Posts Tagged ‘republicans’

As you may have already heard, the absent senators in Wisconsin are being held in contempt and not just by voters:

Republicans voted, 19-0, to find the Democrats in contempt of the Senate and issued orders to Wisconsin law enforcement to detain them.

“We simply cannot have democracy be held hostage because the minority wants to prove a point,” said Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

The Senate voted in the morning that absent Democrats would be in contempt of a Senate rule requiring attendance if they did not return by 4 p.m. When they didn’t return, the Senate reconvened and Fitzgerald signed for each missing senator an “order to detain (in the nature of a warrant to arrest and deliver).”

Additionally the protests at the Capital has come at a cost to the voters, literally:

State officials said Thursday that damage to the marble inside and out the State Capitol would cost an estimated $7.5 million.

Cari Anne Renlund, chief legal counsel for the state Department of Administration, said in Dane County court that estimates of damage to marble includes $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to supervise the damage.

Much of the damage apparently has come from tape used to put up signs and placards at the Capitol.

Meanwhile two different recall efforts are under way in Wisconsin. Two weeks ago recall efforts were launched against some democratic senators for fleeing the state. Now the Union supported democrats are launching counter recall efforts against republicans who stayed and they are putting some serious green into it:

The Wisconsin recall effort is only a day old, but it’s going strong. The state Democratic Party has launched a website called Recall the Republican 8 to coordinate events. They have volunteer and contribution pages. There’s also a separate ActBlue page set up for the recall. A separate effort to air a powerful TV ad from the PCCC and DFA, filmed on the day of the 100,000-plus protests last Saturday, has already raised over $225,000.

I suspect a lot of help for union families could be done with 225k but leave that aside for a moment. Let’s look at the arguments:

This past weekend, constituents of Republican state Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, gathered in an effort to recall her.

“She let it out of committee. She had a chance to look at the bill and say, ‘This reaches too far,'” Darling recall organizer Kristopher Rowe said Saturday.

Or as State Democratic Party chairman Mike Tate puts it:

“In 60 days you can take Wisconsin back by recalling the Republican senators who have decided to push Scott Walker’s divisive attack on the rights of workers and his assault on schools, universities and local communities,”

While on the other side:

“You’re not representing me if you’re not in the Capitol to vote,” said constituent Amanda Cabrera, as she signed the petition.

“Vote yes or no, whether they agree or not, but they need to be in Madison,” said constituent Sandra Dolye. “If (Wirch) can’t do his job, he should get out.”

That’s all you need to know about this: Republicans want to recall people for playing Hooky. Democrats and Unions wants to recall people for showing up.

When the initial Bush tax cuts were proposed the making of the tax cuts temporary was a compromise that democrats and liberal republicans managed to forge to keep their constituents happy. If they could not stop the Bush Tax Cuts they could at least make them expire thus giving some consolation to their progressive followers.

Although Bush over and over suggested the Tax cuts be made permanent he could not manage to find the votes.

Now we come to 2010. The economy is bad and unemployment is rampant and now Democrats who were so proud to keep the Bush tax rates from becoming permanent find themselves trapped once again!

Once again the left is screaming “tax cuts for the rich” and their supporters are screaming for them not to cave in figuring that even after the republicans take control in a month they will not have the votes to get it passed.

Meanwhile Republicans are pushing to make the Bush rates permanent.

And so the white house and their advisers are leaning toward compromise, another extension, maybe two years of the Bush Tax Cuts. And thus the trap is set again.

The smart thing for the administration would be to pass the cuts NOW and make them permanent for several reasons.

1.  This will take the issue off the table, every time they simply extend the “Bush tax cuts” it sets up democrats in an election years to defend increasing taxes on business. (You know the folks who actually hire people.)

2.   As long as they are not permanent they remain the “Bush Tax Cuts”. Once they are permanent then they just become the US tax rates. Keeping them temporary keeps them associated with republicans and George W. Bush.

3.   If a democratic congress passes the tax cuts, then they not the republicans will get (and actually deserve) credit for the positive economic results. If it is passed once republicans are in power, republicans will get (and deserve) the credit for the results.

4.  If they are not passed and the economy gets worse (as the result of the tax hike) Republicans can directly blame democrats. Great issue for 2012.

5.   And finally if this is done NOW, then democrats have two years to placate their base. It will be over and done with.

