Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One report this week suggests the GOP will not oppose President Obama’s next nominee for the US Supreme Court. After confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor and the recent announcement of Justice Steven’s retirement later this year the sad rhetoric from both major parties demonstrates what has become an absurd process.

“You don’t go on to the bench [saying], ‘I’m always going to be against the big guy,’ ” Kyl said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Although the sentiment, taken out of context here, may make some kind of point it certainly misses the mark when describing the judicial nomination process and the people and strategies involved.

Likewise a quote from the other side of the aisle is equally partisan and also misses the mark about the process.

“Let’s be candid about the Supreme Court being an ideological battleground today,” Specter said. “That happens to be a fact. When some decry judicial activism, what could be more judicial activism than reversing the 100-year precedent that corporations may not engage in political advertising, as the Supreme Court did in Citizens United?”

The Citizens United decision allowing ‘political advertising’ from previously banned sources is just one SCOTUS opinion. One can make a reasonable argument that those either in favor or opposed to it drew a conclusion based on how it affects their own agenda. Which is to say that Democrats don’t believe they can win the advertising game while Republicans do.

Why don’t they simply state the truth? Based on political considerations each nominee to SCOTUS or anywhere else is submitted to Congress in support of the current President’s agenda. It has little if anything to do with what may be good for our nation overall. And judges or others who may be nominated for any bench know this too. Over time the process has become dangerously flawed and all the players use it to their political advantage.

While other judicial nominations may not receive the public attention of a SCOTUS nominee they are no less disturbing or flawed. And they serve as the stepping-stone to other political absurdities. Just like Kyl or Specter offering quotes for public consumption on the topic. Lobbyists and campaign war chests drive American politics. And they expect us to believe a philosophical debate has anything to do with the process.

This blog author is certainly not opposed to throwing all the bums out in November. That means Republicans as well as Democrats. Contrary to the fix the party chatter making the rounds these days a couple of election cycles of throwing the bums out would force the necessary repairs. We don’t need a third party. We don’t need the two we have.

Break the cycle of political corruption. Throw them all out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

The following story is the result of an initial look at some of the 2010 elections.

So a young man earns a bachelor’s degree from a university. Sometime thereafter he adds a masters in business administration as well as a law degree. After working in at least one administrative position he becomes the CEO of a firm with annual losses of $50 million. During his tenure at the helm the company realizes profits of $240 million. An impressive accomplishment no matter how you measure it.

This man later enters politics and runs for governor. He narrowly defeats the incumbent. It is said he refuses to enact an income or sales tax in his state. He cuts spending while maintaining ‘essential’ services. He is given credit for expanding access to healthcare, creating jobs, growing the state’s reserve funds as well as economic development and reducing crime.

In subsequent re-election bids this governor dramatically overwhelmed his opponents by margins of 3 to 1 and has enjoyed tremendous approval ratings for some time. In addition this governor’s state is reported to have won awards as the most livable state and the safest.

Does this sound like a conservative to you? On the downside this governor did not veto a bill allowing homosexual marriage even though it is reported he is personally opposed. He also is engaged in a regional global warming agenda and complying with the renewable energy act that may be ill=advised regardless of any good intentions.

If you haven’t guessed already this governor is a Democrat. Needless to say he endorsed Barack Obama for president. The humorous part, if there is one, his wife endorsed Hillary Clinton. And as you might expect as a pediatrician his wife is reported to be active in child obesity causes. So there is plenty of liberal philosophy lurking in the background yet this governor has some history not characteristic of liberals or Democrats, if there is a difference.

So what’s the point of all this? It should be no surprise to anyone that the 2010 elections have been characterized as the potential big comeback for conservatives. The GOP fancies themselves as the big winners given public anger at incumbents and in particular the Democratic party majority. It is not uncommon for the majority party to suffer losses in midterm elections. But what does the GOP offer to the growing trend of conservatism in the US?

Using the story provided here as an example it demonstrates what may be all too common in upcoming elections. In the story presented here, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire may only be vulnerable this November based on polling data. Rasmussen Reports indicates Lynch has slipped from 50% in March to 47% now. His challengers at this point are in the mid 30’s in voter share. One conservative activist competing against Lynch for governor has a compelling bio and professional history. The others, one Democrat, one Republican are by no means political heavyweights either.

