Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘democrats’

Shocker in New York, landslide in Nevada

Posted by Richard on September 15, 2011

If Scott Brown's stunning upset in Massachusetts foreshadowed the Democrats' drubbing in November 2010, does Bob Turner's shocking victory over David Weprin in New York portend even more trouble for Dems in 2012? Maybe. I sure hope so.

Dems and their media shills have been whistling past the graveyard today, claiming Turner's 8-point victory in a district that's 3-1 Democratic is no big deal (Erick Erickson has a funny post illustrating their claims). But the polls right before Tuesday's special election told a different story. CBS News reported today:

Weprin, a 56-year-old Orthodox Jew and member of a prominent Queens political family, initially seemed a good fit for the largely white, working-class district, which is nearly 40 percent Jewish.

But voter frustration with Obama put Weprin in the unlikely spot of playing defense.

While Obama won the district by 11 points in 2008 against Republican John McCain, a Siena Poll released Friday found just 43 percent of likely voters approved of the president's job performance, while 54 percent said they disapproved. Among independents, just 29 percent said they approved of Obama's job performance.

PPP's poll was even more informative: 

Turner's winning in a heavily Democratic district for two reasons: a huge lead with independents and a large amount of crossover support.  He's ahead by 32 points at 58-26 with voters unaffiliated with either major party.  And he's winning 29% of the Democratic vote, holding Weprin under 60% with voters of his own party, while losing just 10% of Republican partisans.

If Turner wins on Tuesday it will be largely due to the incredible unpopularity of Barack Obama dragging his party down in the district.  Obama won 55% there in 2008 but now has a staggeringly bad 31% approval rating, with 56% of voters disapproving of him.  It's a given that Republicans don't like him but more shocking are his 16% approval rating with independents and the fact that he's below 50% even with Democrats at 46% approving and 38% disapproving. Obama trails Mitt Romney 46-42 in a hypothetical match up in the district and leads Rick Perry only 44-43.

Unlike Scott Brown, whom Tea Party groups supported largely for strategic reasons, Turner didn't campaign as a moderate centrist. He made the campaign a referendum on Obamanomics, Obamacare, taxes, and spending. (Yes, Israel was an issue, but not as much as some claim. Weprin has a solid, life-long pro-Israel record and he repeatedly criticized the President on that issue.) Democrats and their media shills portrayed Turner as a "Tea Party extremist," and cited his positions on the issues as proof: 

Mr. Turner, citing his background in business, said that the federal government needed to cut spending by 35 percent, and suggested eliminating the Agriculture and Education Departments and curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency.

“We have a government that is out of control,” Mr. Turner said, stressing that the cuts should be made without increasing taxes. “It’s not only possible, it’s absolutely necessary,” he added.

Mr. Weprin, on the other hand, used the Tea Party name as a pejorative and tried to affix it to Mr. Turner as often as possible. He proposed raising taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations, and defended the place of the federal government in regulating the environment.

Unlike the ruling class Republicans, Turner didn't seem to be ashamed of his "extremism," retorting "If I suggest a 30% cut in spending when we're overspending by 40%, does that seem extreme?" Not to me, Bob. And apparently not even to New Yorkers. 

Meanwhile, across the country in Nevada's District 2, Republican Mark Amodei beat Democrat Kate Marshall, which was not a big surprise. But his margin of 22 points was. And Politico's Molly Ball thinks the outcome in one county of that district is even more significant than the huge upset in New York's District 9: 

When Democrats lost Tuesday’s Nevada special election, they didn’t just lose a long-shot House race. They also got creamed in one of the most crucial swing counties in the nation.

Washoe County, the Northern Nevada county that contains Reno, is the No. 1 bellwether in a top Western swing state. It was crucial to Harry Reid’s 2010 reelection, to Barack Obama’s 2008 election and to the countless governors, senators and presidents who have competed in the Silver State before them. And on Tuesday, Republican Mark Amodei won it by 10 points.

Bush carried the county 51-47% in 2004. Obama won it by 12 points in 2008. And a 5-point lead there was critical in Harry Reid's 2010 re-election.

Of Tuesday’s two House elections, it’s the surprise GOP win in New York that’s getting the most attention – an unexpected rout in a seat not held by a Republican since the 1920s. But it is the Nevada race that could hold more ominous signs for Democrats.

