Well, Mr. President, it looks like quite a few in the House are ready to “have that fight.”  Congressman Steve King from Iowa, the same state in which Obama made the above remarks, is pulling out all the stops with a plan that could potentially put repeal on the table and force another vote before November’s midterm elections.  With a majority of Americans still supporting a full repeal months after the bills passage and Congressional reelection campaigns underway, how many vulnerable Democrat politicians would be willing to cast another “aye” vote?

As of yesterday evening, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) had obtained 130 signatures in support of a discharge petition.  If he is able to reach 218 signatures, then the House would be forced to allow a vote.  While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this legislation could present the perfect storm.  If everyone who voted against the bill signed the petition, it would have 212 signatures.

King only needs to win over 6 members of the opposition.  For those six members, this could be the vote that keeps them in office.  Gibbs himself has finally confessed that the Republican Party could take back the House this fall.  Except for the most liberal districts in the nation, “Standing with Obama” is not a great campaign strategy.  Repealing ObamaCare provides a substantive way for Democrats who voted against the American people to demonstrate that they’ve “seen the light.”

Will King’s effort succeed?  I don’t know.  Discharge petitions are rare.  Successful discharge petitions are even rarer.  And it’s not like Obama is going to refrain from using the veto pen to protect his signature government takeover.  But either way, the effort will keep the Health Care debate in the national consciousness.  It will force Democrats to defend their votes, and that is definitely good for our republic.

When the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in 1909, it had a legitimate purpose.  Their original mission:

To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.

The change was slow, but ultimately, the organization and it’s like-minded counterparts succeeded.  With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act despite an attempted filibuster by the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, we as a nation began the final leg of this journey.  Unfortunately for the NAACP, they now face the activist’s paradox.  Since they have been so successful, their organization no longer has a purpose.  Their stated mission has hardly changed, which means they must continue to find racism, change their mission, or dissolve.

Unfortunately for our nation, the NAACP has been hijacked by leftists who seek to use its former glory to advance their agenda.  The organization’s systemic need to fuel race-related tension in order to remain relevant leads to remarkable condemnations.  We saw this in California, where the Los Angeles NAACP succeeded in getting a “controversial,” “racist” Hallmark graduation card pulled from the shelves.  The card’s offense?  The characters put the universe “on notice” and warn black holes to “watch your back.”

Now, the NAACP has taken it a step farther.  They have lied to the American people in order to slander the Tea Party.  In announcing the decision, the NAACP claims:

The resolution came after a year of high-profile media coverage of attendees of Tea Party marches using vial, antagonistic racial slurs & images. In March, respected members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by a Washington, DC health care protest.

Quite simply, this did not happen.  There is absolutely zero evidence that it did happen.  This walk, out in the open, smug, through the middle of the opposition, was meant to provoke, and it didn’t work.  And the Congressional Black Caucus should know.  Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. recorded the entire episode and was unable to produce any evidence that racial epithets were shouted once, let alone fifteen times.

The NAACP further claims, “Missouri Representative Emmanuel Cleaver was spat on during the incident.”  Let’s assume Cleaver has any credibility left after claiming there was a “chorus” of people shouting the n-word.  After foolishly rushing a press release, Cleaver ultimately backtracked on the apparent “spitting incident.”  If Cleaver says it didn’t happen, why would the NAACP report the incident as fact several months later?

The NAACP concludes with this:

The proposed resolution had generated controversy on conservative blogs, where in some cases the language has been misconstrued to imply that the NAACP was condemning the entire Tea Party movement itself as racist.

When you condemn “racist elements” that don’t exist, you slander the entire movement.  The NAACP is just doing its part in attempting to discredit any opponent of Obama’s radical agenda.

/********** Update: NAACP Doubles Down on Twitter **********\

Before publishing their condemnation, the NAACP doubled down on the false charges via Twitter.  Here’s what the organization had to say:

Twitter’s character constraints have also forced the NAACP to be honest.  This is meant to be a condemnation of the Tea Party in an attempt to de-legitimize the political movement.  The whole bit about “racist elements” was to provide media cover.

