This Affects You

Weiner Resignation

2011-06-17T15:19:00.007-04:00

Now that I'm back up and running I think the first order of business would be to comment on the whole Wiener fiasco. You can view the resignation video here. The first thing that needs to be said is that this whole thing has become a crock of shit. Yes, people have made the argument that he didn't really need to give such a high profile resignation, but in all reality, given the media firestorm surrounding the story, it was the only thing he could do. He would have been called a coward if he had just submitted a written resignation. He's being called narcissistic for the doing this in front of cameras, which is probably a fair assessment of his personality on any given day but honestly it really was the only way to do this.

Secondly, about the heckling. Gaaaaaaay. That's really all anyone can say. The heckler was being a fag. And no I don't mean that in a anti-homosexual way, I mean it in the way Eminem defended his use of the word while doing a duet with Elton John at the Oscars. The hecklers were being idiots, assholes, children, douche-bags, popped-collar-jersey-shore-esque mouth-breathers, really any negative thing you want to call them. I, however, prefer the simple elegance that is calling someone a fag. Like saying "fuck" when making a point. I should disclose that I thought he should resign. Some of you might argue that what he did wasn't a really big deal and actually more of a personal issue between the congressman and his wife. I would agree that the twitter photo and the talking to cute young girls isn't really that big of an issue. But if that's the case, why lie so hard about it? Why take it to the point where you call the cops on a CBS reporter? Why make up a story about hackers? Sure I get that he panicked. But his defenders can't have it both ways. This is either a non-story or a big issue and the fact remains that he lied and continued to lie about it, in the face of overwhelming face-palming by any casual observer. Really you can't tell say with certainty if a picture of a penis is yours or not. Any guy that heard that had to know that was BS. And with that in mind, I know that if I was a constituent of his, it would be impossible for me to trust him going forward.

If he was willing to lie so hard and so desperately over something that is mildly embarrassing at best then what about the more important things that a politician might lie over like getting or using illegal funds. Keep in mind this guy had his eye on being mayor of New York.

So anyway my point is that it was right for him to resign and it was right for him to do it in the public manner that he did, but honestly people cheering and asking if his penis was over seven inches is straight up classless. The guys literally going through the worst moment of his life, was it really necessary to make it worse?

Back for another round

2011-06-17T15:14:00.003-04:00

So I've decided to start this blog back up again. The GOP primaries are starting to get into gear and to me that makes politics pretty interesting again. I've always liked the competative aspect of poltics more than anything else. It's like watching a great football game... only this stuff actually matters. Once things settle down into the implimintation of policy it gets a little annoying. I don't have a (huge) problem with people spinning facts and stories while on the campaign trail but once it gets down to the nitty gritty of governance it gets a little frustrating to watch both sides twist facts to suit their own needs. And yes both sides are equally guilty of it. SO with that in mind I'm going to try and jump back into the political blogging game.

Barack Obama Looking at Awesome Things

2010-10-14T23:39:00.001-04:00

This made me LOL.

Go ahead, click here...it's worth the view.

Is Obama Arrogant?

2010-10-14T19:31:00.003-04:00

First off I need to apologize to you all for not blogging as much these past few days. I've been caught up with work and just generally being lazy at home BUT I do plan on getting back into the swing of things. The elections are only a couple of weeks away after all!

So to get back into it, let me direct you to Jonah Goldberg's piece in the LA Times today about Obama and his "arrogance". I'm putting that in quotes because I think the jury is still out on that. Personally I can see where Goldberg is coming from and he makes several great points. But what is a measure of a president? When faced with adversity? I can agree with Goldberg when he writes that Obama's team is wrong in thinking that a bad recession makes this the toughest time to be president, but with the election coming I think we'll really have an easier time deciding if Obama is truly arrogant.

Up to this point, legislatively, Obama has had it easy. Very rarely in these modern times do presidents get such huge majorities in both chambers of congress and, frankly, passing laws should have been very easy. But if the pundits are correct and the republicans make huge gains in November, Obama will be looking at a huge wall of "No!" to any laws he proposes. If he is willing to moderate himself politically I think we will see a more humble president than we've been getting.

