Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Hackers Tampering With Nevada Vote, Already? I Told You So - Last January!

Normally I am not an "I told you so," type person, but this issue is so serious and can have such a devastating impact on the coming election that I must repeat it and shout it from the rooftops.

When I logged on to my computer this morning and checked my email, which I generally do even before I have my coffee, I checked out my daily updates from blogger Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs -
There I found the following article from the Washington Examiner:

Nevada voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid's name; voting machine technicians are SEIU members
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
10/26/10 6:12 PM EDT
Clark County is where three quarters of Nevada's residents live and where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory is a county commissioner. Rory is also a Democratic candidate for governor.

Since early voting started, there have been credible reports that voting machines in Clark County, Nevada are automatically checking Harry Reid's name on the ballot:

Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.

Ferrara said she wasn't alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.

"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time - that's wrong."

Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the touch-screens are sensitive.
Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Let me remind you of the column I wrote back on January 14 of this year, when Scott Brown was still in the race for Senate in Massachusetts and hadn't won his big victory yet. Here are some excerpts from that column:
If Scott Brown Wants to Win in Massachusetts, He Should Guard The Vote Scanners

A subplot of the movie Office Space involves three programmers inserting a computer virus into their firm's accounting system to surreptitiously transfer fractions of a penny to a secret bank account hundreds if not thousands of times each day.

Their theory holds that in any transactions resulting in balances figured down to fractions of a cent, which is common in their firm, the accounting department rounds down for simplicity sake, leaving daily balances that no one notices. What the accounting department doesn't need certainly wouldn't be missed, especially if the virus took only a little bit each day.

Movies being what they are, the chief code writer in the group misplaces a decimal point and the results are not at all what they expected.

I bring this up because all the polls in Massachusetts, which rivals Chicago for corruption in politics, are showing a very, very close race for the US Senate seat that opened up after Democrat Ed Kennedy died.

Scott Brown, the Republican candidate, is ... swarming all over the once insurmountable lead in the polls no longer being enjoyed by the Democrat's handpicked successor to Kennedy, Martha Coakley. ... Brown is surging while Coakley hopes she can hold him off for a few more days - but the spread is razor thin, well within the margin of error. ... So what will be the deciding factor in which side wins?

Perhaps the vote counters will determine the race. Not the people - the machines. What with the movement away from mechanical voting machines to optical scanners that operate based on commands from computer programs, it would be wise for Republicans who are making a massive effort on Brown's behalf to keep a very close eye on the scanners on election day.

How can pre-programmed computerized vote counters change the outcome of an election?

Well, you start long before election day, by writing what amounts to a virus into the program that gives instructions to the software that in turn gives instructions to the hardware that displays the counts.

(If) the vote scanners have a virus in the program that automatically advances the count for the "appropriate" candidate 3 percent of the time ... each time 100 votes are cast, the counter "slips" and adds three votes on the Democrat side.

The only way to find out if the number registered by the scanner counter is accurate is to go through the check-in logs and manually count each person who was logged in. The chances of this happening on a widespread basis are virtually zero.

Because if the program ... is tweaked to give a 3 percent preference to one party over another, in a precinct where 5,000 votes were cast, the counter would add three extra votes every time 100 ballots were scanned ... . The final outcome would be 2,584 to the winner and 2,416 to the loser if 5,000 votes were cast. (I realize these numbers are approximate, so don't get all squirrely with me. It is the principle I'm talking about here.)

If that number, or something close to it, came up - and was mirrored across the state - the pundits and pollsters would all go "SEE, it was within the margin of error just like we predicted. But the Republican just couldn't pull it off in such a Democrat leaning state."

And while the results would be within the margin of error that the polls predicted, they would be way outside the margin where a recount is required - usually if the results are closer than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes.

You can read the entire column here:

Since I wrote that column and discussed this scenario with others, a friend with more information on computer programming said the program could even be written to make the counter "slip" on a random basis so poll watchers couldn't predict when it might happen. I ended that column by strongly suggesting the same thing I am suggesting now, in every precinct in this country, large and small, every polling station, every scanner, machine or computer vote tabulator.