It is almost universally true that as goes Washoe, so goes Nevada – and as goes Nevada, so goes the nation. The state has voted for the winner of every presidential race but one since 1912, giving it a stronger claim to bellwether status than Missouri.

How bad do things look for the Dems? The Hill's Cameron Joseph reported:

A Democratic strategist said Obama has become such a problem for down-ticket Democrats that he was wary of encouraging candidates to run next year. “I’m warning my clients — ‘Don’t run in 2012.’ I don’t want to see good candidates lose by 12 to 15 points because of the president,” said the strategist. 

The question for Democrats is, to quote a former governor, "How's that hopey-changey thing working out for you?"

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Wienergate triggers time warp

Posted by Richard on June 12, 2011

(With apologies to David Spade) 1998 called. It wants its lame justification for Democratic misbehavior back.

Before I even clicked the Instapundit link (Actress defends Weiner, says 'everyone lies about sex'), I just knew it was going to be Janeane Garofolo:

A liberal actress and comedian is strongly defending embattled Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), saying "everyone lies about sex" and expressing hope he becomes the mayor of New York City.

During an appearance on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Janeane Garofalo said, "Anthony Weiner deserves to be supported and hopefully he will be mayor of New York one day. I'm serious. He is a Democrat [who] actually fights for the things liberals and progressive and rational people care about.

"I don't know why he's being thrown under the bus. He hasn't done any — he hasn't broke any laws," she said.

What's next — the reprise of stories like this? Or maybe the MSM will offer a new, updated meme: sexting to strangers is OK sometimes, like when it's a substitute for actual infidelity (although that line may be a hard sell given the rumors about Wiener that are floating around). 

Like Glenn Reynolds, I don't recall anyone recycling the "it's just lying about sex" argument regarding Mark Foley. Or Mark Souder. Or Christopher Lee (OMG, he sent a picture of his bare chest to a woman he met on Craigslist!)? And can we ever forget all the sympathy and support Hollywood and the MSM offered to the obviously sexual-identity-conflicted Larry "wide stance" Craig

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

SOTU? No, thanks, I’ll pass

Posted by Richard on January 26, 2011

I've heard the Socialist Democrats' favorite euphemism for yet more government spending, "investment," about a bazillion times too many in the past few days. And I have no desire to watch a preening President congratulate himself for his "fiscal responsibility" because he's willing to freeze discretionary spending (sort of) at its current stratospheric level. So I'm going to skip the State of the Union circus and get a little more work done.

I'll check in later on Vodkapundit's drunkblogging of the event. If you're watching the speech, go there now. You'll be glad you did. But I strongly suggest not playing a drinking game where you have to take a swig whenever the Prez says "invest," or "jobs," or "working together," or "Sputnik." Your liver might not survive. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Three fewer scumbags in House

Posted by Richard on November 3, 2010

Among the good news in tonight's election returns is the defeat of three true scumbag congresscritters:

  •  Wife beater Charlie Wilson (SD) lost to Bill Johnson (R) in Ohio's 6th district. As SusanAnne Hiller said, "No one likes a wife beater."
  • Phil "I don't worry about the Constitution" Hare (SD), a total leftist maroon, appears to have been spanked by Bobby Schilling (R) in Illinois' 17th district.
  • And perhaps most satisfying of all, Alan Grayson (SD), probably the most hate-filled, abrasive, and looney member of Congress, suffered a crushing, humiliating defeat at the hands of Daniel Webster (R) in Florida's 8th district. 

Townhall.com has all the House race results live here

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Nevada is a banana republic

Posted by Richard on November 3, 2010

If Harry Reid manages to hang onto his seat, it may be because of Chavez-style politics like this. Contemptible and outrageous.

Just how much strong-arm pressure was there? This much: 

On Friday, Western Regional President Tom Jenkin sent out a follow-up email showing a total vote count for Harrah’s properties along with the percentages of employees who had voted at each property. Attached to the email was a spreadsheet showing employee names and at which property they worked. Supervisors were asked to fill in codes explaining why their employees had not yet voted.

The Harrah's employee who forwarded the emails asked not to be identified due to fear of reprisal. The employee said the pressure from upper management was "disturbing."

"We were asked to talk to people individually to find out why they had not yet voted and to fill in these spreadsheets explaining why," the employee said. "I did not feel comfortable doing that."

