The Kennedy political dynasty is shaking in the aftershock of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s earth-shattering election, with a new poll showing U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy losing ground as he faces a well-financed GOP foe backed by Brown’s top strategists.
The WPRI-12 poll showed the Rhode Island Democrat with a 56 percent unfavorability rating in his district - a negative that grows to 62 percent statewide.
Only 35 percent of voters in Kennedy’s district said they would vote to re-elect him. Another 31 percent said they’d consider a different candidate and 28 percent said they would vote to replace him, according to the poll.
…
“Independents are running from the Democratic Party, and that benefits candidates across the northeast,” said Tory Mazzola, spokesman for the NRCC.
…
Salivating Republicans pointed to Kennedy’s controversial year, from his dust-up with Rhode Island Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, who denied him communion over his abortion stance, to his fumbled endorsement of Brown’s opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, whom he referred to as “Marsha.”
I would have thought his much-publicized DUA incident (Driving Under Ambien) would have had something to do with it, but the voters of RI, in their wisdom, have reelected him twice since that special day.
If JFK ushered in Camelot, the ouster of Ethelred the UnKennedy will be its ultimate dismantling.
The rest of the MSM is sitting on this quote like Horton the elephant on the egg.
I heard it on Rush, and searched for it on Yahoo News.
Exactly three responses.
“We’ve got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can’t be demonizing every bank out there,” Obama said. “We’ve got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs.”
This is controversial? Democrats need to “understand” this, “like it or not”?
And who’s been demonizing banks more than anyone since William Jennings Bryan?
When President Obama stages his little dog and pony shows (he calls them “jobs summits”)…
… he asks everyone to come up with ideas, form little working groups, break for juice and crackers, and then present their ideas to the class.
Are we to believe that not one participant has suggested an across the board tax cut, a la Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush? I know he wouldn’t do it—I’m not an “effing re**rd”, in Rahm Emanuel’s words—but why won’t anyone stand up to the emperor and tell him his Johnson is hanging out (economically speaking)?
But would you drive that heap down to Washington already and kick that Kennedy toady, Paul Kirk, out on his fat ass and start taking some votes?
Though Massachusetts voters have selected Scott Brown as their newest representative in the Senate, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s appointed stand-in, Paul Kirk, is still voting.
Kirk provided Democrats a needed 60th vote to increase the debt limit and to reimpose statutory pay-as-you-go rules for spending, and, though his vote wasn’t needed for passage, he voted to confirm Ben Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman, Susan Anne Hiller points out at Big Government.
Before and after Brown’s election, discussion centered on whether Kirk would cast the 60th vote on a modified health care bill; the next day, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the nation that he wouldn’t and that Democrats wouldn’t “force” a massive health care overhaul through the upper chamber without letting Brown have his say. But Kirk’s overall voting status was less of a focus; turns out he’s still legislating away.
It’s not Scott’s fault, but I wish he’d channel his inner juvie and get medieval on Kirk’s ass.
U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown is expected to be seated in the U.S. Capitol by Feb. 11 despite past precedent that had U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) seated within two days of her election.
Brown isn’t concerned about the sluggish approval process because Washington, D.C., pols have promised not to try and ram through health-care reform before he’s officially sworn in.
“Scott appreciates that both President Obama and (Senate) Majority Leader (Harry) Reid (D-Nevada) have said that no major action will be taken on health care until he is sworn and seated,” said Brown’s campaign manager, Eric Fehrnstrom.
Doesn’t mean there haven’t been other important votes. Here’s the list of Senate votes taken since Scott Brown won the election.
Just look at all the votes to raise the debt ceiling by another trillion-plus. Think Scotty’s vote on a filibuster might have changed history? How much can one party steal?
And all we’re left with is “-cracy”, which is close enough for government work to “crazy”:
Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare “reform” and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.
President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have agreed to the basic framework of the plan.
…
Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.
Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.
First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.
How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?
That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.
Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.
This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock.
But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?
According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or “fixes,” the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.
Reid also has agreed to bypass Senate cloture and filibuster rules and claim that these modifications fall under “reconciliation” and don’t require 60 Senate votes.
To pass the fixes, he won’t need one Republican; he won’t even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.