The local GOP chairman should order the Republican committees in every community to check the scanners at every polling place in their jurisdiction by running a known number of test ballots, with a known number of votes for each position, through the scanners - and the backup scanners - before the actual voting starts. I would use more than 100 ballots, maybe 500 would be better, and I would do the test between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., just before the polls open.

Then I would keep GOP poll watchers stationed near the scanners all day to discourage tampering. Then I would run another test right after the results are announced, but before the machines are moved out of the polling place.

We all know the outcome in Massachusetts last January and I don't know for sure if my suggestions were followed or not. But I know this: I have an analysis program that keeps tabs on this column for advertising purposes and it tells me how many hits I get each day and where they originate.

Last January 14 my daily hits went through the roof, and a ton of them came from Massachusetts. So, here we are again. And as the article at the beginning of this column points out, there already are questions in Nevada, where a three-point difference could give Harry Reid exactly what he wants, and the country would be unable to do a damn thing about it.

Remember the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Be vigilant when you vote, check and double check, and make sure that every polling station in the country has alert, aware and active GOP poll watchers doing their job.

The fate of the free world hangs in the balance.
Friday, October 22, 2010

Did NPR's Vivian Schiller Break Labor Laws in the Juan Williams Case?

Did NPR's Vivian Schiller Break Labor Laws in the Juan Williams Case?
© 2010 By Ron Winter

When most people leave a job, for whatever reason, it usually causes an upheaval in a very limited universe, generally inhabited by the individual in question, his or her boss who has to fill his or her position, and those who depend on the individual in question.

Usually, the leaving, whether voluntary or involuntary, doesn't generate headlines or non-stop discussion on television and radio talk shows.

Also, and more to the point, regardless of the reasons for a person leaving a job, when they apply for a new job, and have to list their old job on their new application, or their resume, someone is going to contact the previous employer and ask why the applicant left their old job.

Usually, the new employer is referred to the old employer's Human Resources department which by labor law is required to say something along the lines of "We can only confirm that (the individual in question) worked here," and the dates of employment. Now, sometimes a new boss calls directly to an old boss who may have a grudge, justified or unjustified, against the former employee and he or she will use code words such as "I can't say anymore about it." Or "I am legally bound to refer you to the Human Resources Department and our legal agreement prevents me from saying more."

Obviously, potential new bosses will want to know a lot more if they get that kind of response to their inquiries about potential new employees.

None of this happened in the case of National Public Radio - which gets TAXPAYER MONEY - when liberal commentator and analyst Juan Williams was fired two days ago. Williams got canned from the job he had held for more than a decade because he said during an appearance on the FOX Network's Bill O'Reilly show that Muslims on airplanes make him nervous, especially in the wake of the 9-11 attacks.

His firing went viral and in the wake of the uproar NPR's head honcho and axe wielder Vivian Schiller held a news conference to discuss the intimate details of Williams' employment, his termination and his mental stability.

Then she offered a blithe apology for saying Williams had a psychiatrist who would better understand why Williams made the comments he did, which the American Terrorist Media immediately accepted as heartfelt and sufficient and moved on.

Well, then why didn't NPR at least give Williams the opportunity to apologize for his remarks on FOX, if he wanted to? He could have said something like, "I'm sorry that my words upset thin-skinned jackasses who have no sense of reality, and I never meant to give them a scorching case of teen-aged angst as a result of my personal fears over potential terrorists riding on the same flight as me."

But that is a minor point. A major point is whether Schiller broke federal and state labor laws by openly discussing the performance of an employee, regardless of how high profile his job. Why didn't Schiller just say, "I'm sorry, but state and federal labor laws prevent me from discussing the specifics of any employee's performance," and then refer all media inquiries to the Human Resources department?

Then the HR professionals could have said, "Why yes, Mr. Williams did work with NPR from (insert date) to Oct. 21, 2010." And that would have been that. Except they could have added, "We wish him well in his future endeavors," which is HR code for "We think he's a horse's ass and if he falls off the face of the earth we could care less."