"It put me in a very awkward position," the employee added, saying the level of coordination between Harrah's upper management, the culinary union, and the Reid campaign was "disgusting."

Add to these thuggish tactics the earlier reports of voting machines controlled by SEIU technicians "pre-selecting" Harry Reid's name, and it's clear that Nevada is politically a banana republic, where instead of free and fair elections, they have a sham democracy.

A few years ago, Hugh Hewitt wrote a book called If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat. Although tonight is shaping up as a powerful nation-wide repudiation of the Socialist Democrat agenda, there are still many close races. And it's a pretty safe bet that the Socialist Democrats will win some of those — because they cheat. 

UPDATE: The cheater has won. Bummer.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s not an election, it’s a restraining order

Posted by Richard on November 2, 2010

As perhaps the most consequential election day in decades dawns, it seems like a good time to reprise a recent P.J. O'Rourke column, "They Hate Our Guts – And they're drunk on power":

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) … Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? …

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. … And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

You heard the man. If you haven't voted yet, you know what you have to do. Go to the polls. File that restraining order.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama Democrats embrace socialism and hate

Posted by Richard on November 1, 2010

On Friday, President Obama appeared at a rally in Charlottesville, VA, for Rep. Tom Perriello. Americans for Prosperity volunteers were on hand to offer free "Socialism Isn't Cool" bumper stickers to the Obama/Periello fans waiting to get in. They didn't have any takers. It seems that most (if not all) Obama/Periello fans think socialism IS cool. Watch the video.


[YouTube link]

(HT: Gateway Pundit)

The next day, there was a rally for Perriello's challenger, state Sen. Robert Hurt, and AFP volunteers putting up signs drew the ire of some Perriello supporters. To put it mildly. Watch the video.


[YouTube link]

(HT: Washington Examiner)

Socialism and hate — the defining values of the left today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

That remarkable HillBuzz letter

Posted by Richard on October 29, 2010

Neo-neocon linked to it succinctly:

Wow. Just wow.

I couldn't agree more. Click that link and read. 

Here's an idea for a political action committee you never thought would exist: "Gay Democrats for Palin"

How about it, Kevin DuJan? Wouldn't you like to add "Founder and President of Gay Democrats for Palin" to your resumé?

UPDATE: I suppose "LGBT Democrats for Palin" would be more inclusive, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it. πŸ™‚

HT: David Aitken, via email 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A necessary fight

Posted by Richard on October 9, 2010

Human Events' Eric Erickson (emphasis added): 

Most everyone is convinced the Republicans will take back the House of Representatives. The Senate was never likely, though the seats the GOP will pick up will move the Senate decidedly to the right.

What is little noticed, however, is that 80% of incumbents will be re-elected. That is pitiful. In a year where “throw the bums out” has become a mantra for many, an 80% re-election rate is a rate too high.

According to Ballotpedia, 843 Democrats are guaranteed election to state legislatures on November 2 because no Republicans are running against them. On the other hand, 1,057 Republicans — most of them long-term incumbents — are guaranteed election to state legislatures because no Democrats are running against them. That represents one-third of state legislative races in the country.

For the nation to really change course, the revolution at the ballot box we are seeing at the federal level must over time move to the state and local level. It is a necessary fight, but one that will take time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

McMahon body-slams Blumenthal

Posted by Richard on October 7, 2010

The first debate between Connecticut Senate candidates Linda McMahon and Dick Blumenthal included a couple of minutes that, by all rights, should seal a McMahon victory. But then, I don't understand how Blumenthal can even be in it after the revelation that he repeatedly lied about serving in Vietnam. 

McMahon asked Blumenthal a simple question, "How do you create a job?" His response was just pitiful in presentation and clueless in content — he thinks that to create jobs we need much more government regulation. At the end, McMahon just destroyed him. If the rest of the debate offered anywhere near as stark a contrast, this was what pro wrestling fans call a squash match. 


[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Contempt for the people

Posted by Richard on September 29, 2010

Item: Senator Kerry blamed the waning fortunes of Socialist Democrats on clueless, ignorant voters who don't know what's best for them.

Item: Vice President Biden told his supporters to quit whining, suck it up, and work harder. 

Item: President Obama accused Socialist Democrat voters of being lethargic, irresponsible, and not serious. 

And that's just in the last few days.

