Regardless of the outcome of the November 3rd election in New York-23, there are some serious lessons for the GOP to extract. This learning curve will be steep because they are so certain of their own superiority and statecraft. But, the arrogance of the bean counters and number crunchers must be tempered with common sense and a good dose of reality. Several myths are inherent in their calculations. Some of these are so ingrained it takes a disaster to expose them. While political science metrics have their place, the way to win an election is to persuade more voters you are right and the other side is wrong.

Myth # 1 - Voters in the base will swallow their bile and vote for the least offensive candidate.

When the ‘wizards of smart’ in the Republican Party decided to back Scozzafava, they banked on conservatives being so desperate they’d vote for anyone who wasn’t a Democrat. However, they picked a candidate who was so tainted by the stain of Soros. The voters rebelled. They don’t want, as Glenn Beck puts it, socialism lite, they want a candidate who will work in their best interests. Scozzafava, still reeking from an endorsement from the Working Families Party, isolated her base, reached for the far left, and as such gave the Republican Party an ulcer. That ulcer can only be alleviated by just listening to their constituents. The conservatives are tired of ‘business as usual’.

Myth #2

Political independents are largely malleable and persuadable.

There is a significant difference between independent and moderate. Independents are simply not partisan in nature. They may be conservative or liberal and distrust the party system. Moderates, a subset of independents, are not beholden to either party and weigh the candidates and parties without eliminating the other out of hand.

Just because you have a candidate with schizoid stands on the issues, doesn’t mean the independents and/or moderates will bite. They are just as principled and informed, sometimes more, than partisans. These two groups are just as likely to smell a rat as any other voter. In fact, they may be more likely to realize that ideological inconsistancy is a sign of duplicity and not honesty. While candidates can have positions that are not strict ideological stances, the positions they do take flow from a basic philosophical belief system. When a position, such as Card-Check or support for the stimulus plan, flies in the face of the philosophical base, it appears contrived and therefore suspect.

Myth # 3 Partisans will support their candidates even with ideological differences.

The belief that a voter, even one who is a card carrying member of a party, will vote in lockstep with their brethern is absurd. Almost all voters split the ticket, at least in some cases. The district GOP in New York looked at the metrics and made a plan. They saw the district was mostly Republican but voted for Obama in 2008. That translated, in their minds, to a liberal Republican base that needed some liberal sprinklings to make their candidate more amenable. However, just because Scozzafava has some liberal credentials doesn’t make her the candidate that will serve the district the best. Republican voters began to see that she was not the person for them. Therefore they looked elsewhere. Hoffman offered a better choice that was ideologically more attuned than their own party choice. As a result, the trickle became a flood.

Myth # 4

Moderates will not vote for an ideological candidate. They want a candidate who can work with both sides.

Moderates do not want a candidate who will work with both sides, not as an attribute. They want a candidate who will fight for their best interests and will not become embroiled in partisan wrangling. Those are two very different things. Moderates have an ideological basis to their belief system just as partisans do. It is simply not a basis that relies on Republican or Democratic brands to fulfill. They want results that are good for their district, as they see it. They still want the best result and view interfraternal bickering as impeding that goal.

Myth # 5 - Bipartisan voting results show a candidate has real carrying power.

If this final myth were true, the swing districts would have the safest seats in Congress. However, it is absolutely false. Swing districts are notorious for flipping from party to party depending on the mood in the country. Highly ideological bailwicks are the safest seats and these seats are completely controlled by one party or the other. For the most part, Democrats have a lock on big cities. They didn’t get that lock by being ideologically mushy. They did it by overtaking the political system, installing machines, and regulating the system. Republicans, for some odd reason, believe that they must cater to Democrats at the exclusion of their base. Democrats don’t cater to anyone, and it works. They make their case, cement their power, and move on.

Republicans made a bad bet at the race track with Scozzafava. While I understand their political calculations, they started with some very questionable premises. These premises all rely on political myths that support altering the message to fit the populace instead of persuading the voters you are right. Candidates who ‘fit’ with local races are important as long as they are believable and apt. But, metrics never trumps a good argument. Work on the metrics while making a sound political case.

