Among them. the Human Rights Campaign, which was founded in 1980 and boasts more than 1 million grassroots supporters, has some of the deepest pockets. During the first quarter of the year, the Human Rights Campaign spent $480,000 on federal lobbying and employed more than 20 lobbyists. During 2010, the Human Rights Campaign invested $1.98 million on federal lobbying. The Human Rights Campaign also operates a political action committee of its own. During the 2010 election cycle, the group’s PAC raised more than $1 million and doled out about $804,000 to federal candidates.
| REPUBLICANS | |
| Biggert, Judy (R-IL) | $5,000 |
| Keating, William R (D-MA) | $4,500 |
| Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) | $7,000 |
| Scozzafava, Dierdre K (R-NY) | $4,863 |
| Shays, Christopher (R-CT) | ($25) |
| Kirk, Mark (R-IL) | $2,000 |
Not a whole lot going on there huh? Now check out this list:
| NON-REPUBLICANS | |
| Ackerman, Gary (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Adler, John H (D-NJ) | $9,500 |
| Andrews, Robert E (D-NJ) | $2,000 |
| Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) | $10,000 |
| Baca, Joe (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI) | $3,550 |
| Bass, Karen (D-CA) | $2,500 |
| Bean, Melissa (D-IL) | $4,500 |
| Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) | $4,462 |
| Bera, Ami (D-CA) | $3,500 |
| Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) | $1,025 |
| Berman, Howard L (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Bishop, Timothy H (D-NY) | $10,500 |
| Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR) | $2,000 |
| Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT) | $9,500 |
| Boccieri, John A (D-OH) | $9,000 |
| Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) | $9,500 |
| Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) | $8,975 |
| Braley, Bruce (D-IA) | $6,000 |
| Capps, Lois (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Capuano, Michael E (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Carnahan, Robin (D-MO) | $8,984 |
| Carnahan, Russ (D-MO) | $3,000 |
| Carney, John (D-DE) | $8,305 |
| Carson, Andre (D-IN) | $1,000 |
| Castor, Kathy (D-FL) | $1,000 |
| Chu, Judy (D-CA) | $3,500 |
| Cicilline, David N (D-RI) | $9,118 |
| Clark, Tarryl (D-MN) | $7,948 |
| Clarke, Hansen (D-MI) | $1,000 |
| Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) | $1,000 |
| Clyburn, James E (D-SC) | $5,000 |
| Coakley, Martha (D-MA) | $5,000 |
| Cohen, Stephen Ira (D-TN) | $4,975 |
| Connolly, Gerry (D-VA) | $8,135 |
| Conyers, John Jr (D-MI) | $2,500 |
| Coons, Chris (D-DE) | $4,195 |
| Courtney, Joe (D-CT) | $1,000 |
| Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) | $2,000 |
| Cummings, Elijah E (D-MD) | $1,000 |
| Dahlkemper, Kathleen (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Davis, Danny K (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Davis, Susan A (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| DeFazio, Peter (D-OR) | $1,000 |
| DeGette, Diana (D-CO) | $1,000 |
| DeLauro, Rosa L (D-CT) | $1,000 |
| DelBene, Suzan (D-WA) | $3,862 |
| Deutch, Ted (D-FL) | $5,900 |
| Dingell, John D (D-MI) | $2,000 |
| Dodd, Chris (D-CT) | $1,000 |
| Doggett, Lloyd (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Doyle, Mike (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Driehaus, Steve (D-OH) | $9,348 |
| Edwards, Donna (D-MD) | $3,500 |
| Elliott, Joyce (D-AR) | $4,500 |
| Ellison, Keith (D-MN) | $1,000 |
| Engel, Eliot L (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Eshoo, Anna (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Farr, Sam (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Fattah, Chaka (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Feingold, Russ (D-WI) | $9,163 |
| Filner, Bob (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Fisher, Lee Irwin (D-OH) | $4,525 |
| Foster, Bill (D-IL) | $8,000 |
| Frank, Barney (D-MA) | $10,000 |
| Fudge, Marcia L (D-OH) | $1,000 |
| Galvin, Scott (D-FL) | $4,525 |
| Garamendi, John (D-CA) | $5,000 |
| Garcia, Joe (D-FL) | $5,500 |
| Giannoulias, Alexander (D-IL) | $3,135 |
| Giffords, Gabrielle (D-AZ) | $9,000 |
| Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) | $7,000 |
| Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Grayson, Alan (D-FL) | $6,500 |