None of that happened. No, instead Schiller lambasted Williams, and told the world in essence that he had been a problem employee who was walking on thin ice for some time, that he made other comments in other venues at other times that NPR didn't like either and then she made the comment about him talking with a psychiatrist.

Frankly, I think Schiller is a horse's ass, who looks like she spends most of her days sucking on sour lemons, and the world would be a lot better off if she shut the hell up and Juan Williams keeps talking, even though I mostly disagree with him. I was working last night so I missed most of the evening news shows and how they handled the Williams story, but I did get to see Sean Hannity, and I believe it was on his show that the comment was made that Williams is a decent man who can disagree without being disagreeable.

I believe it was Dana Perino, former White House spokesperson in the George Bush presidency who said that but I could be wrong. Regardless, that comment was made and I agree with it.

Yesterday I wrote that it might be a good thing if Schiller gets some major heat for her words and deeds since she is a white woman who fired Juan Williams, a black man, and that dichotomy certainly could be leveraged in his favor. But I haven't heard word one from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the Reverends Without Portfolios, who jump up and scream "racism" every time someone comments on another person's tan after a two-week vacation in the Bahamas.

But this time the Mouths that Pout are remarkably silent. I haven't seen them anywhere, when usually you see them everywhere. I think Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Don Imus, Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, Shepard Smith, Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Juliet Huddy, Megyn Kelly, Stuart Varney, Charles Paine, and every other commentator in the world should camp out on their doorsteps until they get a quote on this.

Let's see if this issue and the Jackson/Sharpton response send a thrill up Chris Matthew's leg the way Barack Obama did.

But it won't will it? Because this issue was a non-issue to begin with. It was a violation of Williams' First Amendment rights to free speech, which gives him another legal avenue to explore, and the leaders of the American Terrorist Media won't touch this with a 10-foot pole because Williams wasn't communist enough for their tastes.

Imagine that. Williams is seen as way too left leaning for most Fox viewers, who nonetheless are supporting his right to say what he believes, yet he isn't leftist enough for NPR which lauded another commentator who said she hoped Jesse Helms and his grandchildren get AIDS because she disagreed with him. And NPR, the self-proclaimed guardian of free speech, fires Williams because he said what everyone else is thinking.

Another nail in the coffin ladies and gentlemen. Another reason to vote Reid, Pelosi and every single one of their puppets and lackeys right out of the House of Representatives and Senate.

Lately, the communist commentators on cable and the networks have been smirking over the Tea Party slogan "Take Our Country Back!" The communists keep saying, "Take it back from Who?"

Take it back from these people! NPR, the people who listen to it, and the people who would destroy the reputation of a decent individual with a somewhat moderate viewpoint. November 2nd can't come fast enough. I wonder if Juan is vested in his NPR retirement account?
Thursday, October 21, 2010

Juan Williams Should Thank God He Isn't a Conservative White Man!

Liberal journalist, author, and commentator Juan Williams, who often drives me crazy when he voices his opinions on Fox News, either on the Special Report show hosted by Bret Baier at 6 p.m. weeknights, or on Fox News Sunday where he often squares off against Brit Hume, has been fired from his other job at National Public Radio for stating the obvious. (Media photo.)

Williams didn't say anything on NPR that went against the rules, he answered a question on the FOX cable channel during an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show. Reilly has been milking the daylights out of an uproar he caused when he appeared on a network women's talk show last week and two of the women commentators walked off the set because O'Reilly said it was Muslims who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001.

Just for factual purposes, it was in fact Muslims who flew two planes into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and had plans to fly a fourth one that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, into another building in D.C., probably the White House or the Capitol.

Anyway, O'Reilly didn't specify that it was "extremist" Muslims who attacked us, just Muslims, and of course his liberal hosts went off the wall, and two of them walked off the set. Big F'ing Deal! I really don't care.

However, O'Reilly was still talking about it Wednesday night on his show, and Williams who was in on the discussion, said something that everyone who has a brain knows to be true: He said he feels uncomfortable if he flies on a plane and sits next to other passengers who are not just obviously Muslims, but are so devout that you can tell right away they put their Muslim religion ahead of other things in their lives.

