Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label Democrat Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat Party. Show all posts

Friday, June 29, 2018

Does Nancy Pelosi Have a Drinking Problem?

Does Nancy Pelosi have a drinking problem?  What had been a problem of chronic brain freeze and the occasional slurred word has become an inability to deliver a sentence.  Given that the aging San Francisco political hack has been losing on every front to President Donald Trump, and is seeing her dreamed of "blue wave" becoming a rout, perhaps the self-medication is not surprising.  One would think, however, the Democrats would do a better job of masking their most embarrassing members, but then this is what is in charge.  Nancy the drunk, mad Maxine, and slippery Chuck Schumer are the face of the once national Democrat Party.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Democratic Party Favorable Rating Falls to Record Low

From Gallup
By Andrew Dugan

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After the midterm elections that saw the Democratic Party suffer significant losses in Congress, a record-low 36% of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of the party, down six percentage points from before the elections. The Republican Party's favorable rating, at 42%, is essentially unchanged from 40%. This marks the first time since September 2011 that the Republican Party has had a higher favorability rating than the Democratic Party.

Republican and Democratic Party Favorables, 1992-2014

Monday, June 11, 2012

Today's Democrats - This NY Democrat Should Fit Right In

It will be interesting to see what kind of support this brutha receives from fellow party thugs in the White House and at the DNC.
By Michael Warren

New York City councilman Charles Barron may be on his way to winning the Democratic nomination for Congress in New York's Eighth District, despite a history of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel rhetoric. Barron, who has earned the support of retiring congressman Edolphus Towns, would be representing a district with a sizable Jewish population.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

GOP Rep. Buyer Blasts Acting Dem Speaker: "This is Why the People Have Thrown You Out"

Rush Limbaugh provided a wonderful example of why the American people, in their righteous indignation, have thrown the statist thugs out of the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives. Here's a glimpse of how the "People's House," under Democrat administration, has foisted Obamacare and scores of other unwanted, big-government, budget-busting legislation on the American people.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

"Democrat Party Will Disappear From the Political Scene"

Vision To America

Conservative activist and best-selling author David Horowitz tells Newsmax that the Democratic Party has been “seized by a religious cult” of leftists and will go the way of the 19th-century Whig Party — disappearing from the political scene.

He also declares that giving terrorist suspects the rights of American citizens and trying them in civilian courts is “a form of national suicide” and says the tea party movement is a “huge development” that will keep Republicans true to conservative principles.

Horowitz is founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, founder of Students for Academic Freedom, and co-author of “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.”

Sunday, June 20, 2010

The Greene Party

An Investors Business Daily Editorial

The Democratic Senate candidate from South Carolina is not a GOP dirty trick but an appropriate representative of a party detached from reality. An incoherent and off-the-wall empty suit, he is a perfect fit.

Late Thursday night, the South Carolina Democratic Party's Executive Committee rejected a protest of the June 8 primary for U.S. Senate, in which Alvin Greene, who has a felony arrest for showing porn to college girls, defeated Vic Rawl, a former state representative and judge.

Greene has been declared the party's legitimate nominee, much to the chagrin of MSNBC's Chris Matthews, whose leg no longer tingles when President Obama speaks, and others.

Matthews asked guests: "Do you think this has the look of a dirty trick — sort of a Watergate number?"

After all, how could a Democratic electorate that put a community organizer in the White House make such a mistake?

Perhaps the best thing that can be said about Alvin Greene, who came out of nowhere to become the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate against incumbent Jim DeMint, just like Barack Obama came out of nowhere to become president, is that Greene almost makes guys like Alan Grayson and Eric Massa look normal and sane.

The Democratic Party is said to be a big tent but a circus tent is more likely.

Case in point — Eric Massa, the New York Democrat who took a wide stance on many issues, known for his alleged policy briefing from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the congressional showers before he, uh, threw in the towel.

Tickle party, anyone?

Then there's Florida's Alan Grayson, the mouth that roared, who produced a chart on the House floor that said the Republican health care plan was for everyone to die quickly as he supported a bill that makes rationing an inevitability. Or there is North Carolina's Bob Etheridge, who roughs up college reporters, while complaining the Tea Party is an angry mob.

The question is not whether Alvin Greene is qualified. The question is compared to whom?

Roland Burris? Do we compare him to the ethically challenged Charlie Rangel who helps writes the nation's tax laws as he plays fast and loose with his own obligations and the law?

