Democrat Response to the Elections: We Just Need More Illegal Voters
This past election cycle, the American people marched to the polls with a clear-cut message for their officials in Washington – stop. Stop the rise of massive government. Stop developing policy behind closed doors, through backroom deals. And stop this anti-American agenda. The results were a ‘shellacking’ for the party in power.
Despite the clarity of voice with which the people spoke on November 2nd, the Democrat response indicates that they did not get the message. Despite troubling job uncertainty, and an extension of the Bush tax cuts on the table, Democrats are pushing what would seemingly be a low-priority issue – immigration legislation.
President Obama recently met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, discussing passage of the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). The Act, which Investor’s Business Daily describes quite simply as ‘an amnesty bill,’ would open a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant students depending on certain criteria. Worse, the Act is being viewed as a ‘down payment’ to more widespread amnesty measures.
But why would Harry Reid and his progressive cohorts push such legislation during a lame duck session? Because the public is clamoring for illegal alien amnesty? No. Because they intend to spit in the face of the American people once again? Yes.
The Democrats have no choice but to respond to the election results with force. Rather than responding by actually listening to the message of the American people, they have decided the appropriate response is to add millions of voters who won’t vote the same way.
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin refers to the DREAM Act as “a 2.1 million future Democrat voter recruitment drive” and just another part of the progressive plan to “redraw the political map and secure a permanent ruling majority.” But that number could easily expand upwards of 6 million over the next decade according to a GOP report.
Sound a little too conspiratorial? Not so much…
60% Of Voters Say Sarah Palin Is Unelectable
Yet another sign that Sarah Palin’s chances in a General Election race against Barack Obama would be slim indeed:
Sarah Palin might think she could get elected President in 2012, but few Americans agree. Only 28% of voters in the country think that Palin is capable of defeating Barack Obama while 60% think she is not and 12% aren’t sure.
What might be most troubling for Palin within those numbers is that less than half of Republicans think she’s capable of beating Obama- 48% think she would be able to, 37% think she would not be able to, and 15% have no opinion. Republicans continue overwhelmingly to like Palin- 67% have a favorable opinion of her- but a pretty large number of them have serious electability concerns about her.
Many GOP voters who admire Palin may be left having to decide whether it’s more important to them to defeat Barack Obama or to help advance her political career and that may prove to be too high a hurdle for her to overcome.
Other numbers from the poll:
- 55% of those surveyed have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin, 38% have a favorable opinion, and only 7% have no opinion of her at this time. As we’ve seen in previous polls, Pain is both the politician viewed most unfavorably among potential 2012 Republican candidates, and the one about whom nearly everyone survey has an opinion
- Palin’s favorable/unfavorable among Republicans (67/25) is higher than it is among independents (37/58).
- In a head to head match up, Obama beats Palin 51% to 42%, with 7% undecided. As in previous polls, the gap between Obama and Palin is larger than the gap between Obama and any of the other major potential GOP nominees.
All of these numbers are consistent with other polls we’ve seen over the past several months. In a rational world, they would lead a politician to decide that their talents are best used elsewhere, and cause a political party to back away from a candidate that would lead them to almost certain defeat. These are far from rational times, however, so anything could happen.
60% Of Voters Say Sarah Palin Is Unelectable
Yet another sign that Sarah Palin’s chances in a General Election race against Barack Obama would be slim indeed:
Sarah Palin might think she could get elected President in 2012, but few Americans agree. Only 28% of voters in the country think that Palin is capable of defeating Barack Obama while 60% think she is not and 12% aren’t sure.
What might be most troubling for Palin within those numbers is that less than half of Republicans think she’s capable of beating Obama- 48% think she would be able to, 37% think she would not be able to, and 15% have no opinion. Republicans continue overwhelmingly to like Palin- 67% have a favorable opinion of her- but a pretty large number of them have serious electability concerns about her.
Many GOP voters who admire Palin may be left having to decide whether it’s more important to them to defeat Barack Obama or to help advance her political career and that may prove to be too high a hurdle for her to overcome.
Other numbers from the poll:
- 55% of those surveyed have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin, 38% have a favorable opinion, and only 7% have no opinion of her at this time. As we’ve seen in previous polls, Pain is both the politician viewed most unfavorably among potential 2012 Republican candidates, and the one about whom nearly everyone survey has an opinion
- Palin’s favorable/unfavorable among Republicans (67/25) is higher than it is among independents (37/58).
