Blog @ 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

Once again the economic media darlings weigh in. Paul Krugman deserves his lefty description. This is a man who would be a natural for NASCAR; circular motion always moving to the left. And like NASCAR races, each lap is a repeat.

In a column of his last week, Fiscal Scare Tactics, Krugman makes his case with something as appealing to liberals as bashing Bush. That is, bashing Bush. When they’re not bashing Bush they’re bashing Bush or something about Bush.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

‘…even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency’ is exactly the point, Mr. Krugman. For all the disdain elites and political power brokers have for ordinary citizens my fellow ‘commoners’ and I do understand clearly at least one element of this topic.

The following are some things that increase and rarely, if ever, decrease.

-The US national debt
-The US budget deficit
-Taxes
-the size of government
-the pay for those in government including elected representatives
-entitlements
-those receiving entitlements
-legislation that spends taxpayer dollars
-the amount of money borrowed by the government
And did I mention taxes?

Mr Krugman: Continuing to spend money we don’t have is a bad idea. And yes, it is an idea that is not new. That’s the problem. Not like their should be a learning curve on this issue. Spending what you don’t have is what caused much of our current problems. And the agenda(s) being pushed in DC are tantamount to the Madoff ponzi scheme.

Obama-speak, et al (translation): We are taking more of your money (tax dollars) to spend on things we want that will benefit you in the long run.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme to rival Madoff. And where is he currently residing?

And from another media darling comes the following:

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’ “

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

The key ‘economic’ word here being ‘agenda.’ And the attitude of those now governing toward those being governed is as much a part of an economic discussion as anything else. Since it is the dollars of those governed that those now governing plan tu use for their agenda. And the problem is, to pay for it, requires borrowing into the next millennium and continuing to pay for it long after that.

This is why liberals bashing the Tea Party citizens is an idea as bankrupt as their agenda. There is a piece at the Boston Herald from a ‘fellow’ at the Heritage Foundation that should make Mr Krugman cringe.

If spending jumps $12,000 per household, taxes must eventually rise. The president would make a large down payment on that with a $2 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Yet that would still leave the government running up $8.5 trillion in deficits over the decade, setting the stage for even larger and more damaging broad-based tax hikes later.

Ominously, economists close to the White House suggest that a value-added tax of 15 percent and 20 percent is eventually possible to finance Obama’s agenda.

By doubling the national debt over pre-recession levels, he’d push America toward a tipping point - where rising debt levels will become too large for global capital markets to absorb. This could trigger a financial crisis, an interest-rate spike and tax hikes.

And it still comes down to that nothing new concept Mr Krugman alluded to in his column. We cannot continue to spend what we don’t have. Everyone can understand that.

And to couple another item with Mr Krauthammers’ commentary comes the following brief item Charles Hurt at the NY Post. In a small amount of space Mr Hurt condenses the sanity of tea party nation those plain words for plain folks like us, down here, near the voting booth.

These people have come from all across the nation for the first National Tea Party Convention to denounce not just President Obama and the Democrats, but Republicans and all of Washington for getting infected with the same voracious and parasitic plague spawned by big-government liberalism.

Read the rest, it won’t take long and anyone can understand it. Even those lowly voters who have the audacity to raise a loud voice in opposition to leaders with a hearing problem.

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.

Coakley will rightly get most of the blame should Brown actually pull off what once seemed to be an impossible victory. Yet much of the responsibility will have to rest with Barack Obama, who has guided his party so poorly that it is having trouble making an appeal to voters in Massachusetts.

To put it bluntly, the Obama White House has been politically inept in the last year. It has made serious miscalculations, and today it is paying a price.

The link above makes a good case for how the Obama administration cultivated the landscape allowing Scott Brown to harvest a strategy for victory in Massachusetts. And since Martha Coakley supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign you have to wonder if Barry from DC allowed that to influence his response to this potentially devastating loss for his agenda.

One year into a four year term and that nasty tendency of liberals snatching defeat from the jaws of victory rears its ugly but welcome head again. Sound bites proliferating since Brown’s victory suggest the Dems will continue their pusuit of defeat in 2010. That may be rewarding for the American public as many incumbents may fall if they don’t retire first. Both major political parties run the risk of not learning lessons from public outrage. And term limits in the form of elections might usher in a new era in US policy and politics.

Good stuff.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

….the anniversary of President Obama’s Inaugural, and it’s worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery.

Twelve months later, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President’s, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government…

A report from WSJ before the results of the Taxachusetts special election to fill the vacancy left by Ted Kennedy is linked above and points to what still rings true after Scott Brown won.

What has been discussed since the ‘little known’ Republican state legislator became the first GOP Senator from MA in decades is what it may mean. Some are concerned he will represent another moderate or RINO from the Northeast like Snowe or Collins. Others say that beyond confirming the voting public is angry at the White House and Congress this election is not a game changer. And this blog suggested in a forum entry on this site that Scott Brown’s victory is less than a two year window for the GOP to hold a typically blue state seat.

What appears to be the most significant lesson of this event may fall on deaf ears within the GOP. Contrary to some reactions this event does not guarantee anything for conservatives and even less for the GOP. For some in the GOP to accept this as a vindication of criticism toward them, think again. The Republican party still has much to do to prove they are worthy of victories in the 2010 midterms.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Turnout could hit as high as 70 percent Tuesday in the high-stakes U.S. Senate battle between Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley and GOP state Sen. Scott Brown, according to some local election officials.

Absentee ballot requests have increased - on par with levels ordinarily seen in a presidential election - some town clerks say. And town and city halls were buzzing last week with people voting and asking questions about registration in advance of the election to fill the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, said Theodora Eaton, president of the state’s city and town clerk’s association.

Under normal circumstances anticipation of high voter turnout for an election, any election, would be a good thing. It may still be a good thing for the special election in Massachusetts. But in light of the crazy spectacle surrounding last year’s senatorial election in Minnesota between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken an uncertain immediate future for the winner of the election to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat may arise.

Since a win by Scott Brown would represent the 41st vote against Obamacare there have been rumors that he would not be seated instantly while the Democrats in Washington continue to force their version of healthcare reform on a wary public. That suggestion was met with another related to political suicide for liberals in the 2010 elections. Seems a risky proposition given all the seats that will be contested given retirements and public discontent.

If Coakley wins it seems reasonable that she would swiftly be seated to advance questionable healthcare reform. But then, that is what was expected in the Minnesota fiasco last year. And there’s always the question of vote early and vote often given ACORN, the new black panthers intimidation scandal and SEIU thug tactics at Tea Parties and elsewhere. Fiction, conjecture or actual fact there will be plenty of debate on every aspect of this relatively historic election that may put Camelot to a long overdue rest.

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