Debbie Wasserman Scultz, that is. Her twisting, looping, convoluted machinations to deflect for Re. Anthony Weiner should easily merit her the second spot with Obama on the ticket. I mean, really, someone who can stay the talking point repeatedly no matter how idiotic it sounds with a straight face surely does deserve a higher spot than just DNC Chair.

Don’t take my word for it. Watch her respond to Wolf Blitzer’s questions regarding Rep. Weiner (H/t to Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion):

Okay, we get it. You think it is a “personal matter” for a US Representative to be tweeting out photos of his, um, oh, hell – you know – to young women? Really? Well, at least you are consistent when it comes to matters of US Representatives engaging in some hinky behavior.

Oh, wait – no you’re not, as Michael Alan of Le-gal-In-sur-rec-tion highlights in this piece:

[snip]Well, that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should really get acquainted with this Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

This goes beyond Rep. Foley, it goes to the values of the Congressional leadership. These are not family values, these are not American values.

What was Wasserman-Schultz referring to in that 2006 quote? The behavior of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL . . . are you watching those party labels?), who made advances towards 18 and 21 year old young men.

In fact, she went as far as to demand the resignation of then Speaker Denny Hastert for not addressing the Foley matter quickly enough:

[snip] What I’ve called for is an investigation to be completed within 10 days. And quite honestly, yes, I do think that Denny Hastert should resign . . . I‘d like to see the Republican caucus call upon their leadership, Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, to get this resolved quickly. Do it before the election. And I haven‘t heard them say that. They‘re saying have the FBI investigate, have the House Ethics Committee investigate. They need to push their leadership to get this resolved so that they can move on, and we can make sure that we can restore the trust that they have shaken the public in Congress.

Now there are obviously some major differences between the two cases, but a big part of Wasserman-Schultz’s complaint in 2006 was that Foley had not been previously sanctioned, despite evidence of a proclivity for hitting on much younger men.

But TNR’s Jonathan Chait, who is one of the few lefty bloggers honestly covering this story, points out a Vanity Fair piece that suggests similar evidence of Weiner’s issues as far back as 2001. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and that goes for TNR piece, “Anthony Weiner’s Skeeziness,” too.)

Just to be clear, then, when a Republican Representative was caught engaging in less than seemly behavior, Wasserman-Schultz wanted the TOP Republican to resign as a result. But with Democrat Anthony Weiner, it is simply a “personal matter,” and everyone should just leave him alone.

Is it just me, or is Wasserman Schultz digging a deeper and deeper hole since Obama wanted her to be the DNC Chair?

And WHAT is with these women defending men like this? Wasserman Schultz could not have deflected more to protect Weiner, and essentially declared this a hands-off matter. The National Enquirer has reported that Maria Shriver knew about Arnold’s love child back in 2006, but Uncle Teddy wanted her to keep quiet lest it affect the family. (I know, I know, about the National Enquirer, but after they broke the John Edwards story, one has to give them props for getting it right sometimes.) And the list goes on.

Meanwhile, some of the Democratic BigWigs are all upset that Re. Weiner didn’t show up for the Israel Day Parade in New York this past weekend. I am not kidding. These are some heavy hitters:

[snip] “I’d like to see him here,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said at the parade, the New York CBS affiliate reported. “He cares about Israel, [is] very active in the Jewish community, and he ought to be here.”

Former New York City comptroller Bill Thompson, who’s seen as one of Weiner’s top potential rivals in the 2013 mayor’s race, said that the situation surrounding Weiner is “becoming a huge circus” and “it’s unfortunate that the congressman didn’t deal with this quickly.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y), also at the parade, noted Weiner’s absence but avoided criticism. “It’s going to be up to the congressman how he handles this and people will have their opinion when they actually have the facts,” he told the New York Post.

A handful of Weiner’s colleagues who represent New York City in the House refused to comment at the parade.

“I’m not here to pass judgment,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told CBS. “I’m not trained in that area.”

“I know what you want to ask me, and I don’t want to answer,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Please tell me again how the DNC is the party for women? The one that stands up for women? Because I am not seeing it. When you have major Democrats like those mentioned above lamenting that Weiner isn’t in attendance at an event afte rall of this information is coming out about him, well, that is telling indeed. Heck, even as I type, more and more is coming out about Anthony Weiner and his Tweets to women – I’m sorry, I meant to say, INAPPROPRIATE tweets to women.

But Rep. Wasserman Schultz will keep trying her, “nothing to see here, move along, move along, this is a private matter,” and her colleagues will, apparently, act like his behavior is no big deal, so he should show up anyway, and on, and on, and on…

Yep – I think the DNC Chair is destined for bigger things the way she stands by her (Democratic) man when he treats women like crap. Don’t you?

UPDATE: I know this will come as a shock to you, but Rep. Weiner has FINALLY admitted that he has been sending these kinds of tweets before, and AFTER, he got married. AND, he admitted the underwear photo was indeed of him, and he indeed did send it to some young co-ed. What a charmer.

But you know he is not resigning over this.

There is so much more to the crapola he said, and you can read it all HERE.

Yes, Rep. Moran made this ludicrous charge in an interview with an Arab TV station (honestly, I am having a hard time writing this, I am just so incredulous that this is his delusional rationale for the Election results. WOW.). Here is what the Representative from Virginia said:

[snip] The Virginia Democrat told Alhurra that Republicans gained 63 seats in the House “for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States.”

“The Civil War happened because the Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery,” Moran said. “In this case a lot of people in this country, I believe, don’t want to be governed by an African American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Can you believe this shit? Bringing up the Civil War as a justification for this absurd, obscene, ridiculous charge? What the hell is wrong with Moran?

Let me help you understand what happened in 2010, Rep. Moran. The reason for the huge shift was your party shoving a massive, costly health care law, that none of you bozos bothered to read, down the throats of Americans after we screamed our heads off telling you in every way we could we DID NOT WANT IT. It is because Unemployment in this country is still EXCEEDINGLY high, currently being touted at 9.4%, but that does not include the underemployed. It is because foreclosures in this country are expected to hit a record high in 2011. It is because the debt you and your cronies are running up just this year is $1.5 TRILLION dollars, added to the over $14 trillion we are in debt, a debt that has escalated under your party’s, and Obama’s, “leadership.”

I could go on and on, but it is clear you aren’t listening to what the people have been saying. No matter how clearly we have been telling you. This isn’t about race, this is about one party dominating the political landscape and doing what they wanted to do, and not what they people who sent them to DC wanted them to do. Seriously, using a charge of racism in the face of the reality of what is going on in our country is delusional at best. Using a charge of racism, or Nazism, as your colleague, Rep. Cohen (D-TN), did recently, is offensive, gutless, and an attempt at silencing all opposition.

With all due respect (as much as I can muster for someone who uses such a ridiculous charge), you need to look in the mirror, look at your party, look at what you are doing to this country, rather than cast aspersions. The Democratic Party has no one to blame but itself for what happened in 2010, and it has zero to do with race.

And now to the sexism portion of the post. I received a lovely email from a faithful No Quarter reader, Candy*, who wrote about the way Google organizes responses to a search on Sarah Palin. She noted that the primary results are largely negative, with only a few favorable ones tossed in here or there. I have no doubt she is right. (Photo credit: October 22, 2010, Photo by Matt Stroshane/Getty Images North America)

For instance, if you did a search right this minute, one of the very top articles is one that made me throw up in my mouth a bit. Here is the headline: “Tracy Morgan: Palin Is ‘Good Masturbation Material,’” complete with video of Morgan saying this. TNT was quick to apologize for this remark on their show, “Inside The NBA,” after they started getting emails about it, that is. But hey, still, they did apologize. One of the hosts, Ernie Johnson, did try to change the topic quickly, and to cut Morgan off, but it was already out there. Wow.

Many of us remember all too well how Google operated during the 2008 campaign. Many people complained about the bias way it presented its search results. Apparently, with some justification, as this article in Politico would indicate, “Obama-Google Connection Scares Competitors.” Uh huh, I bet. Though I would not hold my breath for any official acknowledgment, as the article makes clear:

[snip] Google says that Schmidt was acting on his own, and his politics don’t reflect the company’s official stance.

