The left will try their best to minimize the damage done but the bluedog Democrats are now on notice….pass fiscally irresponsible bills like ObamaCare and your toast. As for NY-23, a few good articles…first from Roger Simon:

Now I realize that the surprise loser there, Doug Hoffman, ran as a Conservative, not a Republican. But I submit in this case that was a distinction without a significant difference because virtually all the Republican establishment had lined up behind Hoffman by the day of the election.

So why – in what was clearly a Republican year – did Hoffman lose? Well, there are several reasons and, yes, the Democratic victory was narrow, thinner than the five or so percent that went to withdrawn Republican nominee Scozzafava who herself endorsed the Democratic candidate. Still, the 23rd is a safely Republican, even conservative, district. In a year where the GOP racked up a 20% margin in Virginia and coasted easily in Jersey, a state in which Obama romped in ‘08 by 16%, what was the problem?

Well… I might as well say it… social conservatism. America is a fiscally conservative country – now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification – but not a socially conservative one. No, I don’t mean to say it’s socially liberal. It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.

Hoffman’s capital-C Conservative campaign, however, tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was all upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage, seemingly as upset as he was with her support for the stimulus plan. He projected the image of a bluenose in a world that increasingly doesn’t want to hear about these things. Hoffman’s is a selective vision of the nanny state – you can nanny about some things but not about others. I suspect America deeply dislikes nannying about anything.

There is, of course, a message in this for the Republican Party going forward. You can choose to emphasize the social issues or not. Today may show the former is a losing proposition.

Somewhat agree but not completely. A few weeks ago no one knew who Hoffman was. A ton of cash was thrown to the supposed Republican in the race, not to the one who had real conservative idea’s and principals, all this and maybe the social aspect of it played a part. Either way…the NY-23 race exposed a Democrat masquerading as a Republican and sent a message. Don’t be choosing candidates in the backrooms of power, especially when that person doesn’t represent the real party.

The other good post on NY-23 comes from Erick Erickson:

There are two big victories at work in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.

I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

And make no mistake, despite the Beltway spin, we know for certain based on statements from the local Republican parties, that they chose Scozzafava based on advice from the Washington crowd.

So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.

Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable.

Third parties lack funding and ability for a host of reasons. Conservatives are going to have to work from within the GOP. The GOP had better pay attention.

For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida. And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down.

Great points, especially the third party point. Just won’t happen. If the Beltway crowd hadn’t of picked a person to represent the Republican party who was more liberal then the Democrat challenger….then Hoffman would of won. Instead the establishment picked Scozzafava and it took a groundswell to get her removed.

But there were other races that are even more indicative of citizens sick of the spending:

The biggest defeat for RINOs in New York wasn’t the pre-election collapse of Dede Scozzafava in the 23rd CD. It was tonight’s stunning victory by conservative Republican Rob Astorino in the race for County Executive of Westchester County—the affluent and heavily taxed suburb just north of NYC, which has been solidly Democratic for more than a decade. Astorino’s victory is a stinging rebuke to the brand of New York Republicanism personified by Assemblywoman Scozzafava, former Gov. (and Westchester native son) George Pataki, and Westchester’s famously liberal former state Sen. Nicky Spano of Yonkers, who had endorsed incumbent Democratic County Executive Andy Spano (no relation) and engineered Andy Spano’s endorsement by the local Conservative party. Astorino, 42, a county legislator who used to co-host a satellite radio show with Cardinal Egan, happens to be pro-life — but going against the trend established by Pataki and other suburban Republicans in the 1990s, he didn’t waver from that position. He knew the pro-choice swing vote in Westchester would be motivated by primarily economic issues. He was right, and has a bright future in statewide politics if he does a good job. An even more stunning Republican showing came in the other big, affluent NYC suburb, Nassau County, where an underfunded Republican named Ed Mangano was — as of midnight — in a dead heat with the charismatic Democratic County Executive Tom Suozzi. Meanwhile, the GOP recaptured control of that county’s legislature. Nassau residents apparently were so fed up with the status quo that they may have returned control of county government to the same discredited GOP machine that nearly drove the county into bankruptcy just eight years ago. In a word, Wow.

And from the Westchester Journal News:

Voters rejected the Democratic incumbent’s bid for a fourth term, opting instead for a candidate who pledged to downsize government and cut the highest county taxes in the nation.

“It’s far surpassing anything we expected,” Astorino said after taking Spano’s concession call at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. “But I think the message resonated. People wanted change and they are going to get it starting in January.”

Astorino’s victory came despite Democrats’ 2-1 margin over Republicans among Westchester’s 538,822 registered voters.

With 87 percent of the votes in, Astorino had 58 percent, Spano 42 percent, according to the unofficial results.

And finally a message to Republicans for 2010:

A Republican Strategist’s Take

I just spoke to a smart one. He argues that the Virginia governor’s race offers more lessons for Republicans than either the New Jersey race (because there was an incumbent on whom it was a referendum) or the New York congressional race (because its circumstances were too odd). One of the lessons he draws is that Republican candidates have to “finish the sentence.” Instead of just saying that we have to keep taxes and spending low, and thus pleasing conservatives, he said, McDonnell explain how these policies would create jobs and “plug the hole in Richmond.” Too many Republican candidates, he says, forget to do that.

He pours cold water on the idea that the elections were a referendum on Obama. “Obama’s numbers in Virginia are not that bad. He’s not upside-down, that’s for sure.” (That is, more people rate him favorably than unfavorably.) “I guarantee you that McDonnell got a lot of votes from people who approve of [the job Obama is doing].” He takes the vote to be a rejection of many of Obama’s policies. But he adds, “I don’t think that Republicans should come away from this and think that all that we have to do in 2010 is run against Obama. McDonnell had a very vigorous policy agenda.”

Not the first time I heard from analysts tonight that the McDonnell campaign is one that should be emulated by Republicans in 2010.

