Saturday, June 06, 2009

Christy Mihos, 2010 MA Gubernatorial Candidate against Incumbent Deval Patrick (27% Approval Rating), Taps Dick Morris to Manage Campaign.

Dick Morris - Christy Mihos Campaign Manager - photo shangahijill

The Boston Herald is reporting that Christy Mihos has hired political consultant Dick Morris, as his Campaign Manager. Morris, who is widely known as the architect of Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election bid, and has also played pivotal roles in winning campaigns for over 30 high profile politician’s, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Governor Pete Wilson of California, and acted as advisor for Mike Huckabee’s gubernatorial campaign and played a role in his 2008 Presidential bid. Most importantly, Morris is familiar with Massachusetts, winning the Governor’s office for Bill Weld.

In another Herald Article, Deval Patrick, has chosen David Plouff (credited with creating the mantra “Yes We Can”) to head the Governor’s campaign. Plouff, campaign manager for Obama, will have his hands full – this race will, like the 4th district race against incumbent Barney Frank, take a national tone, given the parties involved. Also, due to the fact that the portrayal of Massachusetts as an entrenched “Blue State” is still playing like a broken record - those running against said incumbants will be given little thought or downplayed (see Herald article) in the media.

However, there are indications from local registrars offices, that a shift in sentiment is taking place across the Bay State (which should be called the “Greyest” State due the overwhelming majority of Independent or “Unenrolled” voters), with inexplicable gains in membership for both Republicans and specifically Independents. Add Patrick’s’ approval rating of 27% , which leads one to believe that Plouff will require a Titanic sized lifeboat to get out from under this particular election.

From a pragmatic point of view, Christy Mihos already has his foot in the proverbial door, having introduced himself to Bay Stater's in 2006. Mihos ran as an independent against Republican Party favorite Kerry Healy and Patrick. The outcome was a direct result of the “Yes We Can” mentality of defeating George W. Bush, with any Republican incumbent or challenger facing the media onslaught and a people’s mindset that painted anyone affiliated with one party with the same brush. The fact that, since 2006, when the Democrats swept into the Congress and continued to blame Bush for getting nothing accomplished, aided by most media, Obama had an easy ride into the oval office – and since then, has continued to blame Bush – which, has finally worn thin, specifically coupled with failing policies and an electorate that is by and large nationwide made up of independent voters.

Time for a change – Massachusetts will be given a chance to redeem itself for exporting the “Yes We Can” Carter politics nationwide (we forewarned), and although, the people of this state have consistently elected the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s and yes, even the Barney Franks, while some looked to early polls that indicated they should have all been long retired and were, dumbfounded, the fact remains, that given enough incentive (The Economy Stupid), Massachusetts those voters will flip on a dime and elect a Republican. Should this happen, and one or more prominent Democrat politician’s lose long-held seats (or in Patrick’s case – one term seat), the tone will be set for the nation – it will be the “shot heard round the world”.

To Learn More about Mihos and Massachusetts visit:Christy Mihos for Govenor 2010

Friday, June 05, 2009

Obama’s Speech Severely Critiqued by Arab Press – Al Jazeera on Obama’s newfound Muslim Roots and Blame America Proclivities.

The Al JazeeraNews Agency, with offices Worldwide, Including the U.S. has long been known as Osama Bin Laden’s main news outlet – being the first to have access to video missives from the Al Queda Leader. Today’s English Version Website article spoke to the “distinctly American” flavor of Obama’s speech in Cairo, whereby, the President invoked language that, to the Al Jazeera author, appeared to have been said before.

Alternately, there was a bit of angst over the fact that suddenly, Obama has found his muslin origins, using his middle name, one which was banned from his Presidential campaign.
In context: from Al Jazeera:

Obama's constant references to his Muslim background, boyhood days in Indonesia, and frequent citations from the Quran sounded a bit odd coming from a man who made strenuous efforts to ignore those aspects of his autobiography in the 2008 campaign for the White House.

On the Republican’s taking exception to a remark the apologist President made regarding September 11th and the Democrats response:

Joining the Republican chorus was Elizabeth Cheney, a former Bush administration state department official and daughter of the former vice-president, Dick Cheney.
Her comments seemed intended to defend her father from criticism of his actions on waterboarding and selective use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
"I, as an American, find it troubling to hear an American president on foreign soil say our reaction to 9/11 was something that betrayed our ideals," she told MSNBC news on Thursday.

