Representative Patrick Kennedy has called Scott Brown's election "a joke". Way to treat your new colleague(who, by the way, outranks you by virtue of his seat in the Upper House).
This is a classless, juvenile display from a spoiled, egotistical little prince who can't stand the fact that his worthless ideology is losing traction in the public eye.
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Friday, February 5, 2010
Good Riddance, Paul Kirk
Interim U.S.-Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) is a Senator no more, and Scott Brown has taken his place. Good riddance, Kirk.
I find it both telling and humorous that nobody came to his final Senate speech, which was about bipartisanship, of all things (as if he knows anything about that particular concept). You would be hard-pressed to find a more boring, career left-wing bureaucrat than this guy. They'll always remember him in D.C. as a guy who sure knew how to clear a room.
Congratulations to Scott Brown, on his swearing in.
I find it both telling and humorous that nobody came to his final Senate speech, which was about bipartisanship, of all things (as if he knows anything about that particular concept). You would be hard-pressed to find a more boring, career left-wing bureaucrat than this guy. They'll always remember him in D.C. as a guy who sure knew how to clear a room.
Congratulations to Scott Brown, on his swearing in.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Biden: If You Can't Beat Em...
...then change the rules.
After all, who needs a majority? When you've got the anointment of Obama on your side, why bother with things like rules and procedures?
Clearly, the Dems are preparing us for the new round of unethical behavior on their part that a Scott Brown victory will trigger.
After all, who needs a majority? When you've got the anointment of Obama on your side, why bother with things like rules and procedures?
Clearly, the Dems are preparing us for the new round of unethical behavior on their part that a Scott Brown victory will trigger.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Sticks and Stones: Dems on the Ropes
Nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh! The Democrats in Massachusetts, collectively reeling at the horror of a potential Scott Brown victory in the January 19 senatorial election, have resorted to childish taunting maneuvers. According to today's Boston Herald, they are (believe it or not) making some kind of snide insinuation that Sarah Palin ought to endorse Scott Brown, and that somehow, this would help there cause, because no one likes Sarah Palin.
I am not exactly sure what is being said, in this case. When a whiny child is wrong about something and knows it, he will often grope for oblique, immature, illogical quips that he can use to annoy and insult others for his own gratification. This DNC press secretary is following suit. Can't think of anything worthwhile or original to say? Attack Bush and Cheney. Still can't think of anything? Attack Sarah Palin (who, by the way, is being hit with major new allegations of stupidity and incompetence; perhaps a review of this forthcoming book is in order).
Ultimately, the DNC's sniping illustrates that the Democratic Party is (pardon me) scared utterly shitless of Scott Brown. Senators Kennedy and Kerry, along with Congressmen Delahunt and Capuano, traditionally ignored their marginal Republican challengers, running non-campaigns that yield 70-30 victories. Not this time. Coakley's mousy, silent bid for the Senate has backfired. You can't ignore a guy who has made as huge an impression as Brown; he raised nearly a million dollars in one day!
Will he win? I don't know. I believe that any prediction I make would be a 50-50 guess. In an earlier post, I aired my criticisms of both Brown and the race in general, and believed the situation looked dim. It's still not a lock, by any means. The left-wing machine in Massachusetts is quite powerful.
However, while I still have reservations about Brown's stance on crucial issues, he is the only choice for those of us who are looking for leadership and common sense instead of left-wing demagoguery. The longer his dogged, honest campaign has run, the more I've come to like his style.
I am not exactly sure what is being said, in this case. When a whiny child is wrong about something and knows it, he will often grope for oblique, immature, illogical quips that he can use to annoy and insult others for his own gratification. This DNC press secretary is following suit. Can't think of anything worthwhile or original to say? Attack Bush and Cheney. Still can't think of anything? Attack Sarah Palin (who, by the way, is being hit with major new allegations of stupidity and incompetence; perhaps a review of this forthcoming book is in order).
Ultimately, the DNC's sniping illustrates that the Democratic Party is (pardon me) scared utterly shitless of Scott Brown. Senators Kennedy and Kerry, along with Congressmen Delahunt and Capuano, traditionally ignored their marginal Republican challengers, running non-campaigns that yield 70-30 victories. Not this time. Coakley's mousy, silent bid for the Senate has backfired. You can't ignore a guy who has made as huge an impression as Brown; he raised nearly a million dollars in one day!
Will he win? I don't know. I believe that any prediction I make would be a 50-50 guess. In an earlier post, I aired my criticisms of both Brown and the race in general, and believed the situation looked dim. It's still not a lock, by any means. The left-wing machine in Massachusetts is quite powerful.