One of the fundamental issues that I have with today’s Republican Party is that we allow ourselves to be defined by liberals and the liberal press rather than defining ourselves. As a former county party chairman, I had to live with county and state by-laws that forbade party officials from endorsing candidates in the primaries. It never happened in my county, but the fact that I might have one day been forced to officially support a liberal candidate always festered in the back of my mind.

The problem is that the National Republican Party, together with state and local parties, spend more time, money and effort trying to include everyone in the “big tent” than they do standing by the core conservative values that should be guiding them. I can understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of believing the goal is to elect people with R’s at the end of their names. Obviously, without enough R’s the party loses majority control of government, but this ignores the reality that control by Republicans isn’t the real goal. The real goal is holding our nation true to the conservative principles by which it was created.

Talk Radio personality Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “Individual Patriot first. Conservative second. Republican third.” What he means is that it is our first duty to be individuals who support our country, that we can do that best by living and promoting our conservative principles, and that the Republican Party is the currently the best tool that we have to do it with. If the Republican Party ceases to be the best tool for that job, then we are left with a couple choices. We can throw out the tool and get a new one, or we can refurbish our current tool and make it work how it’s supposed to.

Throwing out the tool would mean abandoning the Republican Party altogether and forming or joining a third party. This is a difficult course to follow, but it isn’t unheard of. There have been several ruling political parties throughout our history including Democrat-Republicans (one party, not the same as todays), Federalists, Whigs, Democrats, Republicans and dozens of smaller parties that exist in smaller numbers around the nation. It might be rare in our national history for a new party to come out of obscurity and take power at the federal level, and it is a difficult proposition, but it’s not impossible.

Refurbishing the current tool is the more likely scenario and would mean bringing the Republican Party back into line with its historical conservative principles. In order to forward those principles, we need to elect conservative Republicans. Not liberal Republicans. Not moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans. Conservatives must retake control of the Party at all levels — from local precincts, to the statewide parties, to the National Republican Party. To succeed, we will have to make a stand against mediocrity, and so called moderates, and refuse to vote for or fund candidates that don’t truly represent us, regardless of whether or not they registered as Republicans. The first battle we face is to get conservative candidates nominated in the primaries, and only then can we carry those candidates through to victory in the general elections. We have to make our voices be heard loud and clear, and not allow the biased liberal press agencies decide which candidates are going to win our support.

I think that conservatives will benefit most by using third parties to force change in the Republican Party. By selectively abandoning the Republican Party, conservatives can bring about enough pressure on party leaders to force them to rethink which candidates they will endorse and support in the future. By supporting independent and third party candidates that more accurately represent our conservative values and principles, as the people of New York’s 23rd Congressional district have done, we can send the GOP a message about what kind of candidates we will accept. Give us a real conservative candidate to support, and we will. Send us a wishy-washy liberal like Dede Scozzafava? We’re gone. If we do it consistently, each and every time, the Republican Party will figure out that they should only send us candidates that share our values. Anything else will be a waste of our time, their money, and an erosion of their power base.

By regaining control of our party, and only supporting candidates that we want to support, we can define the Republican Party ourselves instead of letting the liberals and the liberal press define it for us. If the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to carry our endorsement, then there is no reason for us to continue to be Republicans. We can throw our support behind a third party like New York’s State Conservative Party, or start a new one. If the Republican Party can retool, however, and show us that they can send us honest-to-goodness, conservative candidates, then we can continue to be part of the Grand Old Party. If we lose a few races in order to cement that position, then so be it. I would rather have a Democrat in office that we can challenge straight up in the next election than a sponge like Arlen Specter who sucks the party coffers dry, while voting with the Democrats anyway, and keeping the party from endorsing a real conservative candidate.

Conservatives are going to regain control of this country’s future and hold our country true to its conservative roots, regardless of the tools we use. The Republican Party just needs to decide whether it’s going to be the best tool for that job, or just a tool.

The National Republican Congressional Committee appears to be backing off and conceding defeat while more and more Republican officials are jumping ship and backing Hoffman. Couple more signs for ya?

Guiliani is sending his adviser to help Hoffman AND Michael Steele seems to be seeing the light.

Question….if the local Republican officials are now backing Hoffman, where does that lead Newt’s assertion that he is backing the RINO because that’s what the Republicans want in the local area?

Following up on Rothenberg’s column, I called Jon to ask for his take on the congressional election. He made so many interesting points that I asked him to reiterate them briefly in a message for Power Line readers. Jon writes:

To recap our discussion of NY-23, I have done three surveys for the Club for Growth. The initial survey was conducted at the very outset of the race, before any advertising was done by anyone. At that time, “Republican” Dede Scozzafava held a narrow lead. But it was apparent that her lead would not withstand the heat of battle.

About half of her support came from Democrats in the Watertown area who knew her pro-labor, liberal voting record and liked it. The other half came from Republicans who did not know about her liberal record but were supporting her because she was the Republican candidate. Once Democrats quickly learned that they could vote for a real Democrat, Bill Owens, they left Scozzafava. And once Republicans learned how liberal her record was, and that they had a conservative alternative in Doug Hoffman, they also left Scozzafava.

What remains is a close race between Owens and Hoffman, with Scozzafava continuing to collapse. Financially, Hoffman is in good shape, thanks largely to the Club for Growth and online donations. The DCCC, AFSCME, and SEIU are now 100 percent negative against Hoffman in their TV ads, which is proof of the closeness of the race.

What remains of Scozzafava’s vote is still about 2:1 Republican, so Hoffman has a good chance of growing further. But it’s a close one that could go either way.

Ironically, the one person who is doing the most harm in the race is Newt Gingrich. Scozzafava has no chance to win any longer. By Newt signaling to conservatives that it’s okay to support Scozzafava, he is making it more likely that Owens wins.

Even the NRCC understands this, as they have wisely limited their advertising message to attacking Owens rather than promoting Scozzafava. If Hoffman wins, and he very well might, it will be a great victory for the conservative movement, and a great lesson to the Republican Party.

Not sure what in the hell Newt is thinking. When the day comes that conservatives vote for someone just because he is Republican, and for no other reason ie: having a real conservative background, then we know we are sunk as a party.