“Eric’s endorsement of Sen. Obama was a personal matter, and as a company Google was neutral in the campaign,” said Adam Kovacevich, Google’s senior manager of global communications and public affairs. “We look forward to working with the new administration and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to keep the Internet open and to promote economic growth.”

Obama’s transition team declined comment. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Show of hands – who believes the Google guy? Anyone? Anyone? Yeah, me neither. Especially since Obama’s own team declined comment. Many of us remember having to grab snapshots of images before they got scrubbed from Google (yes, they may have gone up initially, but often got taken down). And, many of us remember Google not allowing anti-Obama blogs during the 2008 campaign. I am going to guess there may be more of the same now, especially given the close relationship between Obama and Google’s owner, Eric Scmidt.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. How about a little exercise – do a search on Google for Sarah Palin, and see what comes up. See how far you have to go to find something positive on her that does not come from, say, Fox News or American Thinker. Better yet, try to find a site for photos of her that do NOT have sexually suggestive photo-shopped pictures. Then try another search engine and see what happens. I am curious to see what you all find. Please feel free to share.

Finally, here’s a challenge for the Democrats as they gear up (or continue) the campaign for Obama for 2012: Please refrain from calling those who do not support Obama racists, or Nazis, or any of the other smears you have used against us in the past. Our opposition has absolutely nothing to do with the color of Obama’s skin, but with his policies and actions (along with the actions of many others in the Democratic Party, like Nancy Pelosi, who helped to craft Obamacare). Instead of using such highly charged rhetoric, try listening for a change at why people in this country are unhappy. Try looking at what is really going on with the economy, with the deficit, with people’s very lives. You know, what you were sent to Washington to do. Just a thought.

*Candy, thank you so much for the email. I appreciate your taking the time to write me, and appreciate your kind words. Thank you!

Now we have women governors, senators, representatives, and Secretaries of State. I can only imagine what out founding mothers would have thought of that, the joy, the excitement, the relief. No doubt, things have changed in this country for women. Not that women are treated as full equals yet in the United States. The sexism and misogyny evidenced by one of the two major political parties in 2008 made that abundantly clear. But things are better. We strive, still, for equal equal pay, for equal representation, for our first woman president, but there is no denying we are better off now than we were 90 years ago.

Indeed, our foremothers worked hard for this, as many of us have in the intervening years. But there are other countries, like Afghanistan, for example, where girls are in danger for merely trying to get an education. Yes, on Wednesday of this week, a girls’ school had poisonous gas spread throughout the school, sickening a number of the girls and teachers. Who would do such a thing? The Taliban would:

[snip] Wednesday’s incident follows a similar pattern seen in other recent attacks at girls’ schools involving an airborne substance which officials say could be some form of gas.

Those have raised fears that the Taliban and other allied groups who oppose female education are using a new method to scare them away from classes. [snip]

Wow. I scarcely know how to respond to this. It is despicable. And it is a pattern with the Taliban:

[snip] “This has happened a couple of times before, mainly in the northern province of Kunduz. At the time, it was also said, that these girls were poisoned and officials pointed the finger at the Taliban and rightly so,” she said.

“However, there is still no hard conclusion on who is behind this attack and what kind of poisoning is taking place.”

The Taliban banned education for girls during their Afghan rule from 1996-2001, but have condemned similar attacks in the past.

They have, however, set fire to dozens of schools, threatened teachers and even attacked schoolgirls in rural areas.

In one attack in Kandahar in 2008,around 15 girls and teachers were sprayed with acid by men on motorbikes.

In parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan, particularly in Taliban strongholds, schools for girls still remain closed. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This attitude toward women and girls is a bitter pill to swallow. As is this headline from The Hill, “Sen. Kerry: ‘Very active’ efforts under way to reach settlement with Taliban.” What? How? Why? Kerry explains:

[snip]“I can report without being specific that there are efforts under way. They are serious, and I completely agree with that fundamental premise — and so does General [David] Petraeus and so does President Obama — there is no military solution,” he told NPR. “And there are very active efforts now to seek an appropriate kind of political settlement.”

U.S. officials have acknowledged that some sort of political settlement must be reached with the Taliban — a loosely affiliated group of Islamic insurgents that control large swaths of territory in Afghanistan — in order to bring an end to the almost nine-year-long U.S. war there.

The beginning of settlement negotiations represents a significant development in terms of Western involvement there…

Kerry said any “appropriate” settlement would have to include “a renunciation of al Qaeda,” a “reduction of violence,” a “recognition of the constitutional rights of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and greater efforts to reduce sanctuaries for insurgency.”[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And what about the women and girls, Senator Kerry? What about them, in your “negotiations” with terrorists? Yeah, I know – who gives a damn about them? They are just “casualties,” I suppose, necessary capitulations to this woman-hating group.

How it is Kerry, and Obama, think having active negotiations with the Taliban is a good thing? What are the chances, really, that, if they can even get some of these groups to come to the table, they will even keep their word should a compromise be reached?

And what about these women, these girls? The ones gassed by members of the Taliban to prevent them from learning? Or, the Taliban members who throw acid in the faces of these girls in an attempt to force them our of school? Oh, yeah – these sounds like just the kind of people with whom we should be engaging in “very active” negotiations. You know, since we are choosing to negotiate with terrorists in the first place.

I cannot help but be reminded of this powerful moment (again) of CJ Craig on “West Wing”:

Wow. Yep, that sounds a little too familiar…

Indeed, I am thankful, grateful, and humbled for the work our foremothers did to secure us the right to vote in this country. For the women who fought to make this possible: Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the other remarkable women who enabled for us to have this right, thank you.

May the young girls and women of Afghanistan one day be allowed to learn, to study, to be educated. And may they, one day, one day soon, be full participants in their country. Sadly, that day is not today.

One other note – almost 200 women and 4 boys were raped near a UN Peacekeepers camp in Congo. And what has the UN said about it? They’re looking into it. Well, it only happened three weeks ago, so you can see why it might take them a while to come out with any kind of statement. Right. Sec. Clinton spoke out about this atrocity, and you can read her remarks HERE, but this sums it up:

[snip]“Sexual violence harms more than its immediate victims. It denies and destroys our common dignity, it shreds the fabric that weaves us together as humans, it endangers families and communities, it erodes social and political stability, and it undermines economic progress. These travesties, committed with impunity against innocent civilians who play no role in armed conflict, hold us all back. [snip]

Amen to that.

That’s the question raised by David Fletcher of the LGBT Mentoring Project of the Learn Act Build Program at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center. Mr. Fletcher’s findings have been documented in this article in the LA Times, Behind the numbers of Prop. 8: It’s crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8′s victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage..

Huh – and here I thought we already knew the answer to that question, as I wrote back in November 0f 2008: Obama and his supporters. That’s the short answer, anyway. Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, after all. That is also the answer to how Proposition (or Amendment) 2 passed in Florida that election, too, a law far more restrictive regarding the LGBT community, but one that is rarely, rarely mentioned, even though it garnered 62% of the vote.

But here is the point Mr. Fletcher wishes to make:

[snip] After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans’ views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents. [snip]

There is more to this report, including wrong-way voting which affected both sides, though that seems to be the case more for those who OPPOSED same sex marriage actually voting for it (500,000). You can read the rest of the article HERE, and the full report at prop8report.org.

Yes, it seems 687,000 people shifted their votes in the final weeks. And those people were mainly Democrats. Is Mr. Fletcher really surprised by this? I have been saying for some time now that the DNC is not as “gay-friendly” as they would like us to believe. Again, Obama himself opposes same-sex marriage. So, the outcome should not be a huge surprise, at least not to me. Curious that it seems to be a surprise for Mr. Fletcher.

I find it interesting that Mr. Fletcher made a point of claiming it is not the fault of African Americans – entirely, that is. He seems to want to take the heat off of the African American community while having to acknowledge that, while their numbers may not have changed that much from polls before the vote to the vote itself, they still voted FOR Prop 8. Um, is that revised look at the data supposed to be a comfort to those affected by this votes?