His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi’s House and signed by Obama.
Now, I’ll say what you’re thinking: Dick Morris can’t be the sole source of a story if we are to give it complete credence.
Fine.
But tell me you have complete confidence that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to this horror story of legislation run amok. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
This secret plan being hatched by Pelosi and Reid requires not only a pledge by 52 Democratic senators to vote later for the House modifications. House liberals must actually believe these Senators will live up to their pledge and pass the fixes at some future date.
A Senate source cautions: “Senators more than House members and both more than ordinary people, lie.”
I’m feeling real good about the legislative process right now, how about you?
This is not the hour of the good loser in Democratic circles.
On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann called Scott Brown, the senator-elect from Massachusetts, “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”
Yipes. It was a Senate race, not the Battle of Hastings.
“In the personal scheme of things, I went too far. In the broad scheme of things, this was a blip on the radar,” said Olbermann, in a telephone interview, citing the multitudinous cases when right-wing talk-show hosts have said much worse. Given the fact that Glenn Beck has already claimed that Brown could wind up “with a dead intern,” I believe he may have a point. [To be fair, Beck was joking, even giggling as he spoke. Olbermann, to put it mildly, was not. Ed.]
Meanwhile, on a radio show in Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter lost it completely and told Representative Michele Bachmann, the irrepressible heroine of the Tea Party movement, to “act like a lady.”
Specter, you will remember, switched parties last year. Democrats must be asking themselves why they wanted him. Oh, yes, the 60th vote. Well, that’s all over. The good news is that Joseph Lieberman is only about one-tenth as important as he was on Monday. The bad news is the remaining 59 includes a self-important 79-year-old who makes wildly patronizing remarks about his female opponent during a radio debate.
…
Sputtering, Specter said: “I’ll treat you like a lady. So act like one.” Not once, but twice.
This is about as inept as you can get. … Specter kept complaining and calling for ladylike deportment until the host mercifully intervened and ended the show.
…
In Illinois, where Barack Obama’s former Senate seat is on the line, the leading Democratic contender is a 33-year-old who spent almost all of his adult life working for the bank that his family owns. Perhaps the president forgot that last week when he told Massachusetts voters that “bankers don’t need another vote in the Senate.”
…
Meanwhile, a lot of Democrats who ought to be preparing to take the field in November seem to be running for shelter. In Illinois and Connecticut, the best candidates available have announced that they’re running to be the state attorney general. These days, everybody wants to be an attorney general and cuddle up and sue dairies that sell curdled milk until the political weather improves. It is very hard to be unpopular when you’re an attorney general. Even Martha Coakley was a popular attorney general. [Uhhh, not so much. Ed.]
This would not have happened if Senator Charles Schumer of New York was still in charge of recruiting candidates. Schumer was completely manic. Promising Democrats would open the door to get the newspaper in the morning and they’d find him curled up on the front porch with a dead squirrel he had brought them as a token of love.
Okay, that was great. Mark Steyn great. P. J. O’Rourke great. I may have to start washing my socks more often.
And it’s also reflective of how unpopular the Democratic brand is right now. Doesn’t mean everyone’s buying Republican—for every Scott Brown there’s a Mitch McConnell, or some other troll, who’s the anti-Brown—but their votes are at least, like Scott Brown’s daughters, available.
The stock market suffered its worst week since the depths of the bear market nearly a year ago as investors focused on turmoil in Washington and concerns about weaker economic growth.
The broad-based selloff hit shares of everything from banks to materials companies to technology stocks, pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 552.45 points, or 5.2%, during the past three sessions. The corporate-bond market, which surged through the start of the year, allowing cash-strapped companies to raise money on good terms, stumbled.
And the Giant Sucker is, of course, the President:
President Barack Obama’s demand Thursday that Congress clamp down on the size of banks and their investments got major blowback from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said it could cause layoffs and hurt the city.
It’s a clash between the president and the mayor. President Obama wants to whittle away at the size of the financial services industry. …
The mayor was so upset about the move — and a suggestion that Wall Street bonuses be put in escrow, which means the money wouldn’t be spent here, wouldn’t help the city economy — he responded with a proposal of his own for members of Congress.