UPDATE

New York Governor Pataki:

That is why tonight, I’m proud to endorse Doug Hoffman, a Republican, running on the Conservative line for Congress in the 23rd Congressional District.

His endorsement comes on his other recent endorsements from Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Congressman John Linder, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Senator Jim DeMint, Dick Armey, and many others.

So what’s their excuse today, now that they are witnessing President Obama’s executive leadership in action? Well, for one, more Americans are discovering their inner conservative. If 8 years of President Bush in no small measure lost us the ‘08 election and set the conservative movement one step back, President Obama in one year’s worth of governance will most likely cost the Democrats 2010 (actually, Dems in Congress who choose to ignore the voices of their constituency will lose seats) and propel conservatism two steps forward.

The other side of this is that Obama supporters might not have jumped ship yet, because they have not been keeping up on the issues, other than to read the latest DNC talking points and Kos misinformation. According to the latest Pew Research Center’s latest News IQ Quiz. Mary Katharine Ham blogs:

Under a section called “Partisan Knowledge Gap,” we find Republicans were more knowledgeable by a double-digit factor on four issues. Although the Glenn Beck question is naturally easier for Republicans, the other three issues are basic political knowledge— what “cap-and-trade” means, who’s in control of the House, and who the new Supreme Court Justice is (a question that should perhaps be easier for Democrats). Republicans also led Democrats on identifying the unemployment rate, Fed chairman, Dow level, Max Baucus’ position. Republicans correctly answered an Iran/Israel question and an Afghanistan question more often than Dems. Republicans and Democrats were even on identifying the “public option” as a health-care plan.

But take heart, Democrats: You lead Republicans by five points on a whopping one question.

Take it for what it’s worth, with a grain of salt. But still, a nice bit of irritant to rub under the skin of liberal Democrats.

Hat tip: Patvann

“A Time for Choosing” otherwise known as “The Speech” was delivered in a broadcast in support of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential election. The name of the program, “Rendezvous with Destiny” marked the beginning of Reagan as a national political figure. It turned out to be Reagan’s rendezvous with destiny…

Full text of the speech

Excerpts from “A Time for Choosing”
By Ronald Reagan
Broadcast October 27, 1964

…No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world.
…
There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
…
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people.But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”
…
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.”
…
Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
…
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?
…
I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
…
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
…
back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.
…
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender.
…
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Reagan successfully battled back the forces of socialist progressivism in his time but the virus is a tough one to shake. It has now come back full force and with no Reagan on the horizon to put the genie back in the bottle.

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”…

Lieberman did say he’s “strongly inclined” to vote to proceed to the debate, but that he’ll ultimately vote to block a floor vote on the bill if it isn’t changed first…

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Since that statement came out earlier today the Reid camp…or cheerleaders….have tried to spin it so it doesn’t sound as bad as it really is. I mean how can it be bad if Joe will vote to open floor debate on Reid’s bill? Of course they are leaving out the other vote…the one that closes debate and moves the bill to a vote. Joe says he will NOT vote for that if the public option is there.

Good for him.

RINO Snowe says she won’t vote for the public option either….at least today she is saying it:

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe says she would vote with fellow Republicans to block the Democratic health care overhaul if changes are not made to the version Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined this week.

Karl at Hot Air thinks all this is leading to is Reid being able to say “I tried…but the evil empire struck me down” to his leftist loons.

Reid apparently does not have 60 votes lined up for the public option, though Reid thinks he will have them after the CBO scores it. This move was supposedly forced by the hardcore liberals in the Senate, though this could still be the kabuki by which Reid sheds responsibility for a later failure to include the public option. Either way, the ball is now in the moderates’ court.

But there is more trouble looming for Reid:

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said Tuesday she still can’t support a government-funded insurance option, a day after legislation was unveiled that would give states the choice of whether to participate in the program.

“Creating another government-funded option is not where we’re going. We don’t need to go there,” Lincoln told members of the Arkansas Farm Bureau during a video conference. “A government-funded option is something that I think is not the way to go.”

And Robert Laszewski at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review doesn’t see 60 votes coming anytime soon and does a good job of describing why:

Reid is reportedly going to include a robust Medicare-like public option with a state opt-out. That means there would be a federal Medicare-like public plan but that a state could opt out. Opting out would mean that both houses of a state’s legislature and its governor would have to agree to opt out. That’s a pretty high hurdle and it is not going to appease the moderate Democrats in the Senate, or any Republicans including Snowe, who oppose a robust public option.

We could have a public option only if a “trigger” occurs. That is Senator Snowe’s general idea. OK, define that trigger. Do you think for one moment a liberal’s definition of a trigger will come close to a moderate’s definition of a trigger? It is the last week in October and we’ve been hearing about a trigger for months. Have you seen a definition of it yet?

Then there is the possible course in the House—a public option that has to negotiate with providers just like a private health plan does—“arms’ length negotiations.” For liberals, how is that different than a co-op and its inability to gain any real kind of traction? For moderate Democrats, it will likely be seen as the “wolf in sheep’s clothes.” Maybe a place to compromise but hardly the robust government plan its proponents are looking for and there is no evidence that this idea will attract those moderate Senate Democrats that don’t like the public option.

Then there is the state opt-in. The idea is that both the state’s legislative branches and the governor would have to agree to opt-in. This could well win moderate Democratic support because very few states would do it and it is attractive to states’ rights moderates who would like to see state experimentation. This is a possible place for compromise but hardly a robust public option.

As I have said many times before, there will not be a robust Medicare-like public option or any form of a thinly veiled Medicare-like public option.

And the GOP has found some a backbone:

But before that issue can be joined on the Senate floor, Reid’s first challenge is to gain 60 votes — the number needed to overcome a filibuster by Republicans — just to bring the bill up, a parliamentary maneuver so routine that a vote is rarely required.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, announced that in this case, members of his party will treat it as though it were “a vote on the merits” of a bill he said would “cut Medicare, raise taxes and increase health insurance premiums.” He suggested Democrats could expect campaign commercials next year on the basis of the vote, and recalled that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was ridiculed in his 2004 presidential campaign for having once said he voted for a bill before he voted against it.

