Sunday, October 31, 2010


If President Obama wants to keep fighting for a leftist agenda after the election, he's going to have to fall back on the power of the executive branch—and we're going to need a Congress with the guts to stop him.

Below is another reminder of the impending restriction of some TIA Daily content. The current trial period, which you have been enjoying, ends after the election, at which point more of TIA Daily's content will go to subscribers only. To subscribe, go to

Top News Stories

  1. Rather Fight Than Switch
  2. What's at Stake
  3. Bet on Inflation
  4. Tracinski's Law of Bailouts
  5. When I Left, We Were Winning (subscriber-only content)
  6. "Marxist Politics Has Come to a Critical Juncture" (subscriber-only content)

Submit articles, interesting links, letters to editor, or comments to

Top News Stories

Commentary by Robert Tracinski

1. Rather Fight Than Switch

The best indication of next Tuesday's election outcome is the fact that the chatter among the political pundits has moved on to a discussion of who is to blame for a big Democratic loss and what will happen afterward.

For example, Michael Barone argues that the Democrats are being punished for moving too far to the left. (It's not his best column, but the last couple of paragraphs are worth checking out.) So Paul Krugman argues—preposterously—that Obama didn't go far enough to the left because he didn't drive us into a much, much deeper hole of debt with a far bigger "stimulus."

And there are even leftist trying to portray the coming wipeout of conservative Democrats as a good thing, since it will drive the Democratic Party even farther to the radical left. Writing at the New York Times, Ari Berman of The Nation complains that "Democrats aren't ideological enough" and anticipates that after the election there will be fewer but better Democrats.

He is actually onto something, because he names what I have been pointing to for some years now as the basic contradiction behind the Democratic majority in Congress. They got a majority by aggressively recruiting "conservative" Democrats to run in right-leaning districts—and then expecting those Democrats to come to Congress and be reliable votes for far-left party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.

In 2005, Howard Dean, who was then the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, carried out a campaign to elect as many Democrats as possible. In long-ignored red states, both Mr. Dean and Rahm Emanuel, then the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, backed conservative Democrats who broke with the party's leadership on core issues like gun control and abortion rights.... The party leaders did not give much thought to how a Democratic majority that included such conservative members could ever effectively govern.

This isn't the whole story by any means, because the re-awakened cause of free markets and limited government is threatening even established leftist in left-leaning districts. But the impending wipeout of the conservative Democrats will be a huge part of the Democrats' election loss.

The big question is: what will Obama do after he loses Congress. My sense is that he plans to keep fighting for a leftist agenda, setting up two years of political warfare.

Below, Jay Cost agrees and assesses the political consequences by looking at two historical precedents. He argues—correctly, I think—that Obama has fundamentally misjudged America. Obama thinks that America has permanently "realigned" to the left, that this election is just a temporary protest vote, and that voters will eventually reject a Republican Congress and come back to support him.

He is deluded, of course, but it indicates what is at stake in the next couple of elections, starting on Tuesday. We have to defeat the Democrats by a large margin over several election cycles, so that they understand that this is not a temporary protest vote, that it's not just about the economy or about personalities, that this is a repudiation of statism.

"Would He Rather Fight Than Switch?" Jay Cost, Weekly Standard, October 23

Truman's strategy made sense in the context of 1948. The last Gallup poll before Roosevelt's death found FDR's approval rating at 65 percent, astonishing for a president who had been in office 12 years.... In recent years, analysts like Amity Shlaes have questioned how effective the New Deal policies actually were, but what matters for our purposes is what the public perceived—and the public believed the New Deal had worked. In an important sense, then, the New Deal coalition was still alive and well after World War II. Truman's vacillation in the early days of his administration swept the Republicans into power in the midterms, but his reassertion of FDR-style liberalism helped revive the Roosevelt majority.

Matters were very different in 1994. The New Deal coalition had started to fracture in 1968, when the North-South split in the Democratic party handed the presidency to Richard Nixon. The disastrous candidacy of George McGovern—which more than anything represented the revival of Henry Wallace-style liberalism—and the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter had critically damaged the Democratic majority.... The success of the Reagan administration vindicated conservative Republicanism and peeled off huge portions of the old New Deal vote....

Thus, 1946 and 1994 were very different midterm elections. In 1946, a still essentially liberal country voiced its frustration and exasperation with the painful readjustment to peacetime. Once balance was restored to the economy, the country was prepared to move back to the left. In 1994, the country was no longer liberal at its core, and the 1994 midterms were an ideological correction of the leftward bent of the early Clinton administration....

It follows that the success or failure of President Obama's response to a new Republican Congress will depend very much on whether he accurately reads the public's mind. If he thinks the country is center-right, he will accommodate, as Clinton did. If he thinks it is center-left, he will "give 'em hell," as Truman did.

So far, the president has telegraphed that he intends to fight. He has warned that a Republican victory would mean "hand-to-hand combat."...

If this is what President Obama is thinking, I believe he has bet wrong....

[T]he idea of 2008 as a realigning election implicitly misframes the process by which voters shift their allegiances. The election of 1932, for instance, did not signify an electoral realignment. The realignment came during the New Deal as FDR used the powers of the federal government to shift the loyalties of the voting public.... [T]he Reagan Revolution lasted as long as it did because of the tremendous prosperity of the 1980s. In each instance, the president who pulled off the realignment did so by contrasting his record of successful governing with the failures of his opponents.