It would not necessarily be going out on a limb to suggest a victory for Lynch at this early stage of the game. The minority party, in many cases around the country including the US Congress, may not present strong conservative candidates in 2010. Like it or not those challenging liberal incumbents need a compelling resume’ to compete. After all, election outcomes are unfortunately driven by politics and that requires more than good intentions.

How many contests will the GOP concede for lack of a competitive conservative candidate or the willingness to spend what’s necessary to win?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you didn’t already have reason to support someone other than Carly Fiorina for the US Senate race to represent California here it is. While Sarah Palin has annoyed some conservatives by supporting John McCain in his re-election bid well beyond any polite assistance to a former running mate, ‘I am no maverick’ McCain once again demonstrates politics matters more to him than anything else.

In the heat of the 2008 presidential race, Carly Fiorina made a splash when she opined that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin — both fellow Republicans — or their Democratic rivals could run a major corporation.

On Tuesday, it was the Arizona senator’s turn to speak about Fiorina’s qualifications. It worked out much better for her.

McCain called Fiorina, who served as a top economic adviser to him during his presidential bid, inspiring and a great American success story.

Number one, does Fiorina believe everyone has forgotten her pathetic performance at HP? Number two, does it matter whether Fiorina dissed McCain in 2008 before or after she became an adviser to his campaign? And three, given all that why is McCain publicly supporting her run for the Senate? Everything asked can be considered rhetorical questions.

If McCain wins re-election you have to ask yourself how that is possible? Easy, a combination of uninformed voters, people who don’t vote and the rest are getting perks with him in office.

The sad fact is Arizona is a border state. And unless people in Arizona are simply giddy about their tax dollars continuing to pay for illegals as well as all the other problems associated with open borders re-electing McCain who supports shamnesty is mindless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Criticism of the Tea Party phenomenon is limited to familiar rants. During last summer’s townhall meetings any attendees raising opposition to the liberal agenda were labeled as paid political thugs or racists or bigots clutching their bibles or guns. Frequently those dismissing the current public outrage over the growth of government, debt, deficits and taxes describe the opposition as mostly white. Yet you can likely compile a list of those opposing the current political climate featuring a significant number of non-white participants.

The race card is becoming quite the irrelevant insult largely adopted by the political left as are other complaints from liberals that characterize their political opposition as somehow inferior. A piece from Real Clear Politics sums up the situation rather well.

Palin and the Tea Party protests are also united by what is united against them: the liberal base. This is not the wave that brought Barack Obama to the White House. But this too is a people’s movement. It might not be liberals’ people. But grassroots activism it is indeed. And it has summed now to this convention, combining the second biggest political rock star with the hottest movement in American politics. That gets mainstream conservative voters, like my 7th grade girlfriend, to pay attention. This Tea Party might only be getting started.

Reference was made to some of the legitimate criticism or concerns about the Tea Party nation and all it represents. It is reasonable to evaluate developments and trends especially when they pose significant threats to established mechanisms within society. And politics is certainly no exception. Entrenched power structures like political parties have the most to gain or lose by success or failure of ‘movements’ like the tea parties.

The most important point to consider on this topic is not whether the tea party movement or its convention are good, bad, left, right or universal. That the message would be ignored by those in public office even when it represents a growing discontent across the nation beyond the movement itself demonstrates the reason for its existence.

To remove those from office who simply don’t get it or refuse to respond to the public they represent.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

you need to read the following….

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement (Michelle Malkin)

A billboard getting some attention was erected at the direction of some as yet unknown sponsors. There’s nothing like a little humor for this troubling political climate. And yes, this blogger laments the departure of Bush 43. Certainly not perfect but a preferred option over current conditions. And like most, the author of this brief post is anxiously awaiting November 2010. After that it will be anxiously awaiting November 2012.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Obamanation has once again enlisted the help of yet another person who worked on the 2008 presidential campaign of President Barack Obama. David Plouffe is viewed by the left as some sort of hero based on the props they give him. So what’s his story?