Fellow Democrats, meanwhile, praised Obama, with Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives, calling the speech "a great triumph".

The article continues with the remarks made by Obama regarding the U.S. role in the Iranian Government in the 1950’s and closes with his desire to add additional troops in Afghanistan leading to a potential Viet Nam.

One has to understand this article was written by an American, Rob Reynolds, who has obvious sympathies with the Middle East, but also is looking at the actions of this President as an American. Therefore, the less than stellar review represents a meeting of two minds – one that is of the West and at the same time of the East – giving a clear indication that the President is being viewed as a political opportunist, who has less allegiance to the United States than to his own political hide.

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Universal Health Care and Rationing - The effect on seniors and Lower and Middle Class Americans

In a an articlefrom the Washington Post, President Obama is taking a hard look at cost controls on health programs for seniors and the disabled – apparently suggesting that the model used be the same as that of military base closings. Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats met with a Canadian Socialist Party Leader, who is pushing hard for Obama’s Universal health Care Plan and one has to ask: what benefit would be brought to the Canadian Health Care system should the United States institute a similar program?

Measure are already being taken to “ration” certain costly procedures under Medicare: From a May 19th Wall Street Journal Article: “How Washington Rations”

Try to follow this logic: Last week the Medicare trustees reported that the program has an "unfunded liability" of nearly $38 trillion -- which is the amount of benefits promised but not covered by taxes over the next 75 years. So Democrats have decided that the way to close this gap is to create a new "universal" health insurance entitlement for the middle class.
Such thinking may be a non sequitur, but it will have drastic effects on the health care of all Americans -- and as it happens, this future is playing out in miniature in Medicare right now. Desperate to prevent medical costs from engulfing the federal budget, the program's central planners decided last week to deny payment for a new version of one of life's most unpleasant routine procedures, the colonoscopy. This is a preview of how health care will be rationed when Democrats get their way.

The system of rationing medical care and procedures in Canada has seen many Canadian citizens, who can afford the trip, seeking care in the United States in order to survive the waiting lists for lifesaving procedures. From a 2007 Canadian employee benefits newsletteroutlining the dangers of the U.S. adopting a similar system to Canada the statistics are unnerving: The average wait time for a routine cat scan is 4.3 weeks, and up to 17.8 weeks to see a family practitioner.

The problem for American’s is that, should a similar system be implemented with the same restrictions on health care delivery, even those with the means would be hard pressed to find adequate care in bordering Countries.

Should this President and like-minded legislature implement a program similar in scope to Canada’s, one has to question the government’s ability to administer any program efficiently, especially in light of worsening economic conditions. With the rising rate of unemployment, mass-retirement of the baby-boomers, and the high inflation that is certainly looming (See Bernake’s latest fears on the deficit.), now is not the time to look to “improving” the American Health Care System by nationalizing Health Care. It is a matter of millions of economics: Millions of citizens will be in need of government assisted health care as it stands, and the wherewithal to pay for the services will be greatly reduced by a drop in Government Income; the only solution would be to either outright deny or delay treatment for individuals in order to cut costs.

There are options available that would maintain the current system and save the government Medicaid and Medicare dollars: by stressing preventive care, and instituting a program whereby those receiving health care benefits, would monitor their bills, reporting discrepancies in billing (which does occur), and receiving rewards (reduction in premium perhaps for Medicare recipients), for finding billing errors that would save government millions. This is instituted in the private sector through self-funded employee benefit plans – and it works.

Problems facing health care providers: the high cost of malpractice insurance, the use of health care providers, including hospitals by those illegal immigrants who have neither an employee sponsored plan or Medicaid, with no reimbursement from any sector.
Additional costs for expensive elective surgery, now mandated in certain states, should not be the burden of the taxpayer. Massachusetts' Version of Universal Health Care, not only offers citizens 26 mandated benefits, with more planned, but taxes citizens who do not opt for health care coverage. Additionally, the cost of health insurance in Massachusetts rose across the board, once mandated health care was in place.

There is no question that the U.S. Health Care system (one of the best in the world) could be better, however, instituting policies that have already proven to be basic failures, with no means to pay for the programs, should be avoided at all costs.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

NBC – Revelation – Obama Has Muslim Roots!