And to me that is a sure sign that he's not as arrogant as Golberg is making him out to be. Any president that is willing to eat crow, admit their defeat, and move on is one that believes more in the office than themselves.

Are the Dems mounting a Comeback?

2010-10-11T18:34:00.002-04:00

An article out today on MSNBC posses that question. It cites a few memos by democratic strategist Jennifer Crider and Texas republican Pete Sessions. Crider's memo is very optimistic that recent polls are saying the democrats have halved the republican lead and Pete Session's memo has an outlook of republican's only picking up enough seats to stop the democrats "functional majority".

First off the article is from MSNBC. They're like FOX news only the flip-side, highly partisan, only arguably more so. MSNBC desperately wants the democrats to remain in power and articles like these are meant to get the party faithful, who tend to watch and follow them, a little more jazzed and willing to go to the polls in a few weeks. My attitude is that articles like these are frivolous and nothing more.

Also interestingly enough, the article makes a brief attack at John Beohner, who recently went on the campaign trail to gin up votes and money for various candidates. Yet the author, Charles Babington, refers to it as the "speaker-in-waiting" tour and claims that others have called it that, although this claim is completely unsubstantiated. I call shenanigans. Comments like that are meant to create a narrative that over time can become the perceived "fact". That Beohner is licking his chops and chomping at the bit to get the speaker position. Fortunately I think that this article will go fairly unnoticed since it's pretty much counter to what every other pundit is saying about these elections.

My guess though is that you'll see a lot more aggressive BS writing coming form the democrats and their sympathizers as time presses on and even more so if the republicans do end up taking back control of the house.

Football today...

2010-10-10T17:07:00.002-04:00

I won't be posting much until later tonight I'm afraid. The Redskins won today so I'll be celebrating for a bit, but I'm sure I'll have some interesting political news to talk about later. Keep you all posted!

Do You Miss Bush?

2010-10-09T17:29:00.003-04:00

Nile Gardiner of the UK Telegraph has a short piece on the recent rise in popularity of former president George W. Bush. I was kind of shocked to be honest. Are people that fed up with Obama that we've become so nostalgic for Bush? Personally, I'm not in the camp that misses him. That's not to say that I don't respect him, which I do, or that I didn't think he was a good president, which I'm still on the fence over, but I think his time was over when he left office. It was time for fresh blood and while the new president doesn't seem to be fairing well at all that doesn't make me pine for the good old days.

The reason I'll always respect Bush goes all the way back to 9/11. As I've mentioned before I went to Rutgers, which is fairly close to NYC and so pretty much everyone at that school had a link to someone who was there. (I won't get into my own personal links here, it's a long story.) I feel that in the days and weeks after the tragedy Bush really did a great job in channeling the raw emotions of the public and helped bring the nation. It obviously wasn't bound to last but his actions at that time really helped a lot of people get through all of it, I know it helped me a lot.

So what do you think? Do you miss Bush at all? Would you rather he still be president over Obama? Or do you think people are being unfair and not giving the current president a chance?

This is going to blow your mind!

2010-10-09T12:55:00.003-04:00

We all like to joke that congress is full of a bunch of idiots. For the most part that really isn't true. Most of our representatives are pretty bright people that have some idea that what they are doing on capitol hill serves a purpose. Then there are people like Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia. This video is a little old so if you've seen this already I'm sorrry but it was new to me! I've been looking into it and yes this Congressman was not making a joke. It's three or four minutes long but I promise you it is totally worth it.

Jobs Report

2010-10-08T10:04:00.002-04:00

Well it's that time. The last Jobs report was released today. I will fully admit that I was wrong about my prediction. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.6%. If you read the Reuters article you may be a little confused about nonfarm payroll and private payroll. It all boils down to the fact that we did lose jobs this past month but not really a whole bunch to cause the over-all percentage of unemployed to rise.

What does this mean for the dems and Obama? It remains to be seen but if the republicans are adept at campaigning as they ought to be then they can use this info to their advantage. I think we'll probably hear in the next week the phrase, "Summer of Recovery" a whole lot from the right and in the next breath talk about the stagnant job report. It was a poor idea when Obama announce that catch phrase. Now all the republicans have to do is yell. It's a pretty simple tactic and one that could potentially get people riled up if the republicans are eloquent enough in discussing the issue.

