Gay Patriot Header Image

Will the 2010 elections be realigning ones?

This morning as I speculated that Obama’s arrogance might lead to enduring Republican majorities, I anticipated a followup post, indicating that two perceptive psephologists offer an opposing view.  In setting up his point, Barone distinguishes “periods of trench warfare politics and periods of open field politics“:

Periods of trench warfare politics are times when the lines of political conflict remain relatively fixed, with little change in partisan preference or issue focus. Periods of open field politics are when the lines of political conflict oscillate wildly, with vast changes in partisan preference and issue focus.

Calling this an era of “open field politics,” the sage statistician contends “it’s possible that this year’s Republican percentages will prove to be no more permanent than I believe the 2006–2008 Democratic percentages will have been proven to be.

Jay Cost echoes that view:

It is my strong belief that 2010 is not going to be a “realigning” election. This is not an electorate that is rediscovering its long-lost Republicanism. It is a frustrated, angry electorate turning back to the GOP simply because there are only two parties to choose from.

Both men may well be right, but two things could make this a realigning election, a prospect, I believe, Barone accounts for with the cautionary concluding line to his essay, “You don’t know a period of open field politics has been transformed into a period of trench warfare politics until several years after it has happened—or at least so has been my experience.”

If the Republicans of the 112th Congress act like their counterparts in the 104th and don’t backslide as they did in the early Congresses of this century, they could well keep their majorities for the balance of the decade.  They would have to eschew earmarks, repeal Obamacare and cut, then hold the line on, domestic spending while promoting real free-market reforms in health care as the fix the congressional budgeting process and find a way to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (among other things). (more…)

Hey, South Carolina 5th — ENOUGH SPRATT!

Help Mick Mulvaney GET RID of John Spratt and Nancy Pelosi.  DONATE NOW!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Barney whines that Rush is mean to him, dodges debates

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:00 pm - October 7, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Mean-spirited leftists

The unhappy Barney Frank may be trying to make nice, but this mean-spirited man from Massachusetts just can’t stop whining.  I mean, he dishes out barbs to Republicans on a regular basis, yet whenever a conservative fires back, he runs to Mommy the media and cries, “homophobia“:

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank on Monday accused conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh of launching a “vicious, homophobic attack” on him in the lead-up to the midterm elections.

Rush denies the charges, saying he was just engaging in a little mockery, spoofing the big-spending liberal in a variety of parodies — as he does with a number of left-wing politicians,

Yeah? I’m trying to figure out what homophobic attack did we launch on him? We’ve never launched a homophobic attack on anybody.  I never launched a “homophobic attack” on anybody!  I mean, we played this song — Banking Queen.

(playing of Banking Queen parody song)  . . .

You think it’s My Boy Lollipop?  We’ve only doing that since the earlier nineties.

Seems the thirty-year veteran of Congress just doesn’t want anybody paying attention to his record, like his proposal to cut $1 trillion from the defense department, with the “nation’s top uniformed officer” warning  that such “massive cuts to the Pentagon budget would be ‘dangerous’ in the face of the military’s multiple national-security requirements.

Barney would rather whine to left-wing talk show hosts than debate his opponent before his constituents:  “With just 32 days left until the mid-term election, Barney Frank has yet to confirm a single debate with his opponent Sean Bielat.”  Last month, Barney said, “I think debating is an obligation any candidate for office has“.  So, why is the career politician unwilling to confirm any debates?  Someone’s scared of a face-to-face with his challenger.

You can support the man who wants to debate and seeks to defeat Barney here.

Well, Sarah Palin Never Called An Audience Dull

If they held Joe Biden to the Sarah Palin standard, new casts would begin every hour on the hour, with details of his latest gaffe.  And now we have him calling an audience dull.  That’s a sure way to get them out to vote next month:

“You’re the dullest audience I’ve ever spoken to,” at which point he got applause and laughs. “Do you realize how many jobs Wisconsin lost? It’s staggering!”

Until we see the tape, we won’t be able to tell if they’re laughing with him — or at him.  Still, can you imagine what the talking heads would be saying if Sarah Palin said such a thing — even in jest?