Liberals inhabit a word where “grassroots” means having the SEIU send in a busl0ad of paid “supporters” to hold a “spontaneous” rally.  And of course, media trucks just happen to be right around the corner and notice the commotion.  This is why liberals insist the Tea Party must be a front for the GOP.  The can’t conceive of a movement that isn’t coordinated by some vast network of “grassroots” architects.  They know liberal grassroots campaigns are always a charade, so they assume the same must be true of any grassroots movement. Someone must be pulling the strings.

Liberals still don’t get it.  There is no “Tea Party” (other than the fake one in Nevada, that is).  “Tea Party” was just a theme which became a label.  Although there are some actual tea party groups now, these did not exist before the movement.  They grew out of it to provide some organization at the local level, but there is no national group directing their progress.  There aren’t chapters of the Tea Party.  There is no central command.  Each local tea party acts independently but they are all united by a common cause.  These independent Tea Parties don’t make the same arguments because they’ve circulated a list of talking points. (Most of the organizations have never communicated with any groups outside of their own state.)  Tea partiers make the same arguments because they believe in their philosophy.  They have true conviction.

The Tea Party didn’t mash together 170 existing Conservative groups.  Before the movement began, I’m not even sure there would have been 170 groups to mash together.  With “One Nation,” the Left is trying to duplicate a true grassroots movement with a centralized network.  It won’t work.  They might ultimately hold a few rallies, maybe even a press conference, but their coalition will ultimately flop because it is not built around ideas.  It is built around competing with a legitimate grassroots movement.

After all, a consensus has emerged.  The facts of the case are settled.  We cannot second guess the expert testimony of the crime’s only witness.  By Gore’s own logic, we must acknowledge the crime has occurred.  All we can decide is his fate.  What are the consequences for such a heinous act?  How can we prevent similar crises in the future?

Fortunately for Mr. Gore, our justice system does not play by his rules.  Should this case ever see a courtroom, Gore will be granted an equal opportunity to present his side of the story.  He will be allowed to present his own evidence and to thoroughly examine any evidence brought against him.  Mr. Gore will be judged by a jury of his peers—which, considering his former boss, is probably a bonus.  If only the same level of honest discussion and analysis were allowed in the scientific community, a world which has been muddied by political posturing for far too long.

“President Barack Obama on Wednesday lashed out at Republicans as out of touch with the daily problems of Americans, hoping to sharpen the contrast with the opposition party as midterm elections loom.”

Obama harped on two recent—and highly disingenuous—Democrat Party talking points.  First, Representative Joe Barton’s apology to BP, and second, House Minority Leader John Boehner’s criticism of the Democrats’ fallaciously named Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which puts the keys to the economy in the hands of the same incompetents who just wrecked the family car.

In response to Obama’s criticism of Joe Barton, as I previously stated:

“Even if his comments were politically clumsy, Rep. Joe Barton hit the philosophical nail on the head.  The United States is supposedly a nation of laws.  Seizing a crisis as an opportunity to extort $20,000,000,000 from a business has no place in such a nation. ….

While Barton’s comments might not receive such sympathy from the general population or Gulf coast residents, Obama has already worn out this card. ….  Liberal pollsters at Public Policy Polling recently found a majority of Louisiana voters give George W. Bush better marks for his response to Katrina.  The two aren’t even close.  Bush swept the question by a margin of 15 points.

[Furthermore,] How does it look when Gulf coast voters who don’t follow politics every day find out Obama has received $20,000,000,000 and still hasn’t managed anything more than photo ops and inflammatory rhetoric? ….”

Since then, the Gulf crisis has only gotten worse, and team Obama has done little but obfuscate and obstruct.  Blaming Republicans won’t clean up the spill or bring jobs back to Florida, Texas, Louisiana, or any other state.  Pointing fingers only reminds voters how inadequate Obama’s response to this crisis has been.

Criticism of Boehner faces a similar fate.  Ironically, the Minority Leader’s so-called “gaffe” has prompted Speaker Pelosi to finally open up about the non-recovery of Obama’s “recovery summer.”  As she points out on her website, the United States has lost 8,000,000 jobs and $17,500,000,000,000 (17.5 Trillion) in net worth.  All of this has taken place since the Democrats took the legislative reigns in 2006.

