Progressives Want To Put The Blue Dogs To Sleep

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Progressive groups like moveon.org are on the attack against anyone they consider to be a "Blue Dog" (Conservative) Democrat:

Dear MoveOn member,

If the final health care reform bill doesn't include a public option, it'll be because of conservative Senate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln.

After taking more than $700,000 from Big Insurance and HMO interests, she was one of just a handful of senators who vowed to filibuster health care reform until the public option was removed—and just Friday, she denounced it again.1

But now we've got a huge opportunity to replace her, and to send a powerful message to Washington that obstructing progressive legislation has heavy political costs.

She's up for reelection this year, and Bill Halter, the state's progressive lieutenant governor, is deciding right now whether to challenge her in the Democratic primary.2 Can you sign our petition to Bill Halter telling him we'll have his back if he decides to run?


The petition says, "We've had enough of Democrats like Blanche Lincoln who listen to big corporations instead of their constituents. We urge you to challenge her in the primary and we'll work hard to support you if you do."

We asked MoveOn members in Arkansas about this race, and over 90 percent said that we should urge Halter to run and support his campaign.

Jennifer P. from Little Rock told us, "Lincoln never met a special interest she didn't like. It's hard to express just how awful she has been as a senator. I don't know of anyone who will vote for her if she shows up on the November ballot."

By contrast, according to MoveOn member Bill C. from Pocahontas, Halter is "more electable and much more likely to support progressive legislation."

As lieutenant governor, Bill Halter led the successful campaign to establish a state-run lottery with all proceeds donated to tens of thousands of college scholarships for Arkansas students.3 He also recently helped organize a free medical clinic that provided care for more than 1,000 uninsured Arkansans.4 And he's spoken out strongly against anti-gay ballot measures in Arkansas.5

But he's facing a tough fight, because Lincoln has raised millions in campaign contributions from corporate interests and has more than $5 million in the bank.6 So we need to show Bill Halter that progressives will support him if he decides to run.

Click here to sign the petition:


Thanks for all you do.

–Adam, Ilya, Michael, Kat, and the rest of the team

On February 24th MoveOn.org organized what they called a "Virtual March" flooding calls into congress:

Dear MoveOn member,


News reports said that word of yesterday's Virtual March had Congress preparing for gridlock.1 And we definitely didn't disappoint—phones were ringing off the hook all day with voters demanding real health care reform.

So if you got a busy signal yesterday, no worries—you can try again today and add your message to the 1,124,457 that poured in yesterday.2

If you couldn't get through or haven't called yet, can you call Sens. Kerry and Brown today? Let's keep the momentum going—tell them you're adding your voice to the more than one million yesterday demanding that Congress finish health care reform this year.

Here's where to call:

Senator John Kerry
Phone: 202-224-2742

Senator Scott Brown
Phone: 202-224-4543

Then, please report your call by clicking here:


Thank you to every one of you who marched yesterday. It was an incredible show of support for finishing health care reform and couldn't have come at a more crucial time.

Americans from all walks of life—members of labor unions like SEIU and the United Food and Commercial Workers, blog readers from Daily Kos, health care supporters from Democracy for America, Health Care for America Now, ProgressNow, Young Americans for Healthcare Reform, and so many others—took action.

There's more to this message but I had to stop there for a moment and show you something. Remember, they were upset with Blanche Lincoln reporting that she took $700,000 from big insurance and HMO, (something I'm not disputing but haven't been able to confirm). Now look at the list of progressive groups listed in the above paragraph. $700,000 from special interest groups are bad according to MoveOn. Let's look at some of those whom they supported that "took action".

SEIU - so...$700,000 is bad, but $2,684,931 is OK.

Health Care for America Now - This one's not as bad, only $210,000 for '09. Ignore that though, they're progressives so it's OK, right? Notice that in '08 they only spent $80,000.....I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they spent $130,000 more in '09. It surely didn't have anything to do with the health care debate raging all last year.

How about Democracy for America, (of course we're supposed to be a republic but never mind that) - apparently they got short changed, no pun intended, by Obama's stimulus. They only spent $30,000 in '09. However, if you look at year '08 they spent $495,000. Also if you look at the chart which shows from '03 - '09 you may notice something.

2004, (election year) was a big year for this group.

2006 wasn't bad either, (congressional election in which Democrats destroyed Republicans, deserved of course since Republicans had virtually stopped being conservative altogether at that point.)

During 2007, (Obama announces run for White House), and 2008, (the presidential election), Democracy for America spent over $1,000,000 on lobbying.

Forget everything you just saw though. Remember, if you are considered a "conservative" Democrat by the progressive left and don't support the public option $700,000 makes you a special interest puppet.

However, if you support the progressive agenda and lobby $2,924,931 in 2009 alone then it's OK. Even if Rasmussen reports that 56% of people oppose Obama's health care reform vs. only 41% who approve. I guess that if the progressives want to push Obamacare then it's OK since they claim it's what's best for the majority, often referred to as the "common good".