- In a head to head match up, Obama beats Palin 51% to 42%, with 7% undecided. As in previous polls, the gap between Obama and Palin is larger than the gap between Obama and any of the other major potential GOP nominees.
All of these numbers are consistent with other polls we’ve seen over the past several months. In a rational world, they would lead a politician to decide that their talents are best used elsewhere, and cause a political party to back away from a candidate that would lead them to almost certain defeat. These are far from rational times, however, so anything could happen.
Three Cheers for Switzerland as Voters Reject Class-Warfare Tax Hike in National Referendum
By Daniel J. Mitchell
I’ve always had a soft spot for Switzerland. The nation’s decentralized structure shows the value of federalism, both as a means of limiting the size of government and as a way of promoting tranquility in a nation with several languages, religions, and ethnic groups. I also admire Switzerland’s valiant attempt to preserve financial privacy in a world dominated by greedy, high-tax governments.
I now have another reason to admire the Swiss. Voters yesterday overwhelmingly rejected a class-warfare proposal to impose higher tax rates on the income and wealth of rich residents. The Social Democrats did their best to make the hate-and-envy scheme palatable. Only the very richest taxpayers would have been affected. But Swiss voters, like voters in Washington state earlier this month, understood that giving politicians more money is never a solution for any problem.
Here’s an excerpt from Bloomberg’s report on the vote.
In a referendum today, 59 percent of voters turned down the proposal by the Social Democrats to enact minimum taxes on income and wealth. Residents would have paid taxes of at least 22 percent on annual income above 250,000 francs ($ 249,000), according to the proposed changes. Switzerland’s executive and parliamentary branches had rejected the proposal, saying it would interfere with the cantons’ tax-autonomy regulations. The changes would also damage the nation’s attractiveness, the government, led by President Doris Leuthard, said before the vote. The Alpine country’s reputation as a low-tax refuge has attracted bankers and entrepreneurs such as Ingvar Kamprad, the Swedish founder of Ikea AB furniture stores, and members of the Brenninkmeijer family, who owns retailer C&A Group.
It’s never wise to draw too many conclusions from one vote, but it certainly seems that voters usually reject higher taxes when they get a chance to cast votes. Even tax increases targeting a tiny minority of the population generally get rejected. The only exception that comes to mind is the unfortunate decision by Oregon voters earlier this year to raise tax rates.
Three Cheers for Switzerland as Voters Reject Class-Warfare Tax Hike in National Referendum is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
WaPo’s David Broder Declares the Voters’ Will in 2010 Was Best Symbolized by…Lisa Murkowski
Liberal journalists are forever trying to dismiss the idea that when conservative candidates win, the voters who sent them to Washington sent them for conservative goals — to restrain relentless government growth. In Thursday's Washington Post, columnist David Broder declared, in the face of all evidence, that the defining campaign of 2010 was….the egocentric write-in campaign of moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. It was not the year of the Tea Party, or repealing ObamaCare. It was the year that the voters said they wanted non-ideological bipartisanship. He quoted her interview with the PBS NewsHour:
"I think that's what voters are looking for. I don't think that most are looking for somebody that is going to follow the litmus test of one party or another, and never deviate from it. I think they want us to think, and I think they want us to work cooperatively together. So, that's my pledge to all Alaskans, regardless of whether you are the most conservative Republican or the most liberal Democrat, I'm going to try to find a way that we can find common ground to help the state and to help our country."
NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
WaPo’s David Broder Declares the Voters’ Will in 2010 Was Best Symbolized by…Lisa Murkowski
Liberal journalists are forever trying to dismiss the idea that when conservative candidates win, the voters who sent them to Washington sent them for conservative goals — to restrain relentless government growth. In Thursday's Washington Post, columnist David Broder declared, in the face of all evidence, that the defining campaign of 2010 was….the egocentric write-in campaign of moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. It was not the year of the Tea Party, or repealing ObamaCare. It was the year that the voters said they wanted non-ideological bipartisanship. He quoted her interview with the PBS NewsHour:
"I think that's what voters are looking for. I don't think that most are looking for somebody that is going to follow the litmus test of one party or another, and never deviate from it. I think they want us to think, and I think they want us to work cooperatively together. So, that's my pledge to all Alaskans, regardless of whether you are the most conservative Republican or the most liberal Democrat, I'm going to try to find a way that we can find common ground to help the state and to help our country."