For those leftist Democrats the threat means nothing because they were elected in strong leftist strongholds….but the moderates? I think this threat will be taken seriously and some idiot trying to change the name of “public option” won’t help one iota.

All in all, its good news today.

GOP officials: We won’t abandon Dede

The National Republican Congressional Committee remains committed to embattled GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava in the upstate New York House special election, even as many of the party’s top names throw their support to Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

Two party officials tell POLITICO that the NRCC will continue to air TV ads propping up Scozzafava in the days leading up to the Nov. 3 contest and plans to keep up a near relentless barrage of press releases slamming Hoffman.

Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman who supports gay marriage, abortion rights and has a close relationship with leading labor officials in her region, has been the target of sustained criticism from conservatives who claim she is too liberal for them to support her candidacy.

Hoffman, an accounting executive, is attracting an ever-growing group of conservative backers, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) have also endorsed the third-party candidate.

Public and private polls have shown Hoffman gaining on Scozzafava but both trail the Democratic nominee, attorney Bill Owens.

The link is here.

What the fools at the helm of the wayward GOP fail to realize is that their whole strategy is wrong?

Why? Yes, it is true that more people identify themselves as Dems then Republicans:

Fewer People Identify As Republicans Than Ever Before In Post Poll

Reporting on the new ABC/Washington Post poll has mostly focused on support for a public health care option. But the poll also shows that, while Republicans have succeeded in stonewalling Democratic initiatives in Congress, they have not managed to rebuild their party.

Only 20 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republicans — the lowest number since the paper starting asking the question.

But it is also true that:

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group Compared with 2008, more Americans “conservative” in general, and on issues

PRINCETON, NJ — Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Which is Why:

73% of GOP Voters Say Congressional Republicans Have Lost Touch With Their Base

President Obama told an audience at a Democratic Party fundraiser Wednesday night that Republicans often “do what they’re told,” but GOP voters don’t think their legislators listen enough to them.

Just 15% of Republicans who plan to vote in 2012 state primaries say the party’s representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 73% think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters from throughout the nation. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided.

And which is why the GOP continues to do poorly in almost every poll.

It’s as simple as that.

