Michael Tomasky’s raging progressive bigotry

December 8, 2014
Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

Michael Tomasky’s South

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the worst reactionary bigots I’ve ever met have all been on the Left. Case in point:

I’d never heard of Michael Tomasky before this morning, when my feed reader was suddenly full of commentary about his anti-South screed at The Daily Beast. Apparently the recent disaster the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections set him to boiling, and Mary Landrieu’s defeat over the weekend in the Louisiana runoff blew the lid off:

Practically the whole region has rejected nearly everything that’s good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment. A fact made even sadder because on the whole they’re such nice people! (I truly mean that.)

With Landrieu’s departure, the Democrats will have no more senators from the Deep South, and I say good. Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway.

“They’re such nice people, but I really hate their guts!”

Mikey then goes on to say there are some parts of the South the Democrats really do need, but, for the rest, he wishes secession had succeeded, because they just aren’t real Americans down there.

Yeesh. Look, Mike. I know the election was hard on you. From Texas to the Atlantic, there is now only one Democratic statewide officeholder in the Old Confederacy. Landrieu lost a seat the Democrats held since I think the 1870s (1). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think every state legislature in the South is now in Republican hands, too.

I get it. This is tough on you. It can’t be easy being rejected when you’re so cock-sure of your own side’s intellectual and moral superiority. I only hope you didn’t smash the keyboard while writing your tirade.

I’d like to think the election results would have lead you and your fellow progressives to reflect on why you lost so badly in that part of the country. What policies lead to your rejection? What was it about what the Democrats were offering that made so many say “no, thanks?”

But, no. You and so many like you in the progressive commentariat already know the answer, no self-reflection needed: “They’re all a bunch of mouth-breathing Jesus-fetishists who just don’t know what’s good for them, so we should just tell them to go to Hell!”

If that’s the case, Mike, how do you explain Colorado and Iowa, where Republicans won the Senate races? Or New Mexico and Nevada, where Latino Republicans won reelection for governor? Or deep-Blue Maryland and Massachusetts, where Republicans also won the elections for governor? I’ve never been to Maryland, but I know it ain’t a “Free-Market Jesus Paradise.”

If you want to find the real bigot suffering from “choleric resentment,” Mike, try looking in the mirror.

Footnote:
(1) You know, when Reconstruction ended and the Democrats returned to power, using Jim Crow laws and their allied terrorist groups, such as the KKK, to make sure Blacks could never vote Republican — or often not at all. There’s a good book on all that and more.

RELATED: Also writing on this are Jonah Goldberg, Charles Cooke, and Noah Rothman.

Correction: When I wrote “only one Democratic statewide officeholder,” I was thinking of Governor McAuliffe in Virginia. I forgot about Senator Nelson in Florida. Still, the party is almost extinct in statewide offices.


Obama Still Behind The Learning Curve On Midterm Shellacking (Video)

November 9, 2014

The sign of a true narcissist: everyone is wrong except him. He won’t learn from his mistakes because, in his mind, he hasn’t made any.

Nice Deb

There seemed to be the consensus among the political wags on the Sunday talk shows, today.  The president still hasn’t gotten the message from the mid term shellacking  nor does he seem to grasp that he’s going to have to compromise with Republicans. Furthermore, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that his left-wing agenda has been rejected by the American people.

Bob Woodward, was taken aback by the president’s interview with Bob Schieffer, Sunday, making a great point about the president’s attitude toward the Republican congress. Basically Obama is going to do them the great favor of running his dictats past them before he whips out his pen.

“He said he’s going to reach out to the other side to persuade and sell,” Woodward noted. “Now, if you’re going to reach out to get done something, one of the things you’re going to do is listen. But we didn’t hear

View original post 456 more words


So, now the President of the United States is hearing voices in his head?

November 7, 2014
"My mandate is supreme!"

“My mandate is supreme!”

Man, the Great Shellacking II must have been hard on our 44th Chief Executive (1). He’s now claiming he can hear those who didn’t vote, and that his imaginary friends gave him a bigger mandate than that of the incoming Republican Congress:

President Obama did something extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented, in his post-election news conference Wednesday: He claimed a mandate on behalf of voters who didn’t vote.

“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you,” the president said. “To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

What did that mean? What did those non-voters say?

It would probably be more useful to ask what the president heard. And apparently Obama heard expressions of support from non-voters across the land.

The president explained that many more voters turned out when he was elected, and then re-elected, than in Tuesday’s midterms that left Republicans firmly in control of House and Senate. “One of the things that I’m very proud of in 2008 and 2012, when I ran for office, was we got people involved who hadn’t been involved before,” Obama said. “Part of what I also think we’ve got to look at is that two-thirds of people who were eligible to vote just didn’t vote.”

Of course, more than one-third of the people who were eligible to vote in Obama’s two presidential elections didn’t vote then, either. But Obama’s message to Republicans was unmistakable: My mandate is bigger than your mandate.

Oh, dear. It looks like our “constitutional scholar” president needs a lesson in American politics. Don’t worry, sir, I’ll make it easy for you:

In 2008, you and your party did indeed have a mandate —  a mandate to restore prosperity after a financial panic and crash. That is why you were elected and that is why you had insuperable majorities in both chambers of Congress. You had a free hand.

But, you blew it.

You wasted nearly a trillion dollars, much of it borrowed, on a “stimulus” program that was a utter failure and a pork fiesta. You then devoted you and your party’s energies to passing a national healthcare law that the majority of the nation never wanted. And you rammed it through by constitutionally questionable methods that left Americans aghast at your arrogance. The one thing you didn’t do was was the one thing the electorate asked you to do: make us prosperous again.

So, in 2010, the people took your mandate away by giving the House to the Republicans, meaning a majority of those voting across the nation gave the Republicans a mandate to put the brakes on your plans.

Fast forward to 2012. You won reelection, much to the nation’s, the world’s, and my regret. You also won with fewer votes than 2008 and a smaller percentage of the vote. The Republicans also retained control of the House. That, sir, is not a mandate for anything than “learn to work and play well with the Opposition,” which you failed to do.