I'll give the Socialist Democrat leadership this: Their arrogance and disdain for the common people is even-handed, showing no favoritism. They're just as contemptuous of the rabble who support them as they are of the rabble who oppose them.

The Wall Street Journal said these outbursts were from "the Chris Farley school of political motivation."

As their support ebbs and the adulation fades into history, our Socialist Democrat overlords seem less and less capable of hiding their contempt for the citizens subjects they consider themselves ordained to govern rule. Unfortunately for them, they need the support of these ingrates who don't sufficiently appreciate venerate them.

Fortunately for us lovers of liberty and for the country, their increasing arrogance, peevishness, and condescension seem more and more likely to translate into a great big electoral comeuppance. While calling your opponents names can sometimes pay off if it fires up your base, calling your base names seems to me to have no upside.

The Enthusiasm Gap by William Warren, GetLiberty.org

"The Enthusiasm Gap" by William Warren, GetLiberty.org

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Breitbart makes fools of Astroturf protesters

Posted by Richard on September 22, 2010

The Other McCain is where I found this great 8-minute video of Andrew Breitbart outside of Right Nation 2010 challenging a group of protesters bused in by the SEIU. So I'll let Stacy introduce it. Enjoy.

My friend Andrew Marcus at Founding Bloggers produced this video, which I found via my friend Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit. To call Glenn Beck a “coward”? Easy. To claim that Tea Party activists are motivated by “hate”? Easy. But to call Andrew Breitbart a “faggot” while doing these things is to invite yourself to one of the greatest intellectual ass-kickings in history — as guest of honor:

 


[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Murkowski and the Combine

Posted by Richard on September 20, 2010

Lexington Green doesn't think Lisa Murkowski is running as a write-in candidate out of anger, animosity toward Joe Miller, or other personal reasons. He thinks she's protecting The Combine and the long-standing game its members of both parties play. Interesting read.

UPDATE: Sen. Murkowski defended her decision on CNN today with lots of double-talk and obfuscation. Since this is CNN, she wasn't asked about her pledge before the primary to support the Republican nominee. She also wasn't asked specifically what she meant when she claimed there was a "smear campaign" against her by Tea Party Express. I helped fund those ads and know for a fact that she was "smeared" by having her own votes brought to the attention of Alaska voters.

I'm still not certain whether her write-in candidacy is motivated by personal peeve and animus or by allegiance to "The Combine," as Green alleges. Either way, it's contemptible.

(HT: Instapundit)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Turnout, turnout, turnout

Posted by Richard on August 11, 2010

John Whitesides of Reuters said that Democrats were "heartened" by the primary results in Colorado:

Democratic Senator Michael Bennet's primary win in Colorado bucked a national anti-incumbent trend and was good news for Obama, who campaigned for Bennet in a bitter fight against a challenger backed by former President Bill Clinton.

Republicans, meanwhile, saw candidates backed by the party establishment go down to defeat to outsiders in Colorado and Connecticut Senate primaries that could complicate their chances in November.

"Democrats definitely had the better night," analyst Jennifer Duffy of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report said. "Pulling an incumbent back from the edge of defeat in an environment like this is a good result."

Democrats have been battling a strong anti-Washington and anti-incumbent voter mood in their quest to retain control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in November.

Um, yeah. But challenger Andrew Romanoff wasn't exactly an "outsider." He's a career politician, a popular former Speaker of the State House, and one of the best-known Colorado Democrats.

In fact, it was appointed Senator Bennet who tried to portray himself as the outsider. When he wasn't exchanging smears with Romanoff, his ads said basically, "I've only been in the Senate a year, and I'm shocked — shocked! — at how broken the system is and how terrible all those Washington insiders are. I want to go back and change things." Never mind that he spent the entire year voting exactly the way Harry Reid told him to. 

Bennet also outspent Romanoff about six to one. 

As for the Republicans, nothing pleased me more than seeing the establishment-anointed and contemptible Jane Norton suffer a well-deserved defeat (see here and here).