So what? It's true. Anyone who has the slightest idea what happened on 9-11 would admit to at least a twinge of discomfort if they are in the same situation. But even though Williams didn't make his comments on NPR, the TAXPAYER FUNDED network got right up on its ever-so-liberal, First Amendment protecting, hind legs and fired that black man for having the audacity to say something that could just possibly be considered stereotypical by overly sensitive minority groups.

Which is why I don't listen to NPR in the first place.

So guess who is coming to William's defense today? Every conservative media outlet and commentator in the known universe. First up this morning was veteran radio host Don Imus, who also has a morning simulcast on the Fox Business Network which I watch every single day. Imus you may remember had his own problems with making a stereotypical comment that offended some black women basketball players and every liberal in the known universe.

Imus was fired from his day job, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton went into apoplexy and the world literally stood still until Imus apologized sufficiently to offset the permanent damage he did to the psyches of the offended parties. Not that Imus should have said what he said, mind you, but the reaction was a whole bunch different.

Which is why I am saying that Juan Williams should thank God he is a liberal black man instead of a conservative white man. For that matter, Williams should thank God he isn't a conservative black man either. If conservative intellectual Thomas Sowell or Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas - both of whom just happen to be black - had said what Williams said there would be lynch parties - not white KKK guys, but black liberals and their lackeys - demonstrating on their front door steps. Bet you.

Can you imagine if Bill O'Reilly had said that whenever he takes public transportation - OK, I know, never ever, but still just as a for instance - he feels uncomfortable whenever black or Asian or Hispanic gangbangers wearing their colors and flashing their signs ride the same bus? Holy Moly there would have been an eruption of cataclysmic proportions.

He probably would have been shot by an offended gang banger.

So, as unfortunate as this reaction to Williams' comments certainly is, it could have been much, much worse. All I can say to Juan is "welcome to the white man's world Juan."

We have been hamstrung by overly sensitive race baiters for decades now, not because every white guy wants to offend people of other races and genders, but if we state the obvious, we are hammered for it not because we aren't correct in our statements or observations, but because someone with skin so thin it is transparent makes a big deal out of it. Or because some slick huckster who has become a millionaire off of liberal white guilt sees an opportunity to make some more money by putting the pressure on once again.

Of course, there is a possible silver lining to this cloud. Maybe race relations in our country have progressed to a higher level than many people like to believe. I mean, NPR did fire a black man for his comments. I realize that the TAXPAYER FUNDED guardian of the First Amendment never would have hired a white guy with conservative views in the first place, but that is acceptable in the world of the liberal media.

On the other hand, the head of NPR is Vivian Schiller, a white woman. So if the heat gets turned up on NPR too high, and the liberal world that already is ticked off at Barack Obama for letting his base down after he ascended to the White House turns on NPR there certainly is a handy scapegoat on tap.

Just when you think you've heard it all.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Foley Has One Word for Malloy; Jealous. Oh, and Soft on Crime; and Wrong on Taxes. And He Has a Chip on His Shoulder. Is That More Than One Word?

The Gubernatorial Debate held at the Bushnell Tuesday night was remarkable primarily for its hard-edged, street-level punk fighting, which apparently is the preferred method of assault used by Democratic nominee Dan Malloy when he can't answer a question.

I watched the debate hoping to get an inside look at the character of the combatants, the other being Republican nominee Tom Foley. Since I am a Republican and Foley has been all around the state campaigning it is natural that I would have met him - three times actually - and have more knowledge of him than I did of Malloy.

In saying I am a Republican that does not make me an automaton who votes reactively for any Republican who is nominated by the party hierarchy, even if that hierarchy works through the primary process as was the case this year. Long before I was a Republican I spent decades as an independent voter, and still retain the habit of actually reviewing the positions of the candidates before I cast my ballot.

So last night was no different for me than any other night when candidates for office debate and show off their positions, skills and beliefs.

