Posts Tagged ‘elections’

Because if you had you might not be saying things like this:

That’s most of the plan. The rest of the plan, as Israel explains, is making life difficult for some of the pro-life Republicans who were swept into Congress last year. The theory is that voters sort of elected them by accident. And they are numerous. At this year’s March for Life, an annual rally against legal abortion, 17 newly elected members of Congress spoke, stretching the speechifying part of the event about an hour longer than scheduled.

The new members include lots of people who took over suburban districts that had been trending more liberal. The Republicans who won, in most cases, didn’t run on abortion. They got pro-life support—the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List endorsed 14 Republican congressional candidates who took over Democratic seats. But Democrats remain convinced that the new class was never smoked out.

Take Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., one of the Democrats’ favorite examples. She started in politics as a spokeswoman for Operation Rescue in the 1980s. She didn’t hide this fact, but when she began running, she said she’d “be really careful not to make this a referendum on abortion.” Her opponent, incumbent Rep. Dan Maffei, tried to make abortion an issue. He lost. And when Buerkle got to Congress she immediately became a prominent pro-life advocate. Pro-choice activists can explain all of this, or try to.

Dave Dave Dave, if you read me and the lonely conservative you would know that it was likely the linkage of Buerkle to the pro-life movement that made the difference for her.

But a large portion of NY25′s voters are in Onondaga County. I did some digging and found out that there were 147,332 Catholics in Onondaga County alone in 2000 (Sorry, I searched for hours and couldn’t find any more recent data, or a breakdown of religious affiliation of registered voters.) I’m sure enough of those Catholics are registered voters who could swing the election in Buerkle’s favor. This race hasn’t been about social issues. It’s been about the economy, the direction of our country, and the failed policies of the current administration and Congress. By running this ad Dan Maffei just gave undecided pro-life voters a reason to vote for Ann Marie Buerkle.

And as Stacy pointed out:

See? Buerkle needed a miracle to win and, by highlighting her pro-life record in the final days of the campaign, her opponent gave her that miracle. Out of more than 200,000 votes cast in NY-25, Buerkle won by 657 votes, and how many of those votes were decided on the pro-life issue?

Additionally you might notice that the polls have steadily been trending toward life for years, advances in science and medicine has changed the viability equations additionally democrats haven’t grasped the idea that killing off your own voters for two generations tends to shrink your potential voting base. Additionally the growing Latin population is heavily Catholic and not the Nancy Pelosi flavor of Catholic either.

Like all great Evils abortion will eventually fall, in the end Americans are basically decent people. Dave is betting on the wrong horse.

Update: Stacy Points out that Buerkle is going to need your financial help in the short term.

Advertisements

In 1941 Governor Lee “Pappy” McDaniel ran in a special election for an open Senate seat created by the death of Senator John Sheppard (an interesting fact is that a son of Sam Houston the 1st president of Texas born in 1793 was appointed as a “placeholder” senator during the time between the death and the election). His primary opponent was Lyndon Johnson then a congressman from the 10th district. The two primary candidates fought it out and both were involved in some underhanded tactics however at the end of the day it looked like Johnson had the game won until (According to Robert Caro in his book The Years of Lyndon Johnson the Path to Power) O’Daniel’s enemies contrived to steal the election FOR him to get him out of the governors office.

It turned out that Pappy although corrupt had one “virtue” and that was dislike for alcohol. Convinced it was the devil’s brew he was prepared to keep “dry” zones around military bases and his foes in the liquor industry wanted him out.

I thought of Pappy O’Daniel when I read this surprising quote from Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Fidel Castro:

Over the course of this first, five-hour discussion, Castro repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism. He criticized Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and explained why the Iranian government would better serve the cause of peace by acknowledging the “unique” history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence.

It was quite a shock to hear one of the monsters of the 20th century excoriating a modern monster for antisemitism and going on about the long history of Jewish suffering, that’s when I remembered Pappy.

Pappy was an opponent of the dangers of drinking, but it didn’t make him any less a corrupt pol.

Castro if this interview is to be believed believes that antisemitism is a centuries long disgrace and that Israel has a right to exist, that doesn’t make him any less of a murderous thug. I’m not going to fall for his pap any more that the Babliu blog guys will.

As the Doctor once told Margaret the Slitheen it doesn’t matter, you can oppress millions because every now and again you can speak up against an injustice that has nothing to do with you.

memeorandum thread here

Just as the state starts to swing in a more conservative direction our one party state legislature decides that our votes will no longer count.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

After all who cares what the voters of Massachusetts think, If enough other states think differently our votes and our decisions are don’t matter. We no longer have control of our own franchise. To say this is an abomination is too weak a word. Why even have a state?

Allahpundit is poo pooing this. He doesn’t live here.

Smitty is as angry as I am:

Abso-effing-lutely. This is what Article Five is about. Understood, there seems to be a psychological joy, which some find, in taking words to mean whatever they wish. Hence the Commerce Clause becoming the Constitution over the last century. Hence the “judicial deference” doctrine, where Congress can emote whatever it wishes, and We The People get to watch the 14-ish trillion dollar debt pile up due to Federal over-reach.

Any legislator who voted for this bill doesn’t deserve his office, PERIOD!

Ironically Under Article 2 section 1 the legislature has the power to do this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

So in theory if the legislature that electoral college electors would be selected by putting pictures of the candidate on the ground, cutting the head of a chicken and giving the votes to the person in the photo closest to where the body finally drops, they can do it.

And don’t give me the “oh we still need x amount of electoral votes states to go along, it’s this kind of incremental change that is quietly done and unnoticed. In fact it is designed to give legislators that out to minimize what is actually going on so when it takes effect they can claim surprise. The ultimate goal? To make it easier to steal a national election.

Remember we get the government we deserve, for decades we voted a one party legislature into office. We willingly elected legislators who voted away our franchise. We’ve done this to ourselves. It’s our fault.

memeorandum thread here.

…at this story:

The revelation that tax increases could hurt the economy has recently been heard from Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and, most surprising, even from Kent Conrad of North Dakota. On a scale of unlikely events, this is like the Pope coming out against celibacy. As Senate Budget Chairman, Mr. Conrad has rarely seen a tax increase he didn’t like, but this week he averred that “As a general rule, you don’t want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.”

Granted the writer is not aware of the rules concerning married priests in the church but I digress. he continues:

Over in the House, Bobby Bright of Alabama even dared to defend the rich Americans who Democrats have been pounding for years. “I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy. You don’t raise their taxes,” he told The Hill newspaper. “In a recession you don’t tax, burden and restrict.” Better don the body armor on your next visit to the Speaker’s office, Bobby.

The citizen in me is very pleased as HotAir points out:

It’s the wealthy who drive consumer spending and the last thing you want to do in this economy is reduce that by raising taxes on them

No politically this might anger their base a bit but I don’t think it will lose them the votes people think. In fact making the right economic moves makes it more likely that the recession will end and may sustain their re-election.

Now the partisan in me doesn’t like anything that helps the democrats re-election so in that sense this is bad news.

However the citizen always has to trump the partisan. I didn’t become a republican because I like the letter “R”, I vote republican because I have a set of views and beliefs that I believe in and I think are best for the country, I’d just as soon have them soon have them advanced sooner than later. If it means an issue is off the table so be it.