New Hampshire Democrats were quick to attack Republican State Representative Marilinda Garcia once she made her intention to seek the her party’s nomination for the second congressional district seat official. Garcia announced her candidacy via a press release on Monday morning; she joins former Republican State Senator Gary Lambert in the race to take on Democratic Congresswoman Anne Kuster.
Within moments of her announcement, prominent Democratic State Rep. Peter Sullivan attacked Garcia on Twitter using sexist language and imagery. Sullivan compared the three-term State Representative, who holds a Master’s degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, to reality television celebrity Kim Kardashian. He went on to refer to her as “[Republican State Rep.] Al Baldasarro [sic] in stiletto heels” and “a lightweight.”
It appears she doesn’t wear stiletto heels, so that must be a gratuitous cultural stereotype.
What do you expect from a corrupt drunkard named Sullivan?
Many of us frustrated by the unfair treatment of Israel by the Arab occupiers of their lands lash out angrily, and call for Israel to treat the AOTLs as the AOTLs treat them. Shell their kindergartens; stone their moms driving the kids to soccer practice; describe them as vermin, subhuman; glorify your mass-murderers as heros and heroines; board their buses and detonate bombs packed with nails and ball bearings—sounds like fun, no?
But no, we’re better than that. The Israelis are better than that.
Today’s Democrats have grown up in the Saul Alinsky tradition, and on Thursday they proved it with a partisan vote to break the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and executive-branch nominees. The new rules will empower the party’s liberals for as long as they control the White House and Senate, but they will also set a precedent for conservatives to exploit in the future.
[T]he great irony is that Democrats voted to end the practice of judicial filibusters that they pioneered when George W. Bush was President. As the minority from 2003-2005, Democrats demanded 60 votes to confirm executive-branch nominees like John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador.
The move shows how foolish Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch were to worry that if they broke the filibuster, Democrats would then do it too. Democrats did it anyway. The only way to deter bloody-minded Democratic behavior is to treat Democrats as they treat Republicans. Democrats sicced special prosecutors on GOP Presidents for years, but they gave up the independent-counsel statute only after Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton.
The immediate result of Harry Reid’s power play will be that President Obama has a freer hand to pursue his agenda through regulation and the courts. Democrats will now rush to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in particular, adding three new judges over GOP objection to a court that is already underworked.
The next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport. Imagine two or three more Clarence Thomases on the High Court confirmed with 51 Senate votes. Planned Parenthood can send its regrets to Harry Reid.
ObamaCare would never have passed if Mr. Franken hadn’t stolen the Minnesota recount and prosecutors hadn’t hidden exculpatory evidence to convict Alaska Republican Ted Stevens on false ethics charges. But liberals are showing that they’ll only need 51 votes, not 60, to pass the next ObamaCare.
Conservatives have more of a stake than liberals do in the legislative filibuster as a check on the political passions of the moment. But the Democrats who rewrote Senate rules on Thursday should also understand that they have now opened the door to repeal ObamaCare with only 51 votes.
It is true that sometimes the only way you can change an unwanted, antisocial behavior is to subject the violator to that same behavior. In which case a future Republican administration should not “line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport”, but members of the Aryan Brotherhood. Hey, if you’re going to be a bear, be a grizzly. Democrats can’t tell Federalist Society members from neo-Nazis anyway.
And I leave Israel with this suggestion: sneak into an Arab home and butcher everyone there—women, children, infants. Leave blood-spattered toys and dolls strewn around the crime scene. If you don’t want more Fogels, do unto the AOTLs as they did unto you. Don’t let faith or scruples muddle your thinking.
How about David Berkowitz (Son of Sam)? Or Mark David Chapman (John Lennon’s assassin)? Or John Hinkley (Reagan’s would be assassin)?
Now, would you throw a life line to the Democrat Party if they were being dragged to the inky depths by the anchor of EdselCare?
No, no, no, no, and kiss my a…dam’s apple, in that order. I agree.
Now, would you throw the Constitutional Affordable Care Act (CACA) a lifesaver if you stood to get the blame for its miserable failure, despite the fact that your fingerprints aren’t anywhere on it? I still wouldn’t, and here’s why.
First, the hypothetical: if a critical mass of Democrats wants to stuff CACA for a year, wipe it off the books until it’s ready to drop, should Republicans go along? “Delay” was the full-throated cry of the Republican Party last month when Ted Cruz was calling “defund”; why not now? Democrats would label the Republicans flip-floppers of the worst kind, seeking to hurt “folks” for the sole purpose of making political points. The media would back them up—as the media always do—and the truth would be drowned out. The a-holes responsible for CACA would be made out as defenders of the middle class, while Republicans would look like mean-spirited losers.
So, why not go along to get along? Why not hold their noses and help the Democrats out of the whirlpool of legislative overreach? Because CACA is still bad law. The website will be the least of it, the thin end of the wedge. Canceled plans, more expensive plans, lost doctors and hospitals, government inefficiency, nationalizing an entire industry—obviously, one could go on.
The issue isn’t delay; it’s repeal. This is the time for counteroffensive. Don’t go along with the Democrats, hit back. Insist that a bad law, an unpopular law, be taken off the books entirely. Demand that your market-based alternatives be implemented instead. The overwhelming majority of people were personally happy with what they had before; those of them that supported change were lied to about how bad things were. They were dumb then; they (might) know better now.
Don’t fall into line behind the lying Democrats; don’t stonewall them. Offer an alternative now that the country is dying for one. Be a party that stands for something. Who knows, you may even lead.
Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) announced today that next week he will file legislation that will allow Americans to keep their previous health-insurance plans, as President Obama promised. The proposed bill, entitled the “If you Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It Act,” would, according to Johnson’s statement amend the Affordable Care Act “to make Obamacare live up to the promises of the politicians who sold the plan to the American public.”
From the press release:
One of the most important promises made by President Obama and Democrat congressional leadership to promote the Affordable Care Act was that Americans who were satisfied with their health plans could keep them. That promise has been broken. More than a million Americans have been notified that the plans they like with the coverage they have chosen have been canceled. Millions more Americans will have the plans of their choice canceled in months to come.
President Obama promised multiple times in the years between the passage of the Affordable Care Act and its rollout that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.” However, as Johnson notes, hundreds of thousands of people have been forced off of their plans because insurance providers are unable to offer the plans under the new regulations.
He’s right, of course, but that’s not the point. Since when has this president ever, ever been held to account? A puppy may learn house-training by being forced to face its own poo, but Barack Obama hasn’t. He’s still leaving piles of stink all over the place. EdselCare is just the biggest and stinkiest (until we see immigration “reform”).
President Barack Obama is ready to talk even on Republicans’ terms, he insisted Tuesday, so long as Congress acts first to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling — even for a short period.
At a news conference, Obama indicated Republicans could essentially set the agenda for budget negotiations, but only if Congress agrees first to a short-term spending plan to fund the government and to raise the federal borrowing limit to avoid a possible first-ever U.S. default next week.
“I will talk about anything,” the president said.
House Speaker John Boehner, speaking Tuesday afternoon after what he called a “pleasant” but ineffectual phone call with Obama, promptly rejected the president’s comments as nothing new.
“What the president said today was if there’s unconditional surrender by Republicans, he’ll sit down and talk to us,” Boehner said. “That’s not the way our government works.”
I get the president’s reluctance to negotiate, I really do. House Republicans stand between him and an American National Health Service, between him and an imperial presidency. I got your coequal branch right here, he says, grabbing his crotch.
But it was not always so. President Obama has negotiated with Iran. He’s negotiated with the Taliban. He’s negotiated with Russia and Syria—simultaneously. He wants to negotiate with North Korea.
And then there are those to whom he just submits:
Aggie’s right. President Obama and the Democrat-Media Complex just don’t like Republicans. I think they’d talk to the Nazi Party before they’d talk to the Tea Party.
In remarks at the White House last month, President Obama claimed that if Republicans “had some better ideas” on health care, he was “happy to hear them. But I haven’t heard any so far.” [With those ears? Ed.]
Many congressional Republicans, such as Oklahoma’s Sen. Tom Coburn and Wyoming’s Sen. Mike Enzi, have long advocated making health insurance completely portable so workers can take their plans with them from job to job. This means giving individuals who buy coverage for themselves a tax advantage similar to the one that employers enjoy when they cover employees. That change also could make coverage more affordable for the self-employed and even universal for all workers.
In the House, Republicans such as Texas Rep. Sam Johnson and Louisiana’s Charles Boustany (a cardiovascular surgeon), want to allow smaller companies to pool their risk to get the same discounts from insurance carriers that bigger companies do. Others, including Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, want to spark increased competition by allowing health-insurance policies to be sold across state lines, as are auto insurance policies.
ObamaCare reduced the amount families can save tax free for medical expenses; the House Republican Study Committee wants to raise the amount. Paired with health-savings accounts, this can put quality health care within the reach of many more families.