And of course,  after attacking a couple of Republicans who actually hold elected office, Obama couldn’t resist the chance to attack his predecessor who officially stopped working 528 days ago.  According to the AP:

“‘How do we get government spending under control?’ he asked, giving voice to public complaints. ‘That’s a legitimate question. …, all of us should be worried about the fact that we have been running the credit card in the name of future generations. And somebody’s going to have pay that back.’

Obama said the main culprit was not the costly emergency measures under his watch but a structural habit of the government spending more than it takes in. He said the answer is to reduce spending in a ‘gradual way’ that doesn’t hurt people.”

On its face, this comment sounds sensible, but it flagrantly disregards the facts.  Yes, we are overspending.  In the most recent decade of Republican Congresses, our nation averaged an annual deficit of $97,720,000,000.  That is unsustainable, but it’s far better than the most recent decade of Democrat-controlled congresses during which we’ve averaged an annual deficit over 3.5 times as large at $357,950,000,000 per year.

Even worse, despite rattling off his “good intentions” in a town hall, Obama has taken no action to reduce spending, even gradually.  Instead, he has dramatically grown the government.  This is right in line with the Democrats’ record.  Over the past 40 years, the Democrats have never had a budget surplus or reduced the national debt.  Over the past 40 years, the United States has enjoyed only 4 years of government surplus and debt reduction. All four occurred during Republican Congressional control.

On health care costs, Marshall was quick to blame the “obscene profits” of our nation’s insurance companies.  Of course, when she made this allegation she had absolutely no idea what the average profit margin of the insurance industry was.  In reality, insurance companies average around 3% profit: anemic compared to most industries.

I doubt she has taken the time to get informed since her website still bears the same, pre-ObamaCare talking points. At press, this was the lead paragraph:

Every president since Franklin Roosevelt has tried to address the problem of providing meaningful health care to United States citizens who need it.  Sixty years later we are left with a disjointed, dysfunctional and wasteful system that does little to improve the health of citizens.  Today, we are closer than ever to fixing this broken system, and we cannot let this moment pass without action.

On Social Security, Elaine warns us to “Stand firm against risky privatization schemes: …. She’ll fight schemes that would leave our Social Security vulnerable to Wall Street risk-taking.”  Of course, on the same page she also says we need to stop “politicians [from] using Washington budget gimmicks” to raid “the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for unrelated programs and measures.”  So, would you rather take a chance that a Wall Street investor might make a risky choice with your savings, or keep it with the federal government which has a proven, unbroken track record of squandering your money?

Then, there’s this gem from her page on “Energy and Environment:”

Global climate change is the most pressing environmental and national security issues facing us today. We need an energy policy that will reduce the pollution that causes global warming and, at the same time, lessen our dependence on oil shipped in from other countries.

That’s right.  “Global climate change” is a greater threat to our nation than transnational terrorism.  Of course, that kind of ridiculous statement only exists to justify irrational bans on American drilling.  The United States could greatly reduce our total consumption of foreign oil.  We just need to make use of our own, domestic resources.  Domestic energy exploration would create a wealth of new jobs for our nation, but Elaine Marshall would rather extend unemployment benefits and subsidize state budgets.  For the private sector, Elaine offers only a trifling “job creation tax credit.”  This idea has failed repeatedly because it represents a long-term expense on behalf of the business for a very minor, short-term subsidy.

And finally, no Democrat would be complete without campaign points targeting former President Bush.  Two years into the Obama Presidency, and Elaine Marshall has this to say:

The Bush deficit is now ballooning under the strain of a collapsed economy. Virtually every economist agrees that getting the economy moving is going to take an increase in government spending. But who is going pay?

Who is going to pay, indeed?  You, of course.  Elaine Marshall claims this spending will be paid for with a “financial transactions fee.”  You see, we have to make “Wall Street pay its fair share.”  Elaine Marshall has clearly never run a business.  Businesses don’t pay taxes; they adjust prices.  Not only will her new tax further depress the economy, it will hit working Americans where they can least afford it by crippling retirement investments and undercutting pensions.

Even if his comments were politically clumsy, Rep. Joe Barton hit the philosophical nail on the head.  The United States is supposedly a nation of laws.  Seizing a crisis as an opportunity to extort $20,000,000,000 from a business has no place in such a nation.  Democrats retort that BP’s actions were voluntary.  They “chose” to establish this fund.  But how much of a choice is it when the Vice President leans in and tells them, “if they didn’t do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them.” Some choice.

