party of the “Gulfstream liberals,” the party of the “limosine liberals” or the party of “hypocracy.” Do you think all those Democrat fat cats were there just because they were interested in good government?
I wonder what the chances are for the MSM to go into high dungeon over this latest outrage of the undue “influence of money in politics?’ Zero? Less than zero?
I don’t want to give the lefties in Washington another bad idea, but do you think the folks who shelled out 30 large for the K.C. shindig might need a federal bailout after that kind of an outlay?
After months of saying NO to Washington, the Missouri legislature has given voters something to say YES to. The language that will appear on the August 3 primary ballot, Proposition C, will be as below.
Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:
Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?
Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?
It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.
[Editor's Commentary: Kudos to the Missouri Legislature for having the courage to put Prop C on the MO. Primary Ballot so that it's citizens can finally get a real say in how our health care is managed. I know that "Kit" Bond, our Republican Senator voted against this monstrosity as did all the Republican Senators and Rep. Todd Akin voted No as well. We still feel that this is being shoved down our throats because the federal Government has no Constitutional authority to impose a national health care system on the states. But because of Prop C, Missouri voters will get a chance to join other states, like Arizona with their new law to enforce existing federal law, in opposing the relentless encroachment of state's rights by the leftists in Washington.]
SACRAMENTO, CA – U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina today joined former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez in holding a town hall with Latino leaders at Griselda’s Catering in Sacramento to discuss the important issues facing the Latino community in California.
“Carly Fiorina understands the tough environment Latino families, businesses and communities are facing right now because of the recent economic slowdown and because of misguided policies championed by our leaders in Washington,” said Gutierrez. “Carly is a practical problem-solver who will be a vocal advocate in the U.S. Senate, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to support her candidacy.”
Gutierrez began his career as a sales representative and management trainee at Kellogg Company in 1975. He rose to become the company’s president and chief executive officer in 1999 and was, at the time, the only Latino CEO of a Fortune 500 company. He was then appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, a position he held from 2005 to 2009.
“California used to be the land of opportunity in the land of opportunity. But under Barbara Boxer’s leadership, taxes have gone up by more than a trillion dollars, our debt and our deficit have skyrocketed and the size and scope of government continues to grow,” said Fiorina. “If we want to get our state and our nation on the track toward job creation and economic growth, then we must support our nation’s small businesses and entrepreneurs. Barbara Boxer has thus far refused to pursue policies that encourage their growth and success, and that’s why we must replace her this November.”
Fiorina today also launched Amigos de Carly, a Web site dedicated to informing Spanish-speaking Californians about her candidacy for U.S. Senate and her views on some of the most important issues facing the state today, including job creation, economic growth and water. Amigos de Carly builds on Fiorina’s continuing efforts to reach out to members of the Spanish-speaking community, including through the Latinos for Carly coalition, which is chaired by former California State Assemblyman Bob Pacheco.
Rifle through a stack of Tea Party candidate resumes, and Joe Miller’s will stand out.
The man who wants to turn a fellow Republican, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, out of office is a graduate of Yale Law School and West Point, a decorated combat veteran and former judge. Many Tea Partiers share his disdain for Washington, its political gridlock and mounting debt, but not his credentials.
The message he conveys, though, is straight from the Tea Party script: He fears the nation is veering toward socialism and insolvency. He says Murkowski is too liberal.
To Miller, Alaska’s senior senator is complicit in the ballooning U.S. debt and spending and has a voting record that would make a Democrat proud. His agenda envisions a federal government with reduced limits. He would cut off federal dollars for the United Nations, gradually privatize Medicare and Social Security and disband federal departments that aren’t spelled out in the Constitution, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Education Department.
“The problem,” he says, “is incumbency.”
In an election year marked by Tea Party activism, Miller is part of the next wave of Republican primary candidates counting on a public weary of Washington and the stale economy, and eager for fresh faces. In more than a dozen primaries in the months ahead — among them Oklahoma, Kansas, Tennessee, Colorado, Arizona, Washington state and Florida — Tea Party candidates are determined to upend the status quo and capture GOP nominations.