Don’t believe that moderates are looking for any excuse to vote for a Democrat. They aren’t. They are looking out for their best interests regardless of party affiliation. Understand that fact, and don’t be scared.

First it was the government option. Then it became the public option. Soon after they tried to label it the competitive option and that didn’t work. Now we have this.

“Pelosi said that the public plan, which she prefers to call a “consumer option,” would compete with private insurers.” New York Times October 29, 2009

Well, isn’t that nice. If this doesn’t work to jamb the bill down our throats, I have a few more suggestions that may sugarcoat this bitter little jagged pill.

Perhaps it could be called the ‘apple pie and baseball’ option. Or, maybe it could be the ‘amber waves of grain’ option. We could call it the ‘God and Country’ option or the ‘Whiskers on Kittens’ option. As long as we are making up ridiculous names for this boondoggle, let’s think of more appropriate ones.

‘Grandma Got Run Over by Cutting Medicare’ Option
‘Free to Illegal Aliens but not to Me’ Option
‘Tax-Me, Tax-Me’ Option
‘Sex Ed but No Pacemakers’ Option
or even,
‘Screw Healthcare, Let’s have Socialism’ Option. After all, we know if we all just get along, the world will heal itself.

The common collectivist narrative contains an important element to make it work. The Democratic Party relies on a pedestrian belief that business and the worker are at odds in the political landscape. Big, mean businesses are miserly Republicans and generous, good-hearted labor interests are benevolent Democrats. That is why the Democratic Party is so thrilled with the cash coming from so many rich plutocrats. That means even rich, powerful businessmen are turning their backs on capitalism. They have seen the proverbial light and now want to turn our economy into a socialized, centrally controlled, profitless entity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Capitalism is based on the holder of the capital being in control of the means of production. That is all. There is no component of capitalism that demands free markets, open competition, or fairness. Now, capitalism works best when it is open, free, and transparent. Those are the checks and balances that make a market work efficiently.

Socialism requires that the means of production be held and controlled by the society as directed, supposedly, by the working class. The government is the usual agent for the working class to do this, at least in theory. In practice, it is a political oligarchy that runs the means of production. This oligarchy can be technocrats who know what they are doing or any other group that is supposedly informed. However, it is a closed system of control that relies on political maneuvering and political will.

Soros believes deeply in capitalism as it pertains to him. What he wants is a mixed economy like that in Europe. He wants capital to control the means of production and for the political arm of a society to direct the market in his direction. Therefore, he and his fellow travelers can fleece the public at will. Without competition and conflict, he can control costs, control prices, and milk the public to his own benefit. Now, to do this he needs a political party to direct the market in his direction and shield him from rivals.

That is why he bought the Democratic Party. They are suckers for this kind of thing because they don’t really understand market forces, or macroeconomics, or economic gamesmanship. They are so excited to have a deep pocket on their side they cannot do enough water-carrying for him.

Think of the benefits to Soros to his business. He can offload his healthcare benefits to the government. He can eliminate his competition through exclusive government contracts. He can control the market through regulation of his competitors while skating around them. It is a win-win for the big guy. In the mean time, the Democratic Party has simply become pawns in his international economic scheme. They, for a few million, are nothing more than an investment of Soros. He spent all that money for a return. As a good capitalist, that money invested better turn a profit or he’ll begin turning off the spigot. The party is so reliant upon him they will be forced to do his bidding. Without him, they are lost.

The real nugget Soros wants passed is crap and tax. That is the worldwide gem that will enable him to make billions more by controlling carbon dioxide and therefore all production and usage. Since everything economic turns on the expense and use of energy, he will be in a position to fleece the public internationally. With the United States easily the largest player, he will have a platform to control the ebb and flow of all economic development.

But, we are a dangerous foe to him. The American public isn’t as compliant as the hapless Democrats. We are resisting this centralized authority that will control the market. We believe in freedom and liberty, both social and economic. We recognize the most important defenses we have are economic independence. Centralized control necessarily extinguishes that kind of independence of action. By its very nature, it demands the market open to free, autonomous actors must be destroyed.