"Every dictator who ever lived justified the enslavement of his people based on the theory of what was best for the majority" - Ronald Reagan CPAC speech, 1974

Here's the remainder of the moveon.org message that I cut off earlier to show you the lobbying facts.

And their voices reminded Congress yet again why we need to get health care reform done, and done right. We asked marchers to complete this sentence "I'm marching because..." Here's what a few folks had to say:

...my kids and my granddaughter deserve health care for their lifetimes. -K D,

...Health Care is a human right. -C C,

...I'm tired of living in fear about what my solo policy doesn't cover. -R O,

...my 23-year old son can't afford health insurance. -A M,

...no one should lose everything because they get sick -P S,

...I can no longer afford my health care. -K K,

...if not now, when?! -P R,

Americans can't afford to wait for health care reform. Our system is broken and fixing it is truly a national emergency. With the president's summit today, this could be our last, best chance to push for reform and get it done. So let's keep the calls coming.

If you haven't yet or weren't able to get through yesterday, can you call Sens. Kerry and Brown right away?

Then let us know how it went here:


Thanks for all that you do.

–Kat, Michael, Peter, Lenore, Ilyse, and the rest of the team

No MoveOn.org, Thank you.

Note: I erased the names and towns of the people making the comments to protect the brainwashed and ignorant who actually think the government taking over health care will solve any of those problems.

One last thing regarding the Scott Brown vote for the jobs bill. I won't defend or attack him here. I'll just let you hear him make his case and decide for yourself.

Scott Brown explains vote for jobs bill.


Meet Nigel Farage

Saturday, February 27, 2010

No words. Just watch.

Via Breitbart.tv:


The Big Winner at CPAC? Andrew Breitbart

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Andrew Breitbart managed to turn in an epic performance this weekend.

Andrew Breitbart yells at Mike Madden from Salon:

Andrew and Larry O'Connor yell at oxygen thief Max Blumenthal:

Ambushed by Daryle Jenkins:

Discussing Rachel Maddow and leftist academia and post-modernism:


Get Over Your Scott Brown Problem

Monday, February 22, 2010

Most of us are already aware that Scott Brown and Senators Voinovich, Bond, Collins, and Snowe joined with Democrats to support a $15 billion "jobs bill." If you check out Scott Brown's Facebook page, you will see that he is taking a real beating:

u suck Scott!!!! I cant believe you sold us out the first chance you got.

America was depending on you and you went and sold your soul. What else did you sell mr. Brown? Will your life and those of your families be better now? God have mercy on you because you'll need it. The people of MA will speak again so don't get to comfortable in Washington in THE PEPOPLES SEAT!!

It is very true that the people of my home state of Massachusetts will speak again in 2012. And if Scott Brown does turn out to be a "lockstep Republican" as Martha Coakley tried to make him out to be, there will be another liberal Democrat in "The People's Seat" in 2012.

Sometimes, politics is about strategy. Pure, principled conservatism plays well in 40-45 of the states. Unfortunately, Massachusetts is not one of them.

Yes, Senator Brown's vote sets a bad example. Yes, this bill sucks. Yes, its 15 billion dollars we don't have. No, it won't create any jobs beyond some small tax cuts.

But politics is a marathon, not a sprint. It does no good for Brown to vote the party line and get crushed in 2012. We need to keep this guy around. People who are now turning on him for this are idiotic and do not understand Massachusetts.

They also do not understand that this bill was going to pass with or without Scott Brown's vote. Throwing this bone gives him more credibility to block really bad stuff that we know will be coming very soon. Scott Brown is in the Senate to keep this seat out of Democrat hands. I don't see anyone flipping out about George Voinovich and Kit Bond...they are from red(ish) states and they voted for it. But they pick on the Massachusetts Republican?

I know many of you contributed to Scott Brown and may be very upset right now. But we did warn all of you that this was likely to happen. Scott Brown did not campaign as a principled conservative. If you expect purity, you should not have donated. People simply shouting "RINO!" is unhelpful.

If you don't like it, primary him in '12, and if he loses to a conservative in the primary, watch a Democrat win the seat by 20 points. You have been warned. Hold the seat. This is the kind of nonsense that is going to get Alexi Giannoulias elected in Illinois.

Lets turn our focus to red state RINO's like Lindsey Graham. They have no excuse. Scott Brown does.

Allahpundit has more great analysis at HotAir. The comments there are more supportive. HotAir posters tend to generally have a good grasp on political strategy.


The CPAC Experience

Well CPAC has come and gone. I decided not to blog from CPAC simply because I didn't feel like pulling myself away from the event or blogging live while watching speeches since you could see them for yourselves. It's over now and I've spent my Sunday return catching up with my family and my Monday back at work. Here's what I thought of CPAC.

Attending CPAC is like plugging yourself into an outlet of conservatism and recharging for the political battles that lie ahead. If you come from a more conservative area then it's harder to understand how that recharge feels.

