Bloodthirsty Liberal

Uh, Mr. President, didn’t you swear “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

I coulda sworn you did.

But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

This from a guy who—oh, let Ed Morrissey tell it:

It’s worth pointing out that Barack Obama had an opportunity to limit that influence in the 2008 election simply by remaining in the public matching fund program that every major Presidential candidate had used since Watergate. In fact, Obama himself pledged to do just that in 2007 and again in early 2008, but changed his mind in June when he discovered that he could raise a lot more money than his opponent — by currying favor with Wall Street and the unions, as well as ethanol companies and a host of corporate-sponsored, lobbyist-run PACs. Obama raised over $600 million in 2008 for his eventual victory.

Now he wants to limit the power of politicians to raise that kind of money, which is mighty convenient for incumbents such as himself — and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill.

Talk about your chutzpah! He’s like the guy who murders his parents and then pleads for leniency from the court because he’s an orphan.

I can’t say I’m entirely comfortable with the new playing field because it’s been so long since we’ve had a level one. McCain-Feingold was clearly unconstitutional in the case of Citizens United v FEC, and therefore it had to go. There has been no shortage of lobbying money in elections all along, just through fronts and shells. This may actually bring transparency to the game.

I still think Justice Thomas’s dissenting argument (in a concurring opinion) about transparency leading to harassment needs more attention. My campaign contributions turn up in a simple Google search of my name. In a case as contentious as Prop 8 in California, the right of free speech comes under direct attack:

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday issued an order indefinitely blocking the broadcasting of the high-profile California Proposition 8 case, handing a victory to Prop 8 supporters who feared witnesses would be harassed if the trial was shown around the world.

In a 5-4 order, the court’s five most conservative justices ruled that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker did not follow federal law by not allowing for a sufficient opportunity for public comment when he announced that video of the trial could be posted on Internet sites such as YouTube. Walker provided only about a week for comment and should have allowed 30 days or more, the court said.

Attorneys with ProtectMarriage.com, the organization that promoted Prop 8, filed the appeal with the Supreme Court, which had issued a temporary stay Monday.

“The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district,” the majority ruled. “Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.”

…

The court cited evidence from ProtectMarriage.com where supporters of Prop 8 have:

– “received confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages from opponents of Proposition 8.

– “been forced to resign their jobs after it became public that they had donated to groups supporting” Prop 8.

– been put on “Internet blacklists” where businesses who supported Prop 8 were boycotted.

– “received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance.

Thomas cited these examples in his dissent, and asked if complete transparency is all it’s cracked up to be.

I’ve seen some concern both here and in comments at other sites about the surge in absentee ballots for the special election to send Scott Brown to the US Senate. Is ACORN rearing its ugly seven heads?

My take is this: Brown has been hyping absentee voting all along because he knows turnout is key, and the day after a long weekend (MLK Day), when the weather can shut things down, he needs to make sure every potential voter actually votes. So absentee voting is not necessarily his enemy.

And this story supports that theory:

It’s a busy day for some local election officials around the state as voters, in a last-minute rush, apply for and cast absentee ballots.

Worcester City Clerk David Rushford said he believed that, when all is said and done, about 1,800 absentee ballots would be cast, a record number for a non-presidential election in his city.

“We have had a line down the hallway on the second floor of City Hall for most of the day and right now it’s beginning to subside,” he said shortly after 4 p.m.

Marlborough City Clerk Lisa Thomas also reported an extremely busy day. “Our normal is about 500 to 600 absentee ballots. We’ve more than doubled that,” she said. It’s been crazy, absolutely crazy.”

Secretary of State William F. Galvin said that, as of noon, 101,903 absentee ballots had been requested statewide.

He said that not all cities and towns were seeing the same amount of interest in absentee ballots.

“The pattern of places where activity is highest seems to be exurbia and towns as opposed to cities,” he said.

“There’s clearly energy in some communities,” particularly in towns where there are a significant number of independent voters and where Republican candidates have done better than they have in the state as a whole, he said.

But he warned that it was still difficult to predict turnout from the absentee ballots. The interest in absentee ballots might reflect the level of voter motivation, but they also might reflect retirees who are heading to Florida, people who are concerned about driving conditions on Tuesday, and people who are considering their long holiday weekend into Tuesday.

Again, Brown has been promoting absentee voting all along, while Coakley was in cruise control. Some of her supporters who won’t be able to vote on Tuesday may have gotten off their asses to get an absentee ballot, but the pattern indicates Brown’s supporters will have an advantage.

There are stories of internal polls showing Brown’s lead in double-digits. Obama’s appearance here tomorrow and decent weather forecast for Tuesday (cloudy and in the middle 30s—but after a “wintry mix” of precipitation on Monday) may help Coakley’s turnout. But she’s such a turn-off, it may not matter.

The Democratic spin is that the losses in New Jersey and Virginia were little local difficulties—something to do with pot holes and snow removal.