And now here we are in 2014. For various and sundry reasons we won’t go into (2), the voting public took away control of the Senate; increased the Republican majority in the House to levels not seen in 70 years; and took even more gubernatorial offices and state legislative chambers from your party. That is not a mandate to you for anything other than to grow up and act like a responsible adult charged with leading the greatest nation on Earth, and not like a petulant, self-absorbed 16 year old.

This, Mr. President, is how are system works. Midterm elections are times when the people can affirm the status quo, or issue orders for a correction. When the win is big enough, it can be considered a mandate. The 2014 midterm election really was a mandate — for the Republicans and for a correction.

And that mandate can only be conferred by those who actually care enough to get off their butts, put down their cell phones, and go out and vote. Not by a mysterious, vague, known only by you, secret message-sending 2/3rds who couldn’t be arsed to cast a ballot. And, no, you don’t have the power to divine what they really must’ve meant.

Stop listening to those imaginary voices, Mr. President, and start listening to the people who spoke and spoke loudly last Tuesday.

Do that, and you may salvage something from the last two years of your presidency.

Footnote:
(1) And, by his own estimation, the fourth-greatest president ever.
(2) Summary: It was because you and your crew are frighteningly incompetent.

UPDATE: Linked by Pirate’s Cove. Thanks!


Election Day +1: about last night

November 5, 2014

That was quite a night last night, wasn’t it?

Pardon me, I know it’s immature, but I’ve waited a long while to do this:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

smiley dance smiley cheering smiley thumbs up smiley loser smiley cool hey babe  smiley devil smiley big grin

 

Whew. There. I feel better now. smiley blush

Anyway, let’s review what happened in the Great Shellacking Part II (1), courtesy of those fine fellows at Real Clear Politics. Click the links for larger, updated versions:

First, the Senate. It was beautiful:

Senate 2014

Not only did the Republicans wrest control of the Senate from that vile wretch Harry Reid, but they added plenty of seats to give themselves a cushion for 2016, when many of their own seats will be up for grabs. Things officially stand at a net gain of 7, but with Alaska all but officially a Sullivan victory and Mary Landrieu an almost certain dead duck in the coming runoff, I fully expect a final number of plus-9. That, my friends, is not just a wave, but a tsunami. And with Senator Angus King of Maine (I) sure to seek the best deal he can get, expect an effect 55-45 Republican majority for the next two years.

I had predicted plus-8, but I am happy to be wrong. I was also wrong about my surprise pick, expecting Scott Brown to win in New Hampshire. While I’m sorry to see he didn’t, I was overjoyed at Thom Tillis beating the corrupt incumbent, Kay Hagan, in North Carolina. Congratulations to my blog buddy Sister Toldjah for pulling it off. She and a lot of Carolina conservatives worked their fannies off for this win, and I couldn’t be more thrilled for them.

I was also happy to see State Senator Joni Ernst beat the laughable Bruce Braley in Iowa and Rep. Cory Gardner defeat the monomaniacal Senator Uterus Udall in Colorado.

The schadenfreude was sweet, my friends.

Then, the House. Biggest Republican majority since at least 1946 (some say 1928):

House 2014

Plus-13 for the majority party in an era when both parties are despised seems amazing to me, but the Republicans pulled it off. And they may pick up a few more, depending on how a few close California (!) races shake out. Well done, Nancy Pelosi! I hope they keep you in the Minority Leader’s job for years to come.

And finally, the gubernatorial races, which held some pleasant shockers:

Governors 2014

Amazingly, the Republicans held Kansas (handily) and Florida when both incumbents had been almost given up for dead, and picked up Arkansas, Massachusetts (!), Maryland (!!), and Illinois (!!!), losing only Pennsylvania. That gives the Republicans 31 governors, which may be the largest in decades.

Now, with all that good news, the question remains, what do the Republicans do?

Naturally, like any good self-important blogger, I have some advice for the respective caucuses.

First, do NOT impeach Barack Obama. Seriously. Unless he ax-murders a convent full of nuns and orphans on national TV or declares himself Emperor, just forget it. The nation did not elect you to overturn the 2012 election, and no national consensus exists for his removal, a political prerequisite for successful impeachment and removal. Democrats may be shell-shocked after what just happened, but, I guarantee you there will be no way to get the needed crossover votes for removal. I agree he richly deserves impeachment, but it would be wasted effort and a self-inflicted wound for our side. If you want to prove to the public that all their worst fears about irresponsible politicians are true, you would find no better way than jumping foaming at the mouth on an impeachment bandwagon.

And it would be just what Obama and his Alinskyite allies would want.

But that does not mean we cannot play hardball with Obama. Republicans should put him on the spot by passing good, sensible measures –such as approving the Keystone XL pipeline– that have real benefits for the average American, and then dare The One to veto them. We may not be able to override those vetoes, but, with his shield-bearer in the Senate, Harry Reid, now in the minority, he won’t be able to hide from tough decisions any longer. Go ahead, repeal Obamacare and replace it with a good free-market solution. Open up drilling off our coasts. Relax coal regulations and thus lower energy prices for the masses. Pass one good measure after another and force Obama to either take an unpopular stand or acquiesce, thus frustrating his core supporters.

Just keep in mind we won’t be able to override most vetoes. That doesn’t mean we don’t fight, but don’t expect much in the way of positive policy results until (we hope) we have control of both Congress and the presidency in 2017.

The same with Obama and executive actions. The presidency is powerful (perhaps too powerful) and Obama can do a lot with his infamous phone and pen. But now, with control of both chambers, Congress can make statist bureaucrats’ lives miserable with hearings and public exposure, as well as educational budget cuts (2). Congress’ investigatory and budget powers are among its most powerful weapons for reining in the Executive. Don’t be afraid to use them.

Just use them judiciously, with wisdom and prudence. Do that, and the people will be ready for real hope and change in the White House in 2016.

But also feel free to bask for a bit in the afterglow of that wonderful night last night.