The democrats do have a way to fight back though. They could easily argue that because the unemployment percentage hasn't really changed it could mean that we've rounded the corner and are on our way back up. They could make the claim that their steps to recovery are working and that we need to give it more time. It's a good argument and one that may actually be true, but people are still angry and I think that even a good jobs report couldn't shake the current trend that people want to vote incumbents out of office.

Jobs Report Prediction

2010-10-07T23:08:00.004-04:00

Sorry I haven't posted much today people, it was a hectic work day and I was preoccupied at home...hey that DVD of Iron Man 2 isn't going to watch itself! But I did want to throw my prediction of the job report that's about to be unleashed on us tomorrow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we are going to see a bit of an uptick in the unemployment percentage. Probably to 9.8% maybe even 9.9%.

Now if you've been reading this blog for a while then you might want to think back aaaaalll the way to my second post. In it I talked about the supposed claim that the recession had ended and that we were truly in a state of recovery. I though it was BS at the time and I still do. But in that post I mentioned that there is a difference in the unemployment numbers we'll get tomorrow, which only factors in people out of work and actually looking for a job versus real unemployment, which includes everyone who has given up looking entirely or is working some crap job well below their previous pay grade. So I do think that we will see an increase tomorrow even with states attempting to pad their employment numbers by adding primary election poll workers, who literally only worked a day but are going to be counted as employed.

What does this mean for the upcoming election and Obama's future? That remains to be seen but if I'm right about tomorrow then it could be very problematic for the democrats and the president.

Fred Phelps Update

2010-10-07T11:01:00.003-04:00

I don't have a whole lot of time today to do much blogging. Work has got me busy with writing lawsuits (not fun) but I did want to post a link about the Snyder v. Phelps case that was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday. It was just the hearing itself, the Court never issues a ruling until months later so we all won't know the outcome until sometime next year. But if you've been following this case at all (or have read my previous post **cough, cough**read it**cough cough***) then you'll know that this is a massive free speech/appropriate speech issue.

Anyway I'll try and post more stuff today if I get the chance but I just wanted to leave you all with a some light reading for the day.

Obama care already failing before it starts?

2010-10-06T20:54:00.001-04:00

It would seem that if this article from Big Government is true, the Obama Healthcare plan is in a lot of trouble. According to the report it has already missed a third of its major deadlines for implementation that was supposed to get it working by 2014.

This is so far from surprising it, it's like saying oxygen is needed for breathing. A bill this massive was obviously not going to go smoothly during the implementation phase and I think it will find a lot more pitfalls as time goes on. For Obama this does not bode well. In two years he's going to have to explain all the problems it's been having and if its waaaay behind schedule it will be a huge albatross around his neck that the republican challenger (whoever that is) will be able to choke him with.

But I bet you a thousand pesos that the taxes related to this will be right on schedule! This is what is really going to hurt his chances come 2012. All of those taxes and nothing to show for it. If Obama doesn't get this fixed, and soon, he's going to see a major backlash by the public and really give a boost to all the calls to repeal the bill completely.

Wonder Twin Powers De-Activate?

2010-10-06T15:23:00.008-04:00

Ed Morrisey over at Hotair is reporting that David Axelrod has quashed the Biden/Clinton vp switch rumor. As a republican I'm glad they've decided to quell the rumor and keep Biden. He's been coming off like an idiot, plain and simple, and can only really hurt Obama. But the lover of politics that I am can only think that this was a bad choice on the administration's part. For those not clicking the link, let me summarize it. There hasn't been a VP switch since FDR and these sort of rumors have been going on with pretty much every recent president. The article then makes the claim that because it has been so long since a Veep has been dumped that it would look like an admission of failure on Obama's part.

That's a fair assessment but not one I think is totally true, if you happened to read what I wrote about the subject yesterday you'll know. In the case of Cheney, I think Bush viewed him more of an asset than any negative poll numbers could offset. And while Quayle wasn't the brightest of VP's, he was the least of H.W. Bush's problems, no matter how popular and hilarious those old skits on SNL were.