Making the tax rates permanent would be not only the right thing but also the smart thing. That’s why I’m positive the democrats will fall right into the trap and simply vote for an extension at best. Given the chance to do the right or smart thing, the Democrats can be counted on to miss the boat.

I wonder if George W. saw all of this coming years ago and actually intended to set this trap for the left?

Update:
Crooks and Liars thinks the democrats have the GOP right where they want them. I’m telling you it’s just too easy. How do we ever lose elections to those guys?

While everybody has been so fascinated by the rating for Sarah Palin’s new show (which broke all of TLC’s ratings records) I found the following story at the same site much more interesting.

According to months of data from leading media-research company Experian Simmons, viewers who vote Republican and identify themselves as conservative are more likely than Democrats to love the biggest hits on TV. Of the top 10 broadcast shows on TV in the spring, nine were ranked more favorably by viewers who identify themselves as Republican.

Even more funny is what the article says about shows democrats:

Dems are more likely to prefer modestly rated titles.

Like Mad Men.

The Emmy favorite has struggled to get a broad audience on AMC. It scores through the roof with Democrats (does anyone in Santa Monica or on Manhattan’s Upper West Side not watch it?), but it has one of the weakest scores among Republicans. The same is true for FX’s Damages, Showtime’s Dexter, HBO’s Entourage and AMC’s Breaking Bad.

And this quote made me laugh out loud:

That also goes for the soft-rated, critically beloved 30 Rock. Its score is highly polarized in favor of Democrats. The only show on NBC’s Thursday night comedy block that Republicans rate highly (slightly better than Democrats, even) is The Office … which happens to be the one bona fide hit in the bunch.

30 Rock is not a bona fide hit? You’d never know that from watching Morning Joe or MSNBC.

Let’s put it another way, if your desired audience is the critics rather than the general public, you are a likely a democrat.

This reminds me of the old Crime is down and prisons are full bit. Our friends on the left couldn’t figure out that crime was down because we were locking up criminals!

The point is that if you make shows that appeals to conservatives odds are you are going to have a hit because we are a center/right nation. If you decide to make a show that appeals to the MSNBC crowd, you will be the darling of Hollywood and the papers but don’t expect to get the same ad rates that NCIS and company manage.

Remember you can make a living with a niche market, you can’t win elections with one.

Adrienne links to this post at the national Catholic Register that explains it all

As it turns out, the Republicans wanted the base to get involved—just not so much. What they really wanted is for real conservatives to turn out to vote but certainly not run. Newly involved fiscal conservatives are finding out that the Republican party wants their votes, just not them.

Welcome to the club.

This is the position that culture-of-life conservatives, like me, have found ourselves in for a generation. I know that many culture-of-life conservatives feel that the Republican party has expected us to get out and vote for candidates of their choosing in return for the privilege of lip service to the life issues we care most about. But many of us COL conservatives have come to the conclusion that much of the Republican leadership does not really care about these issues, at least not enough to really do anything about it.

Now fiscal conservatives find themselves in the same situation.

I keep coming back to this post that Smitty put up a bit ago:

But something happened to DeMint in these leadership seminars that would change the course of his life. The gatherings were entirely focused on the means for concentrating and preserving political power: How to milk K Street lobbyists for political contributions; how to place earmarks into appropriations bills so they would be deemed essential to the folks back home.

One day, DeMint had had enough. He rose up in a seminar to question why representatives of the party of smaller government were so focused on earmarks and political fundraising. Why aren’t we talking about reforming the federal tax code or addressing the health care mess?

Midst laughter, someone shouted, “You’ll catch on to the system, DeMint.” But DeMint never did.

If your only belief is that you need to be elected so you can grease your friends and have power, we aren’t interested in you. To quote Adrienne:

All this talk about Christine O’Donnell not being electable is making me tired. The elitist snobs in the Republican party wanted the people of Delaware to nominate the RINO incumbent Mike Castle because they would have you believe Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t have a prayer of winning the election. Well, so be it!

It is something I talked about before:

Pubic office wasn’t meant to be a meal ticket, it is meant to give the best possible governance by advancing idea and policies for the public good. I’ve read the resolution and it looks good to me.

The party has to decide if principles are more important than the approval of the MSM.

And if principle won’t do it consider: Conservatives are a huge source of Republican funding and have been sending back fundraising solicitations with colorful comments. What is more important? A happy MSM or a happy voter base?

What’s the use of being elected or re-elected if you don’t stand for something?