Footnotes:
(1) For my comments on the Great Shellacking Part I, go here.
(2) Which will much more effective now that we have both chambers of Congress and don’t have to deal with Harry “We’re not votin’ on nuthin'” Reid.

RELATED: Yuval Levin on the right agenda for a Republican congress.


Election Day: “Forth, and fear no darkness!”

November 4, 2014

Today is it, folks. The day of decision. After six years of being governed by the most left-wing administration in US History, as well as the most feckless since James Buchanan; after six years of suffering under incompetent boobs (save for their outstanding competence at corruption and cronyism) who treat the Constitution and the Rule of Law like a twenty-dollar hooker; after six appalling years that weakened the nation, abased us before our enemies, and betrayed our allies; after all that, we get our say.

I’ve been thinking of how to describe my mood this day, a mood of both determination and elation, of standing on the verge of liberation. And it came to me that mere words wouldn’t do, but that a film clip (1) would capture it perfectly:

We have them on the run, folks. They’re nervous, ready to break. But now is not the time to let up. If you haven’t voted yet, then turn off the computer and get off your duff and vote! For a Republican Senate, for Minority Leader Harry Reid, and the Founders’ America. Its time to send the Progressives howling, back into the wilderness. An informed and determined freeborn citizen is what they fear. Remind them of why. Go. Vote.

Forth, and fear no darkness!

PS:  I’m sure there are those who will see all sorts of “racist dog whistles” in this post. (“He said ‘darkness!’ I must tweet Chris Matthews about this!”) That’s your problem. I happen to be a big Lord of the Rings fan, and that scene is the greatest cavalry charge in movie history. Ever. And it reflects perfectly how I feel about today.

PPS: This is a reposting of my election day post from 2012, slightly altered for today. Plus, it’s a great excuse to use that clip again. 🙂

Footnote:
(1)The first minute or so can be seen (kinda sorta) as a metaphor of the last six years, starting on election night, 2008. But once the horns blow, that’s today, baby. Charge!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Is President Obama a Republican mole?

October 21, 2014

barack obama capitol

Sometimes I think that’s the only explanation. Consider what’s happened: More than half the nation wants to repeal and replace his signature legislation, Obamacare; if you add in those who want to just repeal it, you’re pushing 60%. In 2010 the nation punished the Democrats with huge federal and state losses. The 2009 “stimulus” bill was a big, fat failure that only rewarded cronies and drove up the national debt. His foreign policy is a shambles in a way we haven’t seen since the lowest days of Jimmy Carter’s maladministration. His administration has utterly bungled the Ebola crisis. His job approval rating has been mired in the low 40% for months. All this and more have given incumbent Democratic senators and candidates seeking to unseat Republicans good reason to run screaming from Obama and his policies to try save their party’s grip on the federal Senate. Some will do anything to avoid saying they voted for him.

But, for some reason, Obama won’t let them run away, regardless of his protestations otherwise. First he said that his policies are definitely on the ballot, in effect declaring this a referendum election on him. Democrat candidates in difficult races across the country did a collective face-palm.

But then in an interview with MSNBC’s Al Sharpton, discussing incumbents running for reelection in states that voted against him in 2012, which are most of those holding elections in this cycle,  Obama doubled down:

Here’s a partial transcript:

“The bottom line is tough, these are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in Congress…” and “These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me,…”

Those sounds you hear are Mark Pryor, Allison Lundergan Grimes, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Mark Udall, Bruce Braley, and other Democrat candidates all speed-dialing to look for lobbying jobs after the election. Because, with Obama’s “help,” that’s the only way they’re going to D.C.

Maybe it’s his ego overwhelming his common sense, but, whatever the reason, President Obama may be the Republicans’ best friend in this election.


Impeachment: the Democrats’ briar-patch strategy

August 13, 2014

briar patch

You can tell the Democrats are desperately worried about the upcoming elections. How, you ask? Well, instead of running on their “accomplishments” –you know, Obamacare, the economy, foreign affairs, and other stunning successes (1)– the Democrats and their flacks in the MSM have running around with their hair on fire screaming that those radical, knuckle-dragging RAAAAACIST!!! Republicans are going to impeach President Obama. In fact, they’ve been fundraising like crazy off the idea.

Anyway, the latest barker in this carnival sideshow has been Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC):

and

That last is the key: with only a lousy record to run on, the Democrats have to resort to scare tactics to get their base motivated. The generic congressional ballot, a poll that measures party preference between “any Republican” and “any Democrat,” just looks bad for them (2). And if their core voters don’t get motivated and instead stay home, “bad” could easily turn to “God-awful.”

Hence the cries of “OMG! Impeachment alert!”

Now, mind you, Obama deserves impeachment and removal from office. Not only is he dangerously incompetent, but his contempt for our constitutional settlement risks doing grave damage to our political system. Not since Nixon, perhaps even in the history of our Republic, has there been a president who so richly merited it. I dare say I’d be willing to put up with “President Biden” (3), if I thought we could carry it off. It would at least provide a good reminder to future presidents that there are indeed limits to what they can get away with.

But it won’t work, not with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, and probably not even after the Republicans (likely) takeover of the Senate in 2015. There’s just no way that we could command the two-thirds of the Senate needed for removal, absent Obama declaring himself emperor. And perhaps even then, given the Democrats’ loyalty to their party and their donors over their duty to the Constitution.

Also, we’re lacking an element that’s key to a successful presidential impeachment: broad public consensus that it needs to be done. Former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy has written an important book, Faithless Execution, detailing both the strong constitutional grounds for impeaching Obama and the need for the electorate’s agreement before that can be done successfully. If you’re going to overturn an election and reelection, the nation has to be onboard. Forcing a trial before the political spade work has been done will only roil the nation to no end, likely end in an acquittal that would be interpreted as vindicating Obama in his abuses, and probably turn large segments of the uncommitted middle away from the Republicans, whom they would blame for the turmoil, thanks to Obama’s praetorian guard in the media.

This would not be good for us in the coming elections; thus, it is exactly what the Democrats want. They are Br’er Rabbit and they want us to throw them in that briar patch.

Let’s not do Jim Clyburn any favors.

via The Hill

PS: I’ve described my preferred strategy here.

Footnotes:
(1) Insert sarcasm as needed.
(2) Democrats typically have a decent lead in that poll. When Republicans are roughly tied or have a lead, it’s considered a Very Bad Omen for the Donkey Party’s fortunes.
(3) As long as he promised not to touch anything.


#KYsen: Allison Grimes, national security sooper-genius

July 30, 2014
Perfect against tunneling jihadis!

Perfect against tunneling jihadis!

Federal senators deal with issues of national and international importance, including matters of war and peace, and overall national security. You would think, then, that someone wishing to ascend to the Senate would at least know the basics about a game-changing weapon wielded by one of our key allies, who happens to be in a shooting war.

That is, until you meet Kentucky Democrat Allison Lundergan Grimes:

As foreign policy inches its way into a debate that has largely focused on the economy, Grimes was asked about congressional efforts to aid Israel’s missile defense system, known as the Iron Dome.

“Obviously, Israel is one of our strongest allies in the Middle East, and she has the right to defend herself,” Grimes said. “But the loss of life, especially the innocent civilians in Gaza, is a tragedy. The Iron Dome has been a big reason why Israel has been able to withstand the terrorists that have tried to tunnel their way in.

Iron Dome — as normal, intelligent folks such as you, Dear Readers, can probably tell without needing the above highlighting — is a missile-defense system. It is designed to shoot down things flying through the air: incoming tactical rockets with only minutes or seconds to spare, and it does an amazingly good job at it. One thing it does not do is stop things tunneling under the ground, jihadis or even gophers.

Someone should explain these tricky technical details to Ms. Grimes.

Grimes is hoping to defeat Mitch McConnell and capture his seat for the Democrats, and it’s a tight race. While McConnell hasn’t been one of my favorite senators, he also doesn’t give me the gas that he gives many of my fellow Righties. Regardless of one’s opinion of him, though, I think we can agree that it’s important that his seat be kept in Republican hands, for the Republic.

Even against a defense wiz like Allison Lundergan Grimes.

via Jim Geraghty

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#MTsen: Who does John Walsh think he is? Joe Biden?

July 23, 2014
Cheater?

Cheater?

Well, this is embarrassing. The Democratic nominee for the seat once held by Max Baucus (D – Train Wreck), who is now Ambassador to China, has been called out by no less than that arch-conservative rag The New York Times for plagiarizing his Army War College master’s thesis:

Democrats were thrilled when John Walsh of Montana was appointed to the United States Senate in February. A decorated veteran of the Iraq war and former adjutant general of his state’s National Guard, Mr. Walsh offered the Democratic Party something it frequently lacks: a seasoned military man.

On the campaign trail this year, Mr. Walsh, 53, has made his military service a main selling point. Still wearing his hair close-cropped, he notes he was targeted for killing by Iraqi militants and says his time in uniform informs his views on a range of issues.

But one of the highest-profile credentials of Mr. Walsh’s 33-year military career appears to have been improperly attained. An examination of the final paper required for Mr. Walsh’s master’s degree from the United States Army War College indicates the senator appropriated at least a quarter of his thesis on American Middle East policy from other authors’ works, with no attribution.

Mr. Walsh completed the paper, what the War College calls a “strategy research project,” to earn his degree in 2007, when he was 46. The sources of the material he presents as his own include academic papers, policy journal essays and books that are almost all available online.

Read the rest; it’s pretty damning stuff, as in wholesale cutting-and-pasting from publicly available think-tank reports. For example:

Mr. Walsh writes: “Democracy promoters need to engage as much as possible in a dialogue with a wide cross section of influential elites: mainstream academics, journalists, moderate Islamists, and members of the professional associations who play a political role in some Arab countries, rather than only the narrow world of westernized democracy and human rights advocates.”

The same exact sentence appears on the sixth page of a 2002 Carnegie paper written by four scholars at the research institute. In all, Mr. Walsh’s recommendations section runs to more than 800 words, nearly all of it taken verbatim from the Carnegie paper, without any footnote or reference to it.

As we used to say in school, “bus-TED!”

Naturally, the Democrats will immediately call on Senator Walsh to withdraw from the race, if not resign, so… Wait. I’m sorry, I’m mixing that up with what the Democrats would do if a Republican were the miscreant. In Walsh’s case, he fits right in with the party’s leaders.

Walsh is fighting to keep this seat for the Democrats against Republican challenger Rep. Steve Daines. Daines has been doing well in the polls, and this scandal isn’t likely to help Senator Walsh, but this is no time to get comfortable. You’ll find Steve Daines’ web site here. If you can, send him some money.

Because every seat counts.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) apparently has trouble with the Constitution

July 13, 2014

dunce_cap

So, I’m enjoying a quiet morning and reading an article on the reactions of the various candidates for the US Senate from Alaska to the Hobby Lobby decision, when I come across this howler from the incumbent, Mark Begich:

“I believe people, not corporations, have a right to practice their constitutional right to freedom of religion, but not at the expense of others,” said Begich.

Sigh.

It’s tough to decide whether Senator Begich, whose seat is not secure, is just ignorant of what the Supreme Court decided, the Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or if he’s a desperate hack just reciting DNC talking points. Of course, both could be true. But the key to that quote above is the senator’s odd belief that, upon forming a corporation, individuals somehow give up their natural rights.

Senator Begich, meet the First Amendment. First Amendment, meet Senator Begich:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right to peaceably assemble has been held to include the right to freely associate. See, for example, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which held, in effect, that individuals do not give up their rights when they form an association (1). And a corporation is an association of individuals with rights and inherits those rights:

Corporations have rights because natural persons have rights. It is sometimes said that corporations are “creations of the state,” but that’s not really true. Corporations are created by people — they are merely recognized by the state. 

