State of the Union – Democrats Seek to Sit Among Republican – Think Tank Suggestion Shakes up 200 Year Practice

Hillary Clinton and Obama sitting with Democrats during George W. Bush 2007 State of the Union - 2011 Democrats Hope to avoid show of Partisanship - image smh.com.au






The idea grew from a letter written by a Washington DC based “think tank”, Thirdway.org, the organization sent a letter to members of both Houses of Congress suggesting that the members put aside their partisan seating arrangements which have been in place for 200 years, and mix it up a bit. The group, which is headed by ex-Clinton White House staff members, business executives and others, offers suggestions on all facets of public affairs, from social issues such as abortion to “How to Talk To (i.e. Convince) Moderates about the DREAM Act”, the latest suggestion being one that will allow members of Congress to blend without identifying with a particular party during the President’s State of the Union.

Mark Udall (D-CO) was the first to push the concept, which Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) said would be taken under consideration “next week”. (NYTimes). Reid apparently has since embraced the idea, (From The Las Vegas Sun) “We need to look for more ways to be bipartisan,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “It’s important for our country that we all stand together as Americans and this could be one way to demonstrate that.”

According to the Las Vegas Sun, the Republican’s have not objected to sitting co-mingled with the Democrats. It is a gesture suggested at once to help heal the nation by showing a United Congress, and as the Thirdway Group suggests, keep the divided parties from participating in the usual actions expected in a State of the Union: Catholic-like calisthenics, with parties, sitting with distaste apparent on their faces while the opposition party is jumping up and cheering.

All well and good for an appearance of unity, and in the wake of what should have been a healing speech to the nation by Obama in Tucson (granted amidst a cheering squad of Freshmen students, at a memorial, which, although inappropriate to the extreme, was, I all likelihood, youthful exuberance by Progressive trained college freshmen who had an opportunity to cheer on a man they have been taught to sing about for the past few years.), and the media continues to assail from the left (Anti-Palin Posters in San Francisco published today) putting a certain 2012 GOP Contender in the Constant Media spotlight.

This particular story on a united Congress has been getting traction from the most notable of the left press, including the New York Times extolling the virtues of those who would mix it up as a first show of bi-partisanship.
It is truly a grand idea, and would serve the purpose of allowing our elected representatives in Congress and the Senate, the appearance of bi-partisanship. It would also downplay the significant disadvantage in numbers between one party and other which has annually been caught on c-span cameras from the inception of that reporting body. Hypothetically speaking, if a remark made by the President is not well-received by the majority (Republican’s), and they sit (as is the custom), will the approving Democrats, showing support, stand and wildly applaud? (Spectacle!) Is this really the best idea, politically speaking, for Democrats to emphasis their decline in numbers? Or is it truly a show of support for each other, as it should be, and will both parties, sit and stand together as the case may be? This will be one State of the Union address worth watching should the Democrats and Republican’s “mix it up” for the first time in 200 years. Mark your calendars and grab your popcorn, the President will deliver his State of the Union on January 25th.

Obama Delivers Masterful, Heartfelt Remarks at Tucson Memorial Service – Takes the Time to Scold Those Who Hastily Cast Blame – From Your Lips to God’

Obama Delivers Comfort to Nation - image blog adamforillinois

President Obama delivered an inspiring speech last night at the Tucson Memorial for those victims of a non-political, deeply disturbed, 22 year old, who had held an interest in Representative Gifford since 2007, in other words, an individual similar to a John Hinckley, or one who has lost touch with reason. It is the most heart wrenching type of murder simply because there is no clear rationale, which leaves the families and the nation at a loss to explain and to prevent this type of horrific event from occurring. The grief of the family and, in this instance, with a Federal Judge and Federal Elected Official among the dead and wounded, the nation, should have, from the outset been the chief consideration of the media –however, it was not. As those who sit upon their pedestals of non-stop partisanship, major media outlets used the event to further an agenda by attacking, for the most part, individuals who hold different political views, in the most disgusting display of blind partisanship journalism seen in this nation to date. The President, our President, took away the vitriol and delivered a speech that was meant to comfort those families so heartbroken, and the nation, both heartbroken and divided, the later due to those in position of delivering “news”, politicizing the event, instead of actually doing their job and reporting facts. It is not the bloggers, of which there are many of us who would defend, and reflect upon what happened, as so many fish in a sea of opinions, rather the “First Estate” of Journalist who, of their own accord, turned what should have been a solemn occasion, into a circus.

The President, our President, touched upon the crux of the matter, remembering each victim, and in the process of his oratory, delivering a message regarding rushing to judgment when all the facts are not, as yet, available.

From the text of Obama’s remarks: (CBS News)

But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

It has never been said, more eloquently, nor more passionately, regardless of the time and place, the import of all of us, Republican, Conservative, Tea Party, Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, to, of course, disagree politically, but to do so in a manner that includes due diligence as to the facts, and relies not on partisanship alone, rather on an exchange of ideas. It was, to this former Democrat, Independent, Republican, American Moderate Woman, a call to civility, delivered in such a time, place and manner as to make one take stock of what it means to take part in the public discourse, to be part of the American Dream. Moreover, how, no matter the occasion, as a Citizen of these United States of America, having the privilege of open debate, and the ability to exercise the freedoms granted all of us by our founders, to express our opinions on any given subject.

However, there is the point where we must, as noted by the President, do so with a sense towards true debate, where one might actually state an opinion and have a civil debate with one who holds opposing views. This is the only way to broaden our horizons, and to step up to the promises of our forefather, and the obligation they bestowed on each and every one of us. Of course, this call to civility, so ordered by the President, in a time and place that compels each of us to pay attention and take stock of our own lack thereof, will last only as long as the next deadline, in some cases, and in others, we may strive to give voice to concerns, and differences, and yet, politely agree to disagree. However, one thing is certain and President Obama made that point well – regardless of our difference, whenever a situation arises, we, right, left and center, rise together to heal, combat, or rejoice. It is what makes this nation exceptional. From this blogger, thank you, Mr. President, for your kind, healing, words, and your emphasis on what makes this nation the Beacon of Hope to millions, despite our differences, or perhaps because of our differences, we rise above and carry on.

Palin Responds to Media Regarding Arizona Crime - One Word - Presidential

The media is proposing there will be a backlash from the rhetoric put forth by certain members of the "Conservative Right". After receiving a phone call from a peer who was never a fan of Sarah Palin, rather would have preferred any other candidate - there was one word uttered: Presidential. Apparently, the "unenrolled", female voter on the other end of my phone line, was quite taken, not only by Palin's response, but by the barrage of insidious and inane attacks made on all Conservatives for the past week. This backlash may end up being their worst nightmare.

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Arizona Shooting - Progressives, Democrats continue to Assail Conservatives and Profit; Washington Post Op-Ed suggests Libel as Result

Stunningly similar imagry: Loughner (image ABC) & Manson (image Sun UK)




It is unfortunate that through a tragedy, such as the Tucson shooting of moderate, second amendment, “Blue Dog” Democrat Congressional Representative, Gabrielle Gifford’s, immediately evolved into media frenzy from the left against Conservative speech, with elected officials actually profiting from the heinous crime. For example, days after details of the case began to emerge, noting the individual shooter, one Jared Loughner, was, according to classmates, was a left-leaning, “pothead”, who had made previous death threats, which were known to the AZ Sheriff, and had been “fixated” on the Congresswoman since 2007. In other words, the man who’s mug shot most resembles that of Charles Manson’s (sans hair), has zero probability of being politically motivated in any way towards any type of Conservative, Republican and/or right-wing philosophy. That hasn’t, however, stopped the professional left from profiting and continuing to politicize what has happened in Tucson.
A progressive website Care2.com sent the following email (see image) to subscribers yesterday: dated January 11, 2011, the subject: Tell Sarah Palin: Violent Threats Have Consequences!



When one clicks through to the website from the email, the rhetoric heats up:

• Target: Sarah Palin
• Sponsored by: CREDO Action
Sarah Palin has a special responsibility and opportunity in the wake of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. For it was Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin alone who earlier put the crosshairs of a gun on Rep. Giffords. And so far, Palin's response has been Facebook prayers for the victims and an official denial that her widely distributed map involved gun sights at all. That is obscene duplicity at best.

Apologists on the right are already saying that while tragic, this event was simply the result of an isolated act by a deranged individual. There have always been deranged individuals. But they have not always had easy access to guns nor have they always lived in a 24-hour-a-day media machine that promotes a toxic soup of violent attacks on political opponents.