Could Miller be the next Rand Paul or Sharron Angle — Tea Party-backed candidates who stunned GOP powerbrokers in Kentucky and Nevada?
Murkowski, a moderate and the first woman elected to Congress from Alaska, “is pretty safe but you never know,” says Judy Eledge, president of the Anchorage chapter of the Alaska Federation of Republican Women.
Eledge, who is not aligned with either candidate, says Murkowski’s biggest challenge will be reassuring conservatives. On Friday, the senator announced her opposition to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.
As a state legislator, Murkowski voted to raise alcohol taxes and against a bill to restrict publicly funded abortions. As a member of the GOP Senate leadership, she has displayed a centrist streak. Independents who make up more than half Alaska’s registered voters can vote in the Aug. 24 primary, which analysts say will benefit the incumbent.
Miller has gotten a boost from endorsements from Sarah Palin, the Tea Party Express and local Tea Party groups. But Murkowski has $2 million in the bank and has a familiar name in Alaska politics. Her father, Frank Murkowski, was a governor and senator. As governor, he appointed his daughter in 2002 to the Senate seat he had held.
Former Alaska lawmaker Andrew Halcro, a friend and supporter of Lisa Murkowski, says her moderate brand of politics fits well in a state where most voters don’t belong to any party. But the prevailing sour mood in the U.S. poses a threat.
“Like a lot of states, you have an angry populace” in Alaska, Halcro says. “If I’m Lisa, I am worried because these guys have an appealing message — down with government, down with incumbents.”
Surprises are the norm this year.
Three-term Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah was ousted by Tea Partiers at the state GOP convention in May. Tea Party darling Angle engineered a come-from-behind victory in Nevada over an establishment-preferred candidate and will challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. Rand pulled off a surprise win in Kentucky’s Senate race over a party favorite. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was forced out of the GOP by Tea Party-backed Marco Rubio and is running as an independent. In South Carolina, Palin’s support and Tea Party activists helped GOP state Rep. Nikki Haley emerge from a crowded field to capture the GOP nod for governor.
In Colorado, the GOP Senate nomination appeared destined for a former lieutenant governor, Jane Norton. But Republican prosecutor Ken Buck has emerged as a rising Tea Party star by blending grass-roots organizing, a message of ideological purity and a folksy appeal he shares with candidates such as Angle.
In Tennessee, a Tea Party Republican seeking a congressional seat in a crowded field has made headlines by opposing construction of a suburban Nashville mosque. Candidate Lou Ann Zelenik says the “Islamic training center” is part of a political movement “designed to fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee.”
“Until the American Muslim community finds it in their hearts to separate themselves from their evil, radical counterparts, to condemn those who want to destroy our civilization … we are not obligated to open our society to any of them,” Zelenik says. She hopes to replace Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon, who is retiring after 13 terms.
In Washington state, former professional football player Clint Didier is questioning the Republican credentials of party-recruited candidate Dino Rossi in the scramble to take on three-term Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
The true test of the Tea Party candidates is whether they can attract moderate and independent voters to win in November.
In what looks like another move toward a possible run for the White House, Mitt Romney is donating $20,000 to the N.H. Republican Party.
According to the state party and a Romney spokesman, $15,000 of the contribution comes from Romney’s New Hampshire political action committee, with the remaining $5,000 from his federal PAC.
The former Massachusetts governor and 2008 GOP presidential candidate also donated $10,000 to the state party last year, bringing to $30,000 the amount of money he’s donated to the Republican Party of New Hampshire this cycle.
Romney is the only possible 2012 Republican presidential hopeful so far to donate money to the state party. New Hampshire holds the first primary in the nation, playing an influential role in the race for the White House.
Romney, through his PAC, has endorsed more than 100 Republican candidates so far this 2010 election cycle. The endorsements appear to be part of a strategy for Romney to build support among Republicans across the country, in advance of what many consider will be another bid for the White House.