To deny the rights of a “legal person,” such as a corporation, is no different than denying those rights to the individuals who own that corporation. Perhaps the newspaper editors of Senator Begich’s home state would like to ask him if their papers, in his view, lack the rights of free speech and freedom of the press, also recognized by the First Amendment, simply because they’re incorporated businesses. The answer should be interesting.

PS: Democrats sure have a problem with that whole freedom and democracy thing, don’t they? Why, yes. Yes they do.

Footnote:
(1) In short, the state of Alabama demanded the NAACP surrender its membership lists. The NAACP argued –correctly, given the times– that this loss of their members’ privacy would have a chilling affect on their members rights of free speech and free association.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Why the elderly are fleeing the Democrats

April 1, 2014
"Revenge of the angry mob"

“Revenge of the angry mob”

Consider this to be a coda to yesterday’s post about the Gallup poll showing the electorally active senior vote shifting decisively away from the Democrats. It’s anecdotal evidence, but still illustrative:

Key line, per David Freddoso:

“Not only did my premium go up,” this 91-year-old New York gentleman notes, “but my coverage went down.”

And it’s not just the Democrats’ lock on the senior vote that’s been endangered by Obamacare’s trashing of the healthcare system: I don’t know how Mr. Centola’s son feels, but I’m willing to bet he’s not happy with the people who foisted this mess on the American people — and his father. Were it my parents or grandparents being jerked around like this, there would be steam coming out my ears and I’d be looking forward to the chance to vent it on election day. I suspect there are many more children and grandchildren who feel the same way.

Ticking off a large, politically active group is not a path toward happiness on election night.

Hectic day today, but I couldn’t let this one go by without notice.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Survey shows elderly voters fleeing Democrats

March 31, 2014

Fail

This news from Gallup probably has staff of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reaching for a bottle:

U.S seniors — those aged 65 and older — have moved from a reliably Democratic group to a reliably Republican one over the past two decades. From 1992 through 2006, seniors had been solidly Democratic and significantly more Democratic than younger Americans. Over the last seven years, seniors have become less Democratic, and have shown an outright preference for the Republican Party since 2010.

In 1992, 53% of senior citizens, on average, identified as Democrats or said they were independents but leaned Democratic, while 39% identified as Republicans or leaned Republican, resulting in a 14-percentage-point Democratic advantage in seniors’ party affiliation. Last year, 48% of seniors identified as or leaned Republican, and 45% Democratic, a three-point Republican advantage.

It’s a truism of American politics that older, retired voters tend to turn out for elections more than other demographic groups. In a midterm election, such a self-motivated group can have an outsized influence because other groups often aren’t as enthusiastic to vote when the election lacks the drama of a presidential race.

The Democrats remember what happened in the last midterm election, which was a slaughter for them at both the federal and state levels. Without the Obama of 2008 or even 2012 at the top of their ticket (1), that eager-to-vote “senior bloc” could again make a serious difference.

Gallup goes into a long analysis of the influence ethnic factors might have on the elderly shifting toward Republicans (they tend to be more White as a group), and it’s an interesting read. But, I’ll offer another explanation which I, without doing any polling, think plays a much larger roll:

People don’t like being lied to.

That’s what Obama and the Democratic Party did when they promised a) if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; b) if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan; and c) we won’t touch Medicare.

Lie. Lie. Lie.

That last is especially galling to seniors, because the Medicare Advantage program is very popular and Obamacare just guts it. Perhaps there’s a general unhappiness among the elderly with the administration and the direction of the nation (I’d be surprised if there weren’t), but the cuts to Medicare and the interference in the doctor-patient relationship is very immediate, very personal and very probably frightening for many of these people. They’ve been lied to, they’ve been played for suckers, and no one I know likes that feeling, or the persons who made them feel that way.

And that’s why this poll has to have Harry Reid retreating to his Happy Place, because it looks very much like payback for those lies is coming soon.

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt

Footnote:
(1) They’re probably grateful the Obama of 2014 isn’t, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


At last, someone has found the best strategy for @TheDemocrats

March 14, 2014
Not trolling

Concern troll

Examining the utterly brutal numbers (PDF) for the Democrats in a poll conducted jointly by The Wall St. Journal and NBC, David Freddoso offered this advice:

So anyway, the ideal campaign for Democrats would send President Obama to Hawaii for a few months, run ads against the health care law they all voted for (they’re already all over this one), send Bill Clinton out to stump in as many races as possible, and hope for the best.

I’d accuse David of concern-trolling, but he’s too nice  guy for that.  Me, on the other hand…

Still don’t get why Bill Clinton is so popular, though.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


How do you know a Democrat is panicking? Updated

March 13, 2014
"It's on"

Press in case of impending election

When he brags about supporting George W. Bush, that’s panic talking:

A longtime House Democrat in electoral jeopardy this fall says he supported former President George W. Bush more than President Obama.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), first elected in 1976, is a top target of Republicans in a state where Obama has long been deeply unpopular. He is facing a state senator, Evan Jenkins, who switched to the GOP to challenge him, and the House Democratic campaign committee recently added him to its “Frontline” list of members that need the most help saving their seat in November.

“There’s no question my critics try to blame Obama-Rahall for everything,” Rahall told The Hill. “I mean, the snow blitz that’s coming tonight is probably Obama-Rahall’s fault. And they won’t have that to do two years from now, so it’s obvious they’re leaving no stone unturned to defeat me this time. Because it’s the last time they’ll have Obama around! It’s that simple.”

“Hey, don’t blame me for that guy from my party who’s been in the White House for the last five years!”

The schadenfreude here is sweet, my friends. For years, after the shock of 9/11 wore off soon after the liberation of Iraq, the Democrats hurled vile calumnies at President Bush in their desperate quest to regain power. No comparison was too low, no lie too blatant, no fantasy too lurid. After Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the “blame Bush” deflection efforts became so common as to become ritualized, a two-minutes hate. George W. Bush, not the greatest president but a good man, was the new Emmanuel Goldstein.

And now, thanks to a rotten economy made chronic by Obama’s policies, his arrogant contempt for the rule of law, and the chaos created by his signature legislation, Democrats are starting to demand they be compared to… George W. Bush.

Pardon me, I need to laugh: smiley rofl

It wouldn’t surprise me to see several more as Election Day draws near.

Via Jim Geraghty, who offers a second example.

RELATED: More from my blog-buddy, ST.

UPDATE 3/14/2014: From David Freddoso’s Conservative Intelligence Briefing, a Republican-commissioned poll shows Rahall’s likely opponent, State Senator Evan Jenkins, ahead by 14 points. Even accounting for partisan bias, Rahall’s congressional career looks like toast. Freddoso offers a possible reason:

In Rahall’s particular case, his vote for the Progressive Caucus budget (which contained a carbon tax) will probably be his undoing. There’s just no way out of that one when you represent coal country.

Voting against your constituents’ interests? Huh. Funny how that works out.


Bit by bit, Obama repeals #Obamacare, so Republicans don’t have to. Updated: Sebelius denies delay?

March 12, 2014
"Train wreck"

“Train wreck”

It’s long been known that the individual mandate is the foundation of the Affordable Care Act. Without the requirement for healthy young people to buy more insurance than they need or pay a penalty tax protection money, there would never be enough revenue coming into the system to pay for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. And amidst all the waivers (1) and delays for unions and businesses claiming hardship under the new law, the one thing they’ve refused to rescind was the individual mandate, itself.

Until last week, when it was done in secret:

ObamaCare’s implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.

This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn’t think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week.

That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether.

The WSJ article then goes through the various classes of exempted individuals and what they have to do to claim that exemption, but the short version is that if you feel you’ve been burdened or harmed by Obamacare –including not being able to afford the new, more expensive even though subsidized policies mandated by Obamacare– you can have a two-year hardship exception based solely on your word.

Yes, you read that right: our new, wonderful, Heaven-on-Earth healthcare-for-all law is now recognized as such a problem that people have to be exempted from obeying it.

Why are they doing this, you ask, since it’s sure to throw the ACA’s finances even more out of whack? Why are they gutting the core of the bill that has been a progressive dream since at least Truman? Trust me, it’s not from empathy for the very people the law is harming.

Have a look at this article from the Conservative Intelligence Briefing and this other from National Journal. (And, for a laugh, this desperate spin from DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. (2) ) Both deal with the possible fallout from the Republican win in the special election in Florida’s 13th congressional district, one the Democrats thought they had a good chance to win against a flawed Republican candidate.

Instead, they lost, and a good part of the reason was popular anger over Obamacare (3). And now they’re looking at possibly losing seats in the House, in addition to an increasingly-likely loss of their Senate majority.

None of this is guaranteed, of course, but it’s a scary-enough prospect to have them reaching for the whisky bottle while quietly throwing Obamacare’s key provision under the bus, a move that stinks of desperation.

This is significant not just for its electoral consequence, either. Once exceptions like these are granted, it will be danged hard for Obama or a future Democrat president to take them back  and start enforcing the rules (4). And with The One establishing the precedent that the president can ignore laws that are inconvenient to him, what’s to stop a future Republican president from ignoring the ACA altogether?

The Republican-dominated House has voted roughly 50 times to repeal Obamacare since taking control in 2011. I think they can take a breather.

Bit by bit, Obama is repealing it for them.

via Salena Zito and Ben Domenech

PS: I agree with Josh Blackman. Republicans should send opt-out forms to all their constituents — and the Democrats’, too.

PPS: For those who are having trouble affording insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the president suggests cutting back on cable TV and cell phone use. No, really.

Footnote:
(1) And that was just through 1Q 2011…
(2) That is, the race-baiting Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
(3) As Jim Geraghty points out, Republicans have, thank God, improved their ground-game, too.
(4) Do you really think he’s going to reimpose them in 2016, just as the presidential race heats up? No way…

UPDATE: Sebelius denying there’s been a delay to the individual mandate? Hmmm…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) John Bolton at CPAC on foreign affairs

March 7, 2014

National Review’s Jim Geraghty interviewed former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton (1) at the Conservative Political Action Conference and asked him what in world affairs keeps him awake at night. His answer should have you weeping — not because of what he says, so much as the knowledge our foreign policy is directed by the likes of Barack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Samantha Power.

In a world made more dangerous by Team Unicorn’s Hundred Acre Wood foreign policy, I can only hope a hard-nosed realist who –gasp!– thinks the world is a better place with a strong America plays a major role in the next administration’s foreign policy. They’re going to have a heckuva mess to clean up.

Footnote:
(1) Or, as we fanboys like to call him, “The ‘Stache.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


In praise of Boehner and McConnell?

February 16, 2014
Not RINOs?

Not RINOs?

It’s been common among my colleagues on the Right to deride House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as “RINOs,”  or “Republicans In Name Only.’ Weak, cowardly leaders who are practically supine before the Democrats, even after taking back the House in the Tea party wave of 2010. And the complaints are understandable: conservatives won a big election then and, since the House represents the people directly, arguably represent a majority of the nation. So why is the debt still going up, why is spending still increasing, and why (among other things) are we still stuck with the albatross of Obamacare? When are we ever going to fight? Throwing up our hands in the air in exasperation, we decide it’s the Washington Republican Establishment that doesn’t want really want reform and we focus our ire on Boehner and McConnell, even hitting the latter with a primary challenger.

“Not so hasty!”, as Tolkien’s Treebeard might say.

At National Review, Charles Cooke (no squish, himself) argues that tactics matter, that passing the continuing resolution last fall and the recent debt-ceiling increase were both wise, and that Boehner and McConnell are playing  a smart long game:

“I’d be willing to risk losing the Senate if we could keep America,” Mitch McConnell’s primary challenger, Matt Bevin, told Glenn Beck this morning. What an astonishingly incoherent and misguided sentence that is. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” asks the King James Bible. A fair question, yes, but politics is a different game altogether, and, in this case, the alternative isn’t an otherworldly victory or spiritual advancement but simply more loss. The question for Bevin must be “for what shall it profit a man if he shall lose another debt-ceiling fight and lose his party’s shot at the Senate as well?” And the answer is “not at all.” If this is what we are to expect from the revolution — a host of nihilistic, suicidal, performance artists who would rather be outside of the control room screaming than inside and in charge — then give me the cynical calculations of a Mitch McConnell any day of the week.

