Harry Reid, in a recent interview with Politico , quipped that he was looking forward to being “a vulnerable incumbent” - he welcomes this roll because he feels that RNC will waste money in Nevada that they may need for other states in 2010. The article begins with notion that Reids statement that he will lead the Senate until 2015 is a move designed to goad “ Republicans who’d like to unseat him “ and stymie “the hopes of Democrats who’d like to succeed him.”
Further in Politico's article, Reid laid out his vision for the Senate, one where he (and other Democrats) would be not “rubberstamp” everything Obama wanted (See criticism of Obama from Feinstein andFrank in recent weeks), and in “gung-ho” military speech, called himself the “point of the spear” against President Bush. Seriously, Harry thinks that he has protected the country from George Bush - and furthermore - the people of Nevada, who know him, will re-elect him in 2010 to another six year term.
Apparently the people of Nevada do know Harry, and according to Sherman Frederick, Publisher of the Las Vegas Review Journal, his seat is up for grabs. In an op-ed piece January 4th , Frederick lays out Harry’s demise in simple terms; Reid will be 71 in 2010, he has “difficulty connecting with people”, and he barely survived a bid for re-election in 1998 (429 votes with no recount requested). Additionally, Harry bears the same burden as Massachusetts Senator John Kerry; he simply is not “likable”.
Frederick goes on to note that a “good chuck of voting Nevadans treat Reid like a bad haircut -- with teeth-gritting toleration.” Should an opposition candidate similar to the one he faced in 1998 (John Ensign who went on become Reid’s counterpart in the Senate in 2000), it will be game over for Harry Reid.
To read the blog that started the entire Reid re-election discussions and interesting comments visit Review Journal Blogs With all the Shenanigans taking place before the New Administration has a chance to Even take the Oval office,(Blagovich and Burris,, Comedian Franken and Burris, Television Personality Sanjay Gupta, Appeasement Panetta's appointment to lead CIA added to a bleak economic outlook that President-Elect Obama believes will last for "years" - 2010 may prove to be a very interesting year.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
RNC Chair Debate – Steele and Saltzman Best To Move Party Forward
The candidates for RNC Chair, met in a debate sponsored by Americans For Tax Reform yesterday. Televised at 1:00 in the afternoon via C-SPAN and available here on the web, the six candidates used this time to convince those who would elect the next Chair of their qualifications. Of the six, all, including current chair, Mike Duncan, insisted they understood the grass roots – however, there was a “failure to connect”, with the exception of two of the candidates, Michael Steele and Chip Saltzman. Although Saltzman, understands the campaign and how to best utilize, not disenfranchise, the grassroots of the party, his recent boondoggle of an ill-chosen, politically incorrect Christmas Gift, puts his candidacy at risk. Michael Steele remains the one candidate with the “get out the vote” ability as well as the ability to bring the Republican Party back to its original roots of “inclusion”.
The Beltway and those extreme conservative will do their utmost to keep Steele “in his place”, simply because he has a more “moderate approach” ( the Club for Growth comes to mind)and is, for all intents and purposes, not “socially conservative” enough for their tastes. In other words, they would prefer the status quo; the “us vs. them” nonsense that does nothing to bring new members to the party, rather perpetuates those RNC fund-raising mailers that have not changed in tone in the last 30 years. (Which liberal agenda scares you the most – Hurry Send $25 today!) (Mike Huckabee was incessantly attacked by the Club for Growth for the same ridiculous charges, (in league with Unions - i.e. connecting with people and getting re-elected in an state that is soundly Democrat - i.e. Arkansas twice!) which in the end, resulted in McCain’s nomination – and everyone knows how well that turned out.)
Steele, besides having a stellar conservative record, understands the need to focus on those “blue states” that the RNC traditionally avoids. The fact of the matter is that the tried and true method is not working – membership and elected officials are almost non-existent in the Northeast (whereas there are plenty of conservatives), the South is beginning to go the way of the Northeast, leaving only pockets in the Mid-West and some in the West. Steele is, shockingly, exciting. He brings a fresh perspective to an otherwise dull process, and has the ability to energize the base, but most importantly, does not plan to leave the base tucked away in a closet until the next general election, if given the opportunity to serve.
From a moderate conservative standpoint, Steele would have the ability to bring more like-minded individuals into the party, those that hold strong to social conservative values while understanding the need to be open-minded when it comes to getting out the vote.
Portions of the C-Span debate below.
The Beltway and those extreme conservative will do their utmost to keep Steele “in his place”, simply because he has a more “moderate approach” ( the Club for Growth comes to mind)and is, for all intents and purposes, not “socially conservative” enough for their tastes. In other words, they would prefer the status quo; the “us vs. them” nonsense that does nothing to bring new members to the party, rather perpetuates those RNC fund-raising mailers that have not changed in tone in the last 30 years. (Which liberal agenda scares you the most – Hurry Send $25 today!) (Mike Huckabee was incessantly attacked by the Club for Growth for the same ridiculous charges, (in league with Unions - i.e. connecting with people and getting re-elected in an state that is soundly Democrat - i.e. Arkansas twice!) which in the end, resulted in McCain’s nomination – and everyone knows how well that turned out.)