Oh, there’s so much more! But it’s behind a pay wall at the Wall Street Journal. With the sequester, how is he going to hear more ideas? I suppose he could just ask one of the Congressional Republicans.
…Cantor urged his colleagues to use the White House’s delay of the employer mandate as a political battering ram against the administration’s prized law.
“Seize the moment,” Cantor told them. The delay, he predicted, could “destabalize the coalition for Obamacare.”
He then called on the House to pass a one-year delay of the individual mandate to go along with an employer-mandate delay.
“After both bills pass we combine them into one bill to send to the Senate,” he said. “On the delay of the employer mandate, we will make the point that the president doesn’t have the authority to just ignore the law. It will also force Democrats into the position of supporting or opposing the president.”
I’m sorry, that should read: Weiner ’13! I regret the error.
As a jaded New Yorker who’s lived through 9/11, I feel like I’ve seen it all. There have been exuberant highs, painful lows and absurdities galore — from Snooki ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange to Jimmy McMillan running for mayor to the Naked Cowboy running for President.
But now, the people of our great city have finally managed to throw me for a loop: Anthony Weiner is ahead in a mayoral poll.
When I read the news, I rubbed my eyes and checked again — and sure enough, there he was: sitting pretty with 25% of registered Democrats in his corner, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC New York/Marist poll, a full 5 points ahead of the former front-runner, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.
Why, New York, why?
Oh, come on! You have to ask? Once Gotham had a mayor named “Little Flower” (Fiorello); now it’s poised to elect one who likes to Tweet his “Little Flower”. (All right, sir, it’s a veritable Rafflesia arnoldii.) What better reflection of the downfall of civilization (or at least the Democratic Party)?
Poll: Clinton tops Bush, Rubio among Hispanic voters for 2016
Rubio, unsurprisingly, would begin with a major deficit in a head-to-head matchup with Clinton. According to the poll, Clinton would win Hispanic voters 66-28 percent, with 6 percent remaining undecided.
Rubio, a bilingual Cuban-American, who represents Florida, who is the perfect role model for Latino immigrant families, whose work on immigration “reform” has earned him the wrath of conservatives (like me), can’t even muster half the support of Hillary Clinton, who is about as Hispanic as my navel lint. Politics trumps all other identity, at least among liberals.
I told you this the other day when I noted that Gabriel Gomez, Rubio’s Mini-Me in Massachusetts, lost 3/4 of the vote in the city of Lowell—which is 3/4 Hispanic. Republicans who think they can avoid losing elections by trying to be more like the other guy should note that the electorate can tell who’s the Democrat. Gomez, like Rubio, couldn’t have been less threatening to the Latino community, but that (R) after his name couldn’t have been more so. Maybe we should just stand for the rule of law and secure borders because we believe in them. Political expediency doesn’t seem to be working.
So Ed Markey beat Gabriel Gomez. Disappointing, but hardly surprising. If anything, our representation has improved by losing seniority in the Senate.
But I found one interesting note in the town-by-town breakdown of the vote. Eastern Mass, Boston, the suburbs, and the Capes (Cod and Ann) largely went for Markey. No surprise. Western Mass, the Berkshires, also went for Markey. Also predictable. But Gomez picked up almost everything in between—significantly more towns, if significantly fewer people.
And now for the exception: Lawrence, Mass went for Markey, though it was surrounded by towns who voted for Gomez. And Lawrence, Mass is almost three-quarters Latino. So, a largely Latino town in a largely GOP belt bucked the trend and voted overwhelmingly Democratic (almost three-to -one).
When the Republican nominee was named Gomez, campaigned bilingually, was more centrist than conservative, was a Navy SEAL, etc. Gomez was perhaps not an ideal candidate, but if ever a Republican nominee was positioned to pry Latino votes away from the Democrat Party, Gomez was it. And a town 3/4 Latino voted 3/4 Democrat. It’s as if Gomez didn’t get a single Latino vote.
Now, Lawrence is a basket case of a town. It is thoroughly bankrupt, fiscally and spiritually, as corrupt a municipality as there is. Only Democrats would let them get away with their crap, and only in exchange for votes. So, it may not be a model. But my point is still valid. Republicans couldn’t have run a more respectable candidate (who happened to be of Colombian descent), and he garnered essentially zero Latino support. Doesn’t that suggest complete capitulation on illegal immigration and amnesty in exchange for votes is a futile gesture—not to mention a spineless one?