We are heartbroken by these events and our hopes and prayers are with the victims and their families. But prayers and broken hearts are not enough.

How can anyone not be haunted by the prophetic words of Rep. Giffords herself in March 2010, after her office was vandalized, threats received, and her name and district identified by Sarah Palin in her infamous crosshairs:

"Sarah plain has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

Will there be consequences?

We agree with Keith Olbermann who said last night that "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy."

Of interest is that, in this case, Sarah Palin is “The Target”.

The site is a political Petition website, with an obvious Progressive bent which profits from partners such as publicly funded entities: WGBH (Public Television), and of course the parent: PBS

As of the date of the email and petition sufficient evidence has come to light to make the charges contained within the email, scurrilous, if just not plain stupid.

Not to be outdone by the “professional left”, Vermont Senator, Bernard Sanders, is actually sending out fundraising emails to politically capitalize on the shootings Sanders, one must note, is a "Socialist", who votes with the Democrats 98% of the time (one has to wonder with whom he votes the other 2%.).

The LA Times today ran an article ”Loughner's ramblings appear rooted in far right”, www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation, and the Detroit Free Press (1-12-11) weighed in, http://www.freep.com, “Did politicians help pull the trigger?”

Again, the one person who is most maligned by the progressive leaning media and like-minded websites, one Sarah Palin, Social Conservative, is blamed.

The only sane op-ed to date, has come from the Washington Post, entitled “Massacre, then libel”, by (granted) Conservative Commentator, Charles KRAUTHAMMER Suffice it to say, Mr. Krauthammer has made the most solid points, sans rhetoric, to date.

The crux of the matter is that someone who was not mentally stable (obviously), committed a crime, whereby a Democrat Sheriff, up for reelection, decided to capitalize upon, regardless of the face the shooter was known to him to have made death threats and had been fixated on the Congresswoman, well before Palin, the Tea Party, etc., came on the scene. This was immediately picked up in newsrooms nationwide was “gospel”, transferred to the press, and of course, the Progressive Political Action Groups with the eye towards two thing: a) personal gain through either election and/or fundraising, and b) to take one step forward on an attempt to silence voices from the right, be they talk radio hosts, television personalities, or politicians. It is glaringly apparent, and as the days go forward, and the evidence mounts, it becomes apparent that there may very well be a backlash, only one with unintended consequences to those who had it wrong all along.

Who is Elected Democrat Sherriff Clarence Dupnik? A 28 Year Incumbent Democrat Who Used a Tragedy to Campaign.

The Man who used a tragedy for Political purposes, Dupnik, Sheriff elected in 2008 - image: website: Immigration Clearninghouse

A great deal of political rhetoric came out of the tragedy in Arizona where an obviously Manson/Hinkley-type gunman, who had been obsessed with a Congresswoman for the past three years (see ABC News Story included below), shot and wounded the Moderate Congresswoman, along with killing and wounding members of her staff as well as those attending a constituents meeting. In fact, the killer, who had a long history of psychiatric issues, had even made death threats to which the elected Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, was aware prior to the shooting (Reuters).

Immediately after the shooting, the Sheriff, in a Press Conference, used the opportunity to begin a political campaign for reelection as he blasted high profile personalities who are Republicans or associated with the Party, such as Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, and Rush Limbaugh, a radio personality, for their “responsibility” via right-wing rhetoric in the shooting of a moderate, gun-owning Congresswoman. Dupnik, reelected in 2008, will be up for reelection in 2012, therefore, no time like the present to take a shot at the “opposition” and throw his open border, anti immigration law constituents some “red meat”. This was immediately picked up by the MSNBC press (meaning all News outlets with the same political bent) and spun as “fact”.

Unfortunately, the facts aren’t always what is played out in the minds of those seeking to retain their political seats, or the news media that appears to support said Sheriff or has a more left of center political bent. The person who committed these crimes obviously needed help; political affiliation did not enter into the decision to shoot the Congresswoman. He was a liberal, independent, and disturbed.

As facts become available we learn that the shooter was left of center based on his progressive political philosophy taught to him during his primary school years, (The School where the shooter attended as a child was based on the philosophy and curriculum of one Bill Ayers a Progressive Professor and former domestic terrorist, whose hero was Sirhan Sirhan. It is fact, in all likelihood, those with normal psyche would never have committed such a crime, regardless of which political party or philosophy he or she subscribed.