Barack Obama with His Muslim Family - from blog Elephant Bar

Et Tu NBC? Jake Tapperand Susan Miller, apparently overheard a comment from a White House aide regarding the President getting in touch with his Muslim Roots – and they think this is news.

The report

During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said "the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago."

This so shocked Mr. Tapper and Ms. Miller because the Obama Campaign did everything in its power to downplay the fact that Obama, did indeed, have Muslim roots, something that was common knowledge for anyone with a computer and the ability to use “Google”. The crux of the matter, or non-matter, is that now, as President, and “safe” from a paranoid public that would never (in the minds of some) allow a Muslim to hold office, he’s taken to using his middle name “Hussein”, something that was discouraged during the campaign and up to Election Eve.

Republicans were called on the carpet for using the Presidential Candidates Obama’s middle name and roundly criticized by this same press. Therefore and suddenly, both the campaign and the press appear to be - Hypocrites! Therein lays the problem: suddenly, they are shocked that the campaign would decry Obama’s roots – to get elected!

It was precisely his denial of his Muslim heritage that was brought up by those Republican’s who were so chastised in the press – for example: Politico reported back in June of 2008, that Muslim women were barred from being photographed in their religious garb during one of the campaign photo-ops – a move that was resoundingly criticized by those same campaign officials as soon as the situation was brought to light.

Herein lays the problem: bigotry on the part of the Obama campaign as well as a certain lack of integrity (goes to the Republican point during the campaign). To throw one’s roots under the proverbial bus, in order to hide a segment of oneself that might turn off a voter or two, is, in itself, shameful. The simple fact is, here, in the United States of America, there is freedom of religion guaranteed to all, regardless of faith, and that in most communities, large and small, those who are Muslim are treated no more or no less than those that are Christian, Jew, or “pick-a-flavor” religion, because they are Americans . Even after the attacks on the country by radical Islamic Fascists, “hate” crimes against American Muslims were few and far between – in fact, those Muslims decried the assault and took it personally, as we all did, because they are – Americans! Before the 2008 election, there was little mention of race, religion or gender, but, the constant drumbeat from the media that one must be “prejudice” if one does not vote for an African American or a Women, drove the bigotry that had been pushed underground to the top, in other words, re-creating a tone that was long-gone or existed in the minds of the very few, not the very many. Therefore, the Party that prides itself on being so bloody inclusive of all people, regardless of color, faith or ethnicity, has becomes the party that divides on issues of race, etc., especially if the quest is an election.

More over, what was most insulting to those People who were paying attention, (those that read the news, watch multiple news programs), was that the Obama campaign was embarrassed because of Barack's Muslim roots and did everything possible to hide that fact. Instead of embracing his background and showing the American Public just how diverse he truly is: Caucasian, Muslim, African American, Christian, he lost the opportunity to campaign as the epitome of the melting pot that is America.

Would it have made a difference? Possibly – but who would have been the ones that would have made it an issue? Certainly not those in the middle, or those on the right (who would not have cast their vote for Obama regardless, and this based on the fear of him being a “socialist”), it would have been the rank and file Democrats that Obama feared might balk at his roots. In other words, he did not give enough credit to his base.

Now, that Obama, as President, is about to head to the Middle East and speak to those Heads of State that, in what would be routine, he is bringing his roots to bear and Tapper appears perplexed that he is reaching out to these countries using his roots: (From the NBC Article)

Since the election, however, with the threat of the rumors at least somewhat abated, the White House has been increasingly forthcoming about the president's roots. Especially when reaching out to the Muslim world.
In his April 6 address to the Turkish Parliament, President Obama referenced how many "Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them."

To recap: Those that should be justifiably “miffed” are the 2.3 to 7 million Muslim citizens of the U.S. Those who are of another flavor of faith, should also be a bit perplexed that someone would decry their obvious birthright in order to “pull the wool” over the eyes of those American’s “who would find being Muslim” (another insult)unacceptable due to an assumed prejudice.

Tapper and Miller fall into another group – journalist who campaigned daily in their editorialized news, driving an American election out of sheer ideology, slowly realizing that there is no such thing as perfection in any candidate. Finally, those Heads of State should be concerned as well, Obama’s new found roots are certainly convenient – in 2008 he denounced and denied his Muslim ties, in 2009 he is “one of them”. The problem Obama and the press now face is the fact that average citizens will not continuously buy the fact that the most diverse and Free nation on the Planet would keep someone from office due to a mainstream Religious Affiliation (be it Hindu, Buddhist, Christian (multiple denominations, including Mormon), Jewish or Muslim) - those that vote do so by party affiliation (which is questionable in itself), the merits of the candidate (which should be the first priority), or, in the case of the last election: the Guy who most like the “Next American Idol” (makes one cringe, does it not?)

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

2010 - Follow the Money – Democrat Fundraising Down Despite Obama “Star Power”.

A Politicoarticle released this morning noted that some Democrats are concerned over the less than stellar recent fundraising returns. Apparently, even Barack Obama’s appearance at a Hollywood fundraiser was not enough to sell higher priced “tickets” which were ultimately discounted, allowing the event to be a “sell out”. The three fundraising arms of the DNC (DNC, Democrat Senatorial Committee and Congressional Committee) have raised a total of 56 million this year, compared to the RNC, which has come in at $54.9 million. This may be somewhat disheartening for Democrats, who rely heavily on donations from Hollywood and Organized Labor, with individual donations having been heaviest during this past general election cycle. Apparently concerns that the base is feeling “safe” due to the outcome of the election (i.e. George Bush is no longer in office), the individual donations have slowed. The author did not take into account that the solid DNC base makes up only 30% of the electorate, while the balance came from those moderate Democrats and Independents who may not be overly enamored of the Democrat Party given the current state of the economy. The gambit to blame George Bush and the Republican Party is losing luster as time passes, and, with the state of the economy, those Union contributions (which make up a large part of the DNC funds) will be harder to come by – the inability to collect dues, due to worsening conditions and future inevitable layoffs (GM may have gone to the UAW, but the success of GM will be in the hands of the American People who already prefer American Owned Fords to the Government Owns GM models.) Further, as the rest of the nation suffers from increased prices (food and essentials), and job losses, the image of the President taking a weekend jaunt to New York allegedly on the taxpayers dime does nothing to open the individual pocketbooks of those who may be “less fortunate”.

The Politico article further notes that the DNC is barely ahead in fundraising, “despite the current toothless state of the Republican Party, its dispirited base and its dim prospects of taking back control of any branch of government in 2010." That author’s statement is a bit premature, although the media “party line” is a constant reminder that the Republican Party is less than, it fails to take into account the raw fundraising numbers which would indicate resurgence rather than demise. The fact that the RNC has raised, according to Politico, 1.1 million less than the Democrats is telling - as it is, in reality, a slim divide. Further, with the RNC reinstituting its phone banks, individual donations will play a larger factor. Additionally, with a large percentage of the populace not certain about the Democrats move to socialize everything from the banks, to automakers to health care (which is turning into a harder sell – despite Obama’s attempts to tie it to the economy) they are bound to take a second look at the oppostion. Also of note: when the Daily Kos, a left leaning political website, is not on board with the current administrations policies, there are problems in “river city” as that is "the base of Obama".

What of the dim prospects the RNC has of taking back any part of the Congress? It would be too early to make any bold statements regarding who will control the legislature come 2010 – as the economy worsens, and recovery will not begin soon enough, those who did not partake of the non-existant “hope and change, middle-class resurgence” that was “promised by the current party in power, will most likely turn (as has happened repeatedly in the past) to the other party, specifically if that party has the fiscal responsibility edge. As hard as the DNC and pundits (Conservatives alike) point to the excesses of the Republican controlled legislature, the numbers pale in comparison to today’s Democrat Congress. It will be based on the economy – it will be the candidate that has the ability to lay out a plan to create private sector jobs, and one that instills confidence in their state and/or district that will get the nod from the people in 2010. As not one of the pundits has a crystal ball, the outcome is yet to be determined; the only reliable predicator is historical trends and the probability of a resurgence like that seen in the 1980’s-1990’s is more than reasonable given the Carteresque qualities of the current administration and the eerily similar congress and senate that drove the initial Republican Resurgence. The true indicator will be in the fundraising reports at the end of the 2009, should the Republicans find their coffers filled with both corporate (what is left of corporate) and more importantly individual donations, hope and change will have been rejected for tried and true.