Mixed economies expose the worst of both worlds. Preferred capitalism, which benefits certain people to the detriment of others, is not democratic and free. It is the favoritism supported by Soros. For the Democratic Party to enable this economic fascism is inherently destructive. It also poisons the entire partisan group. It doesn’t favor the best economic forces but the best connected. Our efficiency and effectiveness will decrease while Soros bank account fills with our money.

Down with the plutocrats.

The Collectivist News Network (CNN) has a new, fresh, smiley faced ‘conservative’ they’ve added to their stellar roster of David Gergen, Hillary’s hairdresser, and Ed Rollins who wrote in January that Barack Obama was just the sort of leader that we need. David Frum, as many of you know, is an intellectual. He loves being an intellectual and will make that point to any one who happens to cross his path. Frum believes Sarah Palin was a bad choice for the vice presidential slot, which is certainly a valid opinion. However, the reason he thought she was a poor choice was because she wasn’t ‘weighty’ enough for the position. You see, David Frum, the intellectual, believes the common Republican or conservative is barely smart enough to tie his or her own shoes, much less feed themselves. He seems convinced in an elite, select group of intellectuals should lead the party and tell the common folk what they should believe.

So, CNN decided to hire old David as a pet conservative to comment on the nation’s events as a political conservative. As a former speech writer for George W. Bush, they presume he must be a conservative, but an acceptable one since he is an intellectual and so understands their delicate sensibilities. He won’t startle them with a principled opposing viewpoint. He will gently suggest and oh so careful chide. As a conservative intellectual, he will make them look balanced and fair. Oh, how far from the truth that is.

Frum’s first post to CNN is a ‘laugh out loud’ examination and explanation of the viewpoints of the Tea Partiers and Townhallers. (I did literally laugh out loud at the prospect). Reading his description of the motivations and fears, not to mention the outrage, expressed was like reading the critique of a painting by a blind person. It was like a vegan describing the succulence and texture of a filet mignon. It was similar to a lecture given by Stalin on democracy. They were just some pixels on a screen. His writing was numb, devoid of passion, and utterly silly.

Now, no one can be sure just where Mr. Frum got his information on what the protestors are feeling, but it certainly wasn’t from a town hall participant. Granted, it was a sympathetic article, but so ill-informed as to be sad. It could be imagined that the estimable Frum had a clothespin on his nose as he furiously wrote his commentary. I’m sure the stench, as described by Harry Reid’s portrayl of ‘tourists,’ filled his nose. After all, we are the great unwashed of the nation. We are the supporters and friends of everyday people yearning to live free, independent lives in liberty. That must have caused the bile to rise in his collectivist, elitist throat.

But, never you mind. That is the drivel the Washington cocktail party will read and believe. They’d never condescend to read our impassioned words or heady pleas. They’d rather have the well composted horse apples an intellectual like David Frum has to serve. These people want to understand our ideas within their own, narrow context. That context is within the collectivist narrative that confines our attributes to the vile capitalist, the mean liberatarian, the socially conservative moron, or the frightened, barely coherent populist. Frum chose to paint us as the last category.

“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare.’ Those words — quoted by so many TV talking heads — never seem actually to have been spoken by anyone.” Mr. Frum begins the tale. He is trying to calm the jittery cocktail set that are disturbed by images of Americans demanding answers to questions they don’t understand. He is saying the quote is apocryphal when it was actually President Obama who began the assault on the townhallers by characterizing them as uninformed idiots. Obama had smiled and chuckled after this supposed quote and then knowingly gave his adoring fans that look that said, ‘you know how stupid they are.’ But, let’s give it to Frum for questioning the source of the president’s smear.

“The town hallers were angry, but they were not crazy, and they were not stupid. They knew perfectly well that Medicare is provided by the government. They also knew that their government is proposing to change Medicare in ways they do not like.” This is Frum’s paean to the hoi polloi. He gives a gentle reminder to the delicate metrosexuals in Washington that the average American isn’t as lame-brained as they imagine. He states that they are unable to fully articulate it as intelligently as he is. Therefore, he will set it out for them. He, the great intellectual that he is, will parse their coarse, meandering thoughts and explain them to his fellow dilettantes.