Ed Morrisey argues that people tend to vote for a president and that the vice-president is inconsequential. I can concur with that statement for the most part but that depends on the vice-president. During election's their primary job is to do no harm BUT if they are charismatic and have already made a name for themselves then they can be a big asset (again look at Teddy Roosevelt). I still think that Hillary would be a bigger boon to Obama than Biden can ever be and for her, if Obama IS reelected and IS successful in a second term, it would pretty much catapult her into the presidency. It's win-win for both of them.

Is Angle Screwed?

2010-10-06T11:19:00.003-04:00

If you haven't heard the news Sharon Angle is looking at a bad day today after tapes were released of her attempting to trade favors with primary rival Scott Ashjian. This is going to be a field day for the Harry Reid camp. That's pretty much all that anyone can say about this. Considering the fact that Angle has been running as the anti-politician and then to be caught trading favors and even using the term "juice"...that's pretty devastating. On top of all that she's going against Harry Reid. The leader of the senate, a good old boy in Nevada politics, and probably the most savvy politician out there today.

The article says she needs to have a good debate. That's not going to make a shred of difference, in my opinion. First off, how many people actually watch these debates? I live in Northern Virginia, in the shadow of the capitol, where half of everyone I meet works for the government in some capacity, and no one ever watches the local debates. And even if they did, it's not like Harry Reid is inexperienced with public speaking. No this is bad news for Angle. I predict that we'll see the slight lead Angle had on Reid (it's towards the bottom) yesterday in the polls evaporate pretty quickly.

Angle needs to get in front of the issue before it gets out of control, which it is almost certainly guaranteed to do. If she does that then she still has a chance. Nevada's unemployment rate is one of the highest in the nation and a lot of people are angry at Reid over that, but most people when it comes to local politics will almost always vote for the devil they know over the one they don't.

Fun Fact: If you've ever seen Casino, in the scene where Robert De Niro, gets his license pulled by the Nevada Gambling Commission, the man De Niro is yelling at for taking bribes from him is supposed to be none other than Harry Reid, who was the head of the Commission during the time period the film portrays.

Wonder Twin Powers Activate!

2010-10-05T18:33:00.004-04:00

Drudge is reporting that the White House is looking into the possibility of having Hilary Clinton combine forces and replace Joe Biden with her as vice-president. Frankly, as much as it pains me to say it, this is not a bad idea. Biden has been pretty much worthless as a vice. Typically that position has been as an attack dog for the administration, but Biden has been more effective at putting his foot in his mouth. As much as people hate him, Cheney actually did his job perfectly. And if anyone ever follows the greatest president of all time (hint: Teddy Roosevelt) one of the reasons he was attractive to McKinley was because of how out-spoken he was.

Having Hilary in there would be a good call. She would be exactly what Obama needs to bolster his public support in the polls. Her time as Secretary of State has given her the international clout Obama needs, she's been keeping her head down and staying out of pretty much all US politics so her like-ability numbers are way up, and she has the power of Bill on her side. The former president has done an amazing job rehabilitating his image over the years and that can rub off on her and in turn Obama as well. Also if the recent Gallup poll is to believed Obama's numbers among whites is abysmal: 36%. Clinton can lend her influence among women to help bolster his numbers and increase his chances at reelection.

Now in case you didn't read the article, no one from the White House has truly gone on the record and said that they are looking into it. Bob Woodward is the one who is really making the waves here about this rumor, but he's had his hand in the whisperati of the political elite for a very very long time, so this will probably be an idea that will gain more traction as time goes on. Especially if the elections are as bad for democrats as many are predicting.

Sorry for slow posting.

2010-10-05T16:16:00.002-04:00

My internet has been down for most of the day....:(
I'll have some posts up a little later, when I get to a different computer and network.

Stay tuned....

Did Gloria Allred work for Jerry Brown?

2010-10-04T19:09:00.003-04:00

It seems that Meg Whitman's camp is declaring that they have proof that Gloria Allred used to work for Jerry Brown on his first campaign back in 1974. Well if this is true I think it could potentially be an interesting facet in the whole illegal immigrant scandal.. Does this mean that the accusations Whitman made during the last debate hold water? It's probably not possible for Whitman's camp to actually prove that Allred and the illegal immigrant in question colluded with Browns team but it would make this a much more interesting campaign.