Or perhaps we can compare him with Barney Frank who said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were financially sound right up to the moment he started to blame Republicans and President George W. Bush for the market collapse.

Alvin Greene has no visible means of support and few prospects, sort of like the America the Democrats want to create for all of us. No one knows where Greene got the $10,000 to file.

Well, no one knows where the Democrats will find the funds to unburden our grandchildren whose inheritance they have already spent.

The Democrats are led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said of health care reform that we'd have to pass the bill to see what was in it.

Sounds like something Alvin Greene might say. We doubt if he'd read any bill he voted on either. He might even agree with Joe Biden that we have to spend our way out of bankruptcy.

Do you think Alvin Greene would support a failed stimulus that adds to the deficit as the unemployment rate rises?

Would he put forth a cap-and-tax climate bill that threatens to drain whatever life remains in the economy?

Would his answer to the Gulf oil spill be to dispatch an army of lawyers to find out who to sue and arrest while the oil continues to gush?

Democrats look with feigned embarrassment at how such a sad joke could become their candidate for the U.S. Senate. They should consider the ranks he would be joining.

Monday, June 14, 2010

The Democrat Double Standard: 'Clean' Marxists vs. Black Vets

It is remarkable to see all this Democrat hand-wringing over the Democrat Senate candidate in South Carolina who won with 60% of the vote. And it illuminates the racism and the "very different strokes" that exist for an affluent, well-connected Marxist who went to all the best schools, and in the words of Joe Biden, "is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," and a poor, not so articulate, military veteran.

Keith Olbermann and Jim Clyburn tell us their party's choice needs to answer questions about his background and where he got the filing fee. The impertinence of the man to think he could run for the United States Senate without receiving their imprimatur!

Where, we ask, are their questions about Barack Obama's background? Where are the questions about what motivates him to spend millions in legal fees to conceal documents that most Americans are required to present when they register to vote or obtain a passport? Why have they not explored the friendship and mentoring by Communist Frank Marshall Davis? Why do they resent anyone asking who paid for Obama's very expensive private and ivy league education? How and why was he admitted to Harvard in the first place? Why did Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton intervene to get him admitted to Harvard, when Obama did not have grades that were competitive for Harvard? Why are his school and medical records sealed? What explains the array of Social Security numbers Obama has used; none of them issued to residents of Hawaii.These and many other questions about Obama's mysterious past remain unanswered, and those who raise them are ridiculed as "birthers."

We know Obama has a lot to hide, just as there is much we don't yet know about Alvin Greene; but the Democrat Party's double standard reeks of hypocrisy and class discrimination.

If a black man is not part of the radical elite, or is a struggling military vet, he rides in the back of the Democrat Party bus.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Indiana Right to Life Sets National Precedent with Resolution Denying Democrat Endorsements

The Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee today announced that it has formally adopted a resolution denying endorsements to all Democratic candidates as a direct result of recent passage of the pro-abortion health care reform bill with support from Indiana congressmen Brad Ellsworth, Joe Donnelly, and Baron Hill.

The resolution to be applied in the 2010 election cycle reads:

    "Whereas the Democratic Party officially endorses the right to unrestricted abortion on demand; and

    Whereas Democratic leadership continues aggressively to advance federal policies that undermine the right to life of unborn children; and

    Whereas Congressman Brad Ellsworth, Congressman Baron Hill, and Congressman Joe Donnelly betrayed the trust of pro-life Hoosiers by voting for the pro-abortion federal health care reform bill; and

    Whereas the Democratic caucus in the Indiana House, under the leadership of Speaker Pat Bauer, continues to block all legislation aimed at limiting, restricting, and reducing abortions in the state of Indiana; and

    Whereas candidates of the Democratic Party are responsible for the policies and actions of the party and its leadership;

    Be it resolved that the Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee will grant no endorsements to any Democratic candidates for any public office."

In 2008, Indiana Right to Life PAC adopted a similar but non-universal policy when it opted to withhold endorsements only from Democratic candidates for Congress or the Indiana House of Representatives. The new resolution extends the no-endorsement policy to all Democratic candidates.

"Our leadership anguished over this decision," notes IRTL-PAC chairman Mike Fichter. "Had Democrats like Brad Ellsworth held firm in opposing federal funding for abortion in the health care bill, we likely would have rewarded such action with a bipartisan endorsement policy. Ellsworth's collapse under pressure from the White House and Speaker Pelosi, as well as the collapse of his colleagues Joe Donnelly and Baron Hill, leaves us with no alternative. Leadership matters, and the reality is that Democratic leaders are advancing an abortion agenda at an alarming rate that will only be checked by a Republican majority."

Fichter adds that Democrats who wish to see a return of a bipartisan endorsement policy must work to change the party's platform on abortion and to change its party leadership. "The ball is the the Democratic Party's court," says Fichter. "As long as it continues to advance an abortion agenda, its candidates will not receive our support."

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Pro-Life Leader Calls for the Movement to Withhold Support for All Democratic Candidates for Federal Office

"The pro-life movement has learned firsthand that party affiliation matters, and it is a lesson we must never forget."

Mike Fichter, President of Indiana Right to Life and author of the newly-published book "Viability: What The Pro-Life Movement Must Do To Survive and Thrive", is calling on pro-life organizations to withhold support and endorsement of all Democratic candidates for federal office as a result of Sunday's passage of health reform legislation that includes federal funding for abortion.

"We must now relentlessly work for a Republican majority if we are to repeal this disastrous legislation, and that means withholding all support for Democratic candidates," states Fichter. "Every congressional Democrat is responsible for the passage of the pro-abortion health reform bill. We must especially recognize the political betrayal by those Democratic members of the House who call themselves pro-life, yet chose in the end to place party over principles by supporting this massive expansion of abortion. The pro-life movement has learned firsthand that party affiliation matters, and it is a lesson we must never forget."

Fichter notes that although the pro-life movement has historically extended its support for candidates in a bipartisan fashion, Democratic strategists have abused that approach in order to gain control of Congress and to advance an aggressive abortion agenda. "Democratic leaders understand that they must field conservative candidates in some districts in order to win those seats for the party," says Fichter. "They also know the key to political power is found in majority rule, not some romantic notion of bipartisanship. This strategy can only be defeated when the pro-life movement has the courage to draw hard lines and to call the Democratic Party out for the pro-abortion party that it really is."

"This disastrous turn of events must be a wake-up call to the pro-life movement to change its fundamental approach to political strategy, and it starts with a unified decision to withhold all support for members of the Democratic Party. Failure to do so will cost the lives of millions of unborn children."

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Schlafly: Health Care Vote Exposes the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'

Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:

"It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."

"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."

"Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program."

"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."

"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."

"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Name that Party: Over 100 Media Outlets Fail to Tag Racine, Wis. Mayor As a Democrat Upon Sentencing

Former Racine, WI Mayor Gary Becker, Democrat
From NewsBusters
By Tom Blumer

This one's a particularly egregious example of party-ID dodging, even for those of us who are used to seeing the establishment media avoid mentioning the political party of almost any disgraced or troubled Democratic public official.

Former Racine, Wisconsin mayor Gary Becker, a Democrat, was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison for child enticement and attempted sexual assault of a child.

Here are the results of a Google News search on "Gary Becker Racine mayor" (without quotes) shortly after midnight.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Obama's Fall

How quickly the president and congressional Democrats have turned to tricks and ploys and sham events.

From The Weekly Standard
By Fred Barnes

Saturday, January 16, 2010

12 Signs that 2010 is going to be a Really, Really Bad Year for the Democrats and the Obama Administration

By Michael the Patriot Blogger

The 2010 election is still almost 10 months away, but already every indication is that if the election was held today, the Democrats would suffer a crushing defeat. So will things get better for the Democrats by the time election day rolls around? Well, actually the truth is that things are only likely to get worse for the Democrats and the Obama administration in 2010. As the U.S. economy continues to fall apart, and as health care and national security continue to take center stage on the national scene, an increasing number of voters are likely to become disenfranchised with the Democratic Party. The following are 12 signs that 2010 is going to be a really, really bad year for the Democrats and the Obama administration....

#1) Health care "reform" has been a total nightmare for Obama and the Democrats. The majority of Americans have been horrified to learn that the plan put forward by the Democrats will make purchasing health insurance mandatory, will raise taxes, will give the government unprecedented control over health care decisions, will result in much fewer health care choices for the average American and will push U.S. government deficits through the roof. Approval ratings for the health care "reform" bill have been hovering in the 30s, and considering that this is the centerpiece of the Democratic agenda, this is a really, really bad sign for Obama and the Democrats.

#2) In fact, more Americans than ever are sick and tired of the financial mess that the U.S. government is getting us all into. The truth is that the U.S. government is drowning under an absolute mountain of debt and all of the spending that Barack Obama is doing is only making it worse. To finance this debt, the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue so many new bonds that the rest of the world cannot possibly buy them all. So who is buying them all up? The Federal Reserve. In fact, the Fed is now purchasing approximately 80 of all new U.S. debt.

#3) But even with all of this reckless government spending the unemployment situation in the U.S. is still absolutely brutal. When even Wal-Mart is closing stores you know things are really bad. Wal-Mart just announced this past week that it will close 10 money-losing Sam's Club stores and will cut 1,500 jobs in order to reduce costs. So if even Wal-Mart has to shut down stores, what chance do other retailers have?

#4) In fact, some areas of the U.S. are a total economic nightmare at this point. The mayor of Detroit recently said that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere up around 50 percent. When things get that bad, the party out of power starts to look better and better.

#5) So just how bad are things when compared to past recessions? During the 2001 recession, the U.S. economy lost 2% of its jobs and it took four years to get them back. This time the U.S. economy has lost more than 5 percent of its jobs and there is no sign that the bleeding of jobs will stop any time soon. Those who do not have jobs are much likelier to consider voting for the party out of power.

#6) The reality is that more Americans are in financial trouble than at any point in recent times. Americans are going broke at a staggering pace. 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 - a 32 percent increase over 2008. This is not a trend that is going to help the Democrats.

#7) We are also seeing a record number of mortgage defaults. According to a report that was just released, delinquent home loans at government-controlled mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac surged 20 percent from July to September. In fact, things are such a mess at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that the Obama administration recently removed the caps on the amount of financial assistance that the U.S. government will be giving these two entities. Whether or not Obama created this mess is not the issue. What is the issue is that an increasing number of Americans are blaming him for this mess.

#8) In fact, many analysts believe that the the housing crash is far from over. They say that a massive "second wave" of mortgage defaults is getting ready to hit the U.S. economy starting in 2010. In fact, this "second wave" is so frightening that even 60 minutes is reporting on it. When this second wave does hit, most Americans are going to place responsibility for it in the laps of the Obama administration.

#9) Now there is even concern that the recent global deep freeze could end up seriously affecting food prices in American supermarkets in 2010. As the past several decades have clearly shown, Americans tend to vote according to how their pocketbooks are doing, and if food prices shoot through the roof that will not help Obama and the Democrats at all.

#10) In addition, recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans are so concerned about terrorism that they would be willing to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to feel safer. Considering the fact that terrorism is considered to be an issue that greatly favors the Republicans, this has got to be very concerning to the Democrats.

#11) On the foreign policy front, Obama risks alienating the Jewish vote by continuing to insist that Israel give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The truth is that the Jewish vote is crucial for the Democrats and Obama in places like Florida, and by taking such a hardline anti-Israel position, Obama is not winning any new friends in the Jewish community.

#12) Also, Barack Obama is continuing to push for a treaty with Russia that would reduce the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to approximately 10 percent of the size that it was at the height of the cold war. Such an irresponsible approach to national security is surely not going to win Obama and the Democrats many friends among moderate voters who are concerned about security issues.

Any way you cut it, 2010 is shaping up to be a very bad year for the Democrats. Barack Obama's approval rating has already been plummeting like a rock, and there does not seem to be much hope of that turning around any time soon. In fact, if the signs above are any indication, the 2010 election could end up being really, really good to the Republicans.

But with Obama still in the White House until at least 2012, will they be able to do much to clean up the mess?

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Understanding the Democrats' Scheme

From American Thinker
By John F. Gaski

Poor Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume. There they were on the O'Reilly show a few weeks ago, puzzling over why Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing so many things that are damaging to our country. Bill and Brit agreed that they couldn't possibly be harming the nation intentionally, because negative voter reaction would redound to them politically and electorally. Can't the Democrats see this? Did they suddenly get stupid politically? This is so unlike them. How to explain this anomaly?

Poor Bill and Brit, and many others, indeed. It is time to think the unthinkable and speak the ineffable. Apart from the troubling question of intent, or whether Obama-Pelosi-Reid just have a novel view of the public interest, the national Democrats are unnaturally and mysteriously sanguine despite growing backlash by the American people. Why? One reason: The Dems don't believe they will ever have to face a real election again. Is their plan not becoming obvious? It is very straightforward:

(1) Grant amnesty to the illegal aliens (the correct term for lawbreaking invaders, regardless of their natural and rational motives) which will create up to 30 million reliably Democrat voters -- especially after being registered at least once each by ACORN. That is cushion enough to carry any national election. Why else could Dems be so fixated on this agenda item?

(2) Speaking of which, between ACORN and the SEIU, the Democrats will be stealing all the elections they really need anyway, starting next November. (The New Jersey and Virginia governorships aren't quite as big a prize as control of the U.S. Congress, are they? And one wonders what the real margin of Republican victory in New Jersey was, absent ACORN's intervention.)

Many laymen still don't understand how the ACORN scam works. To them, ACORN's excuse that they are merely committing voter registration fraud, not vote fraud, seems plausible. Here's the deal: Register 100,000 phony voters such as Mickey Mouse and the Seven Dwarves, thus expanding the nominal voter rolls, and the Democrat vote counters then have the latitude to create 100,000 extra votes out of thin air on election night. This is what "community organizer" really means, and Barack Obama is forever stained by his ACORN background. Not that it matters to him.

America should brace for the biggest vote fraud and election theft caper of all time on election night 2010 -- and in the months following. We now know as well that the Dems are guaranteed to win any statewide recount where there is a Democrat Secretary of State. And who, we must ask, is there to enforce the election laws now?

What of Florida 2000? It is easy to correct the prevailing misconception. One can usually tell what offenses against the commonweal the liberal Democrats are committing by what accusations they make against others (into which they project their own tendencies). In November 2000, Democrats did everything they could to try to steal a national election for the second time in forty years, right before a nation's very eyes, with local partisan functionaries inventing Gore votes out of those dimpled chads. Still, the Democrats have claimed since Y2000 that George W. Bush stole that year's election, even though every Florida recount, including those sponsored by the media, demonstrated that Bush 43 really won under the law. Republicans have been so ineffective in publicizing these true results in answer to the Democrat mantra that the propaganda has largely taken hold in the public consciousness.

(3) As if they need it, the Dems will be secretly encouraging (maybe even hiring) third-party candidates wherever they need them, because they know that is the way to split the opposition vote. It almost always happens that way to the Democrats' benefit. If people such as Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck don't realize this soon, instead of talking up the third-party route, they will only help to ensure a permanent Democrat stranglehold on Congress and the presidency -- although any one of this litany of methods would probably be sufficient for that. So the Dems are actually conservative in the sense of wanting some built-in redundancy!

(4) What do we suppose the extra trillion dollars of "stimulus" money to be spent from 2010 to 2012 is really for? Just a coincidence, or a ready-made election slush fund? How much has already been committed to ACORN and SEIU?

(5) Then there is the "universal voter registration" plan that the Wall Street Journal's John Fund has spotlighted, granting automatic voting privilege to anyone who has ever registered for practically anything, anywhere, anytime. The Democrats and their henchmen could work with that, couldn't they? Or why are they so eager to enact it? Their entire history has been to oppose laws that prevent vote fraud, after all. (What could be their motive for that particular laxity?)

These five strategies should be enough to ensure permanent Democrat control of our federal government -- a virtual dictatorship. For them, it is a royal flush. But another part of the scheme may be the most pernicious of all. The worst is yet to come.

(6) When you become dependent on the decision of a Democrat bureaucrat for crucial medical treatment -- after the health care takeover -- how much power does that give the Democrats over you? Elderly voters tend to vote more conservative than younger voters, so letting the elderly dies because care is "too expensive" can reshape the political profile of the electorate. But can we reasonably foresee that party registration or political contributions might enter the bureaucrat's calculus? Might it occur to the intense partisans of the Obama administration to grant lifesaving treatment to those they regard as "their people," but not to others? What a neat way to eliminate the opposition! Party registration is already public information. And if they can overturn the secret ballot for union elections via "card check," how long before they try to impose the same more generally, so they will always know how you have voted? Do not trust the judiciary to save us, either, after President Obama packs the courts with more ultra-leftists.

Chilling, isn't it? But not extreme: Obama himself has notoriously displayed his disregard for human life by the stated willingness to sacrifice "grandma" to a pain pill and his coarse support for unrestricted abortion -- even opposition to the Infant Born Alive Act, which he has tried to subvert.

When the Democrats achieve literal death-grip power over the lives of all our citizens, that's when they also achieve their long-cherished dream of absolute power in a virtual one-party state. Now is it becoming transparent (so to speak) what the real scheme behind their mania for "health-care reform" is? Now does it all make sense? This is not your father's Democrat party.

This issue is not about health care, ultimately. It is about raw political power and the long-promised radical takeover of the United States. For anyone who hasn't thought of all this before, I guarantee that Obama and his party's other leaders have.

Dictatorship in a one-party state indeed seems to loom for us. As one prominent commentator has pointed out, the normal order of the human condition is tyranny, subjugation, and dictatorship, with only a couple of respite periods throughout history, including our time in the West over the past two centuries or so. It just took that long for the totalitarian types to gain near-total power in our country, which they are now consolidating over the coming year. What are the betting odds that they will ever let it go voluntarily?

No wonder the national Democrats aren't concerned about having to face the electorate again. Pity the naïve, hapless Republicans who actually imagine they have a fair chance later this year and in '12!

The long-time president of my university, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, used to say, "At our school, we ask all the questions, even the tough ones." How'd I do, Father?

The most troubling aspect of my analysis is that it represents the logical extension of irrefutable, objective facts. At least five of the six premises are no more and no less than observable Democrat behavior, and the other is a mild extrapolation at most. This is not good.

It's over, America. We are now living under a proto-dictatorship in the United States. In less than a year, the full reification of it will be apparent to all. Have a nice day. R.I.P., U.S.A.

John F. Gaski, Ph.D. is Associate Professor, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, and is author of the recently-published Frugal Cool: How to Get Rich-Without Making Very Much Money (Corby Books). He is also a specialist in social and political power and a long-time registered Democrat.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Americans Deserting Democrat Party in Record Numbers

Number of Democrats Falls to New Low, Down Six Points Since Election 2008

From Rasmussen Reports

In December, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats fell to the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of monthly tracking by Rasmussen Reports.

Currently, 35.5% of American adults view themselves as Democrats. That’s down from 36.0 a month ago and from 37.8% in October. Prior to December, the lowest total ever recorded for Democrats was 35.9%, a figure that was reached twice in 2005. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.

The number of Republicans inched up by a point in December to 34.0%. That’s the highest total for Republicans since December 2007, just before the 2008 presidential campaign season began.

However, the number of Republicans in the country is essentially no different today than it was in November 2008 when Barack Obama was elected president.

The change since Obama’s election is that the number of Democrats has fallen by six percentage points and the number of voters not affiliated with either major party has grown by six. The number of adults not affiliated with either party is currently at 30.6%, up from 24.7% in November 2008.

Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based on telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002. The margin of error for the full sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence.

Despite the changes, there are still more Democrats than Republicans in the nation. But the gap is down to 1.5 percentage points, the smallest since August 2005.

Between November 2004 and 2006, the Democratic advantage in partisan identification grew by 4.5 percentage points. That foreshadowed the Democrats' big gains in the 2006 midterm elections. The gap grew by another 1.5 percentage points between November 2006 and 2008 heading into the election of President Obama.

The gap between the parties is now very similar to the gap in November 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection. However, at that time, both parties had more support, and fewer were unaffiliated with either party. The number of unaffiliateds typically declines as major elections draw near.

Keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all adults, not likely voters. Republicans are a bit more likely to participate in elections than Democrats.

Obama's overall approval rating in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll fell below 50% for the first time in July. A month-by-month review of the president’s ratings shows that they held steady in August and September before declining over the past several months.

Data from our monthly partisan identification survey is used to set weighting targets for other Rasmussen Reports surveys. The targets are based on results from the previous three months.

When Obama was inaugurated last January, Democrats had a seven-point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot. Republicans now have a five-point advantage. That change has been brought about partly by the declining number of Democrats and partly by the fact that unaffiliated voters are now more supportive of the GOP.

Rasmussen Reports has released Senate polls for Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, Connecticut, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and California. Collectively, these polls define a difficult political environment for Democrats as 2010 begins. But there's still a long way to go until November, so Democrats have time to implement damage control efforts.