“The changes the president has in mind won’t kill Grandma. But they will change medicine in ways Grandma may find uncomfortable. Ten years from now, Grandma probably won’t have a personal doctor. Her Medicare will cover less — and cost more.” Frum explains that his less sophisticated fellow conservatives must resort to simple, easy-to-digest relationships to exclaim their displeasure. The relationship of ‘Grandma’ is one that is elemental enough for us to express. In addition, we grubby tyros can sense there is something fundamentally wrong in the healthcare proposal. We may not be able to describe it fully, but Mr. Frum thinks he has the answer. The hayseeds in the political sticks intuit that less money for the elderly will lead to less care. They don’t really understand such complex issues, but they can roughly cipher the result in their straw-filled heads.

You see, the philosophic debate does run deeper, Frum posits. It is the fear that someone else, someone less deserving will get their care. He insists it’s because these hicks hate immigrants. “But the debate over illegal immigrants is a proxy for something larger and more unsettling to older Americans. The problem is not illegal immigration, it is all low-skilled immigration, legal and illegal.” Frum succinctly surmises the residents of Boondocks are really a-feared of their standard of living being overtaken by them ‘furriners.’ Yuck. Well, gosh darnit. I don’t think that was an argument ever made or insinuated by the town hall protestors. Rather, they were furious the government has continued to allow a huge number of people to break the law and enter this country illegally. They are protesting the slippery slope the ‘rule of law’ has taken. Frum has other ideas.

In their own, backward way, the Tea Parties and the town halls were about something so much more classic, according to Frum. “And it’s the emotion that explains the actual quote — not the bogus quote — we heard from so many town hall protesters this summer: ‘Fix old. No new.” Huh? What kind of hillbilly reaction is he feeding these elites? The anger expressed was over the socialization of our private sector. It was about the irresponsible spending and power grab by the government. It was an expression of rage over a bunch of sleazy, ignorant, power-hungry, contemptuous politicians who don’t believe that have to read the bills, listen to us, stop and take a breath, or protect our interests. Frum completely misses the mark. Small wonder since it’s obvious he hasn’t a clue as to what the protests were about. Thank God he’s explaining it to his hoity-toidy peers. If you wonder why the New York/Washington power lunchers are confused, it’s because of the kind of regurgitated gruel the traditional ‘conservative’ commentators are spoon feeding them. It isn’t the liberals we need to fear as much as the pointy head conservative lapdogs.

Frum comments on the future of the conservative movement and the Republican party as it stands. He is worried about the direction of the cause. He opines about influences such as Sarah Palin. “She’s a divisive force within the Republican Party…And many fear, as I do…that she represents a future that leads the party both to political defeat and then to ineffectiveness in government.” You mean like irresponsible earmark spending, political gamesmanship, elitism, snobbery, ignoring the voters, and marginalizing political dissent of the establishment. That’s what you’ve provided Mr. Frum. You, and your fellow sycophants gave us defeat, failure, and contempt. You are the ones that lost all political power because we believed your lavender-scented hype. Then you lose and blame Sarah Palin? That is truly contemptible and beneath my disgust. Small wonder you are so bitter. It was your political game that we played for the past four years and it was your strategy that led to a rabid socialist Congress and president. Don’t lecture us on Sarah Palin’s dangerous proclivities. It is the beam in your own eye you need to remove.

Remove it, and stop lying about us.

Memo to Democrats: Please, oh please listen to and heed E.J. Dionne’s advice from a commentary written for the Washington Compost. In “How to win an election, post-Obama,” Dionne lays out his own warped, convoluted way for Democrats to keep winning. It is so laughable and ignorant that with any luck the left will embrace his strategy to the nth power.

Memo to Republicans: Begin making the arguments. Dionne doesn’t want a discussion on the issues. He wants you to concede all points, try and play the collectivist game, and lose election after election because you do not reflect the values or ideas of your own side.

Let’s hope the Democrats listen to him and the Republicans ignore him.

Dionne believes that embracing Obama’s radicalism and taking to even further is the winning strategy for Democrats. He admits, like it or lump it, Obama is the defining element of their party. His agenda is their agenda. For a Democrat to display independence from this ideal is madness. They must take the party line, push it, and they will win. Obama is their present and future.

