The Potential Republican Tsunami

Larry Sabato wrote an article in Politico on Wednesday asking the question: "How Big a Wave---Will we see a GOP ripple....or a Tsunami?"

"Last week, Republican primary voters passed their first Senate test, producing a North Carolina nominee, Thom Tillis, who is merely imperfect, not catastrophic.

          After the disasters of recent years, national Republicans will happily take it.

The North Carolina result did nothing to change the expectation among most observers that the Republicans have a 50-50 or better shot at taking the Senate majority. It might even have enhanced those odds. The conventional wisdom is reasonable: We know that the president is unpopular, the president’s party typically performs poorly in midterms and the Democrats are overextended on this year’s Senate map. One of the ways the Republicans could hurt their chances is by running bad candidates in some of these races. Tillis might turn out to be that kind of candidate, but he was clearly the most credible nominee in the primary field.
So where is the Senate right now? Hypothetically, there’s still a wide range of potential outcomes – and all the likeliest ones involve at least some kind of Republican wave, perhaps delivering the magic six-seat gain that would dethrone Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."

Sabato provides charts and graphs, and breaks down the contended Senate races coming up in November, as Harry Reid's control appears to be in jeopardy.  Here's what your's truly posted in comments at the site:

"It could be said that the far-left big government social experiment is all but over.  Look for many of the Democratic Senate candidates to "attempt" to campaign as moderates, or even "conservative-leaning".  They'll preach fiscal responsibility, respect for laws, (both morally and constitutionally), tax reform---instead of raising taxes on an over-burdened middle class---and finally, they'll talk about protecting individual rights vs. the big-government intrusions, (dictates from the ruling class in Washington DC).  Some Democrats might even stake their claims that our 1st & 2nd amendment rights are in serious jeopardy and need to be protected.  You might even hear a few speeches about how the powers of the federal government are constitutionally limited, and all other powers are specifically RESERVED to the states, and the people! (read the 10th amendment). 

Oh, wait!  Aren't these the principle tenants of the Tea Party?

Bottom line?  Most of these Senate Democrats will run, no, sprint to the center and do their best to not sound totally hypocritical to their sworn liberal ideologies of the Obama-style form of government.  And despite all the phony narratives from the White House and the liberal media, ObamaCare is NOT suddenly a popular program because 8 million people have signed up to this FEDERAL MANDATE.  The state exchanges are falling apart to the tune of millions of wasted tax-payer dollars, and will have to transition to the federal site.  Premiums are predicted, (by the same insurance companies that backed this train wreck) to go through the roof long before November, and the federal government will have to ask the people to pick up the tab in higher taxes to provide subsidies---guaranteed to the insurance companies!

How big will the wave be for Republicans?  Current polling shows a potential tidal wave of discontent with the people, (and a huge contingent of independents---the swing voters that make the difference), who have had enough of this big government social experiment and the power-brokers in Washington with their one-size fits all mentality.

Democrats know their “Titanic” form of government is sinking, and there’s not enough life-boats to save them all.  And the far-left liberal progressives can only re-arrange the deck chairs at this point, since moving to the middle of the ship is pointless."

~ Rovin 

Billionaire Tom Steyer Makes His Money the Old Fashioned Way---Investing in Fossil Fuels

John Hinderaker at Powerline explains how billionaire Tom Steyer operates his hypocritical campaign against fossil fuel production while reaping millions in overseas coal investments. Steyer has pledged $100 million to Democrats, (and their environmental lobbies) who oppose Keystone and all other fossil fuel production.  Ironically, or strategically, Steyer is playing both (profit-making) ends, against each other with “questionable motives”: 

THE EPIC HYPOCRISY OF TOM STEYER
“Billionaire hedge fund operator and “green” energy magnate Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to help Democratic candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline and who favor “green” energy over fossil fuels. Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline. Go here, here, here, here, here and here for more information about how Steyer uses his political donations and consequent connections to enhance his already vast fortune………

Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the political world, but Tom Steyer is in a class by himself. Now that he is enriching himself through “green” cronyism, coal is evil. Sure: like all hydrocarbons, it competes with the solar energy boondoggles on which he is making millions, with the aid of the Obama administration. But where was Steyer’s alleged social conscience when he was one of the world’s biggest investors in coal? And how substantial are his current holdings in coal projects? Is Steyer financing his anti-fossil fuel campaign on profits from past or, perhaps, ongoing investments in Asian and Australian coal? Inquiring minds want to know! Tom Steyer appears to have elevated political hypocrisy to an entirely new level.”  (read Hinderaker's entire post here)

Of course, obtaining federal subsidies, (most likely tax-free income investments), to promote green energy programs, (that are a few decades away from becoming feasibly practical or self-sustaining---not relying on Federal tax-payer dollars), has Mr. Steyer in an enviable position, and it’s all perfectly legal.  Investing massive campaign dollars against any and all fossil fuel production leads to driving those production prices higher, which, in the end, the cost is picked up by the consumer.  It’s a win-win for Farallon and Kinder Morgan, (corporations Steyer was or is heavily invested in).