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

~~~

Conservatism is most prevalent among Republicans. However, the overall increase in this ideological stance since 2008 comes largely from political independents, among whom 35% say they are conservatives thus far in 2009 — compared with 29% last year. Independents have also become more conservative on a number of specific policy issues, including government and union power, the role of government relative to promoting values, gun laws, immigration, global warming, and abortion. Republicans, most of whom considered themselves ideologically conservative in 2008, have also grown more conservative on several of these issues this year, while less change is seen among Democrats.

All of this has potentially important implications at the ballot box, particularly for the 2010 midterm elections. The question is whether increased conservatism, particularly among independents, will translate into heightened support for Republican candidates. Right now, it appears it may. Although Gallup polling continues to show the Democratic Party leading the Republican Party in Americans’ party identification, that lead has been narrowing since the beginning of the year and now stands at six points, the smallest since 2005.

And as Obama and company try to push our country further to the left we will continue to see polls like these:

Bob McDonnell, Virginia’s Republican nominee for governor, holds an 11 percentage point lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds, according to a new Washington Post poll released Monday.

McDonnell, the former state attorney general, leads Deeds 55 percent to 44 percent in the Post poll, a two point increase since the last survey. Deeds’s support remained static at 44 percent in both polls, but McDonnell has cut into the number of undecided voters to pad his lead over the Democratic state senator.

Obama pushes us to Socialism and America will push back. Conservative values like a strong foreign policy, fiscal restraint, pro-capitalism and pro-business become the mainstream once again, as it should be.

Case in point, Chris Good and his little diddy at The Atlantic, “It’s Not (overtly) About Race”.

Centerpiece to the headline, and content of his op-ed, is James Carville and Stanley Greenberg’s polling/strategy/research firm, Democracy Corps, and it’s 18 pg study, “The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans: Why Republican Leaders will have Trouble Speaking to the Rest of America” released Oct 16th, 2009.

Here the disconnect between Good’s op-ed, and the actual content of the study begin. Good has chosen to focus on race and racism… and dances around the study’s finding that the discontent of “weak” partisans… Republican and Independents… appears to have nothing to do with race.

From the Carville groups research document:

Race: Get Over It

In the wake of Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the president’s joint session health care address and other strident personal and political attacks against President Obama, many in the media and Democratic circles advanced an explanation that this virulent opposition is rooted in racism and reactions to President Obama as an African American president. With this possibility in mind, we allowed for extended open ended discussion on Obama (including visuals of him speaking) among voters – older, non-college, white, and conservative – who were most race conscious and score highest on scales measuring racial prejudice.

Race was barely raised, certainly not what was bothering them about President Obama. In fact, some of these voters talked about feeling some pride at his election.

They were conscious of the charge that opposition to Obama is racially motivated and that bothered conservative Republicans and independents alike. They basically could not let it go and returned to this issue again and again throughout our conversations across myriad topics.

You can’t openly criticize Obama. If you do, you’ll be labeled as a racist.

Whatever we say about Obama, no matter what we say about him, it is a racial comment so you know, we can’t say anything, we personally do not like him. I don’t care if he is purple, but whatever we say we’re racist.

As far as a person goes, I don’t want to say I hate him. I don’t like what he stands for… and I don’t like what he is doing and the choices he is making, but I mean I don’t know him as a gentleman so… You would be called a racist. You would not like him because he is black. That is what the media is saying.

They see this as a personal rights issue because the racism charge is being used to prevent them from fulfilling their duty to stand up to Obama and his agenda. They see no difference in the opposition Obama faces and the opposition other liberals have faced, because they believe it is based in the same unwavering, bedrock conservative principles that have always led them to oppose liberal policies. The only factor that has changed is the race of the leader being criticized.

Indeed, in the summary introduction from a very liberal/progressive based firm, they discounted racism as the foundation for Obama discontent.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Bad juju for the devout community organizers, masquerading as reporters or journalists, in these times. To them, removing the ability to label opposition “racist” to advance their agenda is akin to sending a soldier out on the field armed with a water pistol.

So Chris Good leaps in on behalf of the O’faithful to start reinterpreting what staunch members of his own political bent have wrought. And he lays out his game plan in his headline by inserting the word, “overtly”.

This does not mean, conclusively, that racism is absent from anti-Obama politics. Asserting that’s the case means taking up a patently false assumption about racism: that it’s always overt. Democracy Corps’ report seems to walk that line, even if it doesn’t cross it.

Racism is about complex systems of recognition, categorization, and association. If you ask someone what they think about Obama, and they don’t say, “I dislike him because he’s black,” it’s not quite safe to check the “not racist” box and move on. Quiet conclusions are often made–and they can be just as racist as the ones spoken aloud.

So the fact that no one brought up race doesn’t necessarily force a conclusion on the matter.

Yowza… do you think Mr. Good is lobbying for a slot on the Norway Nobel Peace Prize committee? (i.e. “intent” and not “actions”) It’s not conclusive because racism isn’t always “overt”??

Or perhaps Mr. Good elevates himself to a more pious position as a deity, assuming that he… or others… can gaze into a soul and pronounce them “racists” despite any attitude or evidence to the contrary, merely because those feelings may not be “overt”.

Serious chutzpah. But even more laughable is the … if I may so say myself… *overt* desperation to backpeddle on a popular O’faithful weapon of words.

That’s all the time I intend to give to a perhaps-less-than-*overt*-potential-racist. But I will say the rest of the study conducted by Democracy Corps was downright interesting, tho not surprising.

I would anticipate the next twisting of results to center not in Good’s desperate attempt to resurrect racism, but to use it to cast the O’discontent as mildly conspiratorial…. an attempt that may prove difficult in light of Obama’s own track record (now that he *has* one).

Naturally, the first to jump on the “conspiracy” bandwagon is MSNBC

Yeah… what a surprise…. But now to the source of the spin. The study itself.

The study breaks the avenues of disagreement under “pillars”, “…driven by doubt and fear over his agenda and methods”:

Pillar #1 – Deception and a Hidden Agenda (pg 5 of 18)

Pillar #2 – Speed (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #3 – Driving Government to the Brink and Total Control (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #4 – The Ultimate Goal: Socialism and End to Liberties (pg 8 of 18)

Rather than place extensive blockquotes for each of these pillars, I urge you to read the study in full…. aka RTFA. But I will summarize, merely for discussion purposes.

Pillar #1 reveals these participants believe as Rush Limbaugh originally said… they are rooting for the failure to implement Obama’s policies because they do not believe them to be in the nation’s best interest. Most genuinely believe Obama’s own promise to “remake” America, and see his policies designed to thwart the very foundations of our country.

There is also distrust of Obama’s associations – which he has, in his own words, invited us to scrutinize. They are speaking specifically of those that have guided and directed Obama to the highest position in the nation.

The below, however, is a worthy quote from this “deception” pillar:

These conservative Republican base voters were not just shooting off half-cocked theories about conspiracies. They actively believe President Obama is purposely lying about his plans for the country and what his policies would do, and that he is exaggerating the threats America faces in order to create support for his policies. A key component to this deception is a pattern of always telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the truth.

Pillar #2 essentially substantiates Pillar #1… the speed with which Obama pressures Congress to push thru legislation in a willy nilly fashion, and sans debate and scrutiny not only in the chambers, but among the populus.

Pillar #3 is the belief that Obama’s accomplishments of the preceding pillars is the concerted effort to induce a greater reliance on government in all facets of our lives. Such dependence, accomplished by driving the country almost impossibly deep into debt, would result in the loss of liberties merely for economic survival. 92% believe Obama is a big spender, and only 17% believed he had good plans for the economy.

Key to the beliefs was the deep aversion to government control…. or as the study wanted to put it, fear of two things… government *and* control.

Fear of government control is at the heart of virtually all of the concerns raised by these voters about Obama’s agenda, and it is literally a fear of two things – government and control. They see government as inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt and believe it preys on the middle class and ‘hard-working Americans.’

~~~

Even more concerning than the waste and corruption of government for these voters is the inexorable movement of government toward controlling an ever increasing share of our economic marketplace, as well as our individual lives.

The beliefs of the first three pillars… an agenda of deception, the speed and secrecy of that agenda, an aversion to being controlled by an inefficient and wasteful government… bring the participants to Pillar #4 – the natural conclusion that ultimate government control will result in a socialized America.

They exhaustively cite examples of this strategy at work, starting with the bank bailouts, the takeovers of Chrysler and GM, and foreclosure assistance making homeowners dependent on government for their homes. Another example repeatedly raised by conservative Republicans that undoubtedly reflects the power of FOX News and conservative commentators among these voters was their concern over President Obama’s policy ‘czars’ wielding power over every issue with no accountability.

~~~

The final, and in many ways most important, piece of evidence they cite is the planned government takeover of health care. The notion that Obama’s health care reforms represent a government takeover of all aspects of health care is an article of faith; they reject as laughable the suggestion that it might not, pointing to his arguments to the contrary as further proof of his determination to lie and deceive to fulfill his ultimate agenda. Even after a description of the health care reform plan in our recent polling, these conservative Republican base voters reject it by a 59-point margin, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) strongly opposed to reform (77 percent total opposed).

Also buried in Pillar #4 (pg 9) is notables about non-partisan independents expressing similar concerns as the Republican, such as the speed, the spending, and the lack of a clear plan on the economy and jobs. Some of the differences lie in beliefs that Obama would work in a bipartisan fashion, and see him as a strong (if not correct and defined) leader.

Guaranteed to bring liberal disdain is pg 11, where the participants state they believe they are better informed than most Americans.

Several of the women particularly talked about becoming a sort of truth police, spending a great deal of their personal time and energy watching FOX to get the real stories, then turning to CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to document their failure to cover the “real truth.” It was unclear what they did with this information once gathered, other than share it with others within this group.

When it came to the media, only Beck received adulation… most especially among the women. Limbaugh came in with mixed reviews:

Beyond FOX News in general, they have mixed feelings about conservative media figures, but they are grateful for talk radio as the only major outlet, other than FOX, where conservative voices can be heard. Rush Limbaugh, in particular, was greeted with mixed reviews. On the one hand, they recognize his role as a pioneer of sorts and view him as a principled conservative who is willing to speak his mind regardless of the consequences.