In fact, I would hope the Democratic Party would take it a step further. Embrace Pelosi and Reid. Please, oh please bring them to your districts and parade them around for all to see. Connect yourself with the far left agenda. Call Pelosi your captain, Reid your commander, Obama your sovereign. That would be great because these three are about the most incompetent, disingenuous imposters in the history of the country.

Embrace the policies of these people. Rave about the stimulus and the 25 jobs it has saved or created. Talk about how the deficits and debt are good for America. Dither on foreign affairs and encourage bowing to dictators and talking with mad men. Keep up attacks and smears on the American populace. Try marginalizing over half the country. Please, oh please keep doing what you’re doing.

However, you Democrats who know better should think about the consequences. These policies, programs, spending, and strategies will not work. What’s more, you know they won’t. You are lapping at the feet of the mentally deranged. If you want to succeed and for the country to succeed, you may want to think about Dionne’s track record for predictions and be skeptical.

Dionne predicted that America was entering into a new age of broad consensus and cordiality. Republicans, if they wanted any relevance whatsoever, would have to come to the table and grovel for the scraps. Democrats would have an easy time of it. A mere nine months ago that analysis was sopped up like gravy with the Republican establishment. Most of the Ed Rollins, David Gergens, David Frums, and Michael Gersons of the world predicted just such a scenario. But, dedicated Republicans and independents were not so sure. The broad consensus supposedly created by this ‘historic’ (actually histrionic) election was a mile wide and an inch deep. The stimulus was the first test.
Principled House and Senate members of the GOP recognized this boondoggle of out-of-control spending was voter poison. They resisted and the people responded. Tea parties, raucous townhall meetings, and millions of emails and letters, phone calls and visitations later, the Democrats are on the wrong side of history. Dionne was wrong, dead wrong.

Republicans must learn that kowtowing to these disastrous programs and schemes will not improve the country, bring consensus, or win elections. They must make the case that more governmental control is not the answer. They must stand up and fight. We already are. We, the public, are infuriated at the power grab and corruption being revealed daily in a press that tries to hide it. Even among Democrats, for the polls are excluding a big percentage of Republicans and more importantly independents, this irresponsible behavior is unpopular. While the Democratic Party is firmly behind the president as a person, they are nervous and questioning of his policies.

But, we must give Mr. Dionne his due. He proposes a country which knuckles under this radical agenda, accepts it without hesitation. Let the Democrats heed his advice. The rest of us know better. Let Dionne lead them down the garden path and into the briar patch.

New York 23 is a fascinating interplay in terms of political science. Following the Obama election and the takeover of Congress, the bean counters at Republican headquarters developed a Progressive strategy of demographic chess instead of actual use of political persuasion. This tried and true liberal philosophy is based on the coalition principle inherent in collectivist theory. It relies on tendencies and labels to win political contests instead of making the political argument.

The Obama election and subsequent socialistic Congress that was seated unnerved the Republican political scientists. For the past four years, their strategy of political coalitions, political patronage, and measuring the odds fell flat. Rather than examine the message and readjust the arguments, they convinced themselves it was the metrics at fault. As their Marxist professors had taught them, it wasn’t individuals who voted but blocs of identifible groups who behaved in certain, predictable ways.

Michael Gerson and David Brooks were not arguing a moderate or conservative political philosophy when they attacked the right, they were following the metric measures argument of the political scientists. The country is getting more ‘diverse’ ethnically and culturally. The conservative message does not ‘fit’ those groups’ thinking. We must, as Republicans, mediate our message in order to have political heft.

The problem is, those metrics are not stagnant measures of political opinion but fluid ones that change with the different sides making the arguments to the voters. ‘Blacks don’t vote for Republicans,’ is a time-honored premise and so instead of trying to persuade blacks that the Democratic Party has done them no favors, they believed the right must cater to their proclivities. But, this does nothing for political discourse nor does it do the country any service. It makes the Republican brand a kind of milk-toast version of Democratic principles.