Gabriel Gomez billed himself as a modern Republican – more moderate and culturally-savvy, the kind who could win in heavily-Democratic Massachusetts. Tuesday’s defeat showed that most Bay State voters didn’t believe the message.
Blue state voters rarely do. Democratic-leaning states have been close to off limits to most GOP Congressional candidates. In New England, there isn’t a single Republican representative in the House and only two GOP senators remain: Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Susan Collins in Maine. The West Coast is dominated by Democrats, and a winnable open Senate seat in New Jersey this year has been all but conceded to the Democrats.
That’s handicapped Republicans as they pave their path back to the presidency and, in the short term, hope to win back a Senate majority. The challenges have GOP leaders wondering whether, with a plethora of opportunities during next year’s midterm elections, they can crack the blue state code in time.
“It’s imperative for any candidate in any blue state, especially for federal office, to cut your own image or better explain why the party stands for certain things,” said Mike DuHaime, a GOP consultant based in New Jersey who advises Gov. Chris Christie. “I don’t think we’ve done a great job of that lately. It’s very difficult in blue states to overcome the caricature of the Republican Party right now.”
You know the caricature: Fiscal conservatism, equality under the law, respect for the constitution. Who would want that?
Oh, well. To quote Hillary Clinton, “What difference does it make!”
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman gave his only on-camera interview about the change in his position on same-sex marriage to CNN’s Dana Bash on Thursday. He also discussed it with a few print reporters from Ohio and wrote an editorial explaining the change that appeared Friday in The Columbus Dispatch.
“I’m announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples’ opportunity to marry,” Portman told CNN.
It has to do with another revelation, one deeply personal. His 21-year-old son, Will, is gay.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I’ve had for over 26 years. That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay,” said Portman.
Will Portman told his father and mother he is gay two years ago, when he was a freshman at Yale University.
“My son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it’s just part of who he is, and that’s who he’d been that way for as long as he could remember,” said Portman.
What was the Republican senator’s reaction?
“Love. Support,” responded Portman.
I guess I can see how this is news, even if (especially if) it’s personal. Certainly Portman treated it as news.
“I have been crystal clear about my position on Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. That is a red line for us. It is not only something that would be dangerous for Israel. It would be dangerous for the world,” Obama told CNN affiliate Israeli Channel 2 TV before a scheduled visit next week to the country.
“…I’ve also said there is a window — not an infinite period time, but a window of time — where we can resolve this diplomatically.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly called on Obama to establish a clear line that Iran cannot cross with its nuclear program, if it wants to avoid war.
Obama has resisted such a move, and Netanyahu has shown growing impatience with what he has previously called a lack of clarity by the Obama administration on articulating red lines over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
U.S. intelligence officials have said they do not believe Iran has decided to develop a nuclear weapon, even as evidence continues to mount that the country is improving its ability to do so.
When pushed during the interview to define those options, the president responded: “When I say all options are on the table, all options are on the table. The United States obviously has significant capabilities.”
Translation: we’re going to bomb the shiite out of you. Again, glad to hear it. Welcome to Planet Reality, sir.
But what took so long? Wasn’t it mere moths ago that Vice President Bite Me ridiculed the very idea of employing such “significant capabilities”?
The media has played the Obama administration tune all along. Keeping the truth of Benghazi under cover, leaving Biden’s misstatements and evasions unchallenged. Now, President Obama confesses that the sanctions have left Iran perhaps a year away from possessing a nuclear weapon.
Yet again, I’m glad Obama and Biden have swung around to the Bush/Cheney position in the war on terror: drones a-swarming, Gitmo open for business, extrajudicial executions, red lines on Iran. But if they had been a little more honest, and the media a little more responsible, we might have actually elected Republicans in 2008 and 2012, and not just Republican policies.
PS: Maybe this poll helped convince the president. Most polls do:
Americans’ sympathies for Israel matched an all time high according to a Gallup poll released Friday, just five days before US President Barack Obama was scheduled to visit Israel for the first time as president.
According to the poll, Americans’ sympathies lean heavily toward the Israelis over the Palestinians, 64 percent vs. 12%.
Republicans (78%) were much more likely to sympathize with Israel than Democrats (55%), according to the poll. Democratic support for Israel has increased by four percent since 2001, while Republican support for the Jewish state has jumped 18 percentage points in the same period.
The percentage of respondents favoring the Palestinians increases with formal education, ranging from 8% of those with no college experience to 20% of postgraduates.
“Palestinians receive the highest sympathy from Democrats, liberals, and postgraduates, but even among these, support tops off at 24%,” according to Gallup.