~~~

On the other hand, they believe his sensationalism and arrogance can obscure the power of the ideas he champions. They clearly embrace the message more than the messenger.

DOH! Someone better tell the liberals that Rush has lost his de facto “head of the Republican Party” to the Independent Glenn Beck… LOL

It’s also noted that the disappointment in the Republican Party is prevalent throughout the study.

Conservative Republicans in our groups could not have been more negative in discussing their own party. They see the Republican Party as ineffective and rudderless, controlled by a class of political professionals who have lost touch with not only the people but the conservative values that should guide them.

~~~

The disconnect these partisans see between the party leadership and the party faithful is at the root of their discontent. They have no intention of leaving the party per se – they still believe it is the best and only means of opposing Obama and the Democratic Congress – but they also have little confidence in its current direction or leadership, and there is an emotional distance that can be damaging.

Yes… one interesting study. And I have to applaud the heart of capitalism. I mean, someone actually paid for these guys to interview and write up viewpoints that anyone can read for free on any conservative blog… ahem, like Flopping Aces?

But I find it refreshing that Carville/Greenberg and their research finally led them to some truths… that this is *not* about race. It’s about questioning the less than honest and (dare I say it…) *overt* agenda, the speed of that agenda, the debt creating massive government dependence, and the lack of honesty about the end game.

And these are all legitimate issues that I believe most Americans have no qualms in discussing.

The main (scientifically unproven) premise of cap and trade is that the earth is melting and government must step in to save the world. Of course, it will be expensive, but hey, this is Mother Earth we’re talking about. And its urgent and essential that the government immediately establish a $700 billion “market” for business to buy and sell “steadily declining number of permits for creating carbon emissions.”

In a New York Times Op-Ed Graham co-authored with Sen. John Kerry cutely entitled ‘Yes We Can’ (get it?) Sen Graham states “..we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security.” Huh?

Conservatives disagree. Conservatives, real conservatives, believe the fact based studies based on science that stand in direct opposition to the dire reports issued by bureaucrats at the United Nations and embraced as fact by the left.

Conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation, outlines the additional costs that will be imposed on every American family if cap and trade is enacted. Residential electricity costs will zoom up by 90%, nearly 1.9 million jobs will be lost by 2012 overall, and the economy will lose nearly $10 trillion in gross domestic product by 2035. Just what the economy needs, right?

Lindsey Graham was elected to serve as United States Senator in 2002. He was easily re-elected in 2008, largely due to the support of conservatives. Conservatives like founder and past president of the low country’s South Strand Republicans, John Bonsignor. John and his wife campaigned hard for Graham, based on their belief that Graham would govern as a conservative. Meaning, lower taxes and less government.

“Graham is disappointing,” states Bonsignor, “He campaigned as a conservative but his record is moderate left.” When asked if he would vote for Graham now, Bonsignor stated emphatically, “No,” citing Lindsey’s support for Sotomayor, his support for TARP funds, and the final straw, his support for cap and trade.

Sen. Graham’s own website states, “Graham is known as a leader who never abandons his independence or strays from the conservative reform agenda.” This is no longer true.

Graham has been seduced by the left. He has adopted one of their most successful tactics, promising one thing while delivering quite the opposite. Though its impossible to know what is in another man’s heart, actions always speak louder than words. And Graham’s actions clearly show that he has signed on to the leftist agenda. Possibly hoping to earn the coveted ‘maverick’ label and media kudos formerly enjoyed by his good buddy John McCain. But he is doing his own party no good.

Graham has come to exemplify the growing disconnect between conservatives and the Republican party. He believes he knows best, and if the people that elected him disagree, he tells them to just “chill out,” as he did at a recent townhall meeting in Greenville. The same townhall meeting where one of his constituents called him a traitor.

That townhall received little media attention. What did receive national media coverage was Graham’s recent interview where he attacked Glenn Beck, the left’s favorite target. “Glenn Beck does not represent the thinking of the Republican Party,” Graham stated. How he knows this is a mystery, as he went on to say he never watches the Glenn Beck Show. Go figure.

Graham may be right about one thing: Glenn Beck clearly represents the thinking of conservatives, not the GOP. And Sen. Lindsey Graham is now willingly spouting the talking points of the left and abandoning the conservative principles that got him elected. He has been seduced by the left and his reward is ever more national face time and political influence.

Enjoy the ride, Lindsey. More and more South Carolinians, this author included, are comparing you with our real conservative Senator, Jim DeMint, and you’re coming up way short. Keep in mind that we have long memories while the fawning media currently singing your praises have short ones. Your love affair with the left, whether it be seduction or statutory rape, betrays the conservative principles that you claimed to hold. And we don’t like it one bit.

Crossposted from Right Bias

“Today we reached a critical milestone in our efforts to reform our health care system, the president said this afternoon,” speaking from the White House Rose Garden.

Although the bill drew an “aye” vote from one Republican senator, President Obama touted the bill as a proposal having both “Democratic and Republican support.”

“After the consideration of hundreds of amendments, it includes ideas from both Democrats and Republicans, which is why it enjoys the support of people from both parties,” he said.

The president thanked in particular the senator who cast the lone Republican vote, Sen. Olympia Snowe from Maine.

Democrat….er, “Republican” Senator Snowe caving to the Democrats is not surprising. Just look at her scorecard at Club For Growth:

Year          Score        Rank
2008            12%            63
2007            12%            66
2006              9%             62
2005             18%          56

No…not surprising in the least and I suppose the ignorant claim that her defection is proof that the bill is bipartisan should not surprise us either coming from this administration.

Worried?

You should be and this is not a time to let up on the pressure.

But there are still some optimists out there like CATO’s Michael Cannon:

But universal coverage is so expensive that Congress can’t get there without taxing Democrats.

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is the biggest opponent of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) tax on expensive health plans because that tax would hit West Virginia coal miners.
• Unions vigorously oppose that tax because it would hit their members.
• Moderate Democrats in the House oppose Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) supposed “millionaires surtax” because they know it would hit small businesses in their districts.

And on and on…

But if congressional leaders pare back those taxes, they lose the support of the health care industry, which wants its subsidies.

• That’s why the health insurance lobby funded this PriceWaterhouseCoopers study saying that premiums would rise under the Baucus bill: the $500 billion bailout they would receive isn’t enough.  They also want – they demand –  steep taxes on Americans who don’t buy their products.
• The drug companies, the hospitals, and the physician groups are likewise demanding big subsidies, and will run ads to kill the whole effort if those subsidies aren’t big enough.