Based on his track record in campaigns found at Wiki, he’s basically battin’ 500. In the list below he’s three out of six without the last three wins. Who can tell if his work was really the prime mover in those contests. C’mon, if it were otherwise you might expect Plouffe to be Obama’s mega adviser not Axelrod. And the MSM being what it is the Messiah could do no wrong since his speech at a convention as a virtual unknown and his run in 2008.

(Last three wins working with or for Axelrod)

How tough would it be to get a Democrat elected in Massachusetts in 2006? How tough to get Harkin re-elected in 1990? Harkin in 1992 or Gephardt in 2000 would have been an impressive accomplishment. And how about the following item?

Plouffe offered a video challenge for the left to buy his book in order to beat one day sales of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. While the outcome may be unknown this much is certain as of this writing. At Amazon dot com Going Rogue has a sales rank of #59 while Plouffe’s book is at #646.

Apparently his challenge didn’t set the world on fire nor his book sales.

Plouffe’s wife is a principal at Dewey Square Group. In other words, she’s a lobbyist. And as for David Plouffe and David Axelrod they are thick as thieves. For more on them see this piece by Michelle Malkin…

Axelrod’s profits: Uh, who’s on the take from the drug lobby again?!?!

What did candidate Obama say about lobbyists in the 2008 US Presidential campaign? Ya, right. What now President Obama meant by ‘hope and change’ was that the change would be all the broken campaign promises and he hoped you wouldn’t notice.

So if they are enlisting the help of David Plouffe based on the DNC’s dismal prospects for the 2010 midterm elections and beyond (hint, hint, 2012) you should know what that means. Absolutely no hope and change but much, much more of the same.

For liberals and RINOs in 2010 it should be exit stage left.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

note: Much of the information provided here followed a path layed out by the fine folks at Wikipedia. Some info came from your basic internet search.

The president will try to add clarity in his speech, White House aides said. He will call for a freeze on federal discretionary spending, tax relief targeting middle-income Americans, regulating the financial-services industry and remaking the nation’s immigration laws.

He may also help provide a way to move forward with the signature issue of his first year, an overhaul of the health- care system, which represents about 17 percent of the economy.

The Presidents’ ‘freeze’ proposal is a mere $250 billion over ten years. Over that much time there is little chance POLS won’t find a way to end it and continue to borrow, increase deficits and national debt.

If the President succeeds in providing a middle-class tax cut and passing health related legislation the two will cancel each other out at best. And at worst the tax cut will be outpaced by increased health care taxes and costs that it won’t matter.

With other financial matters as well as immigration it is clear the Obamanation agenda will not change. In keeping with his campaign mode style and community organizing tactics this state of the union message will be more of the same. Proving once again there is no hope and there will be no change from the White House with the current US President.

President Barack Obama will propose extending through 2010 a temporary tax incentive that encourages businesses to accelerate purchases of equipment, an administration official said.

Certainly lowering taxes is a good thing. But tax incentives can be as problematic as any other tax situation. Dangle a carrot that rewards participants with tax breaks to do the government’s bidding. That’s not a good idea. Just reduce taxes for everyone. That’s a job creator and boost for the economy.

President Barack Obama will give $8 billion in economic stimulus money to 13 U.S. rail corridors tomorrow, mostly for high-speed passenger service, an administration official said.

Yup, don’t forget to put pork in your state of the union speech Mr President. High speed rail is nothing more than another earmark and pork barrel spending and a misuse of taxpayer funds. If high speed rail is such a good idea, how come it hasn’t happened yet in the private sector and won’t happen without misusing taxpayer money?

No hope, no change, nothing new, just more campaigning from a President whose failed agenda has been seen for what it is even by those who voted for him. And he has had plenty of help advancing his failed agenda from liberal POLS and RINOs in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.S. Senate election enters its final “do or die” days as President Obama heads to the Hub today to try to save his domestic agenda with a last-ditch pitch for Democrat Martha Coakley, while insurgent Republican Scott Brown criss-crosses the state on a wave of anti-Washington momentum.

“Initially, I thought it was me against the machine, but now it’s us against the machine,” Brown told a cheering crowd at a Plymouth campaign rally yesterday. Brown has vowed to help defeat the president’s flagship health-care legislation.