I went into the evening thinking I would probably like Dan Malloy, but not sure if I would like his positions. I came away not liking him at all, instead finding him rude, obnoxious, evasive and not all that well versed on the issues. In fact, whenever Foley caught him in an obvious gaffe, Malloy responded by going on the attack and launching personal insults rather than regrouping and clarifying.

Take for instance the death penalty. It was the first question of the night and was keyed on the horrific assaults and murders at the Petit family home in Cheshire in 2007. Foley said he favors the death penalty both as a means of punishment for violent crimes that result in death, and as a deterrent to other criminals.

Malloy opposes the death penalty, and said he will sign a bill prohibiting the death penalty in Connecticut if the legislature passes such as a measure - except that he will make an exception for the criminals who committed the heinous crimes in Cheshire! Really? And just how would he enact a retroactive, pro-death penalty law for some of the residents of Death Row, if he is simultaneously signing an anti-death penalty measure for others?

First off, only the first of the two animals who savaged the Petit family, murdering two girls, their mother and beating the father senseless with a baseball bat has been tried and convicted. The jury hasn't even debated the penalty phase yet, although considering that the first perpetrator was convicted after only 4 hours of deliberation it isn't likely they'll opt for life in prison.

Nonetheless, there still is another trial for the second defendant and then there will be the endless appeals and stays.

So let's say for the sake of argument there will be a new governor by then and just for laughs let's say it's Malloy. How will he justify killing some criminals and letting others live, if they are on death row for essentially the same crimes?

Answer, he won't. The defendants' lawyers will be all over him like flies on garbage, claiming everything from bigotry and unequal application of the laws to cruel and unusual punishment. And they'll win! Malloy came across as a typical career politician, trying to take both sides of an issue simultaneously and not doing a good job with either.

Moving on, let's talk about taxes. Foley described a typical Connecticut family making $68,000 annually, the median income in Connecticut, paying out more than $8,000 in state and local taxes. That is way too much and must come down, he said.

Malloy responded that Foley doesn't know what he is talking about and said the family he described only pays about $2,000 in state taxes. Where does Malloy live, in a bubble? And for the record, Foley said state and local taxes, not just state taxes.

I apparently am in that typical range, and I can tell you, the taxes I pay are much closer to the figure Foley mentioned than the once Malloy used. For starters, I work out of my home and my wife has flexible hours at her job so we have made do for several years with just one motor vehicle. But I still drive about 12,000 miles per year and pay out about $700 is gasoline taxes - at a rate of 62.5 cents per gallon, the second highest in the nation. That's somewhere between a quarter and a third of what Malloy says is my total tax bill, for just one item.

Then there is the 6 percent sales tax on most non-food grocery items, clothing over $50 - have your purchased a pair of slacks or shoes or dress shirt lately? Try finding something under $50 outside of the Goodwill store.

Then there is the local property tax which in my case exceeds $6,000, not to mention state income taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and a plethora of fees and charges. I don't live extravagantly but I also have no idea where Malloy gets his numbers. He is really out of the loop.

But don't try telling that to Malloy, he'll just change the subject and insult you. For instance, he bashed Foley's running mate, former Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, essentially saying Foley had selected a man for whom negative adjectives were invented. Foley responded that the voters selected his running mate, not him, and he then did a great job of listing Boughton's numerous qualifications to be Lieutenant Governor, explaining how their backgrounds would dovetail nicely to provide the best services for Connecticut residents.

Having been caught flatfooted, Malloy covered up by repeating his egregious statements about Boughton, who was not there to defend himself, and still maintaining that Foley selected the GOP candidate for Lieutenant Governor rather than the GOP voters!

This continued throughout the debate - when Foley said he favors merit reviews for teachers rather than tenure, Malloy went on a rant accusing him of disparaging teachers - and frankly I found it tedious and far beneath the level of the debate the previous night between the state's Senatorial candidates. I had a pretty good idea where Foley stands on the issues confronting us, but I was still willing to give Malloy the benefit of the doubt.

Until Tuesday night. At the end of the debate, each candidate was given an opportunity to make a closing statement. Foley went first and took the opportunity to discuss his plan to get Connecticut out of the current fiscal crisis and make the state business friendly so we can start reversing our abysmal unemployment figures. He said little about his opponent, preferring to speak about what he can do for our state.