However, while I still have reservations about Brown's stance on crucial issues, he is the only choice for those of us who are looking for leadership and common sense instead of left-wing demagoguery. The longer his dogged, honest campaign has run, the more I've come to like his style.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed
Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.
From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.
Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.
Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.
P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.
P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.
P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.
From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.
Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.
Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.
P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.
P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.
P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sudden Democratic Urges
Today's Boston Globe offers a depressing little tidbit about the current race for Ted Kennedy's open U.S. senate seat. It seems Martha Coakley, who is suddenly adamant that Massachusetts residents be treated to the full democratic process, refuses to debate Republican candidate Scott Brown unless third-party Libertarian candidate Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to those Kennedys) is included.
Here we have naked political strategizing disguised as populist insistence on fairness. Coakley says, "I'm a Democrat, we live in a democracy, and this is one of the treasures that we have...If people can get the votes and get the support, they're allowed to get their message out to voters. ... He has done what Massachusetts says he needs to to be on the ballot here. In that sense he puts himself out as a candidate.''
Do not be fooled by this stammering extollment of the virtues of the democratic process. Magnanimous Martha is simply trying to split the Tax Day Tea Party crowd away from Brown, as Kennedy will easily siphon their votes away. By insisting on Libertarian involvement in the debates, she can turn this into a 70-15-15 race, rather than a 70-30 one.
Technically, there is nothing illegal or unethical about any of this. Nor does it really matter. It is, however, laughably insincere and (to those who follow local politics) somewhat aggravating.
The Democratic Party of Massachusetts is the party that refused to let the gay marriage issue be decided by popular vote, dictating through legislation that legally enshrined gay marriage is the law of the land. It is the party that recently has seen quite a few of its members (including former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and State Senator Diane Wilkerson) tossed out onto their butts due to abuses of power and ethics violations. It is the party that hands out high-paying government jobs to its friends and supporters.
Yet now, it is the party telling us to consider our voting options, in the name of fairness and democracy! I wish that the lefties had been as accomodating when it was time to give gay marriage a popular referendum.
Here we have naked political strategizing disguised as populist insistence on fairness. Coakley says, "I'm a Democrat, we live in a democracy, and this is one of the treasures that we have...If people can get the votes and get the support, they're allowed to get their message out to voters. ... He has done what Massachusetts says he needs to to be on the ballot here. In that sense he puts himself out as a candidate.''
Do not be fooled by this stammering extollment of the virtues of the democratic process. Magnanimous Martha is simply trying to split the Tax Day Tea Party crowd away from Brown, as Kennedy will easily siphon their votes away. By insisting on Libertarian involvement in the debates, she can turn this into a 70-15-15 race, rather than a 70-30 one.
Technically, there is nothing illegal or unethical about any of this. Nor does it really matter. It is, however, laughably insincere and (to those who follow local politics) somewhat aggravating.
The Democratic Party of Massachusetts is the party that refused to let the gay marriage issue be decided by popular vote, dictating through legislation that legally enshrined gay marriage is the law of the land. It is the party that recently has seen quite a few of its members (including former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and State Senator Diane Wilkerson) tossed out onto their butts due to abuses of power and ethics violations. It is the party that hands out high-paying government jobs to its friends and supporters.
Yet now, it is the party telling us to consider our voting options, in the name of fairness and democracy! I wish that the lefties had been as accomodating when it was time to give gay marriage a popular referendum.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Senate Snooze-Fest
The Boston Globe, in an article surprisingly devoid of left-wing cheerleading, has outlined the opposing campaign strategies of yesterday's Massachusetts senate primary winners. The differences between State Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham, MA) and Attorney General Martha Coakley (D-Pittsfield, MA) are not surprising.
He is a true Massachusetts Republican, a trumpeter of financial responsibility, an opponent of socialized medicine, with liberal values akin to the umpteen other Democrats sitting on Beacon Hill.
She is a typical feminist liberal, the kind of person despised by the average Texan, so brazen in her socially progressive agenda that she initially refused to support the Senate's current health insurance reform bill because, apparently, it doesn't provide unfettered abortion access.
The Globe sums it up thusly: Brown is going to "go after" Coakley, and seek to expose her past foibles as Attorney General. Coakley is going to simply ignore Brown.
How will it end? With a handful of diverting headlines, a low turnout, and a victory for Coakley. Her ascension is pre-ordained. The party bosses, union leaders, and whiny activist groups will stump for any idiot who arrays himself (sorry, herself) with the blue jackass of the Democratic Party. It helps that Coakley is the consumate politician: quiet, cool, unemotional. Her primary campaign largely consisted of cautious, poll-supported posturing. She's as much a master of positioning herself as President Obama (only she has none of his public speaking chops).