~~~

Can President Obama and the congressional leadership satisfy both groups? My guess is, probably not, and this misguided effort at “reform” will therefore die. Again.

Since this bill is now out of committee it now has to be merged with the Senate HELP Committee’s even more socialist version then it needs to pass the Senate. Then the House needs to merge the three bills they have and that version needs to pass the House. If they both pass then they need to be merged into one gigantic bill and then must pass both chambers to get signed by the President.

Ya think it’s bipartisan enough with that one vote?

Myself, I don’t want to rely on hope.

Keep the pressure on folks.

Whittaker Chambers was a complex man, early in life, he became caught up in the idealism of Soviet Communism and its purported benevolence toward the common man. Whitaker Chambers was born Jay Vivian Chambers April 1, 1901. He was raised in a household with a mentally ill maternal grandmother that caused dissension and apparently drove his father to leave his family. His father supported the family with weekly checks of eight dollars from that time.

Whittaker attended Columbia University, but left school after creating controversy by writing and reviewing his own play, A Play for Puppets, as the editor of the school’s literary magazine Morningside; the play led to a controversy among faculty and students that eventually ended up in the New York City newspapers; the play was considered blasphemous and the notoriety eventually drove Chambers away from academia.

During this period Chamber adopted his mother’s maiden name Whittaker, he later used the name David Chambers.

In 1924, he read Lenin’s book, Soviet’s At Work, he found it to be a compelling book that reflected his family experience that reflected his family’s experience as he wrote “in miniature the whole crisis of the middle class.” He became a Marxist in 1925 and joined the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). He wrote for and edited The Daily Worker and The New Masses newspapers.

Chambers also supported himself by writing plays and working as a translator, his most famous translation is Bambi, A Life in The Woods, by Felix Salten.

In 1930 or 31 he married a Jewish artist, Ester Schemitz, 1900-1986.

In 1932, he was recruited by the Communist Underground and became a Communist spy.

A son John, was born in 1936, after demands by his Communist handlers that the baby be aborted. Chambers perceived this as Anti-Semitism by the Communists and began to become disillusioned with the Communist Party. Later on, a daughter was born, an event Chambers described as the most important event of his life.

Chambers admitted in a letter to J. Edgar Hoover, that the lifestyle of a spy with the constant traveling allowed him to carry on a gay lifestyle of “cruising” in New York City and Washington, DC. He also revealed numerous heterosexual affairs during this same period from 1933, revealing that the heterosexual affairs were accepted and informally condoned by all the Soviet sympathizers. The revelation of the gay lifestyle resulted in a hostile reaction to his later court testimonies.

In either ‘37 or ‘38, his accounts varied, Whittaker broke with the Communist handlers that directed him. Stalin’s Great Purge, begun in 36, was increasingly disturbing for Chambers, the tipping point was reached in 39 with the Hitler Stalin Non-Aggression Pact. He was also shocked by the murder in Switzerland of Ignatz Reizz, a high ranking Soviet Spy that disagreed with Stalin and the disappearance of fellow spy and close friend Juliet Poyntz, Soon Chambers became concerned for his own life.

Stalin asked for Chambers to come to Russia several times, but Chambers was in mortal fear of being killed and refused.

After secreting rolls of microfilm that were pictures of stolen documents as insurance against a Soviet attempt on his life, he took his family into hiding.

In September of 39, Chambers was convinced to meet with Secretary of State Adolf Berle at Berle’s residence, by Russian born journalist Issac Don Levine. Chambers insisted on Berle’s home because he was afraid he would be compromised by Soviet Agents if they met at the State Department.

Berle showed Roosevelt the information from Chambers and FDR dismissed it with indifference.

Berle showed the information to the FBI and they had two interviews with Chambers, in May of 42 and June of 45. It is assumed that because of the political situation of being aligned with the Soviets and since the Soviets were not considered a threat, no further action was initiated.

Walter Krivitsky, a fellow spy, was found dead in his hotel room and his death was ruled a suicide, but speculation was rampant in Washington that he was killed by the Soviets.

In 45 another Soviet spy, Elizabeth Bentley, defected in November of 45 and corroborated the information supplied by Chambers; suddenly, the FBI began to take Chambers seriously.

In the mean time, Chambers came out of hiding after one year and joined the staff of Time reviewing books and film; at this time there was an internal struggle at Time between Soviet sympathizers and anti-Communists. The magazine’s founder, Henry R. Luce fell in with the anti-Soviet group and Chambers became a Senior editor in 43 and a member of Time’s “Senior Group” the staff that oversees editorial policy. Chambers was at the height of his career and drew international attention with his scathing review of the Yalta Conference, “Ghosts On The Roof” where Alger Hiss was a key participant.

In 1932, Chambers was recruited by the GRU, Red Army General Staff of The Soviet Army, by Alexander Ulanovsky, aka Ulrich, acting as main controller. Later his controller was Josef Peters, whom CPUSA (Communist Party USA) General Secretary, Earl Browder, replaced with Rudy Baker. Chambers claimed that Peters introduced him to Harold Ware who directed this particular Soviet cell.