While some earlier reports indicated the Boston Herald and perhaps other MSM sources were giving balanced coverage to the special election in Taxachusetts the example presented here is not a case in point. It may be that the need to increase readership in the advent of a serious GOP challenge to the long held liberal lion’s seat in the US Senate has been discarded. Scott Brown’s lead in the polls may have caused the MSM to remember which political party butters their bread.

But the excerpt above may be enough coverage for Scott Brown in this otherwise Martha Coakley dominated report from the Herald. Voters are growing increasingly angry about politics as usual that people like President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed would end as of the 2008 presidential campaign and the 2006 midterms, respectively.

The far left and perhaps most liberals are angry at President Obama for not ending the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately as well as adopting many of his predecessor’s policies on matters like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Now, in the face of 2010 elections next November Democrats are all over the map on how to get re-elected as party leaders try to force an unpopular agenda on the nation while ignoring pressing issues like jobs, deficits and astronomical national debt.

Certainly members of the GOP and conservative voters oppose wins by the Democrats. But now independents are heavily favoring Republican candidates after feeling suckered in the last election. And liberals are not exclusively supporting Democratic candidates or incumbents. The fates of Senators Nelson and Landrieu may make that case this fall.

For the President to alter his schedule to accommodate Coakley’s failing campaign with a whistle stop speaks volumes on the trouble her pursuit of Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat faces.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Anyone who isn’t insured, we bump their pay up. They go through the Connector,” he said, referring to the state agency that connects residents with health plans.Massachusetts is the only state that requires universal health coverage, although there are exceptions. About 97 percent of residents are insured.

Coakley provides coverage for her workers.

Brown said his 12 campaign staffers are independent contractors - which also allows him to avoid payroll taxes - and most were already insured.

At first glance it may have appeared to Martha Coakley that exploiting information about Scott Brown’s campaign staffers was a smart move. If that’s the case she should have taken a second look. While the item above is a brief report from the Boston Herald’s Jessica Fargen more attention is paid to Brown’s staffers than Coakley’s. The focus is on how Brown’s staffers are covered and reference to the infamous MA universal healthcare plan passed by the liberal legislature and signed by then Governor Mitt Romney. All it says about Coakley’s staffers is that Coakley provides coverage. So does Brown.

Is Coakley drawing a comparison between Taxachusetts universal healthcare mandates and those currently on the table in Washington? Even if that was not the intent it is the effect. Everyone under Demcare will be required to have health insurance. And the choices available to employers and employees will be similarly limited. The only thing that won’t be limited is what we have to pay for it.

In the case of Scott Brown’s staffers they chose to work for his campaign. Those who did not have coverage had their pay increased and followed the options under the state’s healthcare mandates. Of course the report does not provide the details on the coverage for Coakley’s staffers for comparison. But you have to ask yourself the question. Given the sad state of affairs with Martha Coakley’s liberal senate campaign why would she choose this pathetic attempt to make healthcare an issue in Massachusetts? With most Democrats uneasy about reform and the vast majority of voters downright angry about it Coakley’s choice here may explain her lagging in the polls.

One last note on the story deserves attention. Brown’s campaign staffers just like Coakley’s did not sign up for a permanent campaign job. Regardless of the outcome on January 19th some will transition to new jobs with the victor while others will move on to something else. It is not likely that health insurance was a high priority in their decision to participate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Clinton, like many who’ve studied the health-care bills, has problems with them. But to steal an Obama line, don’t let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We can either get a toe in the reform door now and fix things as we go along - like we fixed every piece of major legislation ever passed. Or we can “go back to the drawing board,” as Brown says, which means: Forget about it.

Whether the special election in Taxachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat is about broader issues or simply political math for healthcare reform the piece above from the Boston Herald touts the liberal spin and perhaps unknowingly makes an argument against it.

Conceding the ability to produce a ‘perfect’ bill right now but fixing it later is how we get into problems with entitlements. Three quarters of the budget in recent years and probably longer is spending on entitlements. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. This is what the liberal agenda has given us since FDR.