This essential ingredient is missing for Obama in 2010.

2. What's at Stake

If President Obama wants to keep fighting for a leftist agenda after the election, he's going to have to do it without his party controlling the legislative branch of government, which means he's going to have to fall back on the power of the executive branch—and we're going to need a Congress with the guts to stop him.

Unfortunately, after a century of attacks on the Constitution, the executive branch has an awful lot of arbitrary power. So the president can seek to impose his agenda by using the unchecked authority of the regulatory agencies—particularly the EPA's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, restricting the energy usage that powers the entire economy.

But this also points us to one of the top priorities and most effective actions the new Republican majority can take. Jack Wakeland pointed me to the article below by a leftist who, in projecting how a Republican majority could defund the regulatory agencies, offers them an excellent blueprint.

Note particularly that this proposal relies on the ability of the House to control the federal purse-strings. It depends only on a Republican majority in the House and—since budget bills can't be filibustered—a bare majority in the Senate. And since the president can veto a budget but can't originate one, all that a Republican Congress needs is stubbornness and resolve.

Jack adds: "Can a Republican majority in Congress repeal ObamaCare? No, not against a Senate filibuster or a presidential veto. Can a Republican majority in Congress prevent the premature withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan? No, that's the president's policy prerogative.

"But it can de-fund the regulatory agencies. We can expect a Republican majority in the House to do as much as they did after the 1994 election to cut some funding to the regulatory agencies. What the Republican Party did in 1995 with control of both houses of Congress was weak, but with a Tea Party caucus active in their ranks in 2011, we should look for deeper cuts.

"On November 3, we should all start lobbying for a 100% cut in the budget for CO2 regulations at the EPA and other regulatory agencies; a 100% cut in funding to such pseudo-scientific climate research projects as those going on at NASA's GISS.

"On November 3, we should all start lobbying for a 100% cut in the budget for the development of regulations to implement ObamaCare at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other regulatory agencies.

"On November 3, the incoming Republican majority in the House will need all the urging, support, and encouragement we can give them. We shouldn't complain too much about how little spine Republicans have when they're pursuing the reform of government power. This is a republic. Our vocal urgings and support are the calcium from which a congressional majority gets a spine. After standing them up for election with our votes and sending them to office with our approval, we have to help them stand up and face the fire from the political enemies of liberty. We have to help point out the enemy's weak points and exhort them to aim well, shoot back, and hit the vital places in our enemy's ranks.

"We have to push the Republican majority to not give up, to not give in to their altruist urges. We have to urge them to stick to their guns."

"It's the EPA and OSHA, Stupid!" John B. Judis, The New Republic, October 22

Democrats are warning that if Republicans capture the House—and perhaps also the Senate—in this November's election, they would abolish cabinet departments, repeal Obamacare, and privatize social security. They might want to do these things, but they won't be able to overcome a Senate filibuster or a presidential veto. What they will be able to do, however, is undermine the work of regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)....

That's exactly what happened after the Republicans captured the Congress in November 1994 when Bill Clinton was president...

In the budget that year, the Republicans—not constrained by a filibuster—were able to get their way. They cut the EPA's overall budget by 25 percent and cut its critical enforcement budget by 40 percent and put 17 riders on the budget bill limiting the EPA's ability to police industries. They cut OSHA's already barebones budget by 16 percent and put a rider prohibiting OSHA from adopting new rules on ergonomic industries (like carpal tunnel syndrome) that had first been proposed in 1990 by George H.W. Bush's administration....

EPA director Carol Browner complained that from October 1995 to February 1996, EPA inspections had been reduced by 40 percent because of budget cuts. And there's a clear lesson there. If you don't have the people to enforce regulations on pollution or worker injury, it doesn't matter how tough the rules are....

A similar tale could be told of what happened in other regulatory agencies after the Republicans won Congress in November 1994. And the same thing could happen next year if the Republicans win back the House—or the House and Senate—this November. That's reason enough to worry about the outcome of the coming election.

3. Bet on Inflation

Since the beginning of the bailouts, I've been warning that the Fed's expansion of its "infinite balance sheet"—basically, the Federal Reserve printing money to pay for the bailouts—has created an inflation time-bomb. Now investors are starting to openly agree, bidding up the prices of special Treasury bills whose interest is adjusted for inflation.

So there's another aspect of Tracinski's Law of Bailouts, another way in which every dollar spent on government "stimulus" destroys at least one dollar in private capital. And the destruction of our wealth through inflation has barely begun.

"In Bond Frenzy, Investors Bet on Inflation," Christine Hauser, New York Times, October 25

At a time when savers complain that they are earning almost no interest from their bank accounts, some investors on Monday bought United States government bonds that effectively had a negative rate of return.

Bizarre as it sounds, that is correct. In an auction of a special kind of five-year Treasury bond, investors paid $105.50 for every $100 of bonds the government sold—agreeing to pay the government for the privilege of lending it money.

The reason is that these types of bonds offer a guaranteed protection against inflation. So, if inflation soars—as some economists worry might happen, with the government seeking to give the economy a boost by flooding it with money—the value of the bonds would go up accordingly.

The investors who took part in the $10 billion auction are betting that inflation, now at about 1 percent annually, will rise to a level that more than compensates for the premium they paid.

"It was good demand considering the negative yields," [Guy LeBas, the chief fixed-income strategist for Janney Montgomery Scott] said. "They are counting on the Fed to be successful in generating inflation."...

It was the latest sign that financial markets are positioning for a rise in inflation.

4. Tracinski's Law of Bailouts

Here's another aspect of how government spending destroys wealth: the fact that the money spent on the bailout is utterly ineffective at any of its stated aims. The editorial below describes an inspector-general's report on the management of TARP funds, detailing how that spending achieved none of its alleged goals and instead vanished into a morass of bureaucracy and corruption.

"TARP: Obama's Black Hole at Treasury," Washington Examiner, October 26

A new report from Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the Treasury Department, says it all: Americans have "entirely legitimate concerns about the lack of transparency, program mismanagement and flawed decision-making processes that continue to plague the program." Under President Obama and his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, the department's management of TARP has made a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act, even as the program has clearly failed to accomplish its stated purposes. Barofsky cites numerous failed TARP goals, including increasing lending, alleviating unemployment and preserving home-ownership against the foreclosure meltdown....

"When Treasury refuses for more than a year to require TARP recipients to account for the use of TARP funds or claims that Capital Purchase Program participants were 'healthy, viable' institutions knowing full well that some are not or when it provides hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP assistance to institutions and then relies on those same institutions to self-report any violations of their obligations to TARP, it damages the public's trust to a degree that is difficult to repair."

5. When I Left, We Were Winning (subscriber-only content)

What are the consequences, in action, of announcing that we will "surge" our troops in Afghanistan, at the same time we announce that we are going to withdraw them? The consequence is simultaneous advance and retreat: a brilliant tactical success in the battlefield, matched by spectacular failure on the political and diplomatic front.

(This item is for paid subscribers only. To read the rest, subscribe to TIA Daily at

6. "Marxist Politics Has Come to a Critical Juncture" (subscriber-only content)

The headline above might sound like breaking news from 1989—which it is. But it was actually said recently by a Communist politician in India's West Bengal region, where the world's only elected Communists look to be on their way out.

(This item is for paid subscribers only. To read the rest, subscribe to TIA Daily at

"Communists in India Fight to Hold On to Mission," Jim Yardley, New York Times, October 21

Lenin's statue still rises near the center of the city, and portraits of Stalin and Marx still hang inside the biggest union hall. Anyone doubting the local political dominance—and cold war humor—of India's Communists need only visit the street in front of the United States Consulate: It was long ago renamed for Ho Chi Minh.

In the past 33 years, India's Communists have built a political dynasty here in the state of West Bengal, staging one of the most remarkable runs in any democracy by winning seven consecutive statewide elections....

Instead, the country's Communists are struggling to remain relevant. For years, they have largely failed to capture the imagination and the support of the masses beyond their regional strongholds of West Bengal and the state of Kerala. And now even their three-decade hold over West Bengal is disintegrating as critics accuse them of betraying the rural peasantry and presiding over the decline of a state once regarded as an intellectual and economic center of India.

"I never thought I would write against them," said Mahasweta Devi, one of West Bengal's most famous intellectuals and a social reformer who is now deeply critical of the governing Left Front coalition, which is led by the Communists. "Leftist politicians are losing the battle because they have not cared enough to deliver the goods to the people."...

Institutions like the police, schools, universities and hospitals have become deeply politicized, critics say....

When the Communists won re-election in 2006, the chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, campaigned on a pro-industry slogan of "Destination Bengal," promising to attract factories and jobs. Since then, development officials say the number of Internet technology jobs has nearly tripled to more than 100,000, despite a perception that the state has largely missed India's economic boom.

But it was the highest-profile industrial project, a planned car factory for India's most famous corporate conglomerate, Tata, that became a debacle as farmers revolted against the land acquisition....

The Tata factory was canceled in 2008 and plunged the Left Front coalition into recriminations and re-examination. Meanwhile, outside critics blamed Communist leadership for a broader governance breakdown, saying that the quality of institutions had eroded as party loyalty and ideology became paramount....

"Marxist politics has come to a critical juncture," said Kshiti Goswami, the public works minister and a member of one of the smaller parties in the Left Front.


The Death of Camelot

The American Thinker ^ | October 31, 2010 | Bruce Walker

Fifty years ago, American government -- even American society -- entered into a wonderland of youth, prettiness, chic, and charisma. John Kennedy had defeated Richard Nixon in the presidential debates (or at least JFK defeated Nixon in the eyes of the millions of Americans who watched the debates -- those who heard them on the radio felt that Nixon had won). The election of 1960 was incredibly close and could have torn the country apart, except that mean-spirited Nixon (unlike Nobel Prize winner Gore) chose to concede and spare the nation a political civil war.

A glorious age was about to begin! The sophisticates and academicians -- the aristocrats of the republic -- would now guide us to a new Golden Age. John Kennedy was handsome, young, and married to a wife with movie star looks. Television was endemic in American life, and color television on large screens would very soon replace the small black-and-white television in the living room. Kennedy inspired us (or at least we were told that he inspired us over and over again), but it was hard to put one's finger on exactly what Kennedy actually did.

He quickly fumbled his meeting in quasi-summit in Vienna with Khrushchev, showing just how much less our young president knew about the world than Eisenhower, the balding older man who guided a coalition of democracies in a crusade against Hitler and then presided for eight years over a peaceful, respected America. Kennedy horribly mishandled the Bay of Pigs Invasion, leaving freedom-fighters to face Castro's Gulag so JFK would not have to face too many questions. It is ironic that the "highpoint" of Kennedy in the White House was that he brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and then "won" (which meant that we gained nothing but looked as if we did).


Saturday, October 30, 2010

How Big Is the Wave?

By Robert Tracinski

As we head into the weekend before the election, this is our last good chance to get a wide perspective on what's headed toward us, and the question is: how big is the wave? We know there's a big wave headed into shore that's going to wash a fair number of incumbent Democrats out to sea. We've seen it darkening the horizon for a few weeks, but only now is it getting close enough that we can start to judge the size of the wave and guess at exactly how many deserving victims it is going to claim.

We know what President Obama thinks from his perspective. He thinks the wave is going to be big enough to wash away his whole remaining agenda. After months of pretending that the polls show nothing more than a normal "anti-incumbent" sentiment, the president just admitted that it is a referendum on his policies:

"My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out," Obama said Tuesday afternoon during an appearance on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show.

Note also the venue in which Obama said this. During his 2008 campaign, there was a satirical animated video making the rounds, which showed Obama going to great lengths to avoid Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton—meeting them in broom closets and dispatching them on important missions to nonexistent African countries. Now Obama is seeking out Sharpton and the like, because his only hope is to go for the ethnic vote.

Obama made the remarks to appeal to African-American voters to show up for Democrats at the polls. The president has made appeals to young voters and Latino voters in recent days in order to try to drive high voter turnout and replicate the coalition that propelled him and congressional Democrats to victory in 2008.

But of course, blacks and Latinos were only part of the coalition that won Obama the presidency. The other part was whites who wanted to put racial politics to rest and independents who were disgruntled with Republicans. The New York Times reports that Obama has lost this part of his coalition, and by a big margin.

Republicans have wiped out the advantage held by Democrats in recent election cycles among women, Roman Catholics, less affluent Americans and independents. All of those groups broke for Mr. Obama in 2008 and for Congressional Democrats when they grabbed both chambers from the Republicans four years ago, according to exit polls.

If women choose Republicans over Democrats in House races on Tuesday, it will be the first time they have done so since exit polls began tracking the breakdown in 1982.

The poll provides a pre-Election Day glimpse of a nation so politically disquieted and disappointed in its current trajectory that 57 percent of the registered voters surveyed said they were more willing to take a chance this year on a candidate with little previous political experience. More than a quarter of them said they were even willing to back a candidate who holds some views that "seem extreme."

That is grim news for the president and his party, but they've had it coming. They are paying the price for winning the election on false pretenses. Democrats won a majority by recruiting conservative Democrats—and then used that majority to push the agenda of the far left. And President Obama ran on a vague promise of "change"—without telling the American people that he wanted to change from a free society to a socialist one. Here, from the New York Times article, is the reaction of one ordinary voter:

In a follow-up interview, one poll respondent, Judy Berg, an independent from Morton Grove, Ill., said she voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 because she was "looking for a change," adding, "the change that ensued was not the change I was looking for but something totally out of left field."

People don't forgive you for that kind of bait-and-switch. No wonder conservative Democrats are running as hard as they can against their party's leadership. Georgia Democrat Jim Marshall has put out a hilarious TV ad disavowing Nancy Pelosi, all but promising to punch hippies, and touting the support of the Chamber of Commerce—after President Obama's attempt to vilify the Chamber as the center of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

But not everyone is as smart as Marshall, which brings me to what's happening in Virginia's fifth district, where President Obama will be making a visit to Charlottesville on behalf of freshman Democratic Congressman Tom Perriello. Why is Obama doing this? It beat me. Perriello looks doomed, and I don't think Obama is going to change that, so from a purely political perspective, it's a bad move for him: he puts his credibility on the line for a candidate who loses. I don't think it's a very smart move for Perriello, either. We've been deluged with radio and TV ads whose common theme is an attempt to make Perriello—who spent his whole previous career working for George Soros-funded leftist foundations—look like a "moderate" who is "independent" of his party. And now, four days before the election, he'll have his picture on the front page of all the newspapers with Obama's arm around him.

I don't think there's any way to rationally calculate why the Democrats are doing what they do, because I don't think they know for sure what they're doing or why. I think they're so desperate, they're just trying anything they can come up with in the hope that something will work. It's like Obama talking to Sharpton or calling on Hispanic voters. At this point, maybe Perriello thinks that his only chance for survival is to get Obama to stir up the far-left "base." That's why he's coming to Charlottesville—to whip up the loyal left that you find in just about any university town. And since Perriello has been a very loyal foot soldier, voting for every important piece of legislation the Democrats have put forward, maybe Obama felt he couldn't turn down the request.

At any rate, it will make for an interesting day out here.

Like I said, I don't think there's much method to the madness. The Democrats are in such deep trouble that they don't know what to do. Michael Barone survey the latest polls in a series of normally safe Democratic districts and concludes that "the world is coming to an end" is "one thought that's probably going through the head of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen as he receives the latest polling numbers from districts Democrats thought would never be competitive."

Meanwhile, Karl Rove points to the number of Democratic Party leaders who are now in trouble.

Then there are senior House Democrats who normally don't draw more than token opposition. This year, some are terminal and others in jeopardy.

Nine-term Congressman Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) and 13-termer Paul Kanjorski (Pennsylvania) will both go down. Three House committee chairmen—John Spratt (South Carolina), Ike Skelton (Missouri) and Jim Oberstar (Minnesota)—are trying to hold off late-charging challengers. Even the dean of the House, Michigan's 27-term Congressman John Dingell, is having to fend off a spirited challenge by cardiologist Rob Steele.

Then there's House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, squaring off against Republican Sean Bielat, a Marine and businessman, in Massachusetts. In 2008, Mr. Obama carried his district by 29 points, but Mr. Frank is now stuck at 46% support in a recent poll commissioned by the Boston Globe. Anything less than 50% is a dangerous place for an entrenched incumbent. Mr. Bielat has campaigned so effectively he's forced the acerbic, high-strung Mr. Frank to confess he'd been wrong to oppose reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the years before their spectacular collapse.

To that list, I would add the Wisconsin district of retiring 21-term incumbent David Obey, whose seat is likely to go to a Republican challenger.

Jack Wakeland points to another important aspect of this story: early voting. We can't tell exactly how these people voted—but we can tell the party affiliations of those who have voted so far, and the results are interesting. Jack has been looking at these numbers and sent me the following note:

"With about 10% of the vote already in, the registered-GOP turnout numbers are looking very good.

"Based on this data, it is possible to call the Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

"In 11 states evaluated by Jim Geraghty, three are showing the signature of a mountainous anti-Democrat tsunami of biblical proportions (Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania); 4 are showing substantial (statistically significant) gains for the GOP (Colorado, Maine, Nevada, North Carolina) which might turn out to be a landslide on November 2. Early voters being the non-representative sample of all voters that they are, however, we cannot reach any conclusions about how big the GOP victories in those states will be.

The remaining four states in Mr. Geraghty's survey either show no significant change in GOP v. Dem turnout (Iowa, West Virginia) or there isn't enough information reported to judge it (Maryland, Ohio).

"Based on early voting data that shows a significant pro-GOP shift in turnout, things look bad for Majority Leader Harry Reid. With Las Vegas and its neighboring cities, Clark County contains 70% of the state's population. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans at the early polling booth by only an 8% margin this year, when they outnumbered Republicans by a 21% margin in 2008. And Reid has lost ground throughout the rest of the state. But because Clark County so dominates the Nevada vote—and because early voters are a large but atypical statistical sample of all of the voters who will turn out—it is way too early to count the race as lost for the Senate majority leader.

"For incumbent Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet, however, it looks like his bid to keep his seat is lost. In Pennsylvania, things are absolutely hopeless for Democratic hopeful Joe Sestak."

But Jack also points to another analysis, based on the fact that only a third of Senate seats are up for re-election at any one time, which indicates the limits of Republican gains in the Senate.

"Sean Trende's discussion of what is happening with the Senate races is worth a very close read.

"In only one of every three senate elections in the six-year rotation are a majority of the contested seats in right-leaning states.

"The luck of the draw is such that in this election, the majority of the seats (54%) up for election are in left-leaning states. Thus, with the full energies of the Tea Party movement available, a lot of normally Democrat-held seats will fall. We should not be disappointed if the GOP gains 'only' 5 of these seats (as is predicted this year) as a part of a total gain of 8 seats for the year. These 5 seats are not easily taken from the hands of the left.

"In 2012, the majority of the seats (55%) up for election will also be in left-leaning states. The continued energies of the Tea Party movement may make it possible for the GOP to pick up as many as 6 more seats in left-leaning states, in additon to regaining almost all 8 of the seats in right-leaning states that are currently held by Democrats. A serious Tea Party effort to rally the nation against President Obama two years from now, could—potentially—make it possible for the GOP to obtain a filibuster-proof majority to back up a Republican president and a majority Republican House.

"However—just when you might worry that the energies of the Tea Party activism would be spent, the vast majority of the seats (64%) up for election in the next mid-term election will be in right-leaning states. In the election of 2014, it will be possible for the Republicans to easily retain their senate majority in the face of the mid-term retrenchments that always seem to occur. Keeping a majority in the House of Representatives will not be an easy thing, however. A future Republican president would need to be true to the small-government agenda that he espoused, he would need to cut the size of the federal government, and he would need to be successful at those things that can never be anticipated or controlled: domestic economic upsets and foreign crises.

"Thus, if the Tea Party movement can stay alive for two more years and get a decent man into the White House—if the House and Senate GOP leadership can actually follow through on a program of reducing the scope of government—the structure of the Senate election cycle will favor four full years of undivided government for a new small-government national majority."

As for predictions that the Republicans may gain only eight Senate seats this year—I still think that might be too cautious. A fascinating review of the varying polls in the California Senate race, for example, shows that all of the polls are actually showing the same results—they're just making different assumptions about the relative turnout of Republicans versus Democrats.

As you can see, the pollsters showing a comfortable Boxer lead are showing electorates that are similar to 2008. On the other hand, the pollsters who are showing a tight race see an electorate more like 2004 or 2006....

In the end, we can't know who has the electorate right until Election Day. For now, if you think California Dems have gotten their mojo back to 2008 levels, Boxer is a pretty safe bet. If, however, you think that things have settled down to 2006 levels and Republicans are surging, then this race is a coin toss.

