#IRS scandal: Democrats make clear where they stand on the 1st Amendment

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a resolution condemning the Internal Revenue Service for trampling the Constitutional rights of Americans. (For example) It didn’t get very far:

Today, Senate Democrats placed a hold on Sen. Rand Paul’s recent resolution that condemns the targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and calls for an investigation into this practice.

“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal. It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power,” Sen. Paul said. ”Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights. I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”

I’m not sure why anyone would find this surprising: as the party of arrogant, unrestrained government, the leaders of which think the Constitution is obsolete, well, of course they would shoot this resolution down.

It threatens their very reason for existence, after all.

via Stephen Green.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Three Cheers for Governor Bobby Jindal's Plan to Abolish the Income Tax

Reblogged from International Liberty:

Two months ago exactly, I appeared on TV to talk about the concept of eliminating the personal and corporate income tax in Louisiana.

Now Governor Jindal has unveiled a specific proposal.

The plan will eliminate two major tax types: personal income tax and corporate income and franchise tax. Eliminating income taxes in a revenue-neutral manner and improving sales tax administration will dramatically simplify Louisiana’s tax system and reduce administrative problems for families and small businesses.

Read more… 429 more words

An illustration of why Jindal is my front-running choice for POTUS in 2016.

Cruz vs. Feinstein, Texas vs. California, Liberty vs. …???

The following fascinating exchange occurred between Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on gun control, presumably including Feinstein’s pet legislation to outlaw scary weapons. First, Ted Cruz:

“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” said Cruz to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Notice how Cruz approaches the question of the legislation before them: as a Senator of the United States, whose oath binds him to protect and defend the Constitution. His first concern, therefore, is where it should be — on how the legislation jibes with the Constitution, the rights it enshrines and the limits it imposes on government. Hence the questions about the First and Fourth amendments and the attempt to draw a logical parallel in order to test whether gun control legislation meets constitutional muster.

Call me naive, but isn’t this how the Senate is supposed to operate?

Apparently the whole thing was just too much for Senator Feinstein to bear:

“I’m not a sixth grader,” said Feinstein. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

In other words, “Don’t you dare presume to question me, boy!”

Note how Feinstein replies: outrage at supposed disrespect (“I’ve been here for 20 years! I’ve passed bills!”); an emotional appeal (“I’ve seen dead people! Think of the children!”); and confusing the issue through ignorance (cosmetic features do not a “weapon of war” make, no matter how scary looking). But only once does she touch upon the Constitution, referring to Heller, and she never answers Cruz’s questions.

Memo to Senator Feinstein: You may have been in Washington for a lot of years (too many, if you ask me), you may have sat at one of the constitutional seats of power, maybe even read the Constitution, but you clearly don’t “get it,” and I doubt you’ve ever really thought about it. Your smokescreen reply to your colleague from Texas betrayed the emptiness of your position, its lack of any constitutional legitimacy. It was the bluster of an oligarch unaccustomed to being truly challenged. Senator Cruz was doing exactly what he should be doing, and what you should have been doing for those 20 years you’re so proud of.

I may be, like you, a child of the Golden State, but, right now?

I side with the Lone Star.

via The Weekly Standard, which has video

UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Don’t bother Senator Feinstein with facts, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Bongino: #Guncontrol is “people control”

It’s a shame Dan Bongino lost his race for the US Senate from Maryland last November. As Professor Jacobson says, we could use a lot more like him in office. But, like Elizabeth Emken here in California, Bongino was running a Republican in a deep Blue state, and the odds were too long to overcome… this time.

Anyway, here’s Dan speaking at a “Guns Across America” rally in Maryland from last January; the takeaway line is his comment that gun control is really people control, and that when we use the left’s terms, we give the progressives the advantage in the argument. Point well made, and it’s one I’ll strive to remember:

And did you feel his passion, his conviction, and his willingness to keep fighting? When you live in a Bluer than Blue state (as both he and I do), it’s easy to get discouraged and give up. Time and again we lose elections, we see those in charge doing stupid, harmful things, and many of our friends and neighbors, frankly, look at us as if they’re seeing some sort of alien, all because we take seriously the philosophy behind the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and believe in an America that really is exceptional.

Citizens like Dan Bongino are a tonic against the urge to give up.