| Green, Al (D-TX) | $2,000 |
| Grijalva, Raul M (D-AZ) | $4,000 |
| Gutierrez, Luis V (D-IL) | $2,000 |
| Hall, John (D-NY) | $9,500 |
| Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL) | $8,000 |
| Hare, Phil (D-IL) | $5,500 |
| Harman, Jane (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) | $1,000 |
| Heinrich, Martin (D-NM) | $9,500 |
| Higgins, Brian M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Himes, Jim (D-CT) | $7,000 |
| Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY) | $3,500 |
| Hinojosa, Ruben (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) | $1,000 |
| Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) | $3,664 |
| Holt, Rush (D-NJ) | $4,500 |
| Honda, Mike (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) | $4,500 |
| Inouye, Daniel K (D-HI) | $1,500 |
| Inslee, Jay R (D-WA) | $1,000 |
| Israel, Steve (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Johnson, Hank (D-GA) | $5,000 |
| Kennedy, Patrick J (D-RI) | $1,000 |
| Kildee, Dale E (D-MI) | $1,000 |
| Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI) | $1,000 |
| Kilroy, Mary Jo (D-OH) | $9,250 |
| Kind, Ron (D-WI) | $6,000 |
| Kirkpatrick, Ann (D-AZ) | $10,000 |
| Klein, Ron (D-FL) | $9,500 |
| Kucinich, Dennis J (D-OH) | $50 |
| Kuster, Ann Mclane (D-NH) | $5,000 |
| Langevin, Jim (D-RI) | $1,000 |
| Larsen, Rick (D-WA) | $4,500 |
| Larson, John B (D-CT) | $2,000 |
| Lassa, Julie (D-WI) | $9,500 |
| Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) | $3,000 |
| Lee, Barbara (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Lentz, Bryan (D-PA) | $3,000 |
| Levin, Sander (D-MI) | $4,000 |
| Lewis, John (D-GA) | $1,500 |
| Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) | $1,000 |
| Loebsack, David (D-IA) | $8,000 |
| Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Lujan, Ben R (D-NM) | $1,000 |
| Lynch, Stephen F (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Maffei, Dan (D-NY) | $8,000 |
| Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) | $2,000 |
| Markey, Betsy (D-CO) | $9,142 |
| Markey, Edward J (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Marshall, Elaine (D-NC) | $2,500 |
| Massa, Eric (D-NY) | $3,000 |
| Matsui, Doris O (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) | $3,500 |
| McCollum, Betty (D-MN) | $1,000 |
| McGovern, James P (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| McMahon, Michael E (D-NY) | $9,500 |
| McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) | $10,000 |
| Meek, Kendrick B (D-FL) | $4,500 |
| Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) | $5,000 |
| Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD) | $2,000 |
| Miller, Brad (D-NC) | $2,000 |
| Miller, George (D-CA) | $3,000 |
| Mitchell, Harry E (D-AZ) | $8,571 |
| Moore, Dennis (D-KS) | $2,000 |
| Moore, Stephene Ann (D-KS) | $3,500 |
| Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) | $6,000 |
| Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) | $8,832 |
| Murphy, Scott (D-NY) | $15,000 |
| Murray, Patty (D-WA) | $8,073 |
| Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) | $2,500 |
| Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Neal, Richard E (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Norton, Eleanor Holmes (D-DC) | $1,000 |
| Nye, Glenn (D-VA) | $4,500 |
| Olver, John W (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Pascrell, Bill Jr (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) | $1,025 |
| Payne, Donald M (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) | $5,000 |
| Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) | $5,500 |
| Peters, Gary (D-MI) | $10,000 |
| Pingree, Chellie (D-ME) | $4,500 |
| Pougnet, Stephen P (D-CA) | $9,400 |
| Price, David (D-NC) | $1,000 |
| Quigley, Mike (D-IL) | $4,500 |
| Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) | $2,500 |
| Reid, Harry (D-NV) | $5,846 |
| Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Richardson, Laura (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Rothman, Steven R (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Rush, Bobby L (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Ryan, Tim (D-OH) | $1,000 |
| Salazar, John (D-CO) | $5,500 |
| Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) | $7,500 |
| Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Schauer, Mark (D-MI) | $8,316 |
| Schiff, Adam (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) | $8,758 |
| Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) | $2,000 |
| Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) | $2,500 |
| Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Scott, Robert C (D-VA) | $1,000 |
| Seals, Dan (D-IL) | $4,593 |
| Serrano, Jose E (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Sestak, Joseph A Jr (D-PA) | $4,455 |
| Sewell, Terri (D-AL) | $1,000 |
| Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH) | $7,500 |
| Sherman, Brad (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Sires, Albio (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Smith, Adam (D-WA) | $3,500 |
| Speier, Jackie (D-CA) | ($500) |
| Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) | $7,500 |
| Thompson, Mike (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Titus, Dina (D-NV) | $9,542 |
| Tonko, Paul (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Tsongas, Niki (D-MA) | $3,500 |
| Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) | $2,000 |
| Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) | $8,000 |
| Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) | $1,000 |
| Weiner, Anthony D (D-NY) | $2,000 |
| Welch, Peter (D-VT) | $1,000 |
| Woods, Anthony (D-CA) | $4,891 |
| Woolsey, Lynn (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| Wu, David (D-OR) | $3,758 |
| Wyden, Ron (D-OR) | $2,000 |
| Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) | $6,000 |
Now, we can assume one of two things is going on here. Either 200 individual Republicans are so prejudiced they will not accept cash from a PAC.
OR
The heads in charge of Human Rights Campaign are more interested in raising donations for Democrats than they are advocating human rights. I mean think about it, giving blindly to the minority party just doesn’t get a whole lot accomplished in DC. There are 246 Non-Republicans in DC right now. There are 213 in that list right there. That’s an 88% hit ratio. There are 287 Republicans in DC right now, six are in that last up there. That’s about a 2% hit ratio.
Maybe.
Just maybe.
If the heads of Human Rights Campaign weren’t so prejudiced they’d get more accomplished?
1943.
There were no Civil Rights Acts. For that matter, there weren’t even 50 states. The world was at war. Israel didn’t exist. Everything ran on coal.
That was also the last time West Virginia elected a Republican Senator in a regular election.
| Candidate | Year | Party |
| W. Chapman Revercomb | 1943 | Republican |
| Harley Kilgore | 1946 | Democrat |
| Matthew Neeley | 1949 | Democrat |
| Harley Kilgore | 1952 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 1958 | Democrat |
| Jennings Randolph | 1958 | Democrat |
| Jennings Randolph | 1960 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 1964 | Democrat |
| Jennings Randolph | 1966 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 1970 | Democrat |
| Jennings Randolph | 1972 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 1976 | Democrat |
| Jennings Randolph | 1978 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 1982 | Democrat |
| Jay Rockefeller | 1985 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 1988 | Democrat |
| Jay Rockefeller | 1990 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 1994 | Democrat |
| Jay Rockefeller | 1996 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 2000 | Democrat |
| Jay Rockefeller | 2002 | Democrat |
| Robert Byrd | 2006 | Democrat |
| Jay Rockefeller | 2008 | Democrat |
Over the years, coal’s kind of lost its luster. In 2008 the United States elected a Democrat for President who’s not too keen on coal:
Now West Virginia’s looking at 10% unemployment with no prospects of improving any time soon. And, with Obama’s attitude, really stand the prospect of becoming much, much, worse if he succeeds in cramming cap and trade down our, and their, throats.
They’ve also got something else to ponder as well. They have to choose a new Senator. I’m just wondering what the chances are of the Mountaineers going outside the box they’ve pinned themselves in for the last 64 years? I can’t wait to watch the coal unions tell their people to vote Democrat.