Can we run the tape back four years?

ainigriV dna yesreJ weN:

Democratic House campaign committee chair Rahm Emanuel, calling First Read immediately after Kaine’s and Corzine’s victories were announced, argued that it’s clear Democratic voters were already energized earlier in the year when Democrat Paul Hackett nearly won a traditionally GOP-leaning Ohio House district. “I think that’s even more true today.” He also pointed out that the mayors of Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Paul, MN were all losing. “A lot of incumbents are losing to change,” he said. …

Plus ça change, Rahm, plus c’est la meme chose.

President Obama spent so much time in Jersey, he was starting to sound like Tony Soprano, and the quickness with which he turned on “my friend, Jon Corzine” (now labeled a weak candidate) shows he acts like him too.

It wasn’t just Keith Olbermann who couldn’t bring himslef to watch the Tuesday Night Massacre on the news stations:

MSNBC boasted that on election night they would present a “special live edition of Countdown” at 10:00 pm. But with bad news for the Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a funny thing happened on the way to the bonus Hour of Spin. Keith wasn’t there!

…

Keith had obviously left the building. But why? Where in the world was Keith Olbermann?

Not too hard to figure out. He was watching something else:

During the 10AM ET hour of America’s Newsroom on Fox News Channel, fill-in co-host Martha Maccallum told viewers what President Obama watched on election night while Democrats suffered big losses in New Jersey and Virginia: “Robert Gibbs said, well, he was actually watching, you know, the HBO special about his year-long campaign and how it all went.”

On Tuesday night the White House had worked to downplay the Democratic gubernatorial defeats by claiming the President did not watch the election returns. Apparently Gibbs thought it would look better if the commander in chief was watching a self-indulgent fawning documentary about himself.

But wait, it gets better:

Interestingly, Obama apparently previewed the HBO special a few days earlier, as Gibbs himself explained to the blog Talking Points Memo: “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama has already seen ‘By the People’…Gibbs told TPMDC Obama’s review: ‘Thumbs up!’”

He preferred to watch a repeat of a documentary about himself rather than watch democracy in action.

Who is this guy, Kim Jong Il?

Does it even occur to him that his swollen narcissism is a blemish on his political visage? Can’t he even fake sincerity?

I have to laugh, because it’s so funny, but it’s a nervous laughter. He’s just so weird.

CORRECTION

Not exactly, BTL. It didn’t happen quite that way. See corrected version of events here, and BTL apology here.

Sometimes we’re more serious than others when we employ the Liberal Fascism category.

This time we’re deadly serious:

[A] police officer recognized gangbangers, who discovered him and threatened him after discovering where he lived.

…

How would you like to be a New Jersey police officer and look out your window and see several known criminals, including a man you arrested several weeks ago and another who had just been released from prison for shooting a cop? And then find out that the men were sent into the neighborhood by the Democratic Party for GOTV operations – complete with lists of voters names, addresses and phones numbers!

That is what happened Sunday on a quiet street in Morris Township. The officer, who’s name we are with holding, specifically heard the men discussing that he was a police officer and that they now know where he lives. The officer confronted the men and they took off. He contacted the local police who responded and caught up with them and about a dozen other men a few blocks away. According to the police report, the men were known criminals and when asked why they were in the neighborhood they stated they were “campaigning for the Democratic Party.”

My question in the title is entirely serious. Why use cop-shooters and other known criminals to break in—knock on doors, when the New Black Panthers are just down the road in Philly?

They know all about poll monitoring, and the precedent is all set: they won’t be charged.

On the day of the first Obama referendum, let’s see how he’s playing to Joe and Flo Sixpack:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.

…

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

Interesting side note:

It’s Election Day. Our latest polls show a very close race in New Jersey and a solid lead for Republican Bob McDonnell in Virginia. Also, we look at what New York-23 race says about the GOP and its voters. Nearly half the conservatives nationwide do not consider themselves Republicans.

While that’s bad news for Republicans, it’s certainly not good news for Democrats.

Also:

The number who blame Obama’s policies for the nation’s economic woes has grown to 45%, the highest level yet. However, 49% still blame George W. Bush.

All in good time, my pretty, all in good time.

To vote Republican, press 1.

To vote Democrat, press 2.

If you’re not sure who you’re voting for, please stay on the line and wait for the next available ACORN volunteer:

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.

A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.

Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment…

Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.

Democrats shilling for Independents is bad enough—but Republicans shilling for Democrats?

This isn’t all she’s done for him, either: He asked her to swing by an event at the VFW and she merrily obliged.

…

The irony here is that it’s moderate Republicans who’ll end up being the big losers from Scozzafava’s betrayal. Not only does she make them look untrustworthy (or rather, more untrustworthy than before) but increasingly it seems like they’re not even going to get Hoffman’s scalp as a consolation prize.

The Republican brand may not be brightening as the Democrat brand fades. But more Americans identify themselves as conservative than ever before. The race in NY-23 could have been predicted without reading a single story.

For our liberal readers, let us do the math and point out that self-identified conservatives hold a 2-1 lead over self-identified liberals.

And all we got was this lousy gridlock:

President Obama, on a whirlwind visit to Boston yesterday, linked Governor Deval Patrick’s political fate to the fate of the nation, telling Patrick supporters at a downtown fund-raiser that the governor had made the kind of hard choices the country needs to make to put itself on a stronger course.