Well, what do you think? I don't think the Democrats have their "mojo" back anywhere. In fact, at this point, everything they do just seems to make their situation worse

Take Joy Behar, the inaptly named co-host of "The View"—a sniping coffee klatch of bitter middle-aged female leftists—who hurled foul-mouthed invective at Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, only to have Angle raise $300,000 off the incident in two days, a much-needed boost for the final week of the campaign. Even better, Angle sent Behar flowers and a card.

I reported last night that the Sharron Angle campaign had had a banner day fundraising, which the campaign attributed to the fact that The View co-host Joy Behar said of Angle on national television, "She's going to hell, this bitch!"

The Angle campaign tells me that this morning they sent flowers and a thank you note to Behar:

Raised 150K online yesterday—thanks for your help.
Sharron Angle

Then, of course, the Democrats have turned for money to their biggest backers, the government employees' unions, which merely confirms the public's suspicion that the Democratic Party stand for the looting of the taxpayer. Here's how Michael Barone puts it:

Who is the largest single political contributor in the 2010 campaign cycle? You can be pardoned if you answer, erroneously, that it's some new conservative group organized by Karl Rove. That's campaign spin by the Obama Democrats, obediently relayed by certain elements of the so-called mainstream media.

The real answer is AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union's president, Gerald McEntee, reports proudly that AFSCME will be contributing $87.5 million in this cycle, entirely or almost entirely to Democrats....

Public employee union members have become, as US News Editor-in-Chief Mortimer Zuckerman writes, "the new privileged class," with better pay, more generous benefits and far more lush pensions than those who pay their salaries—and who are taxed to send money to their leaders' favored candidates.

Meanwhile, various corrupt vote-rigging schemes are coming to light. The campaign manager for Pennsylvania Democratic incumbent Patrick Murphy has been caught sending out a deceptive mailer trolling for absentee ballots, while Democrats are also more-or-less openly boosting third-party and independent candidates—including fake "Tea Party" candidates—in a desperate move to win on the basis of voter confusion and not on their own merits.

With just six days left until Election Day, a key component of the Democratic strategy to hold the House is becoming clear: In more than a dozen close races, Democrats are encouraging and advancing little-known, conservative third-party candidates in an attempt to fracture the Republican vote enough to eke out narrow victories.

But of course, two can play this game. In Alaska, establishment Republican Lisa Murkowski refused to accept her loss in the primaries and has staged a write-in bid. To overcome the problem of voters having to spell her name correctly—and believe me, that's a substantial obstacle—she used her insider connections to secure a judge's ruling that a list of the names of write-in candidates could be included on the ballot. Basically, this is an unprincipled attempt to bypass all of the rules about how a candidate can get his name on the ballot. But a local radio talk show host found an easy way to defeat Murkowski's stunt: he got dozens of listeners to petition to add their names as write-in candidates, too, so that Murkowski's name will now be lost in a very, very long list.

Here's one final indication of how the election is going. Bill Clinton is always a good weather-vane for political trends. Remarkably—for a man who is a much better, more charismatic campaigner than the current president—Clinton's recent campaign appearances have been sparsely attended and strangely dispirited. WLS Radio reports from Chicago:

Former President Bill Clinton's "get out the vote" rally for Democrats at a downtown Chicago hotel was the most unenthusiastic WLS veteran political reporter Bill Cameron has ever witnessed.

Clinton was an hour late for the Tuesday afternoon rally at the Palmer House and droned on for another hour, sending dozens of the few hundred Democrats in attendance for the exits.

So how big is the wave? Judging from all of these results, it will be very, very big. Here are my official predictions, for what they're worth: the Republicans will definitely take at least 60 seats in the House, probably 70, maybe 80 or more. In the Senate, at least eight seats, probably 10—I'm an optimist on this issue—maybe 12.

When we know what actually happens, I'll begin talking about the consequences and what the next step for Republicans and Tea Partiers should be.

But we can already say one thing: the Tea Party phenomenon is reverberating far beyond American politics. TIA Daily reader Michael Ryan sent me a note about a recent mayoral election in Canada.

Well, weren't the polls and MSM caught by surprise with Toronto's mayoral election. Mr. Ford (no choir-boy and certainly no Ayn Rand acolyte, but as close to a Tea Partyist as you're going to get outside the US) ran on a theme of "respect for the taxpayer." The polls suggested a neck-and-neck race with his very polished, erudite, experienced, and well thought-of liberal opponent who ran on a theme of—well, I'm not too sure, other than "anyone but Ford" and "you've got to be simple to fall for that nonsense." It wasn't close—Toronto had the highest voter turnout in decades and Mr. Ford's margin of victory was something federal and provincial politicians would salivate at. Oh yes, the MSM are offended at the result and say that Ford will have to "reach out" to the opposition because, well, doesn't he have to? His response: "To those who voted for me: when they look back four years from now, you'll be able to say that I did what I said I would do, and to those who didn't vote for me—I will show respect for your tax dollars, too." We could have done worse.

The point is: if our polls were so wrong and our Tea-Partyism is so much more muted than yours, I suspect it will be quite the sea change on November 2. Brace yourself for an upside surprise.