“Any time, you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders,” Ronald Reagan complained in 1964, “we’re denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we’re always ‘against,’ never ‘for’ anything.” Could this sentiment not be applied currently to some slices of the Right? After all, pretty much every single Republican agrees on the question of Obamacare. Pretty much every single Republican agrees on taxes and spending and the size of government. Pretty much every single Republican agrees on the debt. They disagree, however, on tactics. And tactics matter. Make no mistake: For all the bluster, the Democratic party and the wider progressive movement is absolutely terrified of Obamacare, which has been a liability for almost five years now, and which is not going away. As I noted yesterday, the majority of the elections this year are going to yield fights between a candidate who wants to repeal the law completely and a candidate who is critical of it in at least one way. There is nothing that the president would like more at this moment than to play last October over again — to paint the GOP as an extreme, risk-taking, rump party holding the country hostage. McConnell and Boehner were right to recognize that handing him that opportunity this year would have been a disaster.

I largely agree, though I believe the “Establishment” could have been more aggressive in the recent debt-ceiling argument by, for example, demanding that insurance companies not get a guaranteed bailout in the event they lose money over Obamacare. That would at least have forced the Democrats to go on record as being in favor of giving public money to one of the most hated industries in the nation.

But, overall, I think Cooke is right. It’s not a cop-out to say we only control one-half of one branch of the government; it’s simply an acknowledgement of reality and that, therefore, our options are limited. While it’s satisfying to give in to the urge to fight-fight-fight at every instance, it profits neither conservatism, the Republican Party, or the nation –to which our ultimate responsibility lies– to fight battles we’re sure to lose, such as the “defund Obamacare” effort of last fall. The will to fight is important, but knowing when to strike is equally so, if the goal is to win.

Politics is an art that requires patience, a willingness to move in increments, rather than having it all now. It’s an art the Left practiced to take over the Democratic Party after the 1960s, and it’s served them well. Populist, Tea Party conservatives have done less well at it, perhaps because of a powerful “Jacksonian” strain in our political DNA — we’re “hasty,” in other words, and we mustn’t in our impatience let the Democrats off the hook they’ve caught themselves on before November’s elections.

If so, then perhaps Cooke is right, and we should praise McConnell and Boehner, rather than throw rotten tomatoes at them.

You may call me RINO, now.

Addendum: To answer the almost-inevitable “Well, Fahrquar, when are we gonna fight? It’ll be more of the same shite after we take over the Senate!”, well, that’s nihilism and I’m not a nihilist. Yes, it’s possible the Beltway Establishment would rather accommodate itself to the expanded progressive “new normal,” but, for now, I’m willing to give them some leash and work like the dickens to give the Republicans the Senate — while electing the most conservative candidates possible, at the same time. Then we test them. With both chambers, they’ll have no excuse for not passing reform budgets, repealing and replacing Obamacare, and fixing entitlements. Place the onus on Obama, let him threaten vetoes: momentum will be on our side and, in the required compromises, we’ll have a much better chance of winning the incremental game.

And if the leadership balks, then we break out the pitchforks and torches.


Oh, gee. Another illegal #Obamacare delay by King Barack I

February 11, 2014
"My will is enough!"

“We have a pen and a phone!”

Legal dictionaries define the word “usurpation” thus:

The illegal encroachment or assumption of the use of authority, power, or property properly belonging to another; the interruption or disturbance of an individual in his or her right or possession.

The term usurpation is also used in reference to the unlawful assumption or seizure of sovereign power, in derogation of the constitution and rights of the proper ruler.

–West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

In which case, what are we to make of this news:

The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it was again extending the ObamaCare enrollment deadline for people with pre-existing conditions.

The administration said it would extend the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan (PCIP), slated to end Jan. 31, until March 15.

“As part of our continuing effort to help smooth consumers’ transition into Marketplace coverage, we are allowing those covered by PCIP additional time to shop for new coverage while they receive the ongoing care and treatment they need,” Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said in a statement.

The deadline was originally at the end of December, but last month, the administration pushed it back through January because of the problem-plagued HealthCare.gov.

The new extension is just the latest in a string of unilateral delays the administration has implemented to buy time after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov.

By “unilateral,” the author means “done without any statutory authority from Congress, the body charged under the constitution with writing and rewriting our laws.”

Or, in a word, “usurpation.”

But that’s not the only one (hat tip ST):

Republicans renewed their calls to delay or repeal ObamaCare Monday after the Obama administration announced another delay in the requirement for businesses to provide health coverage to workers, giving some employers a reprieve next year while phasing in the mandate for others.

The administration had already delayed the implementation of the so-called employer mandate by a year, initially pushing the requirements off until 2015 — past the midterm elections. In a concession to business, though, Treasury Department officials announced Monday that the administration would not enforce the rules across the board next year.

(…)

As a result of the delay, the administration will let employers with 50 to 99 employees off the hook in 2015. They’ll be required to report on how many workers are covered but will have until 2016 before being required to cover full-time staff or pay a penalty. Americans would still be required to obtain health insurance through what’s known as the individual mandate.

In other words, they’re giving a break to some employers, but not others, with, again, no legal authority to do so. This isn’t “prosecutorial discretion,” as the administration has tried sometimes to claim, but the seizure of legislative authority by the Executive to effectively rewrite an inconvenient law.

Usurpation.

And, in the same article, Gabriel Malor found this gem:

To answer Gabe’s question, I’m willing to bet one could look high and low in the ACA and never find the authority.

But think about that highlighted portion and what follows: the Treasury, an executive department under the presidency, is unilaterally creating a criminal offense, a felony. Legislature? They don’t need no steenkin’ legislature! They’ll just rewrite the law as they see fit and then declare it a crime not to obey. (1)

To usurpation, then, let’s add “tyranny:”

a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially :  one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state.