Regardless, I have been saying for almost two years now that it was the Democrats, in both California AND Florida, who voted to suppress our right to marry. It’s a fact, Jack, no matter how one looks at the data. Sad, but true.

While we are talking about Democrats and votes, guess what the Democratic Party has decided to keep? Oh, you could see this coming a mile away: Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates: A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback..

“A reform effort…suffers a setback”? Uh, yeah – one could say that, but that is if one was ever foolish enough to believe the Democratic “bigwigs,” which includes Obama, by the way, were ever, ever going to give up that power in the first place.

Oh, sure, Obama made noises about abolishing the Superdelegates after he bullied them into giving him the nomination (along with votes for Hillary which the RBC did), as this article reports:

[snip] After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

Let’s just look at the plethora of Obama sycophants listed right there. Are you seriously trying to make me believe that if Obama wanted this Superdelegate thing changed, it wouldn’t be? Spare me already. Oh, he wants to keep it the same – he wouldn’t be where he is today without the Superdelegates (not to mention Convention delegate, voter, and caucus fraud, but hey – no need to be picky, right?).

And the outcome of the proposed change? You know it – you knew it from the get-go. They said NO:

[snip] But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All of us who were paying attention May 31, 2008, who watched as the Democratic Party revealed its true colors right before our eyes, knew damn well the Rules and Bylaws Committee would never, ever willingly give up such a great tool for overturning the will of the voters. These days, that’s just how the Democrats roll.

I am so glad Mr. Fletcher made it clear that it is Democrats who voted FOR Prop 8, though we knew that already. But hey – never hurts to get a reminder, eh?

And we got another reminder from the RBC this week, too. How we vote, for what we vote, for whom we vote, one thing is clear – the Democratic Party does not stand for what it says it does: it is not the party of the people. And it damn sure is not the party that cares about one person, one vote. Glad the RBC made that crystal clear one more time for those who missed it a couple of years ago.

Like I said, these days, this is just how the Democratic Party rolls. I expect we will see more of the same in 2012, but then again, with this bunch, I never expected anything different. How about you?

UPDATE: As you may have heard by now, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughan R. Walker ruled that Prop. 8:

[snip]…violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court. [snip]

I am sure there will be more about this in the coming days. But, WOW!! Good news!

UPDATE #2: Just in case you were wondering if, maybe, just maybe, this reversal by Judge Walker has had an effect on Obama’s stand against same sex marriage, the answer would be No. Obama continues to oppose same-sex marriage. Oh, but he supports us. Yeah. Right.

My favorite part of the dismissal against the NBPP in Philadelphia? The guy carrying the nightstick outside a Philly polling place has been banned from carrying “deadly” weapons near polling places. Until 2012. You read that right. He can’t carry deadly weapons around a polling place in 2010, but he can when it’s time for Obama to run again. WHAT a surprise.

The Obama Justice Department has become the “Get Out of Jail Free” Department for the New Black Panther Party.

But another piece of dirt coming out from under this rug of DOJ whistle blowing is something about which a number of us knew for some time. The threats of intimidation and violence toward Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 Primaries. The constant refrain that Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton is absurd, unless you think threatening people, lying, and cheating is “running a better campaign.” Personally, I do not, especially from the party to which I gave my loyalty for decades. I dunno, I kinda have a thing against liars, cheats, and thugs – maybe it comes from my vocation. Ahem.

At long, long, last, some in the media are finally paying attention. The documentary filmmaker, Gigi Gaston, was on Fox and Friends recently, speaking out about the corruption associated with the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Her film, “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008″ is a critical piece of history regarding how Obama and the DNC colluded against Hillary Clinton and the 18 million of us who voted for her. Below is Ms. Gaston speaking out about what she found:

I was like Gaston, too. A lifelong Democrat, who believed in the Party and for what it stood. I believed that we really did care about one person, one vote, that we cared about the will of the people. I could not have been more wrong, which I now acknowledge, though it was a painful – check that – excruciatingly painful realization.

The worst part was seeing the level of organization behind Obama’s cheating and voter intimidation. And yes, it most definitely came from the top. There is no way on this green earth that what happened in Texas COULD happen without an organized, concerted effort. Others in states like Washington also spoke of the caucus fraud that occurred there, the busloads of people from out of state coming in to vote. There is zero way this could have happened without Obama’s knowledge or acquiescence. No way. That speaks volumes about him, though not news to many of us, I am sure.

And it speaks volumes about the DNC, which received plenty of evidence that this was going on. The Hillary Clinton Campaign also notified the DNC of irregularities occurring to benefit Obama. And what did the DNC do about it? Absolutely nothing. Well, actually, they did do something – they violated the will of the people, acted in the most unethical, immoral way, dismissing the votes of Americans, and stole votes from Clinton to give to Obama.

Many of you know I have recommended Ms. Gaston’s documentary before. It is staggering, maddening, and downright heartbreaking. I recommend this video to you again. It is well worth watching, so that we will be aware, forewarned is forearmed, and clearly, with this president, with this “Justice Department,” prepared is what we must be.

To get you started, here is Part 1:

One last thing: if you or someone you know, experienced caucus fraud during the 2008 Primary, please, please let the good folks at “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008” know about it. They are still working to get this information out there, to expose the massive level of fraud perpetrated to get Barack Obama into the White House.

How have we come to this place in this country so fast?

Senator Lincoln is the one Democrat in this bunch, and I have to say, I am THRILLED she beat Halter. As you no doubt have heard, Halter was supported by MoveOn.org, and the big unions, which poured MILLIONS of dollars into Arkansas (around $10 million), so her win is a big push against the power of the unions, as well as the far left agenda. Here she is celebrating her win:

Lincoln isn’t done – she has a strong challenger in November, but beating the organized union and MoveOn.org backed candidate is huge, make no mistake. It can also be construed as a bit of a referendum on Bill Clinton v. Obama. Clinton endorsed Lincoln, and the Unions/MoveOn are Obama backers. Maybe the Old Dawg still has it…

Nikki Haley, with the backing of both Gov., Sarah Palin and First Lady (of SC) Jenny Sanford, won the vast majority of votes (49%) with her closest competitor, Gresham Barrett, at 22%. Here is Nikki Haley after the election:

Should Haley win come November, she will be the first woman governor in SC, and the second Indian American governor in the US (along with Bobby Jindal).

Meg Whitman talks about her win, and her upcoming race against Jerry Brown (or “Gov. Moonbeam,” as Karl Rove referred to him on “Fox & Friends Weds. morning). In her speech, Whitman gives a shout-out to Carly Fiorina on her win to face Barbara Boxer:

And speaking of Carly Fiorina, here she is in her speech following her win, a win which will pit her against long time senator, Barbara Boxer. She returns the favor to Whitman, with a “Holla” to her, too:

Sharron Angle, the Tea Party backed candidate, will be facing off again st Harry Reid in the Fall. Oh, I cannot begin to tell you how badly I want her to beat Reid. Even when I still considered myself a Democrat (before 5/31/08), I was not a fan of Reid’s, and my opinion of him has only gone down from there. Here’s Angle after her win:

Wow. Again, what a night. I might add, I have said a number of times, that after the Democratic Party eviscerated the best candidate they could have had to be the first woman president, I have no doubt that the first woman president will come from the Republican Party.

Honestly, it has been interesting to me to see how the Republican Party seems to support its women in positions of power far more than the Democrats do. You know, the party that claims to be the party for women. After the misogynistic treatment of Clinton by the DNC itself, compared to the treatment by the RNC with Palin, as well as other powerful women in the RNC, I just knew the Demos had blown their chance in a big, big, big way. Oh, sure, the Democrats have a few women senators and representatives, but none of them are on a par with Clinton. Hell, Obama is not on a par with Clinton, never will be (I think he knows that, too – that’s why he was always putting her down to try and build himself up).