Monday, June 01, 2009

Mitt Romney Critical of GM Government Ownership, the Union's Roll – Rasmussen 67% of Nation Agrees with Mitt

On Sunday, Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, put in his two cents on U.S. Government ownership of GM. Romney’s opinion is that due to the government owing approximately 70 percent of that auto maker, post bankruptcy, shares should be distributed to taxpayers, and the UAW’s piece of the pie, should be given directly to the UAW members, not the UAW “Trust Fund”. Romney, who is a Michigan native, and has a track record of rescuing failing business ventures (including the State of Massachusetts, where, he valiantly tried to bring fiscal stability to a state that is run by a Democrat Legislature that is both corrupt, spendthrift and prone to pork and taxes. In the final analysis, Romney managed, to his credit, to stem the tide of excesses in the State of Massachusetts, offer viable alternatives to both health and education, which unfortunately, became models of insanity, once the Democrats gained complete control of the Commonwealth).

Although, the Obama administration has signaled an intent to sell its shares in the Auto Maker and “recoup taxpayer losses” as soon as possible, one can’t hold their breath waiting for a check in the mail, more than likely, should GM, once again become a privately held enterprise, any monies earned back (assuming the Federal Government can actually run something in the Black, which, to date, has not occurred), will most likely go into one of the many programs being instituted by the Obama administration. Romney would understand this better than anyone, considering he need only to look at how well Deval Patrick has handled the Commonwealth after Romney left office, and that both Patrick and Obama have similar ideologies.

That said, the people (taxpayers), are more aligned with Romney on this issue – Sunday’s Rasumussen Daily Tracking Poll indicates that only 21% of those polled agree with the President’s decision – the balance – 67% - are opposed.
What might be the most interesting component of the entire GM Deal, is the chuck of change give to the U.A.W., in the guise of building (or maintaining) the pension of those GM Autoworkers. According to Open, which tracts campaign contributions, the U.A.W. managed to give a total of $2,108,415 of its members’ dues to political campaigns – with 99% going to Democrats and 1% going to a Republican (Democrat in waiting) - Arlen Specter. It is no wonder then, that the UAW was basically “rewarded” for its loyalty. It is no secret that Unions support, with their workers dues, one political party over the other – out of the top 20 all time donors to political campaigns, , 11 of unions. Those eleven in order of most funds given are: American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, National Education Association, Laborers Union, Service Employees International Union, Carpenters and Jointers unions, The Teamsters, Communication Workers of American, American Federation of Teachers (Teachers have two unions, double dipping), United Auto Workers, Machinists and Aerospace Workers and rounding out the top 20, United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

Therefore, it goes without saying that may be the resons the Democrat Party is so enamored of the Card Check Bill. This would allow Unions to force organization of any business, pouring millions more into the Democrat Party’s coffers. Union members do not have control over how their dues are spent; dues are deducted and distributed by Union officials. Just to be fair, unions have endorsed Republican candidates: Mike Huckabee, was the first Republican candidate in over 100 years to be endorsed by the Painter’s union, a move that rankled both sides of the political spectrum.

Suffice it to say, should Mike Huckabee, or a similar moderate candidate with a 10-1/2 year track records of governing with the opposition party, and producing results, end up in Iowa, it would behoove that candidate to embrace these endorsements and the Republican Party to follow suit – it appears as if these members are looking for fiscally minded, sound individuals to run the nation. In the meantime, the nation will sit back and wait to see which private industry will be next, and which union will end up owning a piece of same.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Sebelius Supporter, Notorious Abortion Doctor George Tiller, Murdered during Church Service.

Dr. George Tiller, a strident supporter of Kathleen Sebelius, , was murdered today while at chuch. The Pro-Life group, Operation Rescue, denounced the killing. Pro-Life advocates do not approve of murder at any level, however, one can bet that, regardless of circumstances (say the father of a child whose life had been terminated at 8 months having gone over the deep end - A Supreme Court ruling in 1976 gives no right to a husband or father to be notified of an abortion.), anyone Pro-Life will be roundly condemned in the press.

This blog is decidedly pro-life, not approving of either the death penalty or abortion (both seen as state-sponsored murder). That said, one has to wonder why so many “God-Fearing”, church attending individuals approve of abortion - Those so-called Christian Churches that approve of abortion (and/or refuse to acknowledge the act as morally reprehensible), are at fault for providing an aura of respectability to both politician’s, abortion activists and providers.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address