It’s natural that citizens who did not voluntarily contribute to these programs through payroll deductions expect to receive the benefits after a lifetime of paying for them. There in lies the rub. The liberal agenda is patient. They try to convince the public their agenda is in the public interest. Over time the cost goes up and the benefits go down but the government gets bigger and the political power is secure. Too bad the same cannot be said for your future or that of your children.

‘Like we fixed every major piece of legislation ever passed.’ Does it really seem to you right now that anyone EVER fixed entitlements? Touching the third rail of politics causes political suicide. So all POLS can muster is ignoring the problems all together or continuing to raise taxes and reduce benefits to pay for programs that are simply not feasible.

Martha Coakley would tow the party line abusing majority status to heap more liabilities on American taxpayers in the name of reform. At least Scott Brown offers a chance to correct the problems and pursue reasoned solutions to critical issues. We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. That is part of what caused the issues we face now…. spending what we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Senate candidates - not content with battling over health care, homeland security and bank taxes - can’t seem to stop bickering over who exactly that desk in Washington belongs to.

“This is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s your seat,” declared Republican state Sen. Scott Brown at a rally yesterday in Quincy.

The title of the piece above emphasizes the ‘exciting’ factor of the special election in Taxachusetts to fill the vacancy in the US Senate. Ted Kennedy held the seat for almost half a century. Scott Brown states the seat belongs to the people not the Democrats. Vicki Kennedy, Ted’s widow, voices a similar sentiment. One thing for sure, MA AG Martha Coakley is no Ted Kennedy. But Vicki Kennedy endorses her for the people’s seat.

Vicki Kennedy’s words would seem more sincere had she not endorsed anyone. Just like Caroline Kennedy’s apparent tendency to stay out of the fray in politics would have appeared more genuine had she not endorsed anyone, including Barack Obama, in the 2008 election.

It is reported that Martha Coakley avoids references to Kennedy or Camelot in her campaign. Perhaps the only thing she has done correctly from the beginning. With Scott Brown leading in the polls heading into Tuesday’s duel at the ballot box one thing seems clear. The bloom is off the rose for Camelot and voters of all stripes are angry.

Had the Democratic party not abused their Congressional majority by not only shutting out Republicans from any serious negotiation on legislative matters, etc., but ignoring public dissatisfaction with the state of healthcare reform and the failure to promote job growth this election may have been a slam dunk.

Sure, anything can happen and usually does in politics. And neither party has a monopoly on bad decisions. But right now the Democrats are in the majority and with that distinction comes the blame for poor performance.

A trend by the voting public to place one party in the White House and the other in control of Congress was commonly viewed as ignorant. Maybe that trend is looking smarter to the pundits these days. After all, the complaint was nothing would be accomplished under those circumstances. But given the track record of both parties having them do nothing or being forced to find common ground may be in the best interest of our nation.

Maybe the voting public is smarter than the credit given them by the pundits. The answer may come on January 19th in MA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A stunning poll showing state Sen. Scott Brown ahead of Coakley wrecked Obama’s week. After all, Obama’s dream of overhauling the nation’s health-care system could hinge on the Democrats holding 60 seats in the Senate to keep Republicans from filibustering the bill to death. A Brown win would also allow the GOP to bring Obama’s entire agenda to a halt.

Reason enough for conservatives and independents to vote for Scott Brown. Given the reluctance of many Congressional Democrats to vote for Obamacare it is good reason for liberals to vote for Scott Brown too. The pressure placed on Democrats by their party, including Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others, to vote the ‘party line’ is nothing more than extortion in an election year. No different than the bribes offered Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

The debate has never been about healthcare reform. Those supporting Obamacare expecting reform will not get it. The singular reason for Dems passing this legislation is to give President Obama a political victory for his agenda to include in the State of the Union address with the hope of saving his first year in office. That’s an expensive campaign item taxpayers will have to fund. With no guarantee of benefits in the future or at least not for the first four years. Conveniently placed well beyond the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Again, reason enough to vote for Scott Brown no matter who you are or what you want. At the very least Brown offers a chance to remove the flaws from healthcare reform legislation and present an honest bill.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sue Lowden for US Senate