When you look at a field like this, all of these powerful, successful women who are Republicans, you just know that our first woman president is going to come from this kind of group. That is assuming Hillary Clinton is telling the truth when she says she will not run for president again, though since Obama has made such a mess of things in such a short period of time, I am not sure she COULD win in this climate.

November will be must see with Boxer having a strong, accomplished woman like Fiorina facing her, Reid having Angle facing him, Whitman against “Gov. Moonbeam,” and Sheheen having the very popular Haley against him. Things don’t look great for Lincoln against her Republican opponent, though. Maybe Bill will show up for her again…

Stay tuned – November is not that far away!

UPDATE: Gov. Palin also endorsed Susanna Martinez (R) for Governor of New Mexico. Martinez also won big Tuesday night. Here is Gov. Palin talking with Megyn Kelly about the BP oil crisis, and near the end, she discusses the Primary results, especially the role her endorsements played:

In other words, Palin does not take credit for her endorsements making that much of a difference with the wins of the “Mama Grizzlies” – wow. What kind of politician is she, anyway? Ahem.

Anyway, the next few months should prove to be exciting. Can’t wait to see how all of this plays out!

UPDATE #2: And Libby Mitchell won in Maine to represent the Democratic Party(h/t to Yttik). From sea to shining sea, the women are on the rise. Wow!

Take for instance this African American Tea Partier being asked by an NBC reporter (oh, there’s a shocker) if he felt uncomfortable. Here is his answer:

“These are my people.”

That seems to be the refrain running through this article as well:

Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

The House has not had a black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left after eight years.

But now black Republicans are running across the country — from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.

Let me stop right there to remind people why there would have been more African Americans running during Reconstruction. Lincoln was a Republican. That’s the short answer. But this is not Reconstruction, so what’s the deal? This is:

Party officials and the candidates themselves acknowledge that they still have uphill fights in both the primaries and the general elections, but they say that black Republicans are running with a confidence they have never had before. They credit the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that blacks can get elected.

“I ran in 2008 and raised half a million dollars, and the state party didn’t support me and the national party didn’t support me,” said Allen West, who is running for Congress in Florida and is one of roughly five black candidates the party believes could win. “But we came back and we’re running and things are looking great.” (Photo by Allen West Photostream.)

But interviews with many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama’s election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible — for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support — was not.

“There is no denying that one of the things that came out of the election of Obama was that you have a lot of African-Americans running in both parties now,” said Vernon Parker, who is running for an open seat in Arizona’s Third District. His competition in the Aug. 24 primary includes the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, Ben Quayle.

Princella Smith, who is running for an open seat in Arkansas, said she viewed the president’s victory through both the lens of history and partisan politics. “Aside from the fact that I disagree fundamentally with all his views, I am proud of my nation for proving that we have the ability to do something like that,” Ms. Smith said.

That sentiment I can appreciate. I imagine it does bring a lot of pride to a number of people that Obama got elected since he is biracial, but that, in my opinion, is not enough reason to vote for someone. Still, I get her point. And good for her, as well as the other GOP hopefuls for stepping up:

State and national party officials say that this year’s cast of black Republicans is far more experienced than the more fringy players of yore, and include elected officials, former military personnel and candidates who have run before.

Mr. Parker is the mayor of Paradise Valley, Ariz. Ryan Frazier is a councilman in Aurora, Colo., one of four at-large members who represent the whole city. And Tim Scott is the only black Republican elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives since Reconstruction.

“These are not just people pulled out of the hole,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a black conservative group. That is “the nice thing about being on this side of history,” he said.

He added that the candidates might be helped by the presence of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who is black and ran for the Senate himself in 2006.

“Party affiliation is not a barrier to inspiration,” Mr. Steele said in an e-mail message. “Certainly, the president’s election was and remains an inspiration to many.”

But Democrats and other political experts express skepticism about black Republicans’ chances in November. “In 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist who ran Al Gore’s presidential campaign and who is black. “And you didn’t see many of them win their elections.”

No, these are not “fringy players” at all. But why Donna Brazile, who ran a flawed and FAILED campaign for a man who should have won in a slam dunk is considered a “strategist,” is beyond me. I have never understood why in the world her opinion matters given her handling of Gore’s campaign.

And I especially do not care what she has to say after the way she acted in 2008. I could write a whole other post on Donna Brazile and her nefarious tactics during the 2008 Primary, but let this term in regards to SC, FL, and MI suffice, “Nuclear Option.” All of that is to say, I have zero respect for her or her opinion.

Though I do have more respect for this man’s opinion:

Tavis Smiley, a prominent black talk show host who has repeatedly criticized Republicans for not doing more to court black voters, said, “It’s worth remembering that the last time it was declared the ‘Year of the Black Republican,’ it fizzled out.”

In many ways, this subset of Republicans is latching on to the basic themes propelling most of their party’s campaigns this year — the call for smaller government, less spending and stronger national security — rather than building platforms around social conservatism.

“Things have evolved,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who is heavily involved in recruiting Republican candidates. “I think partly the level of hostility to Obama, Pelosi and Reid makes a lot of people pragmatically more open to a coalition from the standpoint of being a long-term majority party.”

Many of the candidates are trying to align themselves with the Tea Partiers, insisting that the racial dynamics of that movement have been overblown. Videos taken at some Tea Party rallies show some participants holding up signs with racially inflammatory language.

We know EXACTLY who those people were holding up racist signs at the Tea Parties, and they were NOT Tea Party members. It is disturbing to me the lengths people will go to demonize a group like this. I can only think they feel exceedingly threatened, and respond by acting like a bunch of thugs and punks. Nice the way the article slid that one in there, even though there are groups actively trying to infiltrate the Tea Party to discredit it. Not that you’d know that from this (it took me two seconds to get those links, something the writer might have tried). Along those lines, the article continues:

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 25 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, compared with 11 percent of the general public.

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”

Oh, oops. I wonder how the Media and Liberal Elite will deal with this claim? No doubt, they will tell these African Americans that they are wrong, that they just don’t recognize the racism, or some other patronizing, arrogant, dare I say it, racist response, from people who have never been to a Tea Party rally.

But I digress. There is reason for these GOP hopefuls to be hopeful:

There is also some evidence that black voters rally around specific conservative causes. A case in point was a 2008 ballot initiative in California outlawing same-sex marriage that passed in large part because of support from black voters in Southern California.

Still, black Republicans face a double hurdle: black Democrats who are disinclined to back them in a general election, and incongruity with white Republicans, who sometimes do not welcome the blacks whom party officials claim to covet as new members.

This spring, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia was roundly attacked for not mentioning slavery in his Confederate History Month proclamation, which he later said was a “major omission.” Black candidates said these types of gaffes posed problems in drawing African-Americans to their party, but also underscored their need to be there.

“I think what the governor failed to do was to recognize the pain and the emotion that was really sparked by the institution of slavery,” said Mr. Frazier of Colorado. “As a Republican, I think I have a responsibility to continue to work within my party to avoid those types of barriers. The key for the Republican Party is to engage every community on the issues they care about and not act as if they don’t exist.”

Yeah, that was stupid of McDonnell in a big way, but it is also a way for the Times to try and paint the Republicans with a broad brush of racism even while they are talking about African Americans running in the RNC. Not that it isn’t an important issue – it is – but for it to be the concluding paragraph in a story about experienced, knowledgeable RNC hopefuls who are African American seems telling.

Is it just me, or has the writing at the Times become sloppier? Innuendo and unsubstantiated claims seem to have taken the place of actual journalism. I dunno – could just be me.

Anyway, it is an interesting element to the upcoming election about which we have heard very little. These are serious candidates running for serious positions. They have experience, they hold political positions now, and they are looking to make change. Just not the kind for which Obama and the DNC were hoping, no doubt. It will be interesting to see how these races play out in November.

“We’re going to have to make some tough choices” about the deficit and national debt, President Obama said to a crowded gymnasium full of supporters at Indian Hills Community College, after a lengthy riff on how the unsustainable debt would need to be tackled.

This, unlike most of what the president said during the town hall meeting, was met with silence.

“I noticed I didn’t get a lot of clapping about the whole ‘We’re gonna have the hard choices’ thing,” the president ribbed the crowd.

The President is ribbing the crowd? Now that’s what I call “The Audacity of Hope.” Half million dollar pizza parties. The most expensive inauguration in history. After this gentleman spent all of last year more than tripling spending (yes, I know, I know, it was all Bush’s fault) now he wants to tell the American people it is time to make some hard choices?

More frustrating than the endless campaigning and political posturing is the notion that the American people are so bloody stupid, they will not leap to the same conclusions I just did. Further, he tells us this stuff as if he just thought of it. Haven’t the tea partiers, for one, been screaming about these very problems for over a year?

Could it be President Obama is not aware why his audience sat on their hands for his remark about “hard choices?” I cannot prove that the people of Ottumwa, Iowa agree with my assessment but perhaps this might be a reason why he did not receive the adulation he is used to and so craves:

It is offensive to be lectured to about fiscal restraint by a man who has been spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor for the better part of a year and a half, bailing out and covering for reckless companies with reckless management styles that continue to scam the American people, hiding the true cost of the legislation his Congress has been ramming down our throats and promising transparency while delivering the opposite.

The people of Iowa, and the rest of American for that matter, have been practicing plenty of fiscal retraint as they deal with high unemployment, watching their savings dwindle to dangerously low levels amidst an uncertain future with an administration that appears tone deaf as to their problems.

Any President that keeps trying to sell the bill of goods that cap and trade is going to help solve our economic problems instead of finally planting his feet behind the desk to figure out how to put more people back ot work in this country really needs to talk less to the American people – and listen more.

“This will bear on how we think about our federal budget in the future,” [Obama] said. “Everybody dislikes Washington right now, and everybody wants to lower their taxes. Everybody hates waste in government. But at the same time, you know, government does some important things like helping to make sure you’ve got clean drinking water and that your roads aren’t full of potholes.”

Please Mr. President, stop telling me what I hate. I don’t hate taxes. I am more than happy to pay my fair share and do so regularly. I hate when my taxpayerdollars go to bailout out the actions of corrupt actors who are not held to the same rules as I am. I do not hate government. I hate bloated government, local, state and federal, that enjoys no end of perks and bloated salaries and perks. I appreciate the good things that government does, which is why I pay taxes. What I don’t appreciate is the things my tax money is supposed to pay for – like education – gets “borrowed” away and never returned.

Clearly, the President has no idea what I hate which gives me a clear indication of why his policies have nothing to do with the urgent needs of the American people.
Close attention need by paid to the following:

…Earlier in the day, back in Washington, DC, he’d presided over the first meeting of his Debt Commission, which will issue recommendations after the November 2010 elections on ways to reduce the $12.8 trillion national debt.

“I’ve said that it’s important that we not restrict the review or the recommendations that this commission comes up with in any way,” the president said at the meeting. “Everything has to be on the table. …This means that all of you, our friends in the media, will ask me and others once a week or once a day about what we’re willing to rule out or rule in when it comes to the recommendations of the commission. That’s an old Washington game and it’s one that has made it all but impossible in the past for people to sit down and have an honest discussion about putting our country on a more secure fiscal footing. So I want to deliver this message today: We’re not playing that game. I’m not going to say what’s in. I’m not going to say what’s out. I want this commission to be free to do its work.”

Could it be he is not going to give you any details about what is “in it” until after the midterms because if he told you now, all his herd mentality Dems insistently following Pelosi and Reid off a cliff would be voted down this November? Is that why we are not getting a report from the Debt Commision until after that?

In Ottumwa, the president previewed for the crowd that whatever the commission comes up with, “we’re going to have a very tough debate about how to bring down our deficits.”

He continued, “as this debate unfolds, I just want everybody to pay attention to what folks are saying. A lot of times politicians will tell you, ‘I’m going to cut your taxes, I’m going to lower the deficit, I’m going to expand Medicare.’”

Don’t settle for that, the president told the crowd. “Ask every politician when they say they’re going to balance the budget and deal with the deficit: ‘What exactly are you going to cut? What spending are you willing to eliminate? Are you going to eliminate funding for sewers? Are you going to reduce the cost of Medicare? Because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Who the hell out here has been getting a free lunch. The free lunch has gone to the folks at Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie, and GM (who claim they paid back their bailouts — however they did it with other TARP money).

A free lunch? Why does President Obama insist upon being condescending? Beyond his pronouncements from on high about “bitter voters,” this reminds me of candidate Obama’s pronouncement about Democrats and abortion during the campaign. As reported by CBS News:

“The mistake pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization . . . has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved,” he said.

Really? Do we not? Telling us what we do and do not like or believe seems to be a pattern.

Reading the other fine print of his statement in Iowa, he wants us to ask other politicians what THEY are going to do – but we cannot ask the President what HE is going to do. “We’re not going to play that game?” All he is doing is playing games, while taxpayers can only look on in frustration and disbelief.

The president said “the way folks talk about it in Washington,” you might think the debt could be solved by reducing waste and abuse, eliminating foreign aid and earmarks. But those are relatively small parts of the budget, he said.

Which “folks” are these, exactly?

“We could eliminate all foreign aid and all earmarks and we’d still have a huge problem, because most of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending, about 70 percent of the budget. Everything else we do is only about 30 percent of the budget. So this is going to be a tough bunch of choices that we gotta make here.”

Okay – so here is the bitter pill to swallow – get ready folks. Here come the cuts! So that if you have been paying in to Medicare, as my mother has, for example, in her 50 years in the work force, you can expect less. Presidents like to point toward Social Security’s impending insolvency without mentioning part of the reason it is in trouble is because government keeps borrowing money from it that they do not put back.
Remember his economic advisor Austan Goosbee talked about privatizing Social Security? Do not be surprised if you hear rumbings next year, too – the same rumblings President Bush made several years ago. Now I ask you – would you want the private sector – otherwise known as Wall Street crooks – playing with your dough while you’re busy keeping the roof over your head and don’t have enough time to daily monitor their shenanigans?

“I just want everybody to be prepared” for this debate, which will take place over the next couple years. “Remember when I was running for office, I said I will not just tell you what you want to hear, I would tell you what you needed to hear. And you needed to hear that we’re going to have some hard choices about our deficit.”

Oh, that was my favorite comment of all. I have never heard a bigger pile of horse hooey! And that is saying something. He told everybody what they wanted to hear out on the campaign trail – unicorns and giant popsicles. But little else.

Is there anyone with the courage to stand up and insist that this President start telling the truth? The press has already proven themselves to be, almost uniformly, nothing more than notches on his bedpost, cowed from speaking up for fear of a lack of access, which would mean a loss of their $5 million dollar book deals.

Who is speaking for us?

Thank you. Rant over.

They “amuse” him?? Considering the Tea Party movement has higher poll numbers than Obama, their momentum should concern him. But that’s not how The arrogant One rolls, as we know all too well.

So, why did he claim the Tea Partiers should be thanking him instead of taking to the streets? Because all he’s done is be a Giver, people, not a Taker:

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser tonight, President Obama touted his administration’s tax cuts and said that the recent tea party rallies across the nation have “amused” him.

“You would think they should be saying thank you,” the president said to applause.

Members of the audience shouted, “Thank you.”

Update: Seeing is believing. ~JustMe~ provided the video of Obama’s incredulity that not all were falling down at his feet, prostrating themselves in thanksgiving and sheer wonderment at all Obama has done for them:

Freakin’ ingrates.

Back to his claim of Tax cuts. What tax cuts? Because of the continued extension of Unemployment Benefits, an additional two month extension passed April 15, my family is about $762 lighter in the wallet just for this one program. Let me hasten to add, I know what it is like to be on Unemployment. I lived in MA when the state went through a very difficult economic time. State funded programs were cut drastically, which meant a number of us lost our jobs. So, I have been there, and know firsthand how difficult, how frustrating, how demoralizing it is. But there is no denying that SOMEONE ist paying for these extensions of benefits, and that “Someone” is you and me.

Then there are all of the bailout funds – just who the hell does Obama think is funding these programs, a money tree?

And perhaps it is this kind of cavalier, arrogant, dismissive, belittling comment that led Rep. Paul Ryan to say the following (H/t to Logistics Monster for this video):

So, Mr. Snide President Man, that’s why so many people are upset with you. Because you’re a liar, and even while you are lying to people’s faces, you are putting them down in your usual belittling way. What a uniter, what a healer, what a compassionate man – NOT.

If you would like to see how much your taxes have been “cut” – ahem – in support of this, and other programs, click HERE. It is eye opening.

Oh, and Mr. President? Lose the attitude already. It’s not the least bit presidential, or helpful. Unless you WANT to help yourself lose the next election, then I’m all for it…

Here’s the thing. Recently, Sarah Palin put a map on her Facebook page of Democrats to target in the November election. Apparently, Krugman took exception to it in a big way, according to this article: Memo to Paul Krugman and Rep. Van Hollen: My Search Was Not in Vain.

So what did Krugman say? This:

In last Thursday’s column, Paul Krugman admitted to having fun watching “right-wingers go wild.” One of the things that apparently delighted him was this map which Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page:

Each of the cross-hairs represents a Democrat from a conservative district who voted in favor of health reform. Immediately after highlighting the map, Krugman wrote:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual…you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials….to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.

Wow. Those are STRONG words. Presumably, an academician, and a writer for the NY Times would do a search, or have fact checkers do it for him, before making such a claim. One would think, anyway. Think again:

Really, Paul? I’ll search in vain?

The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office.

Granted these are bulls-eyes instead of gun-sights, and the targets are states not individual congressmen. But we’re really splitting hairs at this point. This map and the language it uses (Behind enemy lines!) are, if anything, more militant than what Palin used in her Facebook posting.

But wait, there’s more!

When Palin’s map became an issue, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rushed on MSNBC to denounce it, telling Chris Matthews:

I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.

You may recall that I had a video up recently of Rep. Chris Van Hollen making outrageous claims about what was in the Health Care Bill, completely denying components of it that were well documented. Evidently, that trend is continuing:

Really, Chris? So what do you think about this map?

Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican” like this one:

There’s even a helpful legend that makes it clear that’s precisely what the little red targets represent:

You’ll never guess where I found this map. That’s right, it’s on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website. They launched the site and the map on February 23rd of this year, making it just over a month old. And yet Van Hollen was quoted by Politico just today denouncing Republicans for “pouring more and more gasoline on the flames.” Right back at you, pal.

Okay, this map was put up about a month ago, and the chairman of the committee on whose website it is doesn’t seem to know it’s there? Huh – well THAT says a lot. And none of it good, because he is either a liar or ignorant:

Rep. Van Hollen used MSNBC to claim Palin’s map was dangerous. In fact, the website of the organization he runs has a nearly identical map. Rep. Van Hollen should be asked to explain the differences between the two maps. Specifically, what makes Palin’s map “dangerous” and his map not so much?

Paul Krugman used the megaphone of the NY Times to state that Palin’s Facebook map went “far beyond politics as usual.” He further claimed, “you will search in vain for anything comparably menacing…from members of Congress.” Notice he didn’t say it was hard to find or rare. He said, in effect, that it didn’t exist. But since my search was not in vain, the Times should issue a correction noting that Krugman got it wrong.

Ummm, well, seems to me they are pretty much the same. I’m no hunter, but I don’t think there’s a whole helluva lot of difference between a bullseye and a sighting target.

How is it that two major media outlets are so lazy about facts? I admit, MSNBO has lost a ton of credibility after the 2008 Elections and onward, but still – to not even bother to fact check at ALL?? I am really surprised by Paul Krugman. I thought he was better than that. While he may have consumed copious quantities of Kool Aide, I did not expect him to make completely unfounded claims in order to ratchet up anger at someone (in this case, Sarah Palin). That is a sad state of affairs, if you ask me. Like John (the author of the article above), the NY Times has a duty to its readers to print a retraction. I hope they do. Their reputation has already been damaged by partisan reporting, and this won’t help one bit.

Is it really too much to ask to have news sources, and their pundits, base their opinions on actual facts? So it would seem…

ON A DIFFERENT NOTE: My heart goes out to our fellow citizens in the Northeast, especially Rhode Island, while they deal with record breaking rains, and devastating floods. Many of the areas hardest hit by the floods are also experiencing hard hits with unemployment. Unbelievable what is happening there…

May you all be safe, may your losses be few, may jobs increase soon, and may your lives return to normal as quickly as possible.

But now we are finding out that this threat may have been overstated, though I seriously doubt it is as a result of Obama’s claims. Actually, it is worse than that. As it turns out, Climate Scientists Withdraw Journal Claims of Rising Sea Levels.

Say what?

Again, I believe in being a good steward of this planet on which we make our home regardless of how much the claims of global warming may, or may not, be exaggerated. I have long been an environmentalist, and do not feel compelled to change that underlying belief because a bunch of scientists may, or may not, have fudged the data.

But here’s the thing. This is my front yard:

So, not only does this matter to me in a big picture way, it matters to me in a very personal, direct way. As it is, insurance companies like State Farm have stopped insuring people who live on the coast in these here parts like I do (our insurance is with Lloyds of London – I kid you not).

And we get articles like this in our daily newspaper, “Coalition Hoping For Sea Change As Ocean Levels Rise,” that contain information in them that scares the absolute bejesus out of Lowcountry residents, like me:

An international group of climate scientists predicted last fall that sea levels will rise by 23 inches this century as the oceans warm, which would be roughly double the rise documented during the last century.

That prediction from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not account for the record-setting pace of melting polar ice, however.

“The potential is so astounding, if it continues,” Duke University Professor Orrin Pilkey said at a panel discussion in Charleston addressing the issue. “I think that 3 to 5 feet is a conservative estimate for coastal management here.”

Holy crappydoo – that would make a HUGE change in terms of where I live right now, especially when we are already getting high tides that leave the water lapping the bottom of our docks. But add to that the fact that this is Hurricane Alley. If waters are truly rising, the impact of a hurricane hitting at the “right” time will surely increase the levels of devastation, will they not?

Well, yes, if THIS article is to be believed, “Study: Warming To Bring Stronger Hurricanes“:

Knutson said the new study, which looks at worldwide projections, doesn’t make clear whether global warming will lead to more or less hurricane damage on balance. But he pointed to a study he co-authored last month that looked at just the Atlantic hurricane basin and predicted that global warming would trigger a 28 percent increase in damage near the U.S. despite fewer storms.

That study suggests category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes — those with winds more than 130 mph — would nearly double by the end of the century. On average, a category 4 or stronger hurricane hits the United States about once every seven years, mostly in Florida or Texas. Recent category 4 or 5 storms include 2004′s Charley and 1992′s Andrew, but not Katrina which made landfall as a strong category 3.

Outside experts praised the work.

The study does a good job of summarizing the current understanding of storms and warming, said Chunzai Wang, a researcher with NOAA who had no role in the study.

I am more confused than ever. These are not abstract issues to me. They are very, very real, impacting people I know, cities I love, and my very home. So, do we believe this research, or do we not?

Which raises the bigger question: When did “Scientific Method” become so incredibly subjective? Who, or what, is gaining from these questionable studies? If there truly is global warming, which I have long believed to be true because I trusted that these scientists were doing their work based not on politics, but DATA, and that is not being called into question, what are we to believe?

Again – these are not abstract questions to me, or to the community in which I live. We have to plan for these kinds of changes, if they are indeed true. We have to plan what to do in the event of such catastrophic changes, for our homes, and even our docks, not to mention our investments. Are they scaring the crap out of us because they know for a fact this is happening, or because there is some other incentive for doing so? The recent article claiming there has been no “global warming” in 15 years seems to contradict the NEW study claiming hurricanes are getting worse BECAUSE of global warming.

Good grief – can someone help me out here?