And:
Both opposed civil rights initially. Both converted to support civil rights. One was an outspoken member of the Ku Klux Klan. One was not. Wanna guess which was which?
Oh, and one died a Democrat, the other not.
Both obits were written by Adam Clymer for The New York Times. Guess we know where his priorities are. Objective news not being too high on his list apparently.
Hat tip to Doug Powers at MichelleMalkin.com.
First of all, start this video and turn the volume up kinda loud. James Brown loud.
Now start reading this out loud:
“There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary,”
“I don’t know if he was a Republican plant. He was someone’s plant.”
“I’ve been trying to figure out how somebody who is unemployed can plop down a $10,000 filing fee and spends no money and gets nominated,”
“He has no reports of income or expenditures. Somebody is spending the money. The state and federal authorities have got to look into this.”
“I am not going to support anybody who I think would deliberately mislead, subvert, circumvent, and especially somebody being accused of a felony, to represent me in the Senate,”
“I am all for this gentleman being off our party’s list, and I will do everything I possibly can to have that done.”
That’s Representative Jim Clyburn’s take on Al(vin) Green(e)’s upset victory in the South Carolina Democrat prinary. Now, I respect the fact he wants to know where Green(e)’s $10,000 fee came from. But, that’s not really much of an issue. It’s only an issue if it can be proved the candidate was intentionally running strictly to harm someone else. Now, as well-intended as that law may be, the only intent of running a campaign is to intentionally harm your opponent enough to win the race. So, I think Clyburn’s not going to get too far with that. The best he can hope for is Green(e) being convicted of the felony before November. Best I recall, that renders a person unable to hold the position. Now, if Clyburn’s suggesting he’s going to push the judicial system to make sure Green(e)’s convicted sooner, drop him in the water.
Otherwise, Clyburn’s just going to have accept the fact that the people he expects to support him every other year are just as willing to vote for someone who hangs out in colleges soliciting sex by pushing porn on unsuspecting students. Or, they think he’s a religious soul singer.
Bertha Lewis, CEO of Acorn, is proud to be a socialist. She applauds anyone who calls themself a socialist. But, that’s not the best part:
“Any group that says, ‘I’m young, I’m Democratic, and I’m a socialist,’ is all right with me. You know that’s no light thing to do — to actually say, I’m a socialist — because you guys know right now we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. It is going to dwarf the internment during World War II. We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation,” Lewis said……
“This is not rhetoric or hyperbole — this is real,” Lewis said. “This rise of this Tea Party so-called movement — bowel movement in my estimation — and this blatant uncovering and ripping off the mask of racism.”
Of course, Bertha didn’t get this started. When someone didn’t like what Obama was doing, Hank Johnson knew why:
My only gut understanding of these people is that by taking away everyone’s rights, it makes us all even? Either these people, and they’re certainly not alone in this administration, are incredibly stupid, or they’ve reached a conclusion I don’t get based on history I don’t see. They are both avowed socialists, but both believe that without socialism, you’re going to have McCarthyism, racism run amok, and internment camps. Does anyone else not see the irony in this? Do they not have any clue about the last few great socialist societies we have experienced?
There’s the downside of what Bertha Lewis is hoping for. Someone show me where it’s worked. In China today the government strictly controls what they want their people to know. In Russia today the government is ramping up their nuclear arsenal while the people live in barely industrial standards. One man alone nearly crippled the Russian economy. And, in all three instances, one man usurped the power of the government and led to disastrous consequences world wide with human atrocities Bertha Lewis apparently can’t fathom. When you centralize all power, that’s the inherant risk. The United States has had to deal with issues other countries have as well. Social discord is not unique to the United States. Ask the Jews in Germany, Russia, or the Christians in China or Iran or Africa. They live in fear in China to this day. However, the structure of the United States, although it’s being eroded, allowed for the pursuit of happiness as an individual defined it. If you were not happy in one environment, you had the option to move to a different one. Rights in Seattle are different than rights in Memphis or Bangor. That was the design of the Founding Fathers. That is what “states’ rights” means. Bertha Lewis doesn’t get it. She doesn’t get the fact that protesting as she does would get her persecuted by the government she so readily speaks about the downfall of now.