Will Blagojevich derail Rahm's chances?

2010-10-04T10:28:00.004-04:00

So the Chicago-Tribune has an article out today regarding Rahm Emanuel's involvement in the Rod Balgojevich senate seat scandal. It makes some interesting notes about the fact that Rahm has been shown to have made several phone calls on behalf of Obama giving the president's input as to who Blago should pick to replace the presidents vacated senate seat. Big deal.

Frankly, I don't see this causing much of a stir for Emanuel. First off, the major part of the crime was done by Blago. Emanuel, nor the president, had any involvement in giving money or favors to the ex-governor and there is no real record of Emanuel having a large number of conversations about this. Merely he was acting as a messenger to the president. Was it a unethical for the president to give any input...probably. But that's not something Rahm can truly be blamed for. Also the Blago trial is over (pending appeal) and that the actual election is in February of next year and odd time for an election and most likely a fact that will let Rahm's campaign fly under the radar of media scrutiny. Also I think if the famous Chicago political machine can get behind Emanuel he'll have zero problems getting elected. They are good at doing that. So I would say Blago is a no issue at this point. At the moment only Rahm can beat Rahm.

About the One Nation Rally

2010-10-04T10:15:00.002-04:00

The people over at Moonbatery.com have a really informative article on the One Nation Rally that was staged over the weekend. To sum it up, it basically stated that the Democrats did a crappy job at trying to rally people the same way Glenn Beck's rally did.

At this point in the election cycle is it really that big of a surprise? Over-all the democrats have been getting hammered in the opinion polls and they may loose control of congress. Sure there are a couple of bright spots for the dems this year. California is most likely going to have a liberal governor...well a more liberal governor, let's face it Ahnold isn't the most conservative guy on the planet. And also Christine O'Donnell is probably going to flame out in a spectacular way.

But the inability of the dem's to garner any sort support for this rally is bad news. They used the unions to bus people in for goodness sake, and still got didn't get much to show for it. If you go to the link and look at the comparison pictures you can see how small turn out was. Will this translate in November? That remains to be seen but again the trend is pointing more in favor of the republicans.

More Chavez Fun

2010-10-03T21:05:00.004-04:00

It looks like Hugo Chavez is throwing a little temper tantrum after losing seats in Parliament. Andrew Breitbart has an article out today reporting that el presidente as ordered the take over of British Food Company Vestey. What is going on down there? These companies are responsible for creating any semblance of an economy in that country and this guy is shutting one company down after the other. Pretty soon there just won't be any left and no outside company will ever want to do business down there. Why spend any money building an infrastructure just to have it taken away? I think as we see the Venezuelan economy continue to stay in the gutter the more likely we are going to see an uprising. But I will say this, Chavez expects that. As he was issuing his "edict" about Vestey he also stated that the civilian militia should be armed at all times. This group is his personal group of thugs that are essentially above the law and answer only to him. Its just a way to keep the people scared and afraid to mount any sort opposition.

Sadly I don't think we are really going to lend any hand to the people down there. Venezuela is still a massive producer of sweet sweet bubblin' crude and a member of OPEC and we've proven to show (understandably) that energy is our chief concern over any sort of social issue. Yes you can argue how terrible that is for the US be that way but when you can't power your country everything else matters less. Hopefully given enough time the people will just get fed up with the guy and remove him, either democratically or by force.

Calling all Bloggers

2010-10-03T17:46:00.002-04:00

So I was thinking that it might be neat idea to invite anyone who is interested in politics to post on this blog. A lot of the people who read this site I'm sure have some sort of opinion of the state of government and what they think we should be doing. It doesn't have to be much, it doesn't even have to be of any particular political slant. I'm just interested in creating a discourse among readers and provoke thought. Also it would be a great way to promote each others blogs. If you're interested drop me a message in the comments as to what you would want to write about. All are welcome.

Will the Democrats keep the House?