“Maybe we should hold back their salaries for a decade or so and see whether the laws they pass work out,” Bloomberg said.
Even little Timmy Geithner has had enough of playing the piñata for this administration:
President Barack Obama’s newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who voiced concern that politics could sacrifice good economic policy, according to financial industry sources.
Geithner is concerned that the proposed limits on big banks’ trading and size could impact U.S. firms’ global competitiveness, the sources said, speaking anonymously because Geithner has not spoken publicly about his reservations.
He also has concerns that the limits do not necessarily get at the root of the problems and excesses that fueled the recent financial meltdown, the sources said.
His supporters never tire of telling us how bright President Obama is, that he’s brilliant, insightful, thoughtful, clean, and light-skinned.
Then surely he already knows what Bloomberg and Geithner say is true. And surely Rush’s contention that Obama’s destructive economic policies are intentional and calculated becomes harder to refute with each passing day.
What a perfect excuse to re-post my favorite clip of candidate Obama in the debates:
MR. GIBSON: …you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”
It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
…
And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
…
And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Some have argued that Scott Brown’s election is the wake-up call that Obama and the Democrats needed to avoid political suicide.
I don’t see that happening. Obama is who he is. Pelosi is who she is. Reid is who he is. Even if they could change their political spots (which they can’t or won’t), their rank and file won’t let them. I think the Democratic Party is now hopelessly split (or just hopeless) between the Outrageous Socialists—and those to their left. It’s every congresswoman and senator for himself.
[NOW President Terry O’Neill] said the “male-dominated Democratic Party” is not doing women any favors by bringing in anti-abortion zealots,” slamming Nelson and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who amendment to restrict abortion coverage in the House health bill passed minutes before the final vote.
“Women are clearly harmed” by these lawmakers, O’Neill said. “Shame on the male-dominated Democratic Party for supporting them. They hold themselves out as the party that is women-friendly; well they’re not acting like it.”
“And that has a lot to do with why Martha Coakley lost this election,” O’Neill alleged, explaining the Democrats’ loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat with an argument that few others have made.
…
The National Organization for Women (NOW) harbors deep concerns with the Senate health legislation, and exclaims that “women will be better off with no bill whatsoever.”
“The Senate bill contains such fierce anti-abortion language, and there are other problems from the point of view of women,” NOW’s President Terry O’Neill told Raw Story in an interview.
O’Neill said NOW “will not support candidates in 2010 if they vote for it.”
So, NOW loves Scott, in other words, because he won’t vote for the bill. Who doesn’t love him? Especially among the frisky fillies at NOW?
Here’s some catnip for you, gals!
Only a few hours ago, I asked when NOW would condemn Arlen Specter’s outrageous Archie-Bunker-stifle-yourself-Edith moment with Michele Bachmann.
I knew better than to hold my breath. I should have known they’d waste theirs.
I think we’ve already proved beyond a doubt that with union thugs shoving reporters to the ground and Keith Olbermann just being Keith Olbermann (just to name two cases, though we could go on and on and on), Liberalism is Fascism. No matter what your meaning of the word “is” is.
Is it any wonder why Arlen Specter felt more comfortable among the Democrats?
Who among his party will challenge his behavior? Anyone? Will NOW call him out?
And will anyone at all (besides me) note that Ms. Bachmann’s prescription of low marginal tax rates and no estate tax or capital gains tax would ABSOLUTELY, GUARANTEED cure the economy faster and more efficiently than anything proposed by Presidenet Obama or the Democrats?
Confirming what practically everyone already suspected, John Edwards confessed Thursday he fathered the baby born to his ex-mistress — an admission that came just ahead of a bombshell book by a top aide to the former Democratic presidential candidate.
Edwards had long denied the girl, Frances Quinn Hunter, was his, even after he admitted cheating on his wife with the child’s mother, Rielle Hunter. Hunter had been hired before Edwards’ 2008 White House campaign to shoot behind-the-scenes video of him.
“I am Quinn’s father,” the 56-year-old former North Carolina senator said in a statement. “It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me.”
The confession came ahead of the Feb. 2 release of a book by former Edwards aide Andrew Young that is expected to describe how Edwards worked to hide his paternity with Young’s help.