PS: Elizabeth Emken is considering a run for the House in 2014 against freshman Democrat Representative Ami Bera in CA-7, near my old stomping grounds in Sacramento. I know little about Bera, but I’m sure Emken would make a positive contribution toward moving this country back in the right direction. If she runs, we’ll be sure to follow the race.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

So, I get the impression Michael Rubin isn’t too happy with John McCain…

Background: On “Meet the Press,” Senator McCain (R-AZ) said he would no longer hold up the confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, even though he doesn’t believe Hagel is qualified.

That lead to Rubin’s rant:

What McCain is, in effect, saying is that he has no personal or professional problem with putting an incompetent man in charge not only of America’s defense but also—because of what falls under the Pentagon’s umbrella—most of America’s intelligence assets as well.

McCain prides himself on being a maverick. How sad it is that in the twilight of his great career, McCain now is so willing to knowingly undercut U.S. national security. How reassuring it must be to Kim Jong-un in North Korea, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon, and Ali Khamenei in Iran that McCain is so willing to help install an unqualified Defense Secretary. The only questions now is not whether the will test the United States, but when and how many U.S. serviceman will die because of it.

Ouch! That one will leave a mark on Senator Prickly McCain. 

Senators often fall back on the principle of “comity,” a principle of “getting along for the good of the nation” that includes granting a very broad deference to the President in his cabinet choices. But lately it seems that, particularly under Obama, “getting along” really means “Republicans should shut up and take it.”

Now, I’m all for getting along in a genuine sense: mutual compromise in which majority and minority each give on something, and the legislature and the executive show a willingness to deal. Our form of government needs that. Hence, while I despise John Kerry, he is arguably qualified to serve as Secretary of State, where he or any other SoS would be implementing Obama’s policies. So, I had little problem with the senators who voted to confirm him, even if I wouldn’t have.

But that assumes basic competence, and Senator McCain said flatly that Hagel is unqualified. In that case, voting to confirm him (or, at least, not block him) isn’t “comity,” it’s not courteous deference in the face of policy disagreement. To accede to the appointment of someone unqualified for the office is a dereliction of one’s duty as a senator to advise and consent. Before any obligation to “get along” is one’s duty to one’s constitutional obligations and the welfare of the nation.

As Senator Ted Cruz said,

“Of course comity is important, but comity does not mean avoiding the truth concerning a nominee’s policy record…”

So why, Senator McCain, are you giving consent to Senator Hagel as Defense Secretary when you think he is incompetent?

PS: To those who think not staging a filibuster or not otherwise holding up Hagel’s nomination is somehow different from voting to confirm him, I answer “don’t be naive.” The Democrats have enough votes to carry the nomination, particularly if a national security hawk like McCain will no longer try to block it. In this case, dropping opposition is the same as voting to confirm.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Presented for your approval: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul school Barack Obama

So, last night was the State of the Union address. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t watch. First off, Obama’s a tedious, hackneyed speaker, and listening to him for an hour would be painful. If you did, you’re made of sterner stuff than I.

Second, we know what he’s going to say. As I posted on Twitter yesterday morning:

#SOTUinLesssThan140 Set up straw man, present false choice, bash critics, pretend moderation, wage class war.

— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) February 12, 2013

And, from what I can see in the transcript, he mostly lived down to my expectations. (1)

But I was interested in the Republican response. For one, prior response speeches have ranged from indifferent to outright flops, but, as this was the first speech of Obama’s second term, there was a chance to begin anew and to lay the first paving stones on the road to 2014 and 2016. Also, the speakers were two men whose careers I’ve followed with interest: Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fl)  and Rand Paul (R-Ky). Both, I think, gave very good responses, concentrating on philosophy over wonky policy details and providing an excellent contrast between our vision of limited government, liberty, and free markets, on the one hand, and Obama’s progressive dream of limitless government, statism, and dependency on the other.

First, Marco Rubio (2):

And then Rand Paul:

While I have points of disagreement with both men, I could comfortably, happily vote for either for president. Along with Governor Jindal of Louisiana, I think we have at least three strong candidates for 2016, and a great improvement over the last group.