Steele, besides having a stellar conservative record, understands the need to focus on those “blue states” that the RNC traditionally avoids. The fact of the matter is that the tried and true method is not working – membership and elected officials are almost non-existent in the Northeast (whereas there are plenty of conservatives), the South is beginning to go the way of the Northeast, leaving only pockets in the Mid-West and some in the West. Steele is, shockingly, exciting. He brings a fresh perspective to an otherwise dull process, and has the ability to energize the base, but most importantly, does not plan to leave the base tucked away in a closet until the next general election, if given the opportunity to serve.
From a moderate conservative standpoint, Steele would have the ability to bring more like-minded individuals into the party, those that hold strong to social conservative values while understanding the need to be open-minded when it comes to getting out the vote.
Portions of the C-Span debate below.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Arabic News Site Questions Obama's Silence on Gaza
The Arabic News Site, Al Jezzera’s, article on president-elect Obama’s silence on the situation in the Gaza strip is nothing short of naive. There are several facts that the “Muslim world” has failed to consider, chief among them is that Obama was elected to be the President of the United States, not the “President of the World”.
In the article, Mark Perry of the Conflicts Forum, a pro-Muslim group, noted:
Although the group claims that they do not support Hamas, Mr. Perry‘s question regarding the Palestinians right of “self-defense” is plain hogwash. The situation in the Gaza was started by Hamas, an Islamic Terrorist group that was elected by the Palestinian people. In short, "the people" knew what they were getting into.
The article, in its attempt to condemn the President-Elect, goes on to point out that Obama spoke out in support of Israel during the Campaign. This should come as no surprise given the fact that Israel is a staunch ally of the United States, whereas the Palestinians are not. Indeed,the Palestinian Leadership, Hamas, has gone so far as to threaten the the US for the crime of “supporting Israel”. If Obama were to speak out against any particular "side" in this instance, when he officially takes office, one would think should be against "terrorists" (Hamas). That said, with no crystal ball in hand, no-one is in a position to know what the President Elect will or will not say.
The fact remains that Israel is a sovereign nation unto its own, taking no direction from the United States, and needing no “permission” from the United Nations or Europe in order to protect itself. With the Hamas leadership cowardly hiding in mosques, homes in highly populated urban areas, and hospitals, is it no wonder that there will be Civilian casualties? Palestinian civilians are taught from an early age to hate Israel and the U.S. and career focus in mainly on becoming suicide bombers. (You tube videos below)
One would think, think that instead of “condemning Obama’s silence”, these pro-Palestinian protesters would condemn Hamas tactics against their own people! That thought process can also be applied to the European Press (see Article Guardian UK here, CNN, CBS and the entire anti-Semitic American and International Press.
Hero of the week goes to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has traveled to Ideal to show solidarity and support for Israel’s self-defense New York City suffered one attack on September 11, 2001; the Israeli’s suffer daily at the behest of “world opinion”. It is indeed, time for change, however, the change should come in the form of outrage against groups like Hamas and the “innocent civilians” who support them.
In the article, Mark Perry of the Conflicts Forum, a pro-Muslim group, noted:
"Obama has said that Israel has the right to defend itself from rocket attacks but my question to him is 'does he believe that Palestinians also have the right of self-defense?'"
Although the group claims that they do not support Hamas, Mr. Perry‘s question regarding the Palestinians right of “self-defense” is plain hogwash. The situation in the Gaza was started by Hamas, an Islamic Terrorist group that was elected by the Palestinian people. In short, "the people" knew what they were getting into.
The article, in its attempt to condemn the President-Elect, goes on to point out that Obama spoke out in support of Israel during the Campaign. This should come as no surprise given the fact that Israel is a staunch ally of the United States, whereas the Palestinians are not. Indeed,the Palestinian Leadership, Hamas, has gone so far as to threaten the the US for the crime of “supporting Israel”. If Obama were to speak out against any particular "side" in this instance, when he officially takes office, one would think should be against "terrorists" (Hamas). That said, with no crystal ball in hand, no-one is in a position to know what the President Elect will or will not say.
The fact remains that Israel is a sovereign nation unto its own, taking no direction from the United States, and needing no “permission” from the United Nations or Europe in order to protect itself. With the Hamas leadership cowardly hiding in mosques, homes in highly populated urban areas, and hospitals, is it no wonder that there will be Civilian casualties? Palestinian civilians are taught from an early age to hate Israel and the U.S. and career focus in mainly on becoming suicide bombers. (You tube videos below)
One would think, think that instead of “condemning Obama’s silence”, these pro-Palestinian protesters would condemn Hamas tactics against their own people! That thought process can also be applied to the European Press (see Article Guardian UK here, CNN, CBS and the entire anti-Semitic American and International Press.