There are, however, no excuses for the Sheriff, a duly elected official, obviously trying to make points by blasting any high profile Conservative upon which he can cast blame and, by doing so placed himself in a spotlight borne out of a tragedy. Loathsome may not be a kind enough word for this type of base behavior by a 28 year Career Democrat politician.

In the interview with ABC shown below, the scoundrel of a Sheriff, after being confronted with facts, continues to blame the “right wing” – his target, Rush Limbaugh. Above all, he remains unrepentant and stands by his twisted words. Of course, given the media, he may be doing so because he is speaking to a choir that is more interested the degradation of those on the right, regardless of facts, than they are in truth in order to push a political agenda. The Google Search for “Recall Sheriff Dupnik” is up to 26,800 results, giving rise to speculation that his base political stunt may cost him in the long run.

In this nation, in times such as these, individuals who hold seats of power of any sort, and who use them for a political platform, are actually of inciting further violence, based on their rhetoric. For the record, although a registered "Independent", the shooter, was described by high school classmates as a “liberal”, (given his Ayers curriculum, what else could one expect?.) Therefore, he was neither right wing, or left wing, merely disturbed, again, along the lines of a Manson, or Hinckley. The despicable Sheriff, and the rest of those who jumped to conclusions and were quick to point out how the “right” was responsible, in order to further a political agenda, should be exposed for the charlatans they are.

Notes of interest:

ABC Interview with AZ Democrat Sheriff


The Tucson Weekly endorses the Dupnik for reelection against Republican opponent in 2008 (Up for reelection in 2012)

Sheriff refuses to support SB1070 uses political rhetoric to support position on MSNBCC (video in article at rawstory.com)

This blog article in response to political rhetoric, proposes left of center teaching (sic: progressive teaching) responsible for violence. Note, this was written before many facts were available including the Ayers connection: It is the comments written by those who follow only one or two media outlets which are most telling, as to the type of rhetoric (including violence) that the Sheriff, knowingly caused (see campaign for reelection).

Gallup 2012 Update: Huckabee Leads in Favorables, Palin in Name Recognition Among Republican’s and Independent Leaners

The Top of the 2012 GOP Contenders, sans Gingrich: Huckabee, Romney and Palin - image: freedomslighthouse.net

A new poll released today, January 10thby Gallup, gives projected 2012 GOP Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee a fairly wide lead among the balance of the pack of projected candidates. When one considers that the Independent or unenrolled play a major part in each election, generally adding the points needed to push a candidate to the “win”, see 2010 Mid-Terms, this is particularly of import to Huckabee and/or any candidate regardless of party, which is able to positively identify with the independent (generally moderate) voter. Huckabee’s score on favorability was 30, with the nearest contender, Newt Gingrich at 24, both Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin followed with 23 and 22 respectively. The scores for Recognition favor Palin, who comes in at 95 followed by Huckabee at 87; again Romney and Gingrich receive the next highest scores. (See Gallop table below for all results.)


Poll from Gallup on 2012 Potential GOP Candidates - click to enlarge - image: Gallup.com

Also: note from Gallup on polling numbers; they apparently used only the highly favorable and unfavorables in determining the “score”, rather than include the “somewhat favorable” or “somewhat unfavorable”. This may or may not have affected the rating overall, however, given that there are four that are, currently, leading the “pack” in recognition, one can estimate that the two that would be “neck and neck” would be Palin and Huckabee (given Palin’s overall scores on Recognition).

Although none of those mentioned in the poll have declared their intent to actually run for the Presidency, it is expected that some or all will enter the fray, with Huckabee, Palin and Romney, the most likely.

Huckabee’s favorability makes sense, however, when one looks at the “mix” of Republican and Independents utilized by the polls. He is not considered “far right”, as Palin, or for that matter, Mitt Romney, who is a fiscal conservative. That said, articles written about the former Govenor by the press, normally begin with the fact that he was a Minister, not the most recent resume regarding politics, his 2-1/2 terms as Govenor of the State of Arkansas. This goes to the “threat” level of Huckabee as seen by most of the “mainstream” media. The hard fiscal right, “The Club for Growth”, by way of example, paints Huckabee as a liberal, rather than allow the fact that the man governed from the right, moving to the center when it benefited his constituents. They promoted former Govenor, Mitt Romney in 2008, going so far as to place advertising with a message that was decidedly unfavorable to Govenor Huckabee. That will, undoubtedly reoccur in 2011-2012 should Romney (who has all but declared officially), and Huckabee both run.