I predict that this is going to be one of the most bland, boring political excursions the state has seen since...well, 2006, when Deval Patrick handily beat up on poor Kerry "Muffy" Healey. (More on Deval's doomed re-election bid later. I suspect he will lose, but he is losing strictly due to incomprehensible stupidity, and not misdirected party allegiance).
There is no chance for Brown. He cannot excite the conservative base of Massachusetts, should such a thing exist. Coakley's machine, which was revving even while Teddy was still warm on his deathbed, is unstoppable.
Even if the fiscally minded Republicans who own Financial District counting houses show up to vote, the Christians, so central to every GOP victory, likely will not. You can only cheat a man so many times before he refuses to play. Brown's centerfold photoshoot and his mousy support for abortion are telltale signs of his inevitable failure to live up to Republican ideals, and the grassroots right won't bother mustering any momentum for him. He smells, feels, and looks like the kind of Republican who acts pro-life during the campaign season and then laughs at the Evangelicals behind closed doors, once they've inked their ballots.
Granted, I hope I am wrong. The lesser of many evils is always my preference. I will vote for Brown.
Regardless of my hopes, we are left with a probable Democratic victory. Massachusetts seems incapable of thinking/reasoning/debating its way out of the status quo. These pre-programmed elections, in which watered-down, underfunded Republicans lose to wealthy, well-connected Democrats, will continue on and on. Turnout will stagnate further, as even liberals stop showing up to vote. When you've clinched it, why waste the gas?
Politics in Massachusetts remain a boring, frustrating spectator sport. The lack of competition and realistic alternatives to the liberal status quo have left us in the doldrums. Hopefully, we'll wake up before our state marches away into national irrelevancy.
He is a true Massachusetts Republican, a trumpeter of financial responsibility, an opponent of socialized medicine, with liberal values akin to the umpteen other Democrats sitting on Beacon Hill.
She is a typical feminist liberal, the kind of person despised by the average Texan, so brazen in her socially progressive agenda that she initially refused to support the Senate's current health insurance reform bill because, apparently, it doesn't provide unfettered abortion access.
The Globe sums it up thusly: Brown is going to "go after" Coakley, and seek to expose her past foibles as Attorney General. Coakley is going to simply ignore Brown.
How will it end? With a handful of diverting headlines, a low turnout, and a victory for Coakley. Her ascension is pre-ordained. The party bosses, union leaders, and whiny activist groups will stump for any idiot who arrays himself (sorry, herself) with the blue jackass of the Democratic Party. It helps that Coakley is the consumate politician: quiet, cool, unemotional. Her primary campaign largely consisted of cautious, poll-supported posturing. She's as much a master of positioning herself as President Obama (only she has none of his public speaking chops).
I predict that this is going to be one of the most bland, boring political excursions the state has seen since...well, 2006, when Deval Patrick handily beat up on poor Kerry "Muffy" Healey. (More on Deval's doomed re-election bid later. I suspect he will lose, but he is losing strictly due to incomprehensible stupidity, and not misdirected party allegiance).
There is no chance for Brown. He cannot excite the conservative base of Massachusetts, should such a thing exist. Coakley's machine, which was revving even while Teddy was still warm on his deathbed, is unstoppable.
Even if the fiscally minded Republicans who own Financial District counting houses show up to vote, the Christians, so central to every GOP victory, likely will not. You can only cheat a man so many times before he refuses to play. Brown's centerfold photoshoot and his mousy support for abortion are telltale signs of his inevitable failure to live up to Republican ideals, and the grassroots right won't bother mustering any momentum for him. He smells, feels, and looks like the kind of Republican who acts pro-life during the campaign season and then laughs at the Evangelicals behind closed doors, once they've inked their ballots.
Granted, I hope I am wrong. The lesser of many evils is always my preference. I will vote for Brown.
Regardless of my hopes, we are left with a probable Democratic victory. Massachusetts seems incapable of thinking/reasoning/debating its way out of the status quo. These pre-programmed elections, in which watered-down, underfunded Republicans lose to wealthy, well-connected Democrats, will continue on and on. Turnout will stagnate further, as even liberals stop showing up to vote. When you've clinched it, why waste the gas?
Politics in Massachusetts remain a boring, frustrating spectator sport. The lack of competition and realistic alternatives to the liberal status quo have left us in the doldrums. Hopefully, we'll wake up before our state marches away into national irrelevancy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