What would the assassinated President make of this week’s special election in Massachusetts, where a little-known Republican won the seat held by John and Bobby Kennedy’s younger brother Teddy for 47 years? What would they make of the GOP sending one of their own to sit in the US Senate for the first time since 1978?

A Republican winning the “Kennedy seat” would have been a joke a few weeks ago, a fantasy so preposterous that not even FOX’s Glenn Beck would have spoken of it on his program. That one of the most liberal states in the country, a state Barack Obama carried by 30 points in the 2008 election, would vote a conservative into office is devastating for the Democratic party, certainly, but particularly for Barack Obama, the candidate enthusiastically endorsed by the Kennedys – the closest a Democratic contender can get to being touched by the Almighty himself.

Given the huge embarrassment of this debacle and the potentially devastating effect this election could have on crucial pieces of legislation like national health care, the Democrats have done what they excel at in times of crisis: Form a circular firing squad. Exhibit A: The Kennedy family’s frantic CYA behavior. Not a pretty sight for sure.

So why did the Democratic contender for the seat blew a 30-point lead? Many silly theories abound. She wasn’t “exciting” enough (I’m scanning my brain trying to come up with a Massachusetts politician who can be characterized as “exciting.” None come to mind. John Kerry? Uh, no). She misspoke when she said Boston Red Sox legend Curt Schilling is a New York Yankee fan – a heresy comparable to a Pakistani politician telling a journalist that Imran Khan roots for India. But the actual reason Coakley’s loss was her her baffling indifference to campaigning. When asked why she was taking such a passive approach following a hard-hitting debate, she testily responded “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ Coakley has learned the hard way the answer to her arrogant “let them eat cake” quote is a definitive yes. Too late now.

There are other more bizarre theories being bandied about to explain the upset. Winner Scott Brown is good-looking. He posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine (although if a journalist dug out a photo of a Democrat posing in the buff that campaign would be over).

Absurd.

The reality is that the Massachusetts result is a canary in the coalmine for Democrats. The GOP is in the minority. The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, is frequently ridiculed for his unpredictable and embarrassing behavior and flagrant expenditures that have left the party with less than $10 million in the bank. The party still suffers from a terrible image problem thanks to 8 years of Bush-Cheney.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are sitting on a hefty war chest. They control the executive and legislative branches of government.

And now they’ve lost a Senate seat in a traditionally liberal state.

The results of this election are a harsh rebuke to Democratic leadership, including Barack Obama. Particularly Barack Obama. He is the public face of the party. The man who promised hope and change, the president who was elected with the slogan “yes we can,” is now learning maybe we can’t. Not unless we do what we promised to do.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and standing by while that money is distributed in bonuses rewarding spectacular failure and lapses of judgment is not change. Guantanamo remains open for business. American homeowners continue to foreclose on their homes at a rapid clip. Banks aren’t loaning money to potential homebuyers. Refinancing is nearly impossible to obtain. Unemployment is hovering at around 10%. So what are the Democrats doing about this?

Clearly the voters of Massachusetts would answer “not enough.” And if the Democratic party doesn’t start taking care of business, the midterm elections of 2010 could make the upset in Massachusetts look like child’s play.

–
First Published at: The Pakistan Update

So, with all the hot water many Democrats are in now, aided by the new book, Game Change, no doubt the fundraising calls will get more and more insistent. They have to overcome not just what was in the book, but stories like this from the Washington Post, “Sen. Reid and son, Cory, Each Considered A Burden For The Other’s Campaign In Nevada.” Or how about this one, “Obama’s Approval Rating Dips To A New Low“? Then there’s this one, “Scott Brown Swearing-in Would Be Stalled To Pass Healthcare Reform“. And that is merely the beginning of the problems for the Democratic National Party.

By the way, one thing about this book, and that is the attacks (what else is new) on the Clintons, both of them. Tuesday morning, I just happened to turn on the news and there was Laura Ingraham, of all people, on. She was asked about what this book said regarding the Clintons, and – I cannot believe I am about to reference her – she said something along the lines of (this is not a precise quote, and I haven’t been able to get a link yet, but will supply it if it comes available), “Bill Clinton said he didn’t think Obama had the experience to be president, and Hillary did, especially after Arkansas, the White House, etc. Why is that a surprise?” Uh, yeah. No kidding. She added that she bet Hillary’s approval numbers were higher than Obama’s, which we do know is accurate. And of course, the Big Dawg was right on target, too, wasn’t he?? She continued to say that nothing in the book about the Clintons was that big of a surprise, which makes me wonder why there are articles like this one around, “The End OF The Clinton Machine.” Are these writers just HOPING so, and if that is the case, why? As Hillary always said, “what didn’t they like, the peace, or the prosperity?” Uh yeah.

Therein lies the end of the digression.

So, those headlines above, especially the last one (wanting to change the rules again)? That pretty much says it all about Obama taking his Chicago Politics to a national level. Oh, yippee.

Consequently, the combination of this being an election year, the rapid decline of approval for Obama AND the Congress, suggests to me we will be getting lots of fundraising calls, especially those of us who have given money in the past.

Just yesterday, I received a phone call from Emily’s List that went something like this:

Okay, maybe not QUITE that extreme, but I have had some very insistent thugs on the other end of DNC and DNC-affiliated organizations arguing with me about why I should give them any more money. This woman argued with me, too. Um, MY money, and I can give it to whomever I wish. If you start DEMANDING it, guess how much you’re gonna get from me? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing, big donut hole, zero dollars.

After two years of essentially the same response from me, “I don’t give money to liars, cheats, thieves, misogynists, and homophobe,” I feel I need new material. So I am turning to you for some pithy responses to the demands for money from the DNC.

Let’s hear it! What pithy retorts can I give these people?

But what is not being focused on in this book, at least so far, is how clearly it asserts the fix was in AGAINST Hillary Clinton. In each piece thus far, there has been something about the DNC not wanting Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, or the senators with clout secretly backing Obama. In the NY Magazine article, “Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster,” there are passages like this:

Edwards never expected to be the third wheel in 2008. The race was going to be Hillary versus him. That was how he saw it from the start. She would be the front-runner, of course. But as sure as night follows day, there would be an alternative, an anti-Hillary, and he would be it.

The Democratic Establishment agreed that there would be—and certainly should be—a viable challenger to Clinton. The party’s pooh-bahs on Capitol Hill were privately terrified about the prospect of Hillary rolling to the nomination. They feared that she was too polarizing to win, that she would drag down House and Senate candidates in red and purple states; and they worried, too, about Bill’s putative affairs (emphasis mine). But while the Clintons themselves regarded Edwards as Hillary’s most formidable rival, there existed a deep wariness about the North Carolinian among his fellow Democrats. In the Senate, in particular, Edwards was regarded almost universally by his former colleagues as a callow, shallow phony. Quietly, the Establishment began a quest to find a different alternative, eventually settling on the unlikely horse that was Obama—with Harry Reid personally, and secretly, urging the Illinois senator to run against Clinton.

So much for the people choosing our nominee, right? I just love that the “pooh-bahs” decided that Hilary was too polarizing. THEY created this hype, along with the Republicans during Bill’s tenure, and with the MSM. But the people who listened to her, who read her policies, who saw how she worked, knew she was exactly who we wanted to run for president

This isn’t the only example out of this book. There is also the claim by the book’s authors that Chuck Schumer secretly supported Obama, though he publicly claimed to support Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, Schumer’s people claim this isn’t true, but again, even taking what the authors wrote with a grain of sand, this doesn’t sound good. The book goes on to claim Schumer encouraged a “get tough” policy against Clinton, and enlisted another senator to support Obama, presumably in his stead:

The book reports that in the summer of 2007, Schumer and others wanted Team Obama to get tougher on Clinton.

At one point, the authors contend, Schumer felt “Obama needed to take a two-by-four to Hillary,” the book says.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was tapped as the messenger from the worried senators to the Obama campaign.

She denies feeling any such pressure.

“It wasn’t like he [Schumer] came to me and said, ‘Be for Barack Obama – I gotta be for Hillary,’” McCaskill told the Daily News Saturday. “He never, ever said a word to me that would give the kind of impression [this book seems] to be giving. He was never giving advice to the campaign on how to undermine her.”

What a bunch of back-stabbing conniving Brutus’ these senators are. And the DNC, too, if you ask me.

The glaring fallacy with the logic of the DNC and its minions are the number are Republicans who crossed over for Hillary Clinton. Former dyed-in-the-wool Republicans becoming caucus captains for Hillary in Texas, for example (an example relayed to me by the person who crossed over). All of the post voting showed Hillary Clinton got the majority of Democratic votes AND a large number of Republican votes. Yet the DNC in its infinite “wisdom” decided Hillary Clinton could NOT be the nominee, and worked their asses off to break every rule necessary to make that so.

No doubt, there will be more to this book after it is released this week, but there are some glaring omissions mentioned thus far. Ben Smith noted that Obama was pretty much the same throughout the campaign, thus most of these revelations are about the Clintons, the Edwards, et al. But as one commenter noted:

Where are the stories of how the campaign handled Jerimah (sic) Wright?

Where are the stories about how they had to put a muzzle on Michelle Obama?

Where are the stories about ‘sweetie’ and calling his grandmother a ‘typical white person’?

And who did Obama think he picked when he picked Joe Biden? He must be stupid if he is surprised by how he has acted!

The secret to Obama winning was the media and frankly Mark Halprin doesn’t want to blow that gig.

No kidding. Don’t forget the “Obama and Biden Can’t Stand Each Other” part of this book referenced above, which is sure not getting much play by the MSM:

The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed.

Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,” write journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in “Game Change,” a long-awaited account of the 2008 campaign.

Uh, yeah. So, the bottom line as far as I can tell from this book so far is this: the Democratic Party committed massive fraud in 2008, costing voters millions of dollars in campaign donations to candidates they had already determined were not going to get the nomination. That is fraud, pure and simple. Not only did I give donations (in the beginning to John Edwards), but I gave a LOT to Hillary Clinton.

If the DNC knew they were never going to let her get the nomination no matter how she performed, no matter how many people voted for her, no matter WHAT, that, to me, is fraud. And they damn well better be held accountable for that, don’t you think?

Yes, and no. They realize they need to change how the primaries are conducted, yet don’t see any real problems with how the last one went. I have written about the rampant Caucus fraud ad nauseum, but apparently, the DNC missed it. Even though the Clinton Campaign told them about it. Oh, whatever – you can’t make the blind see, especially when they don’t want to see.

Of course, my favorite (cough, choke) representative, Jim Clyburn, who is MY representative (cough, choke), is the voice for this article, “Democrats Consider New Presidential Nominating Process.” Honestly, the whole thing would be laughable if it weren’t so delusional:

National Democrats are considering changing the presidential nominating process, by establishing a new primary calendar and deemphasizing the influence lawmakers and political insiders have on choosing the party nominee.

The battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was marred by controversy as the Democratic National Committee argued with some state parties over when they could hold their primaries and caucuses and candidates were forced to take sides in this important internal party dispute.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-South Carolina, said that the 2008 nomination contest “yielded a great candidate,” but readily acknowledged the problems that arose.

“We need to improve a little bit in spite of the fact that we got a great candidate out of the process,” Clyburn said Saturday at a meeting of a DNC working group tasked with drafting a new plan. “It was not very comfortable at various points along the way.”

Oh, yes, Obama the unqualified was just the most outstanding candidate in the entire field, with all of his vast leadership experience. Yeah, right.

And that pesky little “controversy”? That’s more often referred to as CHEATING, and people getting pissed off about it. But don’t let me rain on the Democrats’ Delusion Train.

How many of us complained about the way in which the Primaries were conducted, particularly the caucuses, and how states were penalized? How convenient for them to consider changes now that the damage has been done:

Democrats see an opening to change the system now, because this is “a rare cycle of no apparent Democratic presidential nomination challenge” in 2012 as President Obama is expected to seek a second term, according to the “Draft Report of the Democratic Change Commission,” discussed at the meeting.

Commission members, who range from lawmakers and grassroots activists to President Obama’s campaign manager, are charged with putting forth recommendations to help expand the Democratic base and increase more ethnic and regional diversity in choosing the party’s presidential nominee in 2016 and beyond, assuming Obama seeks a second term.

A commission suggestion would be to allow the first four states that held nominating contests in the January 2008 maintain their early, privileged calendar positions. But these states – Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina – would be directed to delay holding their caucuses and primaries before February 1. All other states would be forbidden from holding their nominating contests until at least the first Tuesday in March.

Another recommendation in the report suggested grouping states by “region or sub-region.”

“This would not be a mandatory obligation upon the state parties,” the commission stated. “The commission recommends that these clusters be staggered throughout the window to allow for a deliberative process that benefits all voters and caucus-goers through the country.”

States parties that abided by the DNC’s calendar would be rewarded by getting special perks at the national nominating convention.

“Special Perks”? Oh, wowie zowie – like their own Rainbow Pony?

Here is where it gets good:

The commission also discussed how to reduce the influence of unpledged delegates – lawmakers and party insiders also know as superdelegates – who played a big role in the 2008 nomination contest.

“Unpledged delegates constituted 19% of the total convention and the presidential candidates were compelled to spend a substantial amount of candidate time and other resources to seek the support of these automatic delegates,” the commission stated. “We learned that in a closely contested presidential race, the nomination could be decided by this category of delegates.”

No formal solution dealing with superdelegates was arrived at Saturday and the commission will draft a plan to reduce their numbers in the coming weeks.

“The DNC must address the perception that there are too many unpledged delegates and those delegates could potentially overturn the will of the people, as determined by the state contests,” the commission stated.

“COULD potentially overturn the will of the people“? How about it DID overturn the will of the people! Between the Superdelegates and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, which decided not to follow its rules and by-laws, it most definitely DID overturn the will of the people. The PEOPLE picked Hillary Rodham Clinton. The DNC and its minions made damn sure of that (make sure you read the Comments at the end of the article – other people get the influence the caucses and ACORN played). What a crock. See why I said these people are delusional?

Finally:

The commission is expected to vote on its final recommendations before December 18. The recommendations will then be sent to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee for further debate and discussion.

Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said he had no problem with reducing the number of superdelegates as long as state party chairs and vice chairs maintained their status and party leaders continued to play a role at the conventions.

But Brewer took exception to the idea of allowing four states to be granted a special exemption to hold their primaries before other states.

“From the perspective of Michigan and other states, it is unfair that any state have a permanent place at the top of the process,” said Brewer, who attended the meeting but is not a commission member. “It is unfair to give any states or state a monopoly.”

The Republican National Committee is also looking at how its party chooses its presidential nominee, and the DNC expressed interest Saturday in working with its political rival on a nomination calendar.

As a resident of SC, you may recall we were allowed to get away with having our primary TOO early, with absolutely no penalties whatsoever, because they knew the state would go to Obama. Especially since they, including Jim Clyburn, were working HARD on painting the Clintons – both of them – as racists.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. These people will simply refuse to admit there was ever any wrong-doing whatsoever by Obama’s minions with caucuses or the DNC in stealing the nomination from Hillary Clinton, thus from US.

Personally, I don’t support liars, cheaters, and thieves. I guess I can add “Delusional” to the beginning of that list, too. Problems in how candidates are chosen cannot truly be addressed until past wrongdoings are acknowledged and rectified. The DNC seems far, far away from ever being able to do that.

And this is exactly why, after being a lifelong Democrat, my response to them is to fuck off. Changes now aren’t going to make up for the machinations of this past campaign season, and the arrogant, petty, neophyte with whom they stuck us. When they admit they should have a do-over, perhaps I won’t be so harsh on them. I’m not holding my breath for that ever happening, thus the sentiment is justified.

Bottom line, too little, too late, and with no remorse on the part of those who manipulated the outcome. In other words, no, the DNC hasn’t gotten enough of a clue. Will they ever?