Does Ken Buck's convincing victory in the Senate primary really "complicate" things? Well, I suppose it does for the business-as-usual Colorado Republican establishment. But it's past time for them to wake up, straighten up, or get out of the way. They might want to take note of the fact that more than half of surveyed Colorado Republicans, almost a third of independents, and almost a third of all voters describe themselves as Tea Party members — not just supporters or sympathetic, but members

But the big news from Colorado that discredits Whitesides' narrative deals with turnout. Both parties had hotly-contested, high-profile Senate races that were expected to go down to the wire. Total turnout smashed primary election records. Yet, in a state that Obama carried by ten percentage points, the major party vote totals told a compelling story. Over 407,000 people voted in the Republican primary, versus about 338,500 in the Democratic primary — nearly 70,000 fewer. The Rs turned out 48% of their registered voters, the Ds managed only 41%, despite a race in which (by proxy) Bill Clinton squared off against Barack Obama.

If the Republicans manage not to screw themselves (admittedly, that's a big if), that kind of enthusiasm and involvement advantage ought to translate into a significant advantage for Ken Buck going into the general election. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Pelosi recession

Posted by Richard on August 6, 2010

Every political pundit in the country will admit that presidents get too much credit when the economy is good and too much blame when it's bad. And then they'll promptly forget that. Everyone does it, myself included. For what seems like forever, pundits and politicians on the left and right have been blaming Bush and Obama, respectively, for the current economic mess. Certainly, both deserve blame, but neither deserves as much as he gets.

Bush was never much into fiscal discipline to begin with. And in his final three years — with his popularity sagging, his focus on turning things around in Iraq, and his own party in Congress abandoning whatever commitment to their professed principles they had, shoveling out pork by the ton, and wracked by scandals — he seemed to give up on the domestic front. His efforts to do something about Fanny and Freddie, for instance, were half-hearted at best. Eventually, to his shame, he bought into the neo-Keynesian clamor for stimulus and bailouts. 

Obama, in my opinion, deserves a larger share of blame because he isn't just going along with destructive economic policies, he's the author and chief advocate of them. In the Senate, he was one of those pushing Bush into the destructive decisions made in final two years, and in fact complaining that Bush wasn't spending, stimulating, and bailing enough.

But let's not forget that all spending bills must originate in the House and that Congress is the source of all legislation of any kind. A president can propose and can veto, but that's about it (to his further shame, Bush was unwilling to veto irresponsible spending bills, even when he was still popular and had majorities in Congress). 

So I suggest a little less blaming of Bush or Obama and a little more examination of the historical record. When did things really start falling apart and deficits start ballooning? Why, in 2007 (FY2008). After the Democrats regained control of the House.

Democrats will shout (they always shout) that Bush inherited a balanced budget and turned it into huge deficits. Yes, initially. In the wake of the 2000 dotcom collapse and 9/11 (you do remember 9/11, don't you?). But then, Bush did one great thing domestically: he vigorously fought for lower taxes. And in 2001 and 2003, the Republican Congress cut tax rates significantly. These were across-the-board rate cuts, not the kind of picayune targeted tax credits, picking winners and losers, that we get from the Democrats.

Critics have tried to rewrite history, but the 4 years after the first tax cuts took effect in mid-2002 were a period of remarkable economic growth, rapidly declining deficits, and historically low unemployment. I outlined the facts in July 2006 in a fine fisking, if I do say so myself, of a New York Times editorial. Read the whole thing, but here are some key facts: 

  • Annual GDP growth was 4%, well above the average since WWII.
  • Unemployment declined to 4.6%, well below the average for the preceding four decades.
  • Tax receipts were up by double digits each year, once again proving Arthur Laffer correct — tax rate cuts don't reduce revenue, they stimulate so much growth that revenue increases. (Some of us would argue that that's the dark cloud in the silver lining of tax cuts. πŸ˜‰ )
  • The deficit declined from 4.5% of GDP ($450 billion) in FY2004 to 1.2% ($160 billion) in FY2007, and was on a glide path that would have balanced the budget by October 2008 (FY2009) had Congress not changed course.

The last time things were going nearly as well was in the years after the Republicans took over the House in 1994, before the "Gingrich revolution" fizzled and (like during the second Bush term) the Republicans lost their way. 

Bush bears responsibility for doing some good things and some bad things, and Obama bears responsibility for doing some bad things and some worse things. But the major responsibility for the fiscal and economic state of the nation always resides in Congress, and particularly in the House.

Things go to hell when the Republicans abandon their core principles and when the Democrats have the power to act on theirs.

If you have to hang a single individual's name on it, this is properly called the Pelosi recession. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »