October 27, 2010

Message Failure

Remember all the Democrat Party whining about how much money is being spent in support of Republican candidates?

Would it surprise you to know that the Democrats have raised and spent considerably more Republicans?

Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.

Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.

Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.

I guess they just can't face the fact that the reason they are going to lose so badly in the mid-term election is that really large numbers of people don't like their policies. They are not losing because they are not getting their message out. They are not losing because people don't understand what they are trying to do. 

They are losing because they are getting the message out and people do understand.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 04:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

October 21, 2010

The One Comes To Town

Great, I wonder how bad this news is going to screw up traffic for the day?

That's right friends and neighbors the President is going to make a local stop on his Desperation Tour in the run-up to the mid-term elections.

The campaign for the Fourth District’s seat in the U.S. House of Representatives appears to be extremely close, so close that President Barack Obama has scheduled a visit to Bridgeport to build support for the incumbent Democrat, Jim Himes, three days before Election Day.

The squishy purple district in which live and which sent moderate Republican Chris Shays to DC for 10 terms, is threatening to go red again this election.

Real Clear Politics has recently moved the race from leans Democrat to toss up.

CT has been trending so blue lately I was beginning to think I might have to watch the trouncing of the Democrats from the sidelines. Now it seams I may be able to get a piece of the action after all.

RCP has Dick "The Liar" Blumenthal up by 7.6. If scum like Blumenthal can win here just by adding a D after his name, the possibility of getting one House seat out of Democratic party control is thrilling.

Let's hope The One's campaign stop in Bridgeport is every bit a successful as the campaigning he did for John Corzine in New Jersey and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

October 16, 2010

Unexpectedly Quit

Son of a &!#(#.

My friend Jack, you must remember Jack by now, sent me another fun email from MoveOn.org.

I sat down this morning and wrote a very lengthy post about that email, full of insightful and often mocking analysis.

I finished writing and got up to refill my coffee before beginning the reading and editing process. When I got back to my desk the post was gone, replaced by a message that my browser had "unexpectedly quit."

Son of a &!#(#.

Before you ask if I had bothered to save a draft, think for moment that if I had you would be reading that mocking insightful analysis instead of this tripe. Maybe if I had that fourth cup sooner I would have thought to do that.

No. I'm not going to try to recreate it. I don't have the time.

I'll just give you the best quotes from the email and you can fill in your own analysis and mockery.

Dear MoveOn member, 

There's no point in sugarcoating this: If the election were held today, Republicans and their corporate benefactors would gain control of the House—and quite possibly the Senate. 

That's the nightmare scenario. It would spell an end to any hope of progress in the next two years—and quite possibly to Obama's presidency.


This is a true emergency: We must stop the Republicans from taking over the Senate.

I'll offer the paraphrase with which I concluded the original post, and the rest is up to you to imagine: "I love the smell of fear in the morning. It smells like victory."

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 08:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment

October 05, 2010

Socialized Medicine … For The Children

As we start down the tortured twisting soul-crushing path toward socialized medicine, AKA ObamaCare, we have myriad examples of nations who have tried it before and all of the things that inevitably go wrong when the government is in charge.

Child benefit cuts 'tough but necessary' say ministers

Ministers have defended plans to cut child benefits to higher earners amid criticism they represent an "attack" on already hard-pressed families.

From 2013, benefits will be removed from any family where one parent earns more than about £44,000 a year.

Labour said the move - aimed at saving £1bn a year - undermined the coalition's claim to be a family-friendly government.

But Chancellor George Osborne described the plans as tough but fair.

So you don't confuse  the British definition of "higher earners" with The One's $250K cut off for higher earners, £44,000 is about $70,000.

This is what happens when you let government take over health care. They are no longer doing it for the children. They are doing to them.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 05:48 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment

Richard Blumenthal is a Liar

Have I ever mentioned that I have a degree in journalism?

I have? OK. 

Have I ever mentioned that I have taken that degree had a long and successful career in the graphic arts?

Repeatedly? Sorry about that.

I'm not sure I've ever told you all the reasons why. This kind of crap is one of the reasons why.

Connecticut GOP Senate nominee Linda McMahon is hammering Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal for misstatements about his military service record amid polls that show the race between them tightening.

Let's take a look at what some journalist by the name of Jordan Fabian considers a "misstatment."

In the ad, Blumenthal is shown saying, “We have learned something very important since the days that I served in Vietnam.”

The truth is that "Blumenthal did serve in the Marine Reserves during Vietnam, but he carried out his duties domestically."

I suppose if you stand way back, tilt you head to the left, cover one eye and squint a little Blumenthal saying "I served in Vietnam" could be seen as a misstatement. It certainly flows a lot better than "We have learned something very important since the days that I served in the Marine Reserves stationed in the U.S. during the time of the Vietnam War."

I suppose it all depends on the meaning of the word "in."

However there is this:

On several occasions, Blumenthal said he served “in” Vietnam and recounted vivid tales of returning from combat.

I don't know any way that you can construe recounting vivid tales of returning from combat as a misstatement. A misstatement means you misused words in a way that may have conveyed a meaning other than was intended. Telling stories about something that never happened is not making a misstatement. It's lying. Plain, simple, venal, lying.

Democratic Senate candidate and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is a liar.

We don't need another one of those in the Senate.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 08:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment

October 02, 2010

Defining Moments

My friend Jack seems to be on every left-wing email list (I promise I had nothing to do with it) and he frequently forwards me their communications and they frequently spur me to spout off on this site. He did it again!

The latest treat was an email from the AFSCME. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The government workers union.

Ronald Reagan once quipped that the most frightening phrase in the English language is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I think today he would have to revise that to "I'm from a government union, and I'm here to protest for more government."

The AFSCME, a large well funded organization, is urging it's memenbrs to participate in the astroturf protest being held in Washington DC today.

In dozens of states thousands more will knock on doors of union members in a massive daylong get-out-the-vote mobilization. If you can't make it to Washington, DC on Saturday, find a One Nation walk in your local area.

I wonder if there is one in my area. I think it would be fun to heckle a bunch of progressive union protesters.

One of the things they are protesting for is "economic justice." Whenever I hear progressives use the term "economic justice" I am reminded of this.

So I thought I would take it upon myself to explain it to them.

Justice in broad sense means you get what you deserve. You break the law you go to jail, pay a fine etc. We call this justice being done.

Translated into the sphere of economics getting what you deserve essentially means you get what you earn. What you earn is determined by what value is placed on what it is you do.

If you have a tremendous sense of business savvy and you can use that talent to make a company more successful and you can convince the stockholders (the Board of Directors) to pay you $5 million a year, that is economic justice. If the result of hiring you and paying that salary means the company makes an addition $15 - $20 million the board will no doubt continue to be happy to pay you $5 million. If the company starts losing $10 million a year, the board will be more than willing to cut you loose and reduce your salary to $0. That too is economic justice.

If you work hard and develop a skill that other people are willing to pay for and you manage to earn $50k a year that too is economic justice.

If you spend four years and tens of thousands of dollars earning a degree in Womyn's Studies and the best job you can get is flipping burgers for $13k a year. That too is economic justice.

The flip-side of course is economic injustice.

If someone comes along, say the government, and takes a large portion of the $5 million salary of the person in the first example and hands it out to the person making $13k in the last example, that is economic injustice.

Somehow though when the AFSCME starts to chant about "economic justice" I don't think what they mean will be the right of the guy making $5 million to keep what he earns.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 09:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
46kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.0326 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.0126 seconds, 216 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.