So, these people may be enlightened. But, they are terminally stupid if they truly think socialism will eliminate racism. The only thing that will eliminate racism is for people like Bertha to stop using it as a political prop. Sure, there are people that will toss out the n-bomb at a black person to get them riled. It’s just too easy. But, there are just as many that will insult someone’s religion if it will get the same reaction. When people know using racism won’t get a reaction, there will be no need for overt racism. And, apparently in the case of Bertha and Hank, they will have no motivation whatsoever.
This doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone I’m sure:
In his defense of supporting Obamacare, Congressman Phil Hare states very assuredly he doesn’t care about the Constitution on this issue. Mainly because we’re assured of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But none of that really matters because people are going bankrupt paying for health care.
Let’s play a game. See how many of these you can get right:
If you guessed Democrat, you’re right. the next one is a little tougher:
Anything other than Illinois would be wrong. Why are there so many socialists from Illinois? Do the lessons of socialist societies of the past not mean anything to these people? Do people from Iliinois make their candidates take a stupid test? What?
If you’ve made it this far, try one more with me:
Tough one I know unless you read the story. He’s a union boss. Anyone surprised someone who’s career is usurping individualism for collectivism has no concern at all for individual rights?
First of all, it’s possible to fix health care without trampling all over the Constitution. Second, this is their cause celebre for trampling all over the Constitution, what if the next party in charge picks one Phil Hare doesn’t like? That’s the POINT of respecting the US Constitution. Once that respect is gone, it’s gone for EVERYONE. People just don’t get that. It protect everyone by keeping the government off their backs. Rather than super-imposing federal government all over every single aspect of health care, if we had simply scaled back the federal involvement we probably could have gotten the cost down to provide a lot more services. That makes a LOT of sense to someone like me. It’s totally alien to someone like Phil Hare because in order to get the end result of everyone having health care, he would have to give up control. Small minds can’t think that way.
Now this is where it gets real fun:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
That is what each Congressman swears to do when they become a member of Congress. Now, if you don’t support the US Constitution, as Phil Hare states, then you are an enemy of the US Constitution. It is now the obligation of Congress to defend the Constitution of the United States. I won’t even take a poll on the chances Nancy Pelosi will do what she is obligated to do by the contract that defines her position. However, from this point forward, Phil Hare stands in treason. If I suggest he should be shot, then all the left wing nut jobs will have an orgasm. So, I’ll just suggest he should be removed from office by the Attorney General. That would be be, drum roll please, Eric Holder, rim shot.
26
Jan
A full year into Obama‘s four year term, he’s still passing the buck:
“Today’s report from C.B.O. confirms that the recession inherited from the Bush Administration continues to erode the budget’s bottom line,” said Representative John M. Spratt Jr., the Democrat of South Carolina who is chairman of the House Budget Committee.
From the start of his administration, Obama promised to cut the $1 trillion deficit he inherited in half by 2012.
President Obama’s team may well have prevented the collapse of the nation’s banking system from a crisis the president inherited,
On and on and on it goes. Can’t blame Democrats because Obama inherited this mess. Only problem with that scenario is it was the Dems, not Bush, that created the mess in the first place.
That’s what’s happened since Nancy Pelosi and the Dems took over the spending and budgeting process. The economy was cruising along in one of the longest growth periods in the history of the planet. Then thing got bumpy in 2007. The big spike around January 2009 was not the beginning of the chart, it’s the MIDDLE of the chart. Obama was part and parcel to the problem as a member of the controlling party. The mess he’s complaining about is the mess him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid created with their spending plans.
Where it gets really pathetic is Obama blaming the minority party in Congress for not allowing the Democrats in Congress to spend the money as they see fit now. That’s what this is all about. So, if the President can’t control what Congress is doing in 2009 and 2010, how was the President in 2007 to blame for what that Congress did then?