Malloy had the last word of the evening and he used it to throw another series of insults at Foley, which was akin to sucker punching him since Foley could not respond. I found it cheap, classless, tacky and unbecoming of a person who aspires to the highest elected office in our state.

Earlier in the evening Malloy referenced the many problems he faced while growing up, including dyslexia. I am happy that he was able to face and overcome the challenges he encountered early in his life, and proud that he has been successful as an adult.

But it also was obvious from Malloy's behavior Tuesday night that he is a very angry man, with deep-seated resentments of people who aren't him. When Malloy was asked to give a one-word definition of Foley, he said "Rich."

Foley gave a hyphenated response to the same question about Malloy and here I disagree with him. I would have said "Jealous."

It was obvious from his behavior all night that Malloy has a very large chip on his shoulder, and his first action before deciding to run for Governor should have been to do everything in his power to shed it.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010

McMahon Smokes Blumenthal in Senatorial Debate

A commonly held opinion on Connecticut Atty. General and Democratic Senate hopeful Dick Blumenthal is that he is an accomplished speaker, television personality and debater who chooses his words deliberately and wisely, and never says anything that hasn't been well thought out beforehand.

If that commonly held opinion was true, it should have followed that Blumenthal would have crushed Republican challenger Linda McMahon in their widely viewed debate Monday night at the Bushnell Theater in Hartford. So much for commonly held opinions.

McMahon, who was the Chief Operating Officer of World Wrestling Entertainment until she stepped down to run for the US Senate and has never held public office, more than held her own in the debate and on several occasions hit Blumenthal with shots that obviously rocked him.

You probably won't see that in media reports on the confrontation, but the reports I have seen today, several of them as a matter of fact, also are tepidly neutral, which is proof that the Republican held her own and the Democrat did not. If McMahon had slipped or been thrashed in the debate the headlines would have been crowing "Blumenthal Victory" from Hartford to Timbuktu.

Here are a few examples. Blumenthal said he agrees with President Obama that we should withdraw from Afghanistan based on a timetable, not a military victory. This came after he claimed to be a boxer who has fought "above my weight." Well, if he boxed - this is the first I have heard about that, he always is portrayed as a long-distance runner and there is some controversy about an alleged false claim that he was captain of his university swim team - he should know what anyone who has ever squared off against an opponent in the pugilistic arts knows damn well. You don't telegraph your punches. At least, you don't if you want to keep your head on your shoulders.

As soon as I heard Blumenthal say he supported an unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan, based on political rather military or security conditions, I figured that if he did box in his youth, he got hit in the head too many times.

But wait, there's more. Blumenthal took a shot at McMahon for the amount of her own money she is pouring into the race. There is of course the question about why anyone would spend millions to get a job that pays less than $175,000 but that argument is somewhat specious when you consider that other politicians spend millions of other peoples' dollars for the same seat. McMahon is spending her own money and told Blumenthal that it is money she earned, her money, and if she wants to spend it on a Senate race, she will. Point McMahon.

When Blumenthal brought up McMahon's financial status earlier in the debate, apparently to portray her as an out-of-touch rich kid who doesn't understand the average working family, McMahon shot right back with "If you don't talk about my money I won't talk about your family owning the Empire State Building." Whammo. I knew Blumenthal comes from a rich background and that McMahon has worked her way into the American dream, but I didn't know his family owned the Empire State Building. Whammo again. Two points for McMahon.

Blumenthal hit at McMahon for allegedly supporting a reduction in the minimum wage. Besides the fact that as soon as the minimum wage goes up, costs follow right behind and people who are content to remain at that level with no promotions, no education and no drive to do better end up with a zero increase in spendable income, the fact was McMahon was adamant throughout the debate - perhaps more than was necessary - that she never said she supports a reduction. She turned to Blumenthal after he made that claim and accused him of an outright lie, which is very, very unusual in these forums. Point McMahon.