Footnotes:
(1) About that proposed $9 per hour minimum wage, indexed to inflation. I suggest anyone who thinks that’s a good idea look up the words “inflationary spiral.” Government should have no role in setting prices or wages, period. It’s just bad policy.
(2) You probably noticed the awkward moment when Rubio reached for a bottle of water. According to actor Adam Baldwin on Twitter last night, that was a sign that the producers screwed up and left the room too warm, which, when combined with the hot lights, left Rubio dying of thirst. He handled it well that night and this morning, though, making jokes about it and disarming the inevitable “OMG!! He drank water!” attacks from the Left.  (Really, guys. Is that the best you’ve got?)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Another Hypocritical Leftist Caught with His Hand in the Tax-Haven Cookie Jar

Reblogged from International Liberty:

• 
• 

I'm a huge fan of so-called tax havens. I've been working for more than 10 years to protect and promote the values of tax competition, fiscal sovereignty, and financial privacy.

The bureaucrats at the OECD even threatened to have me tossed in a Mexican jail because I was advising representatives of low-tax jurisdictions on how best to resist fiscal imperialism.

Read more… 625 more words

An example of something pointed out years ago by Peter Schweizer: When conservatives betray their professed principles, they hurt themselves; when the left betrays their principles, they benefit.

(Video) #Benghazi: Sen. Rand Paul to Hillary – “I would have relieved you.”

Yes! Exactly!

It’s the eternal way in Washington: “We are all responsible” means “No one is responsible” means “Don’t hold me responsible.”

Especially when the person saying it really is one of those responsible.

I’m liking Rand Paul a lot right now.

via the Washington Free Beacon

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Marco Rubio tells Colin Powell to stop being a tool

Victim of Republican intolerance?

Well, not in so many words, but that was the gist of the Florida senator’s remarks during an interview this morning, when asked about former-Secretary of State Powell’s assertions of hidden racism in the Republican party:

I disagree with General Powell’s assessment of the Republican Party today,” Rubio said.

“The Republican Party is the party that [has] placed two Hispanics in the U.S. Senate,” Rubio told Tantros, “and we have an African-American senator in the United States Senate.”

Republican intolerance is so bad that, not only do we include two Hispanics (Rubio, Cruz) and one Black (Scott), but also two governors of Indian descent (Haley, Jindal) and two of Latin origin (Martinez, Sandoval). Much as I loathe ethnic bean-counting (1), if the Democrats are going to trot out their useful idiots to smear Republicans and conservatives with the race card, then it’s fair to ask where are the Democrats’ high-level minority leaders?

They might find the answer “embarrassing as Hell:”

Inclusive?

And let’s not forget Colin Powell, himself, who was made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State under Republican administrations, and has at times almost been begged to be that party’s candidate for president.

Yeah, that’s “intolerant,” all right. Everyone knows that appointment to the senior-most position in the president’s cabinet, fourth in line from the Oval Office,  is just another demeaning form of tokenism.

What a shnook.

RELATED: “Dark vein of intolerance,” Mr. Secretary? Perhaps you need a little lesson about the Democrats’ dirty history.

PS: Funny how Powell was trotted out to play the race card right after the storm broke over the photo above. Almost as if the administration needed a distraction…

UPDATE: I want everyone reading this to look at these two pictures and tell me which administration seems more genuinely “diverse and inclusive.”

Footnote:
(1) As a conservative, I care about a person’s principles and the content of their character, not irrelevancies such as skin color, ethnicity, or gender. I’ll leave that insulting game to Democrats and their willing dupes.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Obama a “narcissistic amateur” and “unworthy”

Wow. The Review-Journal is Nevada’s biggest paper and, while they endorsed McCain in 2008, I never expected they would go after Obama in such harsh terms. After ripping him (justifiably) for his handling of the Benghazi fiasco, this is how they conclude:

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy – though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” He added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama’s future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” – $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he’s in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he’s powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.

These behaviors go far beyond “spin.” They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation’s economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie “Dr. Strangelove,” would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn’t fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it’s time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.

That’s going to leave a mark. 

Go, read the whole article; it’s a thing of beauty. And I hope the Review-Journal’s readers take its advice.

via Instapundit

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Hurricane #Sandy and a tale of two campaigns

Call it a study in character, where actions speak louder than words:

As Sandy slammed into the East Coast, the Romney campaign in Virginia asked supporters to bring relief supplies to its campaign offices, which it would then distribute on one of its own buses:

Having canceled campaign events in the area, Romney spokespeople are saying the bus will be used to transport donations of basic supplies to those in need.

“Bring donations to VA Victory offices. Romney bus will deliver them to those affected by #Sandy. #RomneyRyan2012,” Curt Cashour, Romney’s Virginia communications director, tweeted.