I'm not so lucky though. Since I come from extremely liberal Massachusetts, though Scott Brown's election gives me hope, you get accustomed to playing defense. CPAC serves as a 3 day run of offense for this Massachusetts conservative. Seeing Scott Brown win and Obama-care slow down certainly was great to see. There's no comparison between that and CPAC though.

In fact the only time I got into debates with others at CPAC was when I was speaking to some Ron Paul supporters regarding his isolationist foreign policy. They would take issue with the isolationist label but that's a debate for another day.

One of the best parts of CPAC are the people you meet from all over the country. I even got to talk to a doctor who travelled all the way from Canada to attend the conference. That was an interesting conversation about health care. Meanwhile, a Canadian official has come to the U.S. for heart surgery.

There were many great speakers and panels in attendance. Marco Rubio was fantastic as were many others. Personally, my favorite was Glenn Beck although I heard a few rubber stamp college Republicans saying they didn't like Beck, (probably due to the fact that Glenn is willing to criticize progressive Republicans just as fast as progressive Liberals).

I suppose they forget that it was conservatives bailing on George Bush in his later years that truly laid the foundation for the anger at the town hall meetings and the base for what became the tea party movement. Remember the election of '08? Several states did end up going for Obama over McCain because of disgruntled conservatives, libertarians, and independents that voted for Bob Barr. With regards to the tea party movement and the renewed rise in conservatism there are only 2 people who deserve the credit there: George Bush and Barack Obama.

The message of small government conservatism is without question the closest political ideology to the constitution and the founding fathers in general. The problem is that we haven't had a great leader to show what true conservatism is since Ronald Reagan.

Conservatism is a political position that doesn't belong to a party. If it did belong to a party then Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been able to win 44 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984.

Also, perhaps Obama's election is in fact a good thing. Art Laffer, former Reagan economist, says on a regular basis:

"Without Jimmy Carter there would have been no Ronald Reagan."

The question that the Conservative movement currently faces, (notice that I said Conservative, not Republican), is this. Who shares the conservative values worthy of our support?

If we can stick to our principles and remember that conservatism isn't owned by a party. If we remember that conservatism is a political position largely connected to our founding principles. Then perhaps one day we will be able to look at our children and grandchildren and complete this statement:

"Without Barack Obama there would have been no ______ ______."

The conservative message currently on the rise in America must take the name that will one day fill in those blanks very seriously. You've probably heard the expression "RINO" (Republican in name only), we must be careful not to blindly trust a politician who is CWIC, (pronounced quick). Do you know what CWIC stands for?

Conservative When It's Convenient.


CPAC 2010 and Job Creation The Kucinich Way

Saturday, February 13, 2010

It's an exciting time for conservatives. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is right around the corner and we will be travelling through all of the global warming caused snow to attend.

This will be a first for me. I've never been to D.C. before and this will be the biggest political event I've ever attended. While there we will be posting info about what we're up to and how the conference is going so check back throughout the week for fresh details regarding the event.

It's interesting listening to the excuses for why the results of Obama's policies haven't been all that impressive. The usual rhetoric of "it would have been worse if we hadn't acted" continues to get sold to us as if we're a bunch of ignorant kids. I wonder where all the critics of the debt racked up by Bush from the left are now. I'll probably find far more debt critics at CPAC then I'm finding in the mainstream media.

I watched an interesting interview the other day with Dennis Kucinich. He was talking about job creation. Just in time since the country is beginning to accept that this congress and president have absolutely no idea how to create jobs or stimulate much more than welfare and their own interest. The idea is to have people who are 60 retire early if they choose and start collecting social security at 60.

His logic is that if 1 million people retire early then there will be 1 million openings. Now there are many problems with this plan which you can see him describe here. First of all it's somewhat sad to see that Kucinich and others like him are so ignorant on how to create jobs that this is the best he can come up with.

He calls this creating jobs. Here's how I'd define creating a new job: A new job is opened and filled by an unemployed person without the sacrifice of another's job in return. Do you see the difference? It means 1 new job is available without another person leaving their job.

Besides, with all the massive new debt being racked up by Obama and Congress how do we pay for this? Social Security is already heading for bankruptcy so how will this help that issue? If you add 1 million people to Social Security when we already are facing huge debts and deficits the bankruptcy of Social Security will just approach faster and hit harder than we already are anticipating.

Ronald Reagan was prophetic regarding Social Security when he said this early in his presidency:

July 24, 1981

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged on no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks, that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent.

As it is now the program will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance."

We are beginning to see exactly what he was warning about. He went on to say:

"It is government's deficit spending, a debt now approaching a trillion dollars, that is responsible for the slowdown in our economy."

Yet the critics fail to see why we admire Ronald Reagan the way we do. The sad part of all this is that given what we currently face in this country a trillion dollar deficit represents the good old days.

What Reagan stood for in the past is what we now stand for in the present. That is why my next post to this blog will be live from CPAC. Have a happy valentine's day everybody.


  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP