When then-Congressman Barbara Boxer and a handful of her Democratic female colleagues heard uncorroborated allegations that a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court had talked about pubic hairs on a soft drink can with a female co-worker, they marched across Capitol Hill, protesting the Senate’s treatment of that woman (who could not back up her allegations).  Seven years later, when a female nurse accused a Democratic president of rape, Mrs. Boxer showed no interest in the accusation–or the media’s treatment of Mrs. Broaddrick or any other woman leveling accusations against Bill Clinton (the aforementioned Democrat).

She didn’t raise a ruckus when her fellow partisans trashed those women, even though each and every one of them (unlike Ms. Hill) could corroborate their allegations.

No wonder Democrats, who urged Republicans to “drive out Trent Lott” as Senate GOP Leader in 2002 for his racially insensitive praise of Strom Thurmond at the latter’s 100th birthday party, do not ask their party to drive Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Mr. Crumpit) for his bizarre and patronizing comment about Obama’s skin color.  The reason they’re not so concerned:  ”but Lott was a Republican. Reid is a Democrat.”

Guess they just hold Republicans to higher standards.

Some might say that given his history with the segregationist group “Council of Conservative Citizens,” Lott’s statement had been part of pattern.  Well, Reid too has a pattern of denigrating intelligent African-Americans, having disparaged the writing skills of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Nowadays, more often than not Democrats (and their allies in the media) bring up racism, sexual harassment and “homophobia” not so much out of concern for the supposed victims, but as a means to attack Republicans as intolerant.  Note how often Republicans are tarred as “anti-gay” for holding the same position on gay marriage as the Democratic President of the United States. (more…)

In his report from Scott Brown for Senate headquarters in Needham, Massachusetts, Cornell University Law Professor William A. Jacobson takes note of an issue on the minds of Massachuesetts voters:

There also was a lot of animosity surrounding the announcement that the Democrats would delay Brown’s certification if he won. People were calling in about that issue, and it was brought up on phone calls by the voters (the issue was not on the call script).

The attempt to delay certification has the potential to be a defining issue in the campaign because it crystallizes in voters’ minds everything that is wrong with politics.

I agree that this delay could well become a defining issue for exactly the reason Jacobson offers.

On Friday, Brian McNiff spokesman for Massachusetts’ Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, said certification “would take a while“:

Because it’s a federal election, [w]e’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.

And until that certification comes, appointed Senator Paul Kirk could vote for cloture on health care, allowing the unpopular bill (even in the Bay State) to pass.  And while the Democratic official threatens to delay certification in this ace, in 2007, his office did not delay the swearing in of Niki Tsongas, elected to the U.S. House of Representatives an special election that October.  She was sworn in just two days after her election.  And that wasn’t a federal election?

It’s not just the delay in certification which hurts Brown’s Democratic opponent Martha Coakley.  She’s heading down to Washington on Tuesday “for a lobbyist-infested fundraiser,” which Michael Barone believes is “not a good move given the anti-lobbyist feeling that’s so evident this year (and which Obama played on during the 2008 campaign).” (more…)

An AP article today serves as a reminder of anecdotes many of us have heard (and others experienced) of friends, family members and acquaintances taking pay cuts in order to keep their jobs:

It’s one of the bleak realities of the economic recovery: Even as more employers are starting to hire, the new jobs typically pay less than the ones that were lost.

So, it’s not just our already employed friends working for less money, it’s also the newly employed.

But, while private sector employers are slashing pay checks, it remains boom time for government employees, even in cash-strapped states like California.  On the last state of the year just concluded, a state judge in the Golden State

. . . ruled that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had abused his discretion in ordering furloughs of state workers, dealing a blow to the administration’s efforts to cope with the state’s ongoing fiscal crisis.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said the administration must halt the furloughs for workers represented by three unions, including Service Employees International Union Local 1000, which represents 95,000 state employees.

The Governor had ordered “most state employees to take three days off a month without pay as the state faced a massive budget deficit.”  Even a former Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly finds that “80 percent” of the state’s budget deficits is “due to employee costs.“  And, as George Will notes today, it’s not just the cost of current employees:

It took years for servile liberalism to turn the state into what [William] Voegeli calls a “unionocracy,” run by and for unionized public employees, such as public safety employees who can retire at 50 and receive 90 percent of the final year’s pay for life.

A first step toward righting the budget woes of the Golden State would be for the legislature to do for state employees what private sector employees have done for theirs:  slash salaries.  And while our legislators are at it, they should slash pensions for public sector retirees as well and prevent able-bodied retirees from receiving their pensions until they’re 65 (or 70).

Is there anyone left in the white Democratic Senate Leadership that isn’t a former KKK Grand Dragon or a KKK-wannabee?

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID (DEMOCRAT-NV) in 2008:

Obama had an advantage because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect” — until he wanted to use it.

Recall what brought down then-Senate Majority Leader (REPUBLICAN-MS) Trent Lott:

Trent Lott resigned his post as Majority Leader in 2002 after praising Strom Thurmond’s 1948 presidential candidacy during a birthday celebration for the 100-year-old South Carolinian.

That was it.  Lott was praising an old man, who yes, was a racist about the same time that a majority of Americans were.  But Lott was kicked to the curb, because he is a Republican.  Democrats, meanwhile, have fostered racism throughout the past 30 years and their Senate Leadership (at least) is chock full of ‘em.

And of course Obama accepted Reid’s apology — he is a Democrat.  But recall what Obama said after the Don Imus racism controversy:

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

To be a Republican racist is a mortal sin, to be a Democrat racist means you are the leaders and statesmen of the Party.  Disgusting.

HARRY REID SHOULD GO NOW.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)