ABC’s Emily Friedman added: “Romney campaign will load storm relief supplies into Romney bus in Arlington Va today an will collect supplies at all VA victory offices.”

Conservative-leaning sites are describing the move as a “true example of leadership,” though the more politically cynical could interpret the move as a shrewd campaign strategy to shake off Romney’s “elitist” image.

And from CNN:

“Governor Romney’s concern is the safety and well-being of those in the path of Hurricane Sandy,” Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Monday morning.

The campaign is loading supplies into a campaign bus for delivery in Virginia. In Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania – all battleground states in the presidential campaign and all expected to be impacted by this storm – Team Romney is collecting supplies at their campaign offices for local relief efforts.

Now, I have no doubt the cynics mentioned in the first quote have a point; I’m sure anyone in the Romney campaign with more than minimal wits can see the potential political benefit in this.

But I also have no doubt that scoring political points is of secondary concern to the candidate and his campaign, well-behind a straightforward urge to help during a crisis. The Romneys are well known for their acts of charity and kindness, several examples of which we heard about during the convention. I’ll point to just one: the time when “heartless capitalist” Mitt Romney essentially shut down “evil” Bain Capital to lead his staff in a search for a missing girl.

Contrast that with the Obama campaign. Sure, the president flew to D.C. to monitor developments regarding the storm (1), but what was the Obama campaign doing during Sandy?

Asking supporters in the affected areas to call other people to stump for The One.

GOT A PHONE? GET HIS BACK. CALL.BARACKOBAMA.COM

Classy, no?

And before anyone says “that’s just the campaigns,” think about this: the campaign reflects the candidate. Each candidate sets the tone and attitude of their respective campaign, and each campaign absorbs the values and priorities of its candidate.

One campaign redirects itself to help those in need. The other says “Hey, you’ve got nothing better to do, how about making some calls for our guy?”

Think about that. Think about what it says about the character of each man and then ask yourself which candidate would serve the nation better in the Oval Office.

I think the answer’s pretty clear.

PS: Romney-Ryan 2012, because after four years I’m sick of narcissistic, callow jackasses in the White House.

PPS: You may not have your own bus, but you can still help.

Footnote:
(1) So, he thinks it’s important to be in D.C. to monitor Hurricane Sandy, but, when our consulate was under attack and our people dying in Benghazi, he went to bed? Okay….

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Obama’s apology tour and last night’s debate

I didn’t watch the debate last night (1), but I saw on Twitter that Governor Romney went after the President for his simultaneously smug-yet-craven “apology tour” of the Middle East in 2009. Obama, of course, denied that’s what he had done, but Romney wouldn’t let it go. And, sure enough, it appears as an ad today. I think it’s effective:

It works on several levels, contrasting the chaotic, anti-American  state of the Mideast today, without mentioning it, to Obama’s pusillanimous attempts to curry favor there just three years ago. It leaves the viewer asking, “What good did he do?” The answer isn’t good for Obama.

Compare how the two men are presented, too: Romney as respectful, but firm and in-command of the facts. Obama, on the other hand, looked… odd. Like a petulant student mocking his teacher by staring too intently, almost a caricature. While one could argue that’s just the editor at work, from what I read last night, that was the demeanor of both men through much of the debate. If so, I think the average American liked what they saw in Romney, and quite the contrary in Obama.

We’ll see in the next few days as the polls begin to account for last night.

via Power Line

Footnote:
1) Hey, football was on! There are priorities in life, ya know.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) “He’s only had four years”

Another good ad from the Romney campaign, contrasting Governor Romney’s record of accomplishment over his four year term with President Obama’s in his. I think it’s especially effecting when comparing Romney’s ability to work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature in Massachusetts to Obama’s utter failure to work in any meaningful way with the Republican House:

PS: Romney-Ryan 2012, because it would be dumb to give another four years to the guy who wasted the first four.

via Blue Crab Boulevard

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) Friday Funnies: Mitt Romney, comedian

Both Governor Romney and President Obama spoke last night at the Al Smith dinner, hosted annually by the Alfred E. Smith Foundation in New York City. It’s quite the event and, during election years, it’s a chance for presidential nominees to poke some fun at each other and themselves.

That they did, and I heard Obama was actually pretty good. But I never, ever expected a man with as wooden a reputation as Romney’s to turn out to be such a  funny guy:

Enjoy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Romney closing on Obama in… Michigan??

Signs of an electoral apocalypse?

A new statewide poll shows a tight race between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, as well as growing enthusiasm among Republicans for their nominee.

Released Wednesday, the poll of 600 likely voters showed Obama leading Romney in Michigan, 44.2 percent to 40.5 percent, but Romney also within the sampling error of 4 percentage points — meaning it’s a tight race.

The poll was conducted by the Michigan polling firm Denno Research and commissioned by Grand Rapids-based Lambert, Edwards & Associates, which also has offices in Lansing. Dennis Denno, president of Denno Research, also is chief of staff to state Sen. Virgil Smith Jr., D-Detroit.

Note that last: this is a Democratic poll. Maybe the partial nationalization of the auto industry isn’t as popular as assumed?

Also:

In addition, the poll found that Romney had a 6 percent lead over Obama with independent voters — 36 percent to 30 percent — strengthening Romney’s chances of closing the gap.

This is crucial: Obama may or may not have “fired up” his core Democratic supporters after the last debate, but it’s the unaligned who provided him with much of his margin of victory in 2008. If Romney, who’s already enjoying growing Republican enthusiasm according to the poll, is stealing the independents, then we may find Team Obama having to spend its scarcest resource, campaign time, not as much as they’d like in genuine battleground states, but in states that should be safe for them, such as Minnesota.

Looks to me like they’re the ones playing defense, falling back to their second line of fortifications while denying rumors that they’re abandoning their outer works in North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado. Romney still isn’t likely to win Minnesota or Michigan (though I predict a red Pennsylvania), but that more and more polls in Blue states are narrowing has to worry them with the election so near; that they spend any time or money in those places at all is a visible sign of this.

Or consider it another way: when was the last time Romney-Ryan campaigned in Texas?

Maybe an electoral strategy based on Big Bird, binders, and Tagg Romney’s violent urges doesn’t resonate with the American public?

What. A. Shock.

via Hot Air

UPDATE: Beware of irrational exuberance, but Gallup has Romney up 52-45 in likely voters. Analyst Sean Trende is reasonably skeptical. But it sure is pretty.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Romney gains on Obama… in California??

Closing the gap eight points, post-debate. That sound you hear is panic buttons being hit in Chicago and the White House:

The effects of President Barack Obama’s falter in the first debate with Mitt Romney are not just being felt in battleground states, according to KPIX-TV CBS 5′s latest tracking poll of California which shows Romney slicing eight points off Obama’s lead.

Obama had led by 22 points in the CBS 5 tracking poll released four weeks ago. Obama now leads by only 14 points, an 8-point improvement for Romney. At the same time, the poll found U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s support for her re-election bid remained largely unchanged, month-on-month, suggesting that the erosion in Democratic support is not across-the-board, but contained to Obama. Unclear is whether the Obama erosion is fleeting or long-lasting.

The poll data released Wednesday showed Obama 53%, Romney 39%, in California. Obama carried the Golden State by 24 points in 2008, so the poll found Obama is now running 10 points weaker than he ran 4 years ago. Among Independents, Obama led by 14 in September, but now trails by 9 in October, a 23-point right turn among the most coveted voters. One explanation, based on the poll data: The number of Romney supporters who said they were voting “for Mitt Romney” as opposed to “against Barack Obama” is way up, month over month.

In other words, there’s almost no way Romney wins California –this state will be one of the last pockets of resistance when all else fails for the Democrats– but the trend is most definitely not Obama’s friend. If Romney is showing traction in here in La-La Land, then Team Hopenchange have to be wondering what’s happening in genuine battleground states in the West, such as Nevada  or Colorado. And if Romney surge lasts or, especially, accelerates after the next debates, Obama might find himself having to defend his grip on the Golden State, diverting money and time needed elsewhere.

Good Lord. We might actually be treated as something other than an ATM. I think I need smelling salts…

I’ll note that Survey USA doesn’t provide partisan breakdowns, but anything other than a large D and I factions with a small R component wouldn’t make much sense, which means the swing in the Independent vote explains his gains. What I’d really like to see is The One’s numbers among Democrats: while the core liberal elites and the “47 percenters” in the Bay Area and Los Angeles won’t go Republican, with the state’s miserable unemployment numbers and lousy business environment, there may be a fair number of working-class and small entrepreneur Democrats willing to jump ship for a candidate who knows how jobs are created. Without seeing the breakdowns, however, that’s just a guess.