I hope so. And Daniel Hannan—the Tea Party's messenger in the UK—is already anticipating how the success of the Tea Parties in the US might inspire tax revolts in Europe. His latest headline says it all: "If Tea Partiers Are Such Deluded Fools, Why Are They Doing So Well?

I've been offering a lot of analysis of the political trends of this election, and now I've offered a few predictions. But the time for predictions is ending, because this is the point at which we stop speculating about the results—and recognize that we are the ones who will make those results happen. So get to work.

We know now that if we win this victory, we will be striking a blow for liberty that the whole world will see.—RWT

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and Subscribe to Robert Tracinski RSS Article Feed.


Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, is a detailed look into the forces that shaped Barack Obama. Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has written a highly detailed and definitive account of the president's conversion as a radical activist; he provides minute and abundant evidence confirming the long-disputed label of "socialist" that has dogged the president since his undergraduate days. Kurtz describes Obama's ideology as "stealth socialism" and called his views "Barack Obama's secret." In the preface of the book, Kurtz writes, "The president has systematically disguised the truth about his socialist convictions, sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance."

Kurtz begins his account in 1983, presenting evidence that Barack Obama, then a senior undergraduate at Columbia University, attended several annual sessions of the "Socialist Scholars Conference." Kurtz describes the shift of strategy that took place at that meeting to turn the socialist movement from its goal of "nationalization" to community organizing as the best means of promoting the movement during the Reagan administration. Kurtz details the evidence that Socialist Scholars conferences influenced Obama and refutes the president's claim that his embrace of community organizing was an "impulse." Instead, in Kurtz's fully documented account, the Socialist Scholars conferences provided the future president with a vision for transforming America, as well as a way for black Americans to be the driving force behind that transformation through the efforts of the Midwest Academy, a training institute that Kurtz credits with Obama's political ascendancy.

Many of the "class warfare" themes that dominate President Obama's current rhetoric are rooted in that period of his life -- such as the "haves" v. the "have-nots" and big business v. the poor.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


I hate the horrific liberal thought plantation with its dumbed down liberal education plans and horrific teachers' union that have re-enslaved so many Blacks and others into lifetime suffering.

They know more than anything else that an educated Black person, a GENUINELY educated Black person is a threat...independent thought breeds men and women like Rice and Thomas and on and on and on. Blacks are not even allowed to admire other Blacks who succeed but wear a conservative hat.

And as for billy klinton, my gosh, that smarmy fellow did not HAVE to have his little talk with Meeks. Willowy Crist could not have FORCED him into it...billy saw and opportunity and willingly attempted to crush Meek's ambition for the win. As always, no core and bad character seep out of klinton like water through a sieve.

Charlie Crist's moves fan flames on race ^ | 10-29-10 | JONATHAN ALLEN & MAGGIE HABERMAN

Two years after Florida helped elect the nation's first black president, Charlie Crist's unrelenting drive to win a Senate seat at the expense of a black Democrat and a Hispanic Republican has forced tender racial sensitivities back to the surface of Sunshine State politics.

Crist was involved in getting President Bill Clinton to persuade Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek to drop his own bid and endorse Crist in an effort to deny Republican Marco Rubio the Senate seat. Sources told POLITICO that Meek signaled that he would drop out of the race — twice — before backtracking, a characterization that Meek denied.

Meek's candidacy didn't gain early traction, and some Democrats looking to rob the seat from Republicans — and specifically rising star Rubio — hoped Crist would take his place as the unofficial Democratic standard-bearer. That set was confident that Meek's departure — or even significant damage to his credibility — would create a path for Crist.

But now Crist's getting heat from both flanks, branded as an egotist whose efforts to undermine black and Hispanic rivals smack of racial insensitivity.

"That has been the chatter all along," Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said of a long-running whisper campaign that Meek could or should drop out. "It comes from Charlie Crist, who was run out of his party and is now over here sowing the seeds of destruction in the Democratic Party."

Noting how quickly Crist spoke publicly about the Clinton-Meek discussion, Hastings said Crist "shouldn't have been out there flapping his gums" because "then he puts Bill Clinton as the demon for African Americans."

(Excerpt)

Friday, October 29, 2010



This is SOROS funded fascism,and that is important.

Why is it important, anyway? Different political weapons are required to defeat fascists as opposed to communists. Obama may be a poseur commie, but to his very depths he is a fascist.


Black power nation,the black man is racially superior ideology,and as such he deserves to weild power over others because of his superiority. This is taught by Rev. Jeremiah Wright among others.The Caucasian race is evil , Louis Farakhan, etc. Historic justice needs to occur to correct the wrongs of the past, and that justice needs to be taken on the descendents of the perpetrators of alleged injustice, even though they were not alive at the time of the alleged injustice, its just enough that they are the descendents who enjoy the wages of former alleged injustice.This logic is the same as Hitler’s or Mussolini’s.History will show you that historic justice has been the calling card of every fascist since Napoleon.


This brings us to what the Socialist aspect of Obama is, the redistribution of unjustly accumulated wealth of those who perpetrated alleged historic injustice, through the destruction of the economy,and the desruction of the institutions that acumulate wealth, and finally the seizure of wealth through taxation and confiscation, to be awarded to the deserving.The deserving are defined using racial minority and ethnic minority criterion .Communists do not use racial and ethnic minority criterion for such redistribution of wealth,the entire working class is the Communist target for such redistribution.