This is a partial list of Government officials and state department employees that Chambers implicated as being part of the Harold Ward Communist cell.

Henry Collins employee National Recovery Administration, later Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)

Lee Pressman assistant general counsel of AAA

Alger Hiss attorney for AAA and the Nye Commission, later with the State Department, key component for the Yalta Conference and the Formation of the UN, working both for the State Department and the UN at the same time.

John Abt Chief of litigation for the AAA, later assistant General Counsel for Work Progress Administration, in 37 pecial Assistant to US Attorney General

Charles Kramer Department of National Labor Relations Board
Nathan Wit employee of AAA, later National Labor Relations Board

George Silverman employee rail road retirement board, later Federal coordinator of Transportation with the US Tariff Commission, later with labor advisory board of National Recovery Administration

Marion Bachrach sister of John Abt office manager Representative John Bernard of the Minnesota Farm Labor Party

John Herman author, assistant to Harold Ware, employee of AAA, courier and document photographer for the Ware Group, introduced Chambers to Hiss

Nathaniel Wey author, would later defect from Communists and give evidence against the others in the Harold Ware Group

Victor Perlo chief of Aviation Secretary of War Production Board, later joined office of price administration, Department of Commerce and division of monetary reserve with the Department of the Treasury

Except for Marion Bachrach, these people were all members of FDR’s New Deal Administration, that is probably why FDR feigned disinterest when presented with the evidence by Berle.

Chambers also implicated:

Noel Field Department of State
Harold Grasser Treasury Department
Ward Pigman National Bureau of Standards for the Treasury
Vincent Reno Mathematician Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Harry Dexter White Director Monetary Research, for Secretary of the Treasury

Chambers was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee. He gave the names included in the Ware group and gave Hiss’s name as a Communist but not for committing espionage. Hiss denied it and was later convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison.

The Leftist press defended Hiss to the utmost even when it was obvious that the charges were true and to this day maintains his innocence. They maintained that Hiss was sophisticated, impeccably dressed and a Harvard Law Graduate. While Chambers appeared disheveled, was overweight, a terrible dresser and a college dropout. Facts that would have condemned many of us.

Hiss’ first trial in a hung jury voting 8 to 4 for conviction. The second trial brought conviction on two counts of perjury, despite the Hiss Defense producing a psychiatrist who charged that Chambers was a psychopathic personality and a pathological liar.

Of course many of these charges were confirmed by the Venona Cables and by the declassification of Soviet Secret Documents, yet the Left still maintains that there was never a spy network in the State Department and that it was all McCarthyism. The arguments are of course less than weak, they are outright lies.

These State Department jobs have been passed on to the typical Ivy League types hired by the same people who were Soviet Agents in the 30’s, 40’s, and 50‘s and surely the trend has continued; the Ware group was the only cell that was outed, but surely not the only cell in the State Department; the loyalty of the present State Department employees and of the Democrat party has to come in to question, especially among those who try to still argue against Alger Hiss and the Communist past of others.

The Venona Project revealed and confirmed that a huge percentage of US security had been compromised by the Soviets; however, the NSA was reluctant to reveal the facts for fear of tipping off the Soviets that their code had been broken. Refer to, Body Of Secrets, Anatomy Of The Ultra-Secret National Security Agency by James Bamford, it is truly an eye opening book that takes you through the Cold War to the 21st Century. I doubt that you will ever view politics or our politicians the same way after reading this book.

Chamber left Time in 1948, he wrote for periodicals like Fortune ad Life utl hiring on with William F. Buckley in 1955 at National Review. He was once again controversial after writing a provocative review of Ayn Rand’s, Atlas Shrugged.

Chambers died of Angina at his farm in Maryland in 1961.

Ronald Reagan credited Chamber’s book Witness as being the single most contributing factor in his conversion from being a New Deal Democrat to becoming America’s most famous Conservative. President Reagan awarded Chambers the Presidential Medal Of Freedom posthumously in 1984.

Witness was a New York best seller for over a year. His second book, Cold Friday, was published posthumously in 1964; it predicted the fall of Soviet Communism through problems with its satellite countries.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says there’s no reason for Rep. Alan Grayson to apologize for his “Die quickly” remark, since Republicans have made statements just as outrageous as his.

“If anybody’s going apologize, everybody should apologize,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. “We are holding Democrats to a higher standard than their own members.”

She deemed the flap over Grayson’s remarks a distraction from the healthcare debate.

“Typically, Republicans would like to use this as distraction because they have no plan,” Pelosi said.

Republicans, who have been eager to compare Grayson’s remark to Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) “You lie!” outburst, said Pelosi’s refusal to call on Grayson to apologize meant that she condones “despicable” conduct.

“The only thing lower than the Speaker’s actions – or inaction – are her ever-worsening public approval ratings,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

If anybody’s going to apologize, everybody should apologize?

Wh-wh-what?

What an ignorant dunce this lady is.

And they are holding people to higher standard by ignoring insulting language uttered by members of their party while screeching about much less grievous behavior by the other side of the aisle?

But now the aide to Grayson say’s that not only do the Republicans want people to die quickly….they want to MURDER people:

Tyler Norkus was responding to a previous email from Ken Hutcheson, a businessman in Grayson’s Orland-area district who had written of the congressman’s “die quickly” statements:

“I am embarrassed; for you, for me, and for the district my Congressman represents,” Hutcheson wrote. Time is important; it should not be wasted on childish antics like we saw in his speech on the floor.”

From: Norkus, Tyler [Email address redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:39 AM
To: Ken Hutcheson
Subject: RE: Congressman Graysons speech on health care

As you know, we do support the health care plan and feel failure to act is similar to murdering the uninsured. On the other hand, we respect differences of opinion and I will let him know how you feel.

Best,
Tyler Norkus

Will she, or anyone from the Democrat party, hold them accountable now for truly lowering the level of discourse?

Not betting on it.

I’d link to the Congressman’s website but it seems to be out of commission at the moment.

Here’s a photo of the moment:

h/t – Gateway Pundit and Hot Air