2010-10-03T15:20:00.002-04:00

I don't really have much time today to blog, its sunday after all and theres lots of football to watch. But I did read this interesting article form the New York Times today. First off I always take any article from the NYT with a large grain of sand. These people do proudly display the Duranty Pulitzer in their office, afterall. In case you didn't know Walter Duranty wrote glowing pieces on the Soviet Union back in the 30's where he just so happened to gloss over the progroms and famines that were killing millions over there.

But occasionally they do put out a though provoking article every so often. You can read it here.

In defense of Meg Whitman

2010-10-02T17:53:00.002-04:00

If you've been following the Gubernatorial campaign out in California then you might have heard about Meg Whitman's little problem with hiring an illegal immigrant and then subsequently firing her when she realized that the employee was indeed illegal (over a year ago by the way). Her ex-housekeeper has gone so far as to hire noted lawyer and spawn of Satan, Gloria Alred and plans on filing a lawsuit against Ms. Whitman.

This is purely a political move. Ms. Whitman let her housekeeper go when it was discovered that she had filed improperly with the government as to her status as an illegal alien and the law is clearly on her side when it comes to this issue. In fact, the agency that contracted the housekeeper has recently come out saying that they were deceived by the woman.

In my opinion this is nothing but a dirty trick by the democrats and it seems to be working. No there is no real proof of that but it is waaaay to well timed to be anything else. The coverage has gotten three times as much as Rham Emanuel stepping down from his post as chief of staff and a lot of the news has ignored many of the actual facts of the case.

On top of this Gloria Alred may be in trouble for putting her client in danger. Because the woman is an illegal immigrant, that press conference puts her in danger of being jailed or deported. Now the law may work in Alred's favor but that remains to be seen.

This "scandal" is probably going to have far reaching consequences for Whitman. Given the high percentage of Latino's in California, it is likely going to erase whatever support she had from that community. In the end I think California is looking at a new a democrat governor. Will this be good for them? I'm not sure. The policies that have nearly bankrupted the state are due to liberal policies and while many can make the argument that Schwarzenegger is a RINO, he still has some conservative values that keep things in check. With a liberal Governor in place there could be problems ahead for the state.

Are we living in a police state?

2010-10-02T14:39:00.001-04:00

The Libertarian Republican has an interesting post on government raids of protesters today. While he does make a very good point about anti-war protesters and the government raiding them because of suspected terrorism plots, I'm frankly not surprised that they do that. Given the fact that we live in a post 9/11 world and our nation's hyper-sensitivity to the subject AND that fact that groups like the weather underground have existed for a long time it's no surprise that the FBI would be extra cautious when it comes to these type of groups. Not to mention the fact that armed militias are on the rise in this country. (Yes the link is a little old but it's still happening)

Now do I believe that we truly live in a police state in the classical sense? No. Due to the inevitable rise of technology it has simply become easier for things to be traced and tracked. But the attitude of our government watching us and tracking us has been around since the beginning. The census for example is it simple way for us all to be tracked and that's stated explicitly in the constitution if I'm not mistaken. If you want a good example of a country marching towards a police state look at Britain. Day after day there are new rules and asinine laws that set up all in the name of safety.

We may be headed towards a police state but as of right now I think we're doing ok.

Ding Dong the Rahm is Gone.

2010-10-02T11:44:00.003-04:00

So Rahm Emanuel has formally quit his job as chief of staff for Obama. I for one couldn't be happier for the president. It has been noted (here and here and here) that Rahm is sort of a jerk to everyone he comes in contact with and there are a lot of rumors going around saying that a lot of the tension between congress and the president has come from Emanuel's abrasive personality and management style.

It seems that the main reason for Rahm's leaving has more to do with his desire to be the mayor of Chicago than anything else though. Since he was a congressman several years ago, and now as the chief of staff to the president, there really isn't any question about his capabilities of handling the actual job. But will he be good for Chicago? That I'm not so sure about. If he keeps up the trend of pissing off people in power there now he may have a tough time getting elected. But it is Chicago. It's a rough and tumble city so who knows? Maybe he is perfectly suited for the job.

Interesting fact: Rahm's brother, Ari Emanuel, is actually the person Jeremy Piven's character on Entourage is based off of. Looooooyyyd!