Seems kind of obvious, in-your-face kind of stuff to me. But, no one in media can see that. They just keep repeating the Democrat Holy Grail over and over and over, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Meanwhile, they lost two Governor’s races and a long-time solid blue Senate seat. Last week the 12th incumbant Democrat retired rather than face the voters again. Was that a clue that the blame game wasn’t working any more? No, they blamed those losses on, you guessed it, the economy they inherited.
And the media sang backup.
Now Obama is saying he wants to freeze federal growth after spending a trillion dollars to stimulate it. But, he’s not sure he can do that. It may not be possible due to, drum roll please, the economy he inherited.
That would be yet another campaign promise broken.
And the media will blame it on the economy he inherited.
And the Democrat losses in November will multiply.
And Obama will blame it on Bush.
And the media will back him up.
A lot of people are speculating why Martha Coakley is having so much trouble winning in Massachusetts. A Democrat, woman, and running against a Kennedy. Doesn’t get any easier than that huh? Well, maybe it’s an image problem. This is Martha Coakley:
And this is the Republican:
Remember, we ARE talking about Massachusetts.
When Obama won in 2008, he brought a lot of Democrats in with him. That was just the icing for what had been a slow erosion of the Republican pinnacle of the early 21st century. Republicans have rarely wielded a whole lot of power in the Senate and Congress, so being outnumbered probably meant a lot more to Democrats than it did Republicans. So much so, a lot of them proclaimed the Republican party was no longer a force to be dealt with. They were just a handful of trouble makers who did nothing but oppose what was good for themselves, and everyone else.
Then a funny thing happened on the way to the very next election. One of those Democrats swept in with the Obama craze of 2009 switched parties. Then another rather unforeseen and totally unexpected thing happened, the Rothenberg Political Report moved the Massachusetts Senate election to toss-up. This is the state that gave us all the Kennedys. Now, before anyone gets all tore up, Republicans have won in Massachusetts occasionally. They did give us Mitt Romney. He was their governor from 2003-2007. So, it can happen. It just doesn’t happen that often in the Senate. It just hadn’t happened since 1979. And with the most excellent shining examples of the best Massachusetts had to offer in Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, who could blame them for not voting for anyone else? Finally being forced to choose someone other than Ted Kennedy for the first time since 1962, Martha Coakley assumed the throne of the Democrat designee to the Senate. Assuming nothing less than a major landslide, she coasted. But, the problem is, she’s not impressing people much. One poll very recently came up with these numbers:
| ALL | DEM | REP | IND | |
| Martha Coakley | 49% | 82% | 7% | 36% |
| Scott Brown | 41% | 12% | 85% | 49% |
| Joseph Kennedy | 5% | 1% | 2% | 11% |
| Undecided | 5% | 5% | 6% | 4% |
Now, this wouldn’t mean much to me, since I’m not really a polls kind of guy, but it came from the Blue Mass Group. Blue Mass, as in Democrat. Other polls have the race even tighter, but this is a Democrat sponsored poll. The assumption being of course that it’s about as optimistic as it can get. That being said, a Democrat female, running on the heels of the wildly popular Democrat African-American male for president, for the seat occupied formerly by a beloved Democrat for forty years, should be a complete blow-out. This shouldn’t even be discussed four days before the election. But it is. It is primarily because Coakley is getting creamed by the independent voters. That’s the swing vote folks. That’s what killed Kerry and Gore, and swept Obama into office. 2 in 5 Democrats aren’t even in her camp solidly. Unless she wins big Tuesday, a LOT of people are going to be questioning the policies of Obama. The Tea Party peeps will no longer be considered the radical fringe Republican troublemakers. They’ll represent the swing vote that will scare the begeebers out of the national candidates.
As unlikely as I thought it would be one week ago, I’ll be watching the Massachusetts returns Tuesday.
Harry’s right. There were people who supported these efforts, and those who didn’t.
Slavery’s a given. It was a Republican who freed the slaves in 1862. But, it goes deeper than that. The Whigs supported slavery ( sorry peeps, it wasn’t the Republicans ). The Democrats of the time opposed slavery. However, in 1850, a “compromise” was reached that was hammered down the Whigs throats that split Kansas into two separate states. The premise one being a “Northern” state and the other a “Southern” state. However, laws dictating their annexation pretty well made being a “Southern” state moot. As such, riots, raids, murders, and general lawlessness overwhelmed the new territories. The ensuing debate pretty well signaled the death of the Whig party. People who were anti-slavery BUT anti-federal imposition formed a new party. They called themselves Republicans. So it’s not just enough to say Republicans freed the slaves, they were formed for that very reason. Ending slavery, sorta, in 1862, didn’t make things any easier for Republicans:
The example here? Those who did not support ending slavery resorted to violence, intimidation, harassment, and using the weight of the federal government to compel others. The difference today is Harry Reid is using the weight of the federal government to harass, intimidate, and coerce people to get what they want. And yeah, you can toss in a little violence as well. There definitely are parallels, but I don’t think that’s what Harry had in mind.
Basically, what Harry’s saying here is they didn’t debate, discuss, or even read the Amendments. They did what he wants done now and just passed them because they sounded like good ideas. Let’s look a little closer at the reality:
| Amendment | Proposed | Ratified | Days | Years |
| 1st | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 2nd | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 3rd | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 4th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 5th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 6th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 7th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 8th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 9th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 10th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 11th | 3/4/1794 | 2/7/1795 | 340 | 0.93 |
| 12th | 12/9/1803 | 6/15/1804 | 189 | 0.52 |
| 13th | 1/31/1865 | 12/06/1865 | 309 | 0.85 |
| 14th | 6/13/1866 | 7/9/1868 | 757 | 2.07 |
| 15th | 2/26/1869 | 2/3/1870 | 342 | 0.94 |
| 16th | 7/12/1909 | 2/3/1913 | 1,302 | 3.57 |
| 17th | 5/13/1912 | 4/8/1913 | 330 | 0.90 |
| 18th | 12/18/1917 | 1/16/1919 | 394 | 1.08 |
| 19th | 6/4/1919 | 8/18/1920 | 441 | 1.21 |
| 21st | 2/20/1933 | 12/5/1933 | 288 | 0.79 |
| 22nd | 3/24/1947 | 2/27/1951 | 1,436 | 3.93 |
| 23rd | 6/16/1960 | 3/29/1961 | 286 | 0.78 |
| 24th | 9/14/1962 | 1/23/1964 | 496 | 1.36 |
| 25th | 7/6/1965 | 2/10/1967 | 584 | 1.60 |
| 26th | 3/23/1971 | 7/1/1971 | 100 | 0.27 |
| 27th | 9/25/1789 | 5/7/1992 | 74,003 | 202.75 |
| Failed ( so far ) | ||||
| CAC | 9/25/1789 | 12/9/2009 | 80,336 | 220.10 |
| Titles of Nobility | 5/1/1810 | 12/9/2009 | 109,338 | 299.56 |
| Corwin | 3/2/1861 | 12/9/2009 | 54,246 | 148.62 |
| Child Labor | 3/2/1924 | 12/9/2009 | 31,237 | 85.58 |
| Equal Rights | 3/22/1972 | 3/22/1987 | 5,478 | 15.01 |
| DC Voting Rights | 8/22/1972 | 8/22/1987 | 5,478 | 15.01 |
Fact of the matter is, Harry’s dicking around with history. Only one amendment ever was agreed upon in 100 days or less. One of the quickest to pass (18th) was even more quickly repealed (21st). Women’s suffrage (19th) would never have been an issue if the 14th hadn’t been so sloppy. Maybe if they had slowed down on those two, things would have been a lot better a lot sooner.
Now, there are two differences between then and now:
- The issues Harry compared the health bill to were Constitutional amendments. He’s trying to pass a law. If he truly thinks this issue is on the same par as ending slavery or women suffrage, make it an amendment. Let the people all across the United States decide whether health care is a right. And, if it is, how much it has to cost.
- And to me this is the biggie, there is no health care bill to even debate. As of last night they’re still changing it. If you thought the public option was the cure, well, think again, it’s toast. So, what exactly is it Harry thinks we should rush through the Senate without discussing?