Hero of the week goes to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has traveled to Ideal to show solidarity and support for Israel’s self-defense New York City suffered one attack on September 11, 2001; the Israeli’s suffer daily at the behest of “world opinion”. It is indeed, time for change, however, the change should come in the form of outrage against groups like Hamas and the “innocent civilians” who support them.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Federal Commission Proposes Higher Fuel Tax – New Punishment for Consumers – The cause and effect on Congressional power
In 2007, gasoline prices soared, hitting consumers hard – forcing most to cut back on spending in order to afford, not only the drive to work, but the rising costs of food and other goods affected by transportation costs. During the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain and Hillary Clinton proposed a “Gas Tax Holiday” to ease consumer woes – this was shut down by the Democrat controlled congress based on fears that the loss of Federal Gas tax income which is earmarked for federal highway projects, would result in road construction layoffs.
The Federal Tax Rebate issued in early 2008, was intended to stimulate the economy, however, many used the funds to pay down debt associated with the rising cost of fuel. On the campaign trail, Obama urged consumers to invest in Hybrid’s, in order to cut dependence on foreign oil , and allow the US to become energy independent by 2015. The logic of hybrids – conserve energy and lower fuel costs being the main theme.
In May, 2008, oil prices were at climbed to $124 per barrel - the rise blamed on speculators and the Bush Administration. Consumer habits changed, and in part, resulted in a lowering of oil prices to the current level of $42.54, or the lowest level since 2004
The subsequent result of a drop in consumer spending as well as lower oil prices has resulted in a drop in tax revenues which are used to fund infrastructure projects. As a result, consumers can anticipate an increase at the pumps – and it is consumer habits that are, somehow, to blame.
In order to the infrastructure to be maintained (and include the increased “Big New Deal” infrastructure project by Mr. Obama to “stimulate the economy”), The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, has suggested an increase in the Federal Fuel Tax or “fee”. Those who live in the Bay State, understand that taxes being unpopular are often referred to as “fees”, (or another word for “tax”).
Logic follows that should the federal gas tax rise to meet the demands of current and projected projects, consumers would be forced to make further cuts in their spending habits at a time when the nation’s retailers are are facing bankruptcy and looking to the Federal government’s Bailout program as an option.
One obvious suggestion to increase government income would be to further reduce government waste,something likely not to occur given the increase in the size of government programs (new “state owned” industry), and the Democrat controlled House and Senate. It may serve those currently in power to recall 1994, when the GOP swept into Congress and enacted popular tax cuts - this occurred due to a President Bill Clinton and the Democrat controlled Congress suggesting a rise in the gas tax. Should the incoming administration and in-concert legislature consider further rises in consumer taxes or “fees”, one can bet the house that there will be a change in leadership in 2012.
The Federal Tax Rebate issued in early 2008, was intended to stimulate the economy, however, many used the funds to pay down debt associated with the rising cost of fuel. On the campaign trail, Obama urged consumers to invest in Hybrid’s, in order to cut dependence on foreign oil , and allow the US to become energy independent by 2015. The logic of hybrids – conserve energy and lower fuel costs being the main theme.
In May, 2008, oil prices were at climbed to $124 per barrel - the rise blamed on speculators and the Bush Administration. Consumer habits changed, and in part, resulted in a lowering of oil prices to the current level of $42.54, or the lowest level since 2004
The subsequent result of a drop in consumer spending as well as lower oil prices has resulted in a drop in tax revenues which are used to fund infrastructure projects. As a result, consumers can anticipate an increase at the pumps – and it is consumer habits that are, somehow, to blame.
In order to the infrastructure to be maintained (and include the increased “Big New Deal” infrastructure project by Mr. Obama to “stimulate the economy”), The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, has suggested an increase in the Federal Fuel Tax or “fee”. Those who live in the Bay State, understand that taxes being unpopular are often referred to as “fees”, (or another word for “tax”).
Logic follows that should the federal gas tax rise to meet the demands of current and projected projects, consumers would be forced to make further cuts in their spending habits at a time when the nation’s retailers are are facing bankruptcy and looking to the Federal government’s Bailout program as an option.
One obvious suggestion to increase government income would be to further reduce government waste,something likely not to occur given the increase in the size of government programs (new “state owned” industry), and the Democrat controlled House and Senate. It may serve those currently in power to recall 1994, when the GOP swept into Congress and enacted popular tax cuts - this occurred due to a President Bill Clinton and the Democrat controlled Congress suggesting a rise in the gas tax. Should the incoming administration and in-concert legislature consider further rises in consumer taxes or “fees”, one can bet the house that there will be a change in leadership in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Amazon Picks
Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map