In Mr. Steyer’s case, his company/conglomerates don’t have to take their coal industry profits and expend them.  Instead, the tax-payer funded subsidies roll into one account and go out another in the form of get this---campaign donations that are/can be written off by donating to a IRC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that supplies non-biased information and opinions to their intended voters:  

“How can an organization express that opinion?  IRC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are legally prohibited from directly or indirectly campaigning for or against any candidate for political office.  This includes financial campaign contributions and verbal or written statements made on behalf of the organization.  If an organization does so, it puts its tax-exempt status at risk.  That said, there are certain things that tax-exempt organizations can legally do that most people would consider “political.” For example, organizations can hold events or publish documents to educate voters (provided that the materials show no sign of bias).  Voter drives or registration efforts, as long as they are conducted in a bipartisan manner, are not prohibited.”  (LINK)

Of course, all of Mr. Steyer's motives are to educate the masses, and no one should suspect any ulterior motives, such as maintaining his personal wealth.  That would be considered capitalistic and an insult to the liberal progressives who are emotionally invested in saving the planet.  Perhaps this is another case where the ends justify the means........hypocritically speaking, of course.

Billionaire Tom Steyer---making money the old fashioned way.

House of Representatives Reject Obama's Budget 413-2

Eerily similar to the Senate's rejection of the President's Budget in 2011, and again in 2012, the House rejected Mr. Obama's blueprint for the 2015 Budget by a whopping 413-2:

Two brave Democrats voted for President Obama’s budget on Wednesday, preventing another unanimous defeat for their party leader.

The rest of the chamber, however, had other plans, sending Mr. Obama’s plan to a devastating 413-2 defeat as most Democrats joined Republicans in rejecting the fiscal year 2015 blueprint.

To keep this post "honest and transparent", (like everything else that comes out of the White House), the Democrats claim this wasn't Obama's bill:

House Republicans staged the vote to be able to argue that Mr. Obama’s plans are unpopular on both sides of the aisle, though Democrats said it was a useless vote and said the plan — which Republicans wrote to reflect the president’s budget — wasn’t actually Mr. Obama’s own plan. 

Yet Guy Benson at Town Hall says the GOP simply put Obama's Budget into legislative language, where the Democrats are crying foul, but the synopsis of Obama's plan was obvious:

The White House and House Democrats can claim that the GOP's version of Obama's budget wasn't an "accurate reflection" of the original document, but it essentially lifted Obama's entire vision and dropped it into legislative language. In reality, all but two Democrats -- one of whom was this guy -- chose not to attach themselves to the president's plan, which calls for the following:

 President Obama's 2015 Budget Proposal:
(1) Never balances. Ever.
(2) Increases spending, ballooning the national debt by $8.3 trillion over the budget window -- $1 trillion beyond than the unsustainable current trajectory. Under Obama's plan, the red ink on the above chart would be steeper, sooner.
(3) Raises taxes by an additional $1.8 trillion (and again, never balances).
(4) Makes no attempt at reforming the gathering tidal wave of unfunded promises that Obama has admitted in the past are driving a long-term debt crisis.  (you can go to this link for further explanations to Benson's interpretation of Obama's Budget)

 But wait!  Maybe this really isn't Obama's Budget?

Senate confirmation hearings on the president’s choice to succeed Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary, budget director Sylvia Mathews Burwell, will give Republicans days of media exposure for their criticism of a program that remains unpopular.

So, once again, our dear leader can claim "plausible deniability" that he's responsible for another multi-trillion budget busting bill.  But there's that pesky health care legislation rearing up is ugly head......again.....that the CBO says will cost 2.5 million jobs, as estimates of the real cost of this train wreck keep eating into our national budget.  But that's another story, (or, as the Liberal pundits put it---another "settled science"). Stand by for the denial accusations.

~ Rov

Latest "Expanded" Search for Flight 370 by Media Experts and Authorities---(CNN Sarcasm)

Malaysian Official says he's picked up a "ping".

Seriously, CNN takes "wall to wall coverage" to a whole new world.

What's the Left to Do: After Mocking Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney

First of all, the liberal media has yet to call Putin's aggression into Crimea an invasion, yet, as Newsbuster's points out, the MSM had no hesitation when Nixon ordered U.S. troops into Cambodia.  It was a bit shocking when the Washington Post Editorial Board proclaimed Obama's foreign policy "was based on fantasy".