Thats Nationalist Socialism, or “ Fascism” . Its not Communism.

I have analyzed the Obama movement according to historical movements, and Obama is not a Commie.He is an elitist fascist in the classic sense, charismatic, narcistic, and deserving of the utmost ridicule and political destruction. If you want to read more about it , you can check it out here:

It took Hitler about 20 years to morph from a street thug politician like Obama into full blown fascism. We are about 9 years into such a 20 year cycle.If Obama is not stopped, his movement will destroy America as we know it, and in the end America will have a fascist dictator who spreads death and pestilence around the world, just like Hitler tried to do We must stop him and his ilk at all costs, our very freedom and our very nation hangs in the balance.For in the end Obama will start a world war, as fascists always do , in order to unify the nation, and convert the world through force.

As Rush Limbaugh says, very few in the GOP even know what Obama is about. They think he will move to the center. Buahahahahahahahahahaha! Thats like saying Hitler, who SOROS supported in his younger years , BTW,will move to the center.

Its not politics as usual, as much as the soft GOP and its RINOS want it to be.They have not awakened to who Obama really is, but Rush Limbaugh has. And it took Limbaugh a while. He was in denial until about 14 months into the Obama presidencey before he figured it out. I pegged Obama as a fascist in November , 2007, because of what he did in Kenya with Odinga.That resulted in inter-tribal genocide.Obama, who was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time never batted an eye about the deaths of thousands of innocents who were his fellow Kenyans, at the hands of the Fascist Orange Party of Kenya, who Obama supported and campaigned for.

Now we are beginning to see that fascist Obama.BTW, Eric Holder is the same along with many thousands of Obama fascists who now work inside the federal government.Jonah Goldberg defines liberal fascism well and predicted Obama in his book “ Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of America’s Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” ( politcal correctness).Our nation is now governed according to political correctness, not the rule of law. This is in fact what got Juan Williams fired, fascist political correctness, the rule of der fuher, we have seen it all before. And if you do not believe what I say, then just take a careful look at the hate eminating from these photos.


The Spooky Dude And Friends Not Looking Good

Now let me get this straight: George Soros, Media Matters, and the White House, in some unclear capacity, have unveiled their master plan to destroy the right: isolate and nullify Fox News by getting people fired from NPR.

NPR pink-slipped Juan Williams for the equivalent of stating that when he sees it's raining out, he gets his umbrella. NPR president Vivian Schiller, evidently divining that disparaging fears of Muslim terrorists wouldn't play well in a country that has suffered three serious terrorist attempts in a little over a year, added that this was merely the latest of a series of Williams outrages, but she produced no examples. (Schiller now says that she "regrets" how the firing was handled.)

Obviously, there has to be another reason, and when we look around, we find none other than the Prog Twins, Soros and Obama. (Not to forget David Brock...or is that the stupidest statement I ever typed?) Obama has been having bad dreams about Fox, so Soros contributes a cool $1.8 million to NPR for the purpose of hiring one hundred investigative reporters to learn the truth about Bigfoot. Another $1 mil went to Brock's Media Matters for the purpose, I imagine, of mixing more mud to fling -- they don't do anything else. Then, as soon as the checks cleared, Williams finds himself out on the street.

This is not a coincidence, comrades. This is the Alinsky isolate-and-destroy method in textbook form. A kindergarten textbook, granted -- the idea appears to be to prevent any further liberal contact with Fox, limiting the network to unbalanced right-wing voices, and then to sit back and wait for an aroused public to march on the Fox offices with pitchforks and torches.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


There are oodles of interesting tidbits in this US News poll . More people think Bush was a better president than Obama; there's a 9 point generic ballot lead for the GOP; 54% say the tea party has been a good thing for America; the Democratic attack against the GOP for special interest money is not having an impact; and Obama's approval is at a dismal 42%.

But by a whopping 56-38 margin, voters don't want to give Obama a second term:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


55% on my poll think Obama should be tried immediately for TREASON

RASMUSSEN: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Thursday, October 28, 2010


Just tell me about this scandal. (Leans back, folds arms across chest. Looks outside – then back to me) Ok then – I’ll point your nose in the right direction. Enough people are sniffing in the same garbage pile anyways, including the Times. Though I suspect they are burying it at the moment, or trying to. They are still heavily invested in Obama, but that may change soon… Go back to Chicago. That is the key. There is other crap around the White House, other things that could trip them up, but Chicago is where the real heavy deal is that could bring the administration down. Go back and review Blagojevich. Go back and review Rezko, Barton, Stern, Giordano, Carothers, Jarret. It’s one and the same. It’s all connected, and it’s big. And people know. The White House is -expletive- itself over this stuff. Pelosi has it. Clintons have it – more of it than they had in 2008.

(Interrupts) What do you mean “have it”? The information – the story. At least some of it, enough of it. It’s all a chess match you know. A series of moves. Right now the White House is scrambling, and they don’t know enemies from friends anymore. The party is attempting to localize the damage so it doesn’t spread. Make it just about Chicago, and worst case, Obama – but not the party. And so you look back to Chicago, you look at the Justice Department, connect the dots. One investigation will potentially reveal the other. And it’s all setting up to happen now if the November elections go down with a Republican landslide. Obama will be left without protection. His inner circle is scared to death. I mean truly frightened by the prospects of ... ... more

(Excerpt) Read more at ...