Voters Want Anti-ObamaCare Congressman To Reject Congressional Health Insurance?
Sometimes, a poll comes back with an inherently silly result, and this strikes me as being one of those times:
Most voters say members of Congress who campaigned against the health care reform bill should turn down the medical insurance offered them as federal employees, according to a new poll released Tuesday.
In the Public Policy Polling survey, 53 percent of the voters said members who won election in part because of their opposition to health care reform should decline the insurance that comes with their new jobs in Congress. One-third of those surveyed said members should accept the insurance.
(…)
Liberal voters were slightly more open to seeing anti-health care members accept the health insurance, with 39 percent supporting it. Forty-eight percent said those new members should turn down the insurance.
Among voters who self-identified as conservative, 28 percent said members should enroll in the government insurance, while 55 percent they said should not.
I honestly don’t understand what people are thinking here. The health insurance that the Federal Government provides to Members of Congress, Federal employees, and civilian and uniformed members of the military is functionally no different from the health insurance benefit that any other employer provides to their employees. One can argue that the benefits that Federal employees get are better than what most private sector employees get (not to mention the fact that they’re provided at taxpayer expense). To argue that there is something hypocritical about opposing the Affordable Care Act and taking the insurance offered you as a Federal employee, as this poll seems to suggest, is perhaps the silliest, stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
So, yes, if you’re a Member of Congress go ahead and take the insurance. Then, get to work fixing the mess called “health care reform” that the 111th Congress left on your doorstep.
DWTS voters put Baby Palin in a corner
Jennifer Grey proves that in the end, talent does count for something. (Cheer up, Mediaite. I’m sure Glenn Beck will have something good and right wing for you to adore tomorrow…) And no, I never watched five minutes of the show before Tuesday night. Go figure… (BTW hat tip to Erika Kennedy via Twitter for […]
The Reid Report
Voters Would Change Constitution To Limit Corporate Spending In Elections
When the Supreme Court invalidated a decades-long ban on corporate spending in federal elections in their Citizens United decision, it was by the narrowest of margins — only one justice. The public is less split on the issue, however. A new poll by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which was provided to the Huffington Post, shows that by a double-digit margin, voters want Congress to use a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision and once again restrict corporations from directly spending on elections.
Forty-six percent of voters said that “Congress should consider drastic measures such as a constitutional amendment overturning” Citizens United, while 36 percent disagreed. Only a fifth of voters were undecided on the matter. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) has already authored such an amendment, and told the Huffington Post, “I really concluded that the Supreme Court actually put the challenge out to us, here in the Congress. They said…Congress, you have no authority to regulate. And when the Court says that so directly, it only leaves us one choice.” Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) are also behind the amendment, which enjoys the strong support of many law professors and former attorneys general.
Short of a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, the DISCLOSE Act offers another possible remedy to the worst aspects of Citizens United. Today in Roll Call, Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank wrote a stinging op-ed calling on Republicans to support DISCLOSE:
The first is the failure of any Republican Senator to step up and support the DISCLOSE Act, to bring sunlight to the outrageous, anonymous huge funders who played a major role in the 2010 campaigns, hiding behind the cloak of 501(c)(4)s run by groups cynically manipulating weak IRS enforcement of the law. […]
So where are the previous champions of campaign finance reform? Where is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose greatest legislative accomplishment was given a sharp stick in the eye by a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court? Where are previous supporters of reform — and professed supporters of disclosure — such as Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.)? And most important, where is Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has always been an independent voice, whose Snowe-Jeffords amendment to the campaign reform law was the provision most assaulted by the Citizens United case, who stood up to immense pressure from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Republican leaders in 2002 to do the right thing?
With this kind of pressure building, PCCC cofounder Adam Green thinks it’s a ripe time for action. “It’s time to stop thinking small-bore. The solution to Citizens United is not merely disclosure, it’s to overturn Citizens United — and even last November’s Republican-skewed electorate agrees,” he told the Huffington Post.
Gov Rendell: Voters Don’t Always Vote On Logical Reasons
Doesn’t get it.
via CNS News. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell says that when people are angry, they don’t always vote logically and that’s why democrats lost so many races in PA. That’s interesting to me, because I wonder if he would ascribe the same sentiment to the republican losses of ’06 and ’08. I kinda doubt it, because […]