“Tyranny” and “usurpation” have a much more meaningful ring to them than “overreach,” don’t you think? Why, I can hear Jefferson sharpening his pen, even now.

Under our Madisonian system, institutional jealousy is supposed to keep the various branches from encroaching on each other’s constitutional prerogatives, but, for various reasons, those barriers eroded over the last century, especially since the New Deal.

The remedies Congress has for these usurpations are few and clumsy, the two most relevant being the refusal to allocate funds, and impeachment. So why not impeach President Obama?

Like Andrew McCarthy, while I’m convinced impeachment is well-warranted, I don’t believe the necessary political will among the public yet exists to carry it out. (2) In fact, I contend that the resulting political crisis, given that the Senate would never convict absent direct evidence that Obama ax-murdered someone in the Oval Office, wouldn’t be worth the destruction of Republicans’ electoral prospects in the coming midterm elections, which, thanks to Obamacare, are looking better and better. With control of both chambers starting in 2015 (3), Republicans and conservatives will be in a much better position to geld the White House and send Obama even more often to the links.

And that’s the real solution to Obama’s usurpations and petty tyrannies: a good, old-fashioned election. As Clint Eastwood said, “We own this country.” It’s time for the owners to take charge.

PS: Some relevant humor from Slublog.

RELATED: Obamacare and the corruption of the rule of law. Yuval Levin on the “Adhocracy.”

Footnote:
(1) God, but I’d love to see this tested in federal court and watch a judge shove this back in the administration’s face like a grapefruit wielded by Jimmy Cagney.
(2) This was the big mistake of the Clinton impeachment, which was also merited: Clinton was well-liked by the public, and so the public consensus did not exist that would otherwise have pressured senators into convicting him. A drastic move like this in a republic requires public support a priori to be successful.
(3) I hope.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


My heart breaks: labor unions feel stabbed in the back by #Obamacare

February 2, 2014
"Revenge of the angry mob"

“Revenge of the angry union members”

And by The One, himself. Like Moe Lane, I find it a bit difficult to choose between laughing and pointing at the naive union leaders who didn’t think Barack Obama would throw them under the bus, or just quietly smiling while they reap the whirlwind of their foolishness and greed:

Labor leaders who have spent months lobbying unsuccessfully for special protections under the Affordable Care Act warned this week that the White House’s continued refusal to help is dampening union support for Democratic candidates in this year’s midterm elections.

Leaders of two major unions, including the first to endorse Obama in 2008, said they have been betrayed by an administration that wooed their support for the 2009 legislation with promises to later address the peculiar needs of union-negotiated insurance plans that cover millions of workers.

Their complaints reflect a broad sense of disappointment among many labor leaders, who say the Affordable Care Act has subjected union health plans to new taxes and mandates while not allowing them to share in the subsidies that have gone to private insurance companies competing on the newly created exchanges.

After dozens of frustrating meetings with White House officials over the past year, including one with Obama, a number of angry labor officials say their members are far less likely to campaign and turn out for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.

“We want to hold the president to his word: If you like your health-care coverage, you can keep it, and that just hasn’t been the case,” said Donald “D.” Taylor, president of Unite Here, the union that represents about 400,000 hotel and restaurant workers and provided a crucial boost to Obama by endorsing him just after his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton had won the New Hampshire primary.

Taylor and Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, laid out their grievances this week in a terse letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), saying they are “bitterly disappointed” in the administration.

Be sure to read the whole thing there; it’s not just Obamacare the union leaders are angry about — their whole agenda seems to have found its way under the bus. Card check, too, thankfully, has been left to die. And what really bugs them, I think, is that Obama won’t abuse his power to help them. Everyone else, it seems, sure. But unions that literally in some cases emptied the treasury to help get him elected twice? Nada. As a consequence, the article points out, this could lead to less than enthusiastic turnout and campaign support in November.

Darn.

Moe’s right. Time to sit back, enjoy, and not get in the way of our opponents turning on each other. (1)

Footnote:
(1) Other than to point out, gently, in a friendly, sympathetic manner to an upset private union member that there is a better way, and that it starts by not listening to their union bosses and voting against the Democrats, both of whom got him or her into this mess in the first place.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Ding-dong, Waxman’s gone!

January 30, 2014
Henry Waxman, D-Statist

Henry Waxman, D-Statist

Oh, this is a moment I’ve long looked forward to. Henry Waxman (D-CA), one of the most obnoxious progressives in the House and co-author of the economy-killing, state-growing Waxman-Markey climate bill, has decided to retire:

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, whose legislative record has made him one of the country’s most influential liberal lawmakers for four decades, announced Thursday that he will retire from his Westside seat, the latest in a wave of departures that is remaking the state’s long-stable congressional delegation.

Waxman-Markey failed, thank God, but the LAT article reminds us of another of Henry’s gifts to America:

Among his legislative victories was the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which he helped write and push through the House. Passage of the law fulfilled “one of my lifelong dreams” by guaranteeing access to healthcare coverage for Americans, he said.

Translated: “I’ve done all the damage I can do, so, since there is no chance Democrats will retake the House and we’ll likely lose the Senate, I might as well retire to enjoy my pension and become a lobbyist.”

Henry Waxman was Leviathan personified, a statist who tried his hardest to insert the federal government into every aspect of our lives. He is also a vile partisan who, I’m sure, regrets he couldn’t institute one-party rule.

His district here in Los Angeles is solidly Democratic, so there is no hope of a Republican pick up, but almost anyone the Democrats run will at least be no worse.

Goodbye and good riddance, Henry Waxman.

UPDATE: Charles Cooke reminds us that Waxman co-authored the Clean Air Act, which set the stage for the EPA’s aggressive rule-making, and signed off as often as he could on surrendering legislative authority to executive agencies. Bah.

UPDATE 2: Hmm. Per Allahpundit, maybe Henry’s seat isn’t so safe after all.