Other items to note: Sadly, Diane Feinstein’s “Opponent? What opponent?” strategy appears to be working, as Elizabeth Emken is getting almost no traction beyond the Republican base. This is a very expensive state for advertising and, without the free media time a debate would provide Emken, Feinstein can afford to ignore her. In fact, she’s smart to. Why give the opponent any opening? Still, it’s a shame. Feinstein is an aging mediocrity who in no way deserves reelection, while Emken has solid policy ideas.

Regarding California’s ballot propositions, it looks like Prop 34, to eliminate the death penalty, is going down to defeat. Once again, the public is showing it wants the law enforced and for the worst criminals to get what they deserve, but the left-wing elites do all they can to block executions, hoping to hold out until we eventually give in.

Fat chance.

And it looks like momentum is shifting against Prop 37, a loopy, anti-scientific measure to require labeling on some genetically modified foods but not all. Like measures meant to “fight global warming,” this looks like a response to a problem that doesn’t exist; I’ve yet to see any solid evidence that genetically modified foods are harmful. What it will do, though, is increase sales costs, which will of course be passed on to the consumer, as well new income opportunities for trial lawyers.

Ever notice it’s the little guy who gets hit hardest by liberal measures we’re told are meant to help us? Hmmm…

PS: Hey, California! Romney-Ryan 2012.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Mitt Romney pays his own way… and tips well, too!

After a campaign stop in Florida, Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, had a craving for Cuban food, so they stopped for takeout at La Teresita in St. Petersburg (1). The staff didn’t want to let them pay, but the Romneys wouldn’t hear of it:

Mitt Romney is believed to have amassed a fortune of more than $200million from his career as a private equity boss.

So he can certainly afford to pay for his own takeout food as he travels around America on the campaign trail.

And when the Republican presidential candidate visited a Cuban diner in Florida yesterday, he insisted on being treated like an average customer.

(…)

During the unscheduled visit, the couple picked up some pastries and a serving of soup.

The restaurant staff refused to allow the multi-millionaire to pay for his order – but Mr Romney eventually prevailed, leaving a $40 tip.

Contrast that with a certain other candidate who, um… “forgot” to pay.

Good move all around on the Romney’s part: not only does he have to woo Cuban-Americans to win Florida’s electoral votes, not only do they see that the multi-millionaire pays like anyone else, but Cuban food is also good. I love Cubano sandwiches. Throw in some fried plantains and lemonade and I’m one happy blogger.

And, of course, no candidate can go without posing with babies:

(Courtesy Daily Mail)

Awww….

via Blue Crab Boulevard

Footnote:
(1) The article says St. Petersburg, but the Web says Tampa. Judging from the photos, I think I have the right web site…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

When you’ve lost the New Yorker

This has gotta hurt:

Clint Eastwood wins. Again.

via Power Line.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The Graph All Obama Supporters Must Confront: Far Fewer People Working Today Than Four Years Ago

Reblogged from blogs4mitt:

Please send this to any and all of your Obama supporting acquaintances and feel free to use it on your website.   The graph represents the labor participation rate for the past 10 years.  As you can see, when Obama took office 65.7% of adults were working.  Today, that number has decreased to 63.5%.

(Click for Bigger) Chart by Ycharts

Put another way, about…

Read more… 149 more words

Anyone voting for Obama in the face of a record like this must have been hitting the Hopium pipe, hard.

Hearing her master’s voice? @stefcutter cites Chinese news to attack Mitt Romney

Barack Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, Stephanie Cutter, retweets an article critical of Mitt Romney from a Communist Chinese news agency:

Must read:China’s Xinhua slams Romney for making his money off Chinese companies before running for pres. #hypocrisy reut.rs/Ou5wIr

— Stephanie Cutter (@stefcutter) September 14, 2012

Well, hey, y’know? Her boss has borrowed all that money from China, she’d better listen to what they say!

Mitt Romney: attacked by Red China.

Barack Obama: endorsed by Hugo Chavez.

Hmmm…

PS: In case you were wondering, this is indeed the same Stephanie Cutter who was caught in a horrific lie when Priorities USA tried to link Mitt Romney to the death of a woman from cancer.

via David Steinberg

UPDATE: It’s evidently the coordinated Democratic talking point of the day. No mention of dead diplomats or burning embassies, though.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)