Rasmussen Reports also has released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Deconstructing Obama

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Deconstruction, I'm told, is still all the rage on college campuses throughout the Land. Part of the broader movement of postmodernism which has attempted to tear down the old certainties upon which Western Culture is founded.

The academics' pet theory of the past 30 years has touched numerous facets of our society. These thorny deconstructionists have managed to convince many an American college student to sacrifice his God-given common sense and Judeo/Christian values on the altar of presumed white male privilege, from which these students are admonished they now must actively disengage. After all, say the deconstructionists and their postmodernist, post-colonialist allies, every single good in Western civilization has been irrevocably tainted by the despicable, ill-gotten-gain methods of those nasty, imperialist, white, male, chauvinist-pig founders, warriors, inventors, builders, landowners, writers, jurists et al. How dare we, as modern day white Westerners, reap the ill-gotten benefits of such a despicable, greedy, imperialistic lot.

Deconstructionists have attempted to remake society around a new set of power relations. In their philosophical re-do, they imperiously take the advantage away from white males and hand it over, lock, stock and barrel to all non-white males and females of all varieties. And presto-change-o the world is still unfair, but it is unfair in a different direction. A more "fair" form of unfairness, or so say the deconstructionists.

Sadly, we have all seen the results of deconstructionist machinations in our schools, our workplaces, our literature, our legal system and just about every other place one dares to look. Why, the deconstructionists have deconstructed just about everything Western, save the old kitchen sink. In some spheres, the results of this attempt at re-ordering our society is called "affirmative action." In others, it's called a "quota system." Then there is the omnipresent "sensitivity training," what communists blithely refer to as "reeducation camp."

Unfortunately, we now must assume, after 30 years of this theory's preeminence, that those of us who do not ascribe to deconstructionist tenets, must actually deconstruct much of what we used to be able to take for granted.

University degrees are no longer objectively standardized, bona fide credentials; they are subjective instruments that could mean just about anything. Job titles are no longer a guarantee of accomplishment; they could just as easily be token positions. And on and on and on this list could go, but there isn't time here.

Perhaps nowhere outside academia itself have the deconstructionists had more powerful sway than within the once-august body that calls itself the Democratic Party. I have, myself, for years now refused to bestow the adjective, democratic, upon the Democrat Party. It has been so thoroughly infiltrated since the early 70s by leftist deconstructionists that it has become a thoroughly undemocratic institution, giving heaps of advantage to everyone other than white males, and has thusly reduced itself to a committee dictatorially run by a rainbow proletariat.

The dictatorship of the minorities. How democratic is that?

Because the deconstructionists have thoroughly taken over the Democratic Party in America, it is now incumbent upon us, the citizenry, to deconstruct the candidate they are promoting for President, the not-even-through-his-first-term Senator, Barack Obama.

Deconstructing the Democratic Party Brand

Sadly, we can no longer assume that anyone promoted by the Democratic Party has been properly vetted for disqualifying scandalous behavior, or even on the most fundamental level of actually possessing barely minimal qualifications for public office.

As many have noted during this protracted Democrat primary race, the rules for nominating a Presidential candidate under this Party's label are mystifying in their complexity. Prior to 1968, the Democrats used, by and large, the same winner-take-all formula for primaries that the Republican Party still uses.

This formula is not unlike the wisdom of our Electoral College, which ingeniously allows for majority votes to count by localities and states. It's simple, uncomplicated, clean-cut. Under this old, tried-and-true system the majority rules and life goes on without a whole heap of fuss, which has allowed this Republic of ours to transfer power without bloodshed, uninterrupted for going on three centuries.

Of course, as anyone with a lick of political, historical knowledge already knows, the Democratic Party's system had for the last few decades taken a low-road, backroom approach to party politics that favored insiders and machine bosses over the will of ordinary voters. Their system was already primed for the comeuppance it got in 1968.

The Democratic National Convention of 1968 was a quite raucous and bloody affair, with mobs of young leftist agitators rioting in the streets of Chicago, demanding their way. These home-grown Marxist revolutionaries, many of whom went on to become domestic terrorists and bombers and universal nihilists of all variety, didn't get their way that year. But they did make enough of a dent in the bastions of Democratic Party authority to rewrite the nominating rules around what they considered more egalitarian principles. What resulted from the radical changes to the nominating process is the convoluted mess that formed the basis for this year's slugfest between two affirmative-action candidates.