Sweeping into town for the fund-raiser and to deliver a speech on clean energy at MIT, Obama said Patrick deserves credit for implementing near-universal health care, investing in education, and making the alternative energy and biotech industries a priority. If voters fail to recognize this hard work in next year’s state election, the president said, it will not bode well for the United States.

“When the people of states reward the courageous and hard-working governors like that, that has implications for our nation as a whole,’’ Obama said at a 125-person reception at the Westin Copley Place.

125? He came to Boston, as Democratic a town as there is in the nation, on a much-publicized trip, to raise money for his brother from another mother, Deval Patrick—and he barely drew enough people to fill a black box theater?

The fund-raiser, composed of the reception and a larger ballroom gathering, demonstrated one of Patrick’s advantages in what is expected to be a difficult reelection campaign: having the president of the United States, a close friend and political soul mate, shower him with praise and help him raise money. Patrick aides said the fund-raiser would bring in more than $600,000 for him, running mate Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray, and the Massachusetts Democratic Party - although the events appeared to not be fully booked.

I hope the reporter won’t be fired for writing that. Pretty much everything else was copied with stenographic (even pornographic) exactness from the prepared texts.

As usual, one has to read the Boston Herald to get even a hint of the truth:

President Obama blows into the bluest state today facing a cold shoulder from once true-blue admirers, as gay rights activists, anti-war protesters and vexed environmentalists vow to picket a fund-raiser he’s headlining for Gov. Deval Patrick - a marquee event that hasn’t even sold out.

As of last night, liberals who once braved frigid temperatures to behold Obama were shunning tickets to the fund-raiser at the posh Westin Copley Place featuring the president, sources told the Herald. And despite campaign denials, Patrick operatives reportedly were pushing the ducats - between $500 and $6,000 - by e-mail up to the last minute.

Your gays, your eco-fuits, your union thugs, and your Code-Pinkos all pretty much have had it with the guy.

That and the hard times (which he inherited!) held numbers down:

“There really should be no doubt that this guy gets a second term. But let’s be honest. This is going to be a tough race,” Obama told a room barely half-full with 125 deep-pocketed Democrats who ponied up $6,000 for Patrick and the party. “Re-election is not a foregone conclusion because times are tough.”

Reflecting those hard times, the swanky Westin Copley Place ballroom - where the subsequent $500-a-head fund-raiser was held - was “about two-thirds full,” with about 400 people attending, according to press pool reports.

Despite the dismal box office, Patrick shouted to attendees, “You fired up? Ready to go?”

I don’t know about them, but it sounds like he’d better be.

Doesn’t it just figure that this administration would get bitch-slapped by the US Commission on Civil Rights?

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is demanding that the Justice Department explain why it recently dismissed a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during last year’s election, saying the department has offered only “weak justifications.”

Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds, a former deputy associate attorney general under President George W. Bush, said he fears the legal precedent set by the department in its May decision to drop the case might encourage “other hate groups” to act similarly at polling locations in the future.

Mr. Reynolds also charged that other groups might not have been treated so leniently.

“If you swap out the New Black Panther Party in this case for neo-Nazi groups or the Ku Klux Klan, you likely would have had a different outcome,” he told The Washington Times in a telephone interview Monday.

OH BABY!

The civil right to vote without fear of intimidation and violence is so important that the Commission was created in reaction to a long history of violations of it. It’s literally their raison d’etre. As Reynolds notes, it matters not who intimidates whom; the federal government has the duty to enforce those laws regardless of who benefits from the intimidation. Otherwise, the rule of law means nothing.

He really is the perfect post-racial president. No one else could take a big steaming dump on the civil rights movements and get away with it.

But Yes He Did.

We’ve already quoted Betsey McCaughey, and recently, but her piece in the WSJ makes a good jumping-off point:

Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.

…

The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

Let’s see: that should mean (should) geezers won’t be voting for Obama the next time around. Also, I think he might have lost the law-enforcement vote just last night. Business leaders won’t be supporting him anything like the way they did last time after he’s nationalized whole sectors of the economy and set limits on pay. Doctors are going to hate his portrayal of their avarice and his capping of their incomes. Working stiffs who aren’t working won’t be too thrilled with him. Jews should be livid at his one-sided bullying of Israel. The anti-war crowd won’t be as energized to turn out to support someone who’s a war-monger in their eyes. Ditto for the civil liberties zealots in light of his broken promises on everything from Gitmo to signing statements to lobbyist logs.

Who’s going to re-elect him?

I guess he’ll win the Latino vote big, but he did so last time. Unless he legalizes a lot if “the undocumented ” (or ACORN registers them regardless). I wouldn’t put it past either one of them.

It’s actually a rhetorical question. I fully expect overwhelming numbers of all of the above groups to maintain their support for his objectionable (to them) policies. Maybe there’ll be enough erosion to kick him out of office, but nothing like the mass revulsion that should greet a lying, race-mongering, socialist in the Oval Office.

Maybe that would finally make us truly post-racial: when we have the balls to send packing a black man who is a failure. To invert the famous slogan: Can we? Yes!