…
“Get a doctor to fake the DNA results,” Young quoted the candidate as saying. “And he asked me … to steal a diaper from the baby so he could secretly do a DNA test to find out if this (was) indeed his child.”
I hope for her sake she forgives him. It’s hard to carry around the amount of hate and contempt he deserves (and has fully earned) for one’s whole life.
Praise rolls in from across the world and the blogosphere from media outlets lauding The ENQUIRER’s vindication of its historic and exhaustive investigation into The John Edwards Affair.
Top Media pundit Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post Tweeted:
Score: National Enquirer 2, John Edwards 0.
As ev knew, Edwards lied twice, about affair and then the baby. Monumentally dumb
What about the idiotic Edwards pal who claimed he was the dad? He gets a book deal!
Paul Wachter, Sphere.com writes: Biggest Edwards Shocker: Enquirer Was Right!
From Gawker.com: A Pulitzer Prize for the National Enquirer?
“It’s not the first time this has been suggested. But, on the morning that John Edwards completely vindicates their reporting, and makes the outlets too squeamish to follow it up look silly, we’d like to re-state the case.
What’s a philandering, lying, deceiving, moussing, Democratic son of a bitch to do when his world crumbles before him?
Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s there because he wants to be there, not because he’s simply looking to rehab his image, why wouldn’t he wait until he’s back in the country to affirm paternity of his kid? Putting out that statement today while he’s in the ‘quake zone chatting up cameramen makes him look even greasier than before, which is almost unimaginable at this point.
Unimaginable? Not really. BTW, good to see the US armed forces included plenty of hair product among their relief supplies. A little highlighter wouldn’t go amiss.
I write this not just to micturate all over John Edwards’ political career (though I really did have to go), but to remind readers exactly how corrupt, how venal, how low-down and loathsome the mainstream media is. They should all hope some day to be as honest (and correct!) as the National Enquirer. I’d believe Maury Povich over David Gregory any day.
To think that the coverage of the unfaithful Republican Governor of South Carolina (who should resign for using state resources to carry on his extra-marital affair) got more coverage than this Democratic former VP candidate (who but for a fluke of history in 2000 might have just completed his first term as President) and strong contender for the top job, who denied paternity to a little girl, hid in a janitor’s closet when cornered by a reporter, betrayed his cancer-ravaged wife, and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied (and gelled and gelled and gelled, etc.) is proof not that the independent press is dying, but that it is already as dead and stiff as some of those heartbreaking Haitians Edwards is seeking to exploit.
No, not just in the election—though obviously that, too (Intrade has her down to Scott Brown, 44-55).
But it’s a good thing she’s Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, because she’s going to need all the legal help she can get:
I am disgusted and I thought they couldn’t top the World Trade Center gaffe. Into this Pres. Obama will walk tomorrow….Now, I love a good political fight, all things fair and all, but someone should tell Democrats that you draw the line on using rape victims in a mailer.
…
And now The Washington Post has a story about Brown filing a defamation claim under a Massachusetts law prohibiting false statements about a political candidate, based on the clearly false mailing (h/t Gateway Pundit):
A section of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits false statements against political candidates that are designed or tend “to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate,” with a penalty of to $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
An orange jumpsuit would really bring out Martha’s eyes, I think.
But that’s just one lawsuit. You have to take a number to sue Martha Coakley:
Shipping giant UPS isn’t amused by a Democratic Party campaign pamphlet attacking Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown that plays off the company’s slogan “What can Brown do for you?”
Atlanta-based United Parcel Service, known for its ubiquitous brown trucks, demanded yesterday that the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which is listed as paying for the pamphlet, stop distributing it.
The mailer asks “What can Brown do to you?” It shows Scott Brown dressed up as a UPS driver and says, “He can reward corporations that ship your job overseas just like George W. Bush.”
My mailbox is full of these wretched flyers, but this one is so cheap and amateurish, it might be the worst:
Who photoshopped this, Dan Rather?
We are essentially a one-party state, and this is the party we are burdened with. I tell other oppressed people (in Burma, in Iran) to throw off the shackles of tyranny and seize their countries and their futures.