Then Blumenthal claimed McMahon's WWE had no health care policy for the wrestlers. She nailed him on that one too, outlining in specifics exactly what they have for health care in case of injuries. I don't know if the WWE has a good policy, great policy or mediocre policy, but you don't claim that your opponent has no policy if your opponent has a policy. Point McMahon.

Then Blumenthal dropped what he probably thought was going to be the blockbuster of the evening, revealing that the state of Connecticut has launched an investigation of the WWE's labor practices. But again, McMahon turned it right back on him. She noted that it is a very peculiar coincidence that the WWE has been headquartered in Connecticut for decades, with essentially the same business model and labor practices, but has never been subjected to a labor investigation until she became involved in the campaign against Blumenthal.

Blumenthal looked anything but sincere when he responded that the investigation into her firm is criminal - I'm not even sure that is accurate - not civil, so therefore, as a Democratic Attorney General he would have no knowledge of that at all, no way, never, not a chance. Sorry, but it didn't come across as believable. Again, point McMahon.

But I think the crowning moment of the debate came when Blumenthal was asked what it takes to create a job. He didn't know. I mean it, he really didn't know. That doesn't mean he didn't talk. He did. But this is what he said:

"A job is created and it can be in a variety of ways by a variety of people but principally by people and businesses in response to demand for products and services and the main point about jobs in Connecticut is we can and we should create more of them by creative policy, and that's the kind of approach I want to bring to Washington."

Huh? What? Interpreter please. I'm not fluent in political blather. Which is pretty much what McMahon said when she responded by saying:

"Government, government government. Government does not create jobs. It's very simple how you create jobs. An entrepreneur takes a risk he or she believes in and creates a good or service that is sold for more than it costs to make it."

Blumenthal got what I believe was his only titter of laughter from his supporters all night when he responded that he would be going to Washington as a Senator not as an entrepreneur. That is what worries me. He should at least know what an entrepreneur does if he is going to represent us.

Frankly, despite Ned Lamont's claims when he and Rob Simmons were doing a post-debate analysis for Fox Television, I think Blumenthal fell below his expected threshold and I think McMahon rose above hers.

Blumenthal didn't show a lot of spark or spontaneity. He reminded me of a walking sound bite, repeating over and over "I fought for you, and I will continue to fight for you."

Do you remember Mike Boguslowski from Channel 8 in New Haven back in the 70s? "I'm in your corner!"? It seems that Blumenthal can't even come up with an original sound bite.

Advantage, McMahon.
Friday, October 01, 2010

The "Flaccidity" of US Foreign Relations; and Our Government!

That word, "flaccidity" meaning "not firm or stiff," or alternatively "lacking vigor or force" was used by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on the Fox News channel Special Report show a few weeks ago regarding our relationship with Iran.

Earlier in the day Fox News Pentagon reporter Jennifer Griffin broke a blockbuster story about Iran hiding a massive nuclear research facility deep in the mountains outside Tehran. The Untied Nations apparently either had no idea the facility existed, or didn't have the intestinal fortitude to expose it, but its existence is glaring proof that Iran is working feverishly to develop a nuclear warhead - and intends to use it as soon as it is operational.

But the response from the Obama Administration's foreign affairs experts was typically lukewarm. In fact, if it weren't for comments from John Bolton, the former US Ambassador to the UN, you would have thought Griffin was reporting on a siting of the Easter Bunny.

Later in the day Krauthammer, during the nightly panel discussion on the Special Report show at 6 p.m., used the word "flaccidity" to slam the US response to this and other equally egregious acts across the globe that are sinking the US further and further into a quagmire of mediocrity and exposing our population to the whims of international thugs.

The tepid response to exposure of yet another example that international terrorists are targeting the US and our allies, or that voters are royally fed up with the antics in Congress and the White House, is neither new nor surprising. Nor is it limited to the members of only one party.

For example, on Fox News Sunday last week, host Chris Wallace interviewed both Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner on issues relative to the upcoming elections. Boehner was asked point-blank by Wallace several times, if he would, as the presumed Majority Leader should the Republicans regain control of the House of Representatives, put an end to earmarks, the tactic of attaching unrelated spending proposals to legislation that is sure to pass.