Of course, no one else knew this was coming, right?

PALIN MOCKED IN 2008 FOR WARNING PUTIN MAY INVADE UKRAINE IF OBAMA ELECTED

And Sarah's response from her facebook page:

"Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I'm usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

And, Mitt Romney was clueless too, right?

Now it’s Mitt Romney’s turn to take a bow for having “clear eyes” on Russia’s future threat potential. 

Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.
“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.” 

Romney offered a powerful retort: “Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe…and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin…”

 And we do remember Chris Matthews saying, “I don’t know what decade this guy’s living.”

And, remember this quote from now Sect. of State John Kerry?

"He's even blurted out the preposterous notion that Russia is our'number one geopolitical foe.' Folks: Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska; Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.” ....."

One has to wonder if this was the flexibility Barack Obama was seeking?

And, of course, Russia's hearing nothing with the hollow threats from the U.S.

And, what about that 3 AM call?  What's Hillary going to do about this?

The freedom not to work?

Yesterday on van Susteren’s show, Elise Viebeck repeated the specious liberal argument: since all safety net programs disincentivize work, it's not a surprise that and shouldn't count as a defect of Robertobamacare that it disincentivizes work.  She did not offer the corollary that it gave people a “choice,” but that argument is just as bad.

Like most liberal arguments, these trade on distortion and a shallow understanding of context. 

(1) Would anyone take liberals seriously if they said long term unemployment benefits are a good thing...because they give people the option not to work?  Because they gave people a choice?

(2) Never before have we trumpted the work disincentives as a good thing in safety net programs.  Indeed the welfare reform -- that this White House has gutted -- was precisely put in place in the mid-90s to remove such disincentives while still providing a safety net.  Yet this administration sees disincentivizing work and choosing not to work as its version of the American dream.

(3) When Medicaid, food stamps, and others were put in place, we did not have 1 in 5 people on food stamps, we did not have 91 million Americans not working, the labor participation rate was not precipitously dropping as it hadn't in decades, and we weren't arguing about whether to extend 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for a minimum of 12 more weeks...and we didn't have millions, perhaps tens of millions of Americans losing their health insurance so these "special few" could choose to work less!  Yet this is the context of this new program.  Unfortunately Republicans so far have not bothered to provide the context.

(4) Liberals do not bother to mention that we did not put safety net programs into place to disincentivize work.  Yet that is what this Pelosi-through-the-looking-glass-"follow your dream" argument suggests -- Robertobamacare allows you to follow your dreams! By not working! So others can pay for your dream! Would it do any good to tell liberals that safety net programs are not put in place so special few can follow their dreams?  At someone else’s expense?

President Obama's State of the Union

Our World Class Finger Pointer---Because it's Always Some One Else's Fault.

If President Obama truly reported on the actual State of the Union, the stock market would crash and gold prices would go through the roof.  Instead, the President will tell us the economy's “still improving“, (for the fifth time), but, there's still room for improvement, and pay no attention to the 90 million out of work.  What he won’t tell us, is the American work force participation rate is the lowest in 36 years.  He will brag about the stock market that's been receiving an 85 billion cash infusion every month, (courtesy of the Feds own printing presses), feeding the banks and the power-brokers who return their in-kind campaign donations to the Democratic Party.  Polling on the President’s economy---39.4% approve, 56.2% disapprove.  Grade: D-

On his legacy policy---the Federal Government take-over of the Health Care Industry---Obama will tell us the beleaguered web-site “is working”, but there’s still much work to do on the back-end, (for the third no-bid contractor to “clean up“).  He will tell us over two-three million now have insurance who never had it before, but he won’t tell us about the 6-7 million that now have cancelled policies, or that the new one’s being offered at the exchanges are far more expensive including massively high deductibles.  What he also won’t tell us is, if the numbers of sign-ups by the young and healthy don’t change dramatically by March, the Federal Government will be asking for trillion dollar installments to bail out the insurance companies.  (Any one remember when the Democrats supplied the CBO with phony numbers to keep the entire program under ONE TRILLION DOLLARS?.  Does anyone know what those “revisions” are now?)  The impending disaster still awaits us all when the employer mandate kicks in, and millions more are systematically forced onto the over-priced exchanges.  Polling on this policy---37.6% favor, 54.5% disapprove.  Grade: D-