Additionally, the blog over at Public Policy Polling, an unabashedly Democrat leaning polling firm with one of the best records in calling races (they were spot on with the Brown-Coakley race in MA, as well as many others which end result of the poll may go against their grain, so to speak), has written a recent article on Huckabee as a candidate. Entitled Huckabee’s the Best for Now” the writer outlines the reasons why, at this point in time, Mike Huckabee is a better candidate than the leading four mentioned in the Gallup poll. It is worth the read.

As speculation mounts, and every anchor or reporter who has the opportunity, asks each one of the “potentials” when or if they will announce their intent to run for the presidency, it is certain that the field will narrow, with at least one, most possibly Gingrich (historically), not running, and several candidates, also not listed, who will decide to run. That said, should Huckabee decide to run in 2012, he will have the definitive edge on favorbles, which will translate into independent leaning votes. Should he take the GOP primaries and eventfully the nomination, he would be a formidable opponent in 2012. He has a calm, seasoned approached that comes across as reasonable leadership. In addition, as the Govenor had run in 2008 and every possible strategic shot was taken (as in condemnation from the right and left for “alleged” crimes: i.e. minister, raised taxes, pardons while Govenor), those voters who are giving Huckabee the edge, are already aware of the aspersions cast and debunked by the Govenor and history.
One thing is certain, only time will tell if this field of “candidates” will be “intact” in six months, at which point candidates, most candidates will have made their intentions clear.

As Details Emerge in Representative Gifford’s Shooting, Second “Person of Interest” sought. Teaching of Progressive Studies may lead to Murder

CNN International is reporting: Police are actively pursuing second person in Tucson Shooting, which leads to some speculation as to who would be committed enough to anti-moderate, anti-government, anarchy theory. The shooter, who had attended Community Colleges listed as his favorite books on his YouTube Profile Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, two books usually offered in a first year at any local community college. The video, shown below, was marked as one of the shooters favorites, it is from a metal band “Drowning in Polls”, and other titles offer similar concepts, violence, death and insanity.

The music, the progressive education and the focus on hating anyone who does not tow the “Progressive school of thought”, such as the moderate Congresswoman from Arizona, who had not supported SB1070, but also was against the Federal Lawsuit, (See Gifford’s chastised on Progressive websites such as Daily Kos for being a bigot for opposing the lawsuit.) would be enough to push an “unstable” 22 year old, with the benefits of the aforementioned education/environment, especially if one of his professors/mentors, was also equally dedicated, (55 year old white male) to team up and possibly murder a public figure.

Although the left has jumped on the Tea Party and specifically Sarah Palin’s gimmick of a 2008 election map outlining “targets”, as the possible motivation for the shooting, one must take this type of political rhetoric with a grain of salt and possibly a shot of bourbon. The fact that Tea Party members are more inclined to own a gun to hunt, and read the Constitution, does not in any way resemble the pattern of education/devotion to the void which the shooter displayed. Fine a Tea Party Member who is avidly a fan of the Communist Manifesto and or Mein Kampf and you’ll find a Progressive infiltrator.

The sad part of this is anarchy and suppression of free speech is at the heart of Progressives, and the education they provide to our students, from high school through college, and prey especially on the weak of mind. The old idiom “an over educated fool” would, for the most part, describe the majority of those educated after 1970, when teachers unions and progressives, grew to control the educational system in the nation. Rhetoric and polices are taught hand in hand with such subjects as math and urban forestry.
Therefore, the right call in Washington would be to guard, anyone of our representatives who remotely resembles a moderate or takes stance against the progressive agenda by compromising with a moderate or conservative.

Although not a fan of radio personality, Glenn Beck, he may have had a point when he suggested that the President would be in danger from Progessives. One must give the devil his due, Beck may have a point here, perhaps not just the President, but anyone who is a Democrat, Progressive, and seen as some sort of “traitor to the cause”.



YouTube video from Drowning Pool
Music used in Shooters “favorite video”