To be sure, a great many journalists have already tiptoed through this affirmative-action mine field upon which I am about to brazenly march, but so far their dainty ruminations have had scanty effect upon polling numbers.

Actually, that may be a bit understated, since it seems nearly miraculous that the Republican candidate, John McCain, is within shouting distance of the Democrat after a full eight years of leftist press bombardment aimed at the Republican brand, effectively polarizing a sitting Republican President. I personally believe McCain's strong showing so far is owed not to racism, as has been suggested, but due to the obvious affirmative-action nature of the Democrats' candidate, Barack Obama.

The truth is that neither of the Democrat front-runners for the nomination this year would have ever been considered for the highest office in the Land had they not received the benefit of 30 years' worth of postmodernist/deconstructionist machinations that gave them undue advantage owing to their presumed mantle of past grievances on account of race and gender.

One woman who unabashedly leapfrogged her way into the Senate on the back of a still-sitting President, her husband. And the other frontrunner, Obama, has absolutely nothing on his resume but stints in academia, political organizing, a do-nothing state senate gig, and the office of a Senator, which he has shamefully used as nothing more than a launch pad for his audacious attempted catapult into the White House.

By offering us two nominees and a presumed candidate whose demographic background outweighs considerations of experience and merit, the Democratic Party is undermining, deconstructing really, its own brand, traditionally built on the pose of championing the little guy.

Deconstructing Obama

We, the citizenry, are being asked at this juncture to literally turn our time-tested demand for a presidential resume check completely on its ear. We are asked to give advantages to Barack Obama on account of his racial mix that we would never give to a white male, and as some have surmised even to a white female, in the same position.

We are being asked to deconstruct the most powerful political position in the world.

One of the pet "methods" of deconstruction, I'm told, is the critique of binary oppositions. It's proposed by deconstructionists that there are classic dualities in Western thought, which give privileged position to one term over the other, the favored position always going to the meaning most associated with the phallus. Puh-lease.

But, okay, let's play along. A few of the most oft noted binary oppositions in Western thought are: fullness over emptiness, meaning over meaninglessness, identity over difference and life over death.

And, yes, as a mere product of my wholly Western thought, I do tend quite naturally to give a positive weight to fullness over emptiness, meaning over meaninglessness, identity over difference and life over death. Mere common sense would seem to dictate these positive connotations, in my own mind, whether one is Western, Eastern or anything else.

But according to the deconstructionists, if I want to throw my full support to candidate Obama, then I must literally force myself to go completely athwart these Western tendencies, and opt to reverse them.

I must accept that Obama's nearly empty resume for the Presidency is actually better than McCain's full resume.

I must accept that Obama's meaningless, non-defined rhetoric is actually better than McCain's meaningful, painstakingly defined rhetoric and plans.

I must accept that Obama's difference, in terms of his racial makeup is actually better than McCain's common identity with my own. Whatever happened to Martin Luther King's insistence on a colorblind society?

So far, Obama's only plans worth noting are to disarm America and turn over vast amounts of our wealth to refortify failing dictatorships in third-world countries. If accomplished, this will amount to nothing less than handing over our sovereignty and liberty in favor of bondage to international consensus.

I must accept that Obama's death plan for America, the Land that I love, is actually better than McCain's life plan to preserve and protect our liberty.

I might as well go a bit further with the deconstructionists and throw in another purely Western assumption. Liberty over bondage. Yes, it's true. Color me prejudiced to the core of my being.

I actually will prefer to my dying day, with the last breath I draw, as God is my witness, liberty over bondage.

I'm hopelessly, irretrievably, to the marrow of my bones, an American. And I will not give my one vote, earned by the precious sacrifice of millions before me, to a deconstructionist, affirmative-action candidate. The Presidency of the United States of America is not now, nor should it ever be, an entitlement.
Whatever precautions you take so the photograph will look like this or that, there comes a moment when the photograph surprises you. It is the other's gaze that wins out and decides.

- Jacques Derrida, Father of Deconstructionist Theory
Millions of dollars, lots of great minds, many slick branding tricks, slogans and sales pitches have gone into creating the "photograph" of Barack Obama's public persona. But in the end, on election day, it will be we "gazers," the voters, who will decide whether the image truly fits the man.

If this were American Idol, Barack would be a shoe-in. But for the most powerful political position in the world?

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at