Political fights are won most fully by persuasion and not metrics. We cannot win a political fight by betting on the most demographically favorable horse. We must win through changing hearts and minds. This must be done regardless of sex, skin color, national origin, or religion, not because of such things. Catholics were always consistant, reliable Democratic voters until recent years. They were persuaded the left was not in tune with their belief system and so they turned.

Hispanics will be the same. Hispanics are conservative socially and fiscally careful. They also start many small businesses and hire workers, pay business taxes, and abhor government meddling. We need to make the case to them on ‘best interest’ principles and not skin color/national origin issues. The left uses these groups as grist in their political machine. We need to show them how their interests and our interests intersect.

But, until the Republican Party is dissuaded from its metrics/labeling practices of horse betting, there will be little left to fight for. We want what is best for the country and not a political party. The new movement on the right is for the best interests of its citizens, as people, and not for amorphous social groups.

David Brooks and Michael Gerson are wrong about diversity because they inherently accept the left’s disingenuous notion of voting blocs. Diversity, if it means anything, is diversity of opinion and not melatonin. By fighting Hoffman and propping up Scozzafava, they betting such a tenuous and inherently destructive political strategy will win. It will not. Not in the end.

There are no more spin doctors in the Democratic Party. They are simply dissemblers. They are deliberately making up stories out of thin air to create a firewall protecting their “Dear Leader”. Gone are the days when strategists and party pundits tried to twist the facts to make their side look blameless and righteous, though misunderstood. The race in Virginia is a prime example. From the Washington Compost,

“Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.” - Rosalind S. Helderman and Anne E. Kornblut

The dissemblers, posing as journalists, are now claiming Deeds didn’t include Obama in his campaign in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. The Compost doesn’t have Google, apparently, because a simple search with the words ‘Obama’, ‘Deeds’, and ‘Virginia’ yielded multiple stories of Obama stumping in Virginia for this hapless candidate.

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch on August 7th, “Creigh will continue the progress that has been made in the commonwealth — he will continue to make that progress especially when it comes to education,” said Obama, who spoke after Deeds and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. There are multiple photos of Deeds standing behind Obama as he makes those remarks in support of the Democratic candidate. Is that ‘failing to embrace’ Obama? I don’t think so.

From Bloomberg on September 2nd, Deeds Campaign manager says, “It’s rough,” Abbey said. “The White House has been very engaged since the second he became the nominee,” Abbey said. “Clearly they understand how to win in Virginia, but it’s a little different” this year because of the shift in independent support.” In spite of this claim, the Compost article reports, “A senior administration official said Deeds badly erred on several fronts, including not doing a better job of coordinating with the White House.” Let’s see, if the Deed’s campaign manager believes the White House was deeply involved, and the White House is claiming there was incomplete coordination, what is the truth? The person in September who was actually running the campaign or a spooked White House dissembler. Umm

Doug Heye of U.S. News and World Report wrote, “Mo Elleithee, a Deeds campaign spokesman and highly regarded Democratic campaign veteran, told the Post the campaign “enjoyed a tremendous relationship with the White House,” as well as the DNC and Democratic Governors Association, in addition to receiving significant help with specific requests.” Heye then goes on to back up that assertion with personal evidence of the administration’s close involvement in the campaign through email and appearance evidence.

Yet, the dissemblers at the White House blithely throw Deeds under the bus and dismiss their own involvement in this debacle.

ABC News reports on October 21st, “the Creigh Deeds gubernatorial campaign today released a new TV ad entitled “Fired Up” which features President Obama – and only President Obama.” Huh? Does that sound like stubborn distancing? Is ‘failing to use the president’? Has Deeds’ dissed the president and overlooked the “Dear Leader’s” gracious offer of help?

Of course not. The referendum on the ‘Anointed One’ is in full swing. Dissemblers unite!

Campaign movements need themes. In the most recent election, the Democrats ran against Bush, capitalism, and the rich. They were able to characterize McCain, and the rest of the GOP, as being out-of-touch, barely believable, and downright mean. With the next federal election year around the corner, we need to have a couple of themes of our own. These should be honest, unlike the character assassinations and misrepresentations of the Democrats. I think we need to talk about what the country faces.