Boehner responded time after time that should he become Majority Leader "It will not be business as usual," in the House of Representatives. Wallace repeated that Boehner was not answering his questions, and Boehner kept repeating his mantra. What the hell is that all about?

Earmarks have people upset not because they are inherently evil, but because there is no methodology for separating necessary projects around the country from pork projects that only serve to provide votes for politicians seeking reelection. There actually are some localities across the US that desperately need federal funds for emergency or stalled projects and there should be a means of getting that money to them. "Earmarks" may be a dirty word, but Boehner should have had enough faith in the American electorate to say something other than his "No Business As Usual" mantra.

But Hoyer was even worse. This guy could not respond to any question about the myriad failures of the Obama Administration and the president's plummeting popularity with the American voters, than the totally worn out "Bush Did It." Obama has been in office for nearly two years, the mid-term elections are upon us and all the Democrats can say for the dismal state of both foreign and domestic affairs is Bush Did It!

Wow. Well, let's throw Bush out of office then. Oh, sorry, he served his two terms and left the stage two years ago. What now?

There are so many examples of this flaccidity that it's a wonder the entire male population of the US Government isn't popping erectile dysfunction pills every hour of the day.

Consider liberal commentator Alan Colmes' comments on the Don Imus show on the Fox Business Channel recently. Among other examples of bashing conservatives, the Tea Parties, and Republicans in general, Colmes remarked that one reason there is so much financial chaos in our government is because we are fighting "two unnecessary wars." WHAT???

In the first place, I would gladly debate Colmes or any other liberal pantywaist on the necessity for the war in Iraq any day, any time.

But put that on the back burner for a minute. Is he now saying the war in Afghanistan is unnecessary too? That we shouldn't have pursued the people who brought us 9-11 to their lair and we shouldn't continue to do everything possible to eliminate an enemy that will not quit until every last one of them is dead? I bet when Colmes went to public school in New York City he started every day by paying his lunch money to the school bullies so they wouldn't punch his lights out. But I bet he got his lights punched out anyway.

(Note to Fox News and Fox Business Channels. Whenever Imus or any other host brings on a liberal apologist like Colmes or John Kerry, or the daily Presidential sound bite, I switch to the Home and Garden Channel. Even on Megyn Kelly's show. If you guys keep feeding us this pablum in the guise of being fair and balanced, I will continue to switch to something that is more entertaining and informative. Just sayin'.)

Is it any wonder that the American public is champing at the bit for the opportunity to stand the government on its ear? Is it any wonder that so many women are rising to the top of the Republican party and the Tea Party movement, considering that so many women now on the political scene have so much more moxie than their male counterparts? I see that as a good thing, by the way.

Personally I'm happy that the female gender is finally being represented on a more equitable level. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, when she talks about female grizzly bears and hockey moms, she isn't kidding, and she is referring to two species that have the ability and the willpower to protect that which they hold precious.

Oddly enough, I attended a regional Republican awards dinner last night, and do you know what I found among the hundreds of attendees - both male and female? Tough, pragmatic conservative Republicans, and a few moderates too, who know exactly what they believe in and why they hold their beliefs. Not an apologist in the crowd!

I have found similar situations at other non-national GOP gatherings in other states, which leads me to wonder, what the hell is it with D.C.? Is there some kind of neutering device set up on the beltway, the train station and the airports so that when our office holders arrive they are suddenly rendered impotent? I know, that sounds way too much like too much like science fiction, but then again, maybe you can give me a better explanation.

Our government, both foreign and domestic, has deteriorated to a bunch of hand-wringing Mommy's boys and it is way past time for an infusion of testosterone. Personally, I can't wait until the November elections to see if we get it. I know where my votes are going - and none of them will be to candidates who could even remotely be described as "flaccid."


hypoctite sm

Granny Snatching


Signed author copies


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon

Masters of the Art

Masters final cover
Personalize inscription


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon and Barns & Noble

Blog Archive





Popular Posts