How he will explain "progress in the middle east", and other foreign policies as anything positive is beyond our comprehension.  Perhaps he'll tell us the Al Qaeda flags flying over Fallujah is the result of another offensive video.  Thousands of Coptic Christians are being systematically exterminated throughout Egypt and the middle east---in a Holocaustic manner---and there’s not one word of outrage from the State Dept or the White House.  On Iran, no one knows how soon they will have a working nuclear weapon, or how soon it will be deployed to a satellite terrorist group, since Iran’s foreign minister just announced “that we did not promise to dismantle anything”.  But Mr. Kerry, under Obama’s direction has given the regime a six month reprieve on sanctions---that were working.  Oh, and Syria is still a hornet’s nest, since Mr. Obama can’t make up his mind whether Assad and his henchmen should remain in power while continuing to murder hundreds of thousands of their citizens.  And despite the recent Senate Intelligence Report, (chaired by a Democrat), that said the four murdered patriots in Benghazi could have been prevented, it’s still a phony scandal.  (Paging Susan Rice).  Polling on Obama’s foreign policies, 42.2 approve, 48.8 disapprove.  Grade: D 

The President will tell us how his policies of reducing our carbon footprints are progressing as solar and electric car companies continue to file for bankruptcy and the windmills chew up four million birds, (including eagles and other protected carrion).  Meanwhile, his personal war on the coal industry, and other fossil fuels, continues unabated.  In the U.S. there are over 30,000 miles of  small pipelines, 55,000 miles of crude oil pipelines. and 95,000 miles of pipeline with refined products, but President Obama and the Inviros are hell bent on preventing one more pipeline, Keystone, that would provide products and jobs.  What he won’t tell us is how 50 environmentalists were stranded for a month in the Antarctic because of expanding ice flows, or that the planet has actually been cooling for the past decade. What he also won’t tell us, is that out of all of the Federal tax-payer dollars, (subsidies), that go to environmental companies for R&D, explorations, CO2 prevention, millions of dollars are returned to the Democratic Party to continue the biggest hoax ever played on the American public---a world-wide multi-billion dollar money laundering scheme.  Polling on Mr. Obama’s job of protecting the environment vs. improving the nation’s energy resources, 56% say he’s doing a good job on the environment, while only 43% think his energy policies are working.  Grade: D-  (one full point deducted for the global warming scam)

Overall, the most recent polling on the direction/health of this Nation, a whopping 62.7% believe this country is on the wrong track, while only 28.2% think we’re on the right track.  So, after five years, (and at least six more trillion dollars added to the national debt), Mr. Obama will tell us everything is going on “swimmingly well”.  Pass out the life preservers.

Addendum:  President Obama said the other day, (again), that "I have a phone and a pen", and was specifically telling the American public that if he can't implement his agenda and policies Constitutionally, and legislatively, he will use his executive powers to extend his personal assault on this nation, despite two-thirds of the country telling him it's the wrong direction, (see poll just above).  Instead, Mr. Obama continues to blame everyone and anyone else for his failures, (including Fox News, and those mean old Conservative Republicans). Apparently, Mr. Obama hasn't yet read, (in the news), that National Polling shows a strong majority of the country are rejecting both his policies and agenda. For this arrogant and egotistical rejection of the people's wishes and expectations, Mr. Obama receives my personal grade of F-   

Double-Addendum:  Almost forgot.  Mr. Obama will tell us all, (in his speech), about the disparity of income inequality.  He will tell us of how the haves have more and the have not's have less---from the direct liberal playbook of "how to employ class warfare to advance your agenda".  He will call for a federal raise in the minimum wage, (and tell us a few stories about how devastated the middle class and the poor are doing today).  What he will not tell us is that under his 5-year administration and his policies, the income gap has expanded, not reduced.  What he also won't tell us, is when 15-25 million illegal immigrants are granted full amnesty, they will be taking more of America's poor and the disadvantaged JOBS away, while adding millions more to the government rolls of dependency and entitlements.  And yes, 99% of them will vote for Democrats, as long as the "benefits" flows into their pockets---always the cheapest way to buy votes, using the tax-payer's money---but no one will see this as just another "phony scandal".

Much of the President's State of the Union address will be a "rinse and repeat" of last year's address with the caveat of guilt he will pile on to the "greedy corporations".  He will call on the rich to cut a check to his liberal progressive cronies in Congress, so they can pass more legislation to protect the poor---because YOUR GOVERNMENT always knows best how to redistribute the wealth.  More American citizens are dependent of government assistance, (food stamps, WIC, and general welfare), under this President and his policies since the great depression.  Yet, President Obama will tell us it's some one else's fault.  Over the past five years, he's become a champion finger pointer, while filling the public's heads with empty promises or flat out lies, ("if you like it, you can keep it").  The fawning liberal media will tell us all what a great speech it was---AGAIN---filling the heads of low information voters with another dose of hope and change, and expecting a different result.  One thing is certain, 2016 can't come soon enough. 

~ Rov