On the surface, we need to talk about the fiscal and monetary craziness. Everyone who isn’t a downright socialist, is furious about the deficits and the mounting debt. No one seriously considers leaving the status quo as it presently is. The enormous burden being pressed upon this economy and society is ridiculous. That is the winning theme on the surface. But, it is not enough.

The underlying theme, which last year was ‘Blame Bush’ was effective because it became so overwhelmingly accepted, we didn’t and couldn’t argue against it effectively. We must adopt a similar theme, but one that isn’t denigrating, simply true.

The most unpopular two characters in this nation are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. We need to remind people that a vote for a Democrat, regardless of stripe, is a vote for these two. They’ve developed their arrogant, bullying, dissembling persona all by themselves. No one had to say a word condemning or blaming either of these people and the polls have them in the approval basement. The only reason these people have power is because their are so many Democrats, it allows them to run the Congress unchecked.

It’s a simple idea, sure. But I think it is an effect way to closely tie the candidates in each state and district to the most reviled people in America. It will work much better than tying them to Obama for the simple reason he is still liked. These two have so debased themselves, it requires no effort.

Just a thought.

It can be suggested that a United States president, who hadn’t been in office for two weeks yet, may not have earned a Nobel Peace Prize. However, that fact, in and of itself, cannot prove the bias of the Nobel committee. Other evidence is needed. When you survey the other award winners, a pattern emerges.

Nobel Prize for Physics - Steven Chu for suggesting we paint all manmade surfaces white to stave off global warming.
Nobel Prize for Chemistry - Carol Browner who gave automakers ‘a deal they couldn’t refuse’ about car emissions convincing them that to keep their kneecaps they’d better accept respiration as pollution.
Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology - John Holdren for creating a plan to stem population growth through forced sterilization.
Nobel Prize for Economics - Tim ‘The Artful Tax Dodger’ Geithner for making money appear out of thin air.
Nobel Prize for Literature - The TelePrompTer of the United States for presenting some of the greatest fiction ever created in history.

One becomes a little suspicious after looking at the other winners. Maybe Daley’s suitcase got lost and ended up in Stockholm instead. Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm, Mmm, Mmmm.

Democratic Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota’s 4th Congressional district thinks she’s clever. She has proposed a bill she has named “ACORN”, the Against Corporations Organizing to Rip-off the Nation Act. It is intended as a clumsy foil against the defunding of the community organizing group ACORN. The bill, in particular, targets Pfizer Corporation which has contributed to Michele Bachmann’s campaign in the past. McCollum is hoping to ‘one-up’ Bachmann’s attempt to clean up corrupt organizations and in the process stymie Republican contributors.

However, McCollum may have opened up a can of worms with her proposal. Bachmann spokesperson Debbee Keller said, We’re pleased to see that Congresswoman McCollum who has voted at least twice this year to protect ACORN’s access to taxpayer funds, has a newfound interest in protecting taxpayers.” Of course, Regressive Democrat that she is, McCollum wouldn’t dream of actually cutting off funding to anyone who could possibly contribute to a liberal cause or candidate. But, her idea is worth consideration.

Perhaps any incorporated body that gets government funding should be shown the door and cut off from public money. By any incorporated body, we should include all unions, non-profits, foundations, and advocacy groups. We should especially defund any organization that gets funding but does not provide consideration first. For example, Pfizer gets public money but provides consideration, drugs, for people. Grant groups should be first to get their funding suspended since they provide no consideration to people. They only provide politicking and words.

McCollum’s bill also doesn’t go far enough. If we defund the organizations with a record, we should vigorously pursue those not convicted but with accusations hanging over their heads. McCollum’s next bill should be a supplemental bill that provides increased funding for auditing and examining the books of all these organizations. We should root out the pathways of these public funds and find out whether they are doing what they are supposed to. That would make sure funds are not being provided to enterpises that are skirting the law.

McCollum and her Regressive allies dare not shine the bright light of openness and transparency on these organizations. They are rife with corruption and money laundering. Her attempt to score points on Bachmann is glaring and blatant. But, the kernel of the idea isn’t so bad. We should not provide public funds to criminal organizations. However, it is her own political allies that should look out. We want strict accountability of our money. Right now, it is just a giant slush fund for the left. That has got to stop.