Why not both?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:10 pm - October 7, 2010.
Filed under: Random Thoughts

Glenn Reynolds is “ASKING THE REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: ‘After sex, would you rather have deep conversation, or a deep-dish pizza?'”

Just sayin’.

You know, enjoy a deep conversation over deep dish pizza.  🙂

Barney Frank Doesn’t Go Down Easy, Chides Submissives

Oh dear….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Will Obama’s Arrogance Lead to Lasting Republican Majorities?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:36 pm - October 7, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Obama Arrogance

Democrats spent the better part of George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House waiting for the market meltdown on September 15, 2008.  They — and their allies — in the mainstream media really believed that his policies would destroy the economy, even as it hummed along after a mild recession early in his term.

It took the election of a Democratic Congress to help pave the way for the collapse, but no matter, they believed all along it was going to happen and so when it happened, it just had to be entirely W’s fault because they said it was.

And so it was with Obama’s election.  Democrats kept telling us Republicans won elections not because of the merits of their ideas or the quality of their candidates, but because of their dirty tricks, angry voters, or just plain meanness and/or luck.  Deep down, the people really supported the Democrats’ ideology and wanted bigger government with greater federal intrusion into the private sector.

So, when Obama won, with big Democratic gains in 2008, they finally, after 36 years, had evidence to prove what they believed all along.  And that arrogance, Victor Davis Hanson believes, has led to their current predicament:

Had the Obamites been sober and circumspect after the 2008 election they would have realized that Obama had pulled off what McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry had not, due to a once-in-a-century perfect storm of about six events

[he then lists them]

Instead, Obama — egged on by obsequious advisers, an out-of-touch, hard-left base, and a toady media — decided that he had done what other Northern liberals had not, either because (a) the country was at last ready for European-style socialism, or (b) his singular charisma and talents could convince it that it was even when it was clearly not.

The result was that our Oedipus/Pentheus rushed headlong into socialized medicine, mega-deficits, needlessly polarizing appointments of the Van Jones type, and various federal takeovers, coupled with quite unnecessary editorializing about largely local matters — from the Skip Gates mess to the Arizona immigration law and Ground Zero mosque.

In each case, the supposed uniter deliberately weighed in on these controversies to quite unfairly demonize his opponents — “stupidly” acting police, Arizona xenophobes picking up children on the way to buy ice cream, Islamophobes wanting to deny religious liberty, etc (more…)

With public employee pensions threatening to bankrupt Golden State, why aren’t media interested in public employee unions backing of Jerry Brown?

It’s no wonder Gloria Allred wants Californians to think the letter Meg Whitman’s husband says what the Democrat wants it to have said — and not what it actually says. She wants to distract us from the real problems facing the (once-)Golden State will have to face, problems that her candidate for governor, Jerry Brown, as I pointed out on Tuesday, helped create when, in 1978, he signed the Dill Act, giving powers to public employee unions that even the father of the modern Democratic Party opposed.

And due, in large part, to that power, public employee pension, in the words of the Foundation for Educational Choice are “Drowning State/Local Taxpayers” in California:

California’s public retirement systems are more than three times underfunded than state officials projected, a total of $326.6 billion when combining the state’s teachers’ and public employee programs, according to a new study released today by the Foundation for Educational Choice. . . .

“These numbers are mind-boggling,” said Robert Enlow, President and CEO of the Foundation for Educational Choice. “It’s a pipe dream to think that California can provide a quality education, keep prisoners behind bars, pave roads and meet other obligations when such enormous bills are coming due.”

The state of California reports a $75.5 billion pension shortfall — $40.5 billion to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System or CalSTRS and $35 billion to the California Public Employee Retirement System or Cal PERS.

But the Foundation’s study found that if more accurate, private-sector accounting measures were used to determine outstanding pension obligations, the total pension shortfall would be an astounding $326.6 billion with an additional $51.8 billion in unfunded employee health benefits.

The state of California faces real fiscal problems which can’t be swept under the rug about a news media eager to demonize a Republican and powerful state public employee unions eager to keep the Democrats in power.

While reporters are obsessed with how much money Meg Whitman has been spending on her campaign, they seem entirely disinterested in the amount public employee unions have been spending on behalf of Brown — and other Democrats.  And their spending is far more consequential, given that such special interest spending indicates influence. (more…)