While Barton’s comments might not receive such sympathy from the general population or Gulf coast residents, Obama has already worn out this card.  To be kind, the President hasn’t exactly been prompt in his response, nor has he allowed it to interrupt his personal plans or leisure time.  Americans have taken notice, particularly in Louisiana.  Liberal pollsters at Public Policy Polling recently found a majority of Louisiana voters give George W. Bush better marks for his response to Katrina.  The two aren’t even close.  Bush swept the question by a margin of 15 points.

Obama, whose approval rating has dropped to 45%, is featured prominently in the ad.  How does it look when Gulf coast voters who don’t follow politics every day find out Obama has received $20,000,000,000 and still hasn’t managed anything more than photo ops and inflammatory rhetoric?  Contrary to liberal belief, just because Obama yanked control over the purse strings from the judicial system doesn’t mean anyone has been paid.  Of course, now that Obama is the monetary gatekeeper, frustrated claimants will blame him instead of BP.  Then there’s his ridiculous moratorium on drilling.  Despite the Spill, 77% of Louisiana voters continue to support offshore drilling.  Only 12% oppose.  Killing thousands of jobs with the stroke of a pen isn’t likely to win Obama or the Democrats many supporters in this economy.

Finally, we arrive at the biggest flaw with this ad: Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, appears to be the only politician taking any action to stop the flow of oil and prevent further damage.  He’d be making more progress if the current administration would stay out of his way.  Where Obama refused to allow foreign assistance to help clean up, Jindal has ordered the National Guard to begin building a giant wall of sand to protect the marshes.  He ordered the oil skimmers to get out of the port and start skimming, but the administration stymied that plan because they needed to be sure the vessels had enough life jackets.

In the end, this ad is just more words from Democrats while Republicans act to contain the crisis in the Gulf.  So go ahead, attack Joe Barton.  At best, this ad does nothing for the Democrats’ cause.  At worst, Joe Barton becomes a political casualty for defending the rule of law.

Now, the Left’s interpretation:

RJ Eskow, also of Social Security Works, writes:

A video of retired Sen. Alan Simpson’s foulmouthed rant toward activist Alex Lawson is making the Internet rounds, as well it should: The sheer audacity and rudeness of the guy makes this clip “must-see TV.” It’s a political bloopers reel.

I think Eskow got the roles backwards here.  Simpson is trying to answer the “ambush journalist’s” questions, but interviewer Alex Lawson keeps interjecting irrelevant, Left-Wing talking points like claiming the Social Security Trust fund has been raided to pay for “two wars and tax cuts for the rich.”  Did Simpson curse?  Yes, but at least he was calling bullshit by its proper name instead of mindlessly shouting down the opposition.  I guess Simpson could have taken the Left-Wing approved tactic of smacking his camera away and shouting “who are you?” repeatedly.

But, while Simpson’s outrageousness makes the video entertaining, here’s what make it important: Alan Simpson is one of two chairs of a bipartisan commission created by President Obama to study the Federal deficit. His comments reveal a number of very important things about his biases, his tendency to distort and mislead, and his ideological extremism. These traits are likely to taint the Commission’s work – work which has great implications for the future.

Your future.

This demonstrates the Left’s biggest problem: to Liberals, reality represents “biases,” distortion, and “ideological extremism.”  Fact: Social Security was sold as a type of “emergency savings;” people were misled to believe you paid into the system, and then the money was saved until you withdrew it.  Fact: Government raided the trust fund.  Fact: Government doesn’t have the money to pay back the IOU’s.  Fact: Even if Government did have the money, Social Security would still be insolvent because it’s paying out more than it collects.  Conclusion: In it’s current form, Social Security will eventually collapse.  Lawson and Eskow’s conclusion: Simpson’s numbers are wrong.

Read my lips: We’re cutting your benefits so that we don’t have to pay new taxes!

Here’s the bottom line. Simpson doesn’t want to force the government to pay those bonds back, because it will probably require new taxes to pay for them. The Commission’s likely to recommend some new taxes, but the Simpson crowd wants those increases to be a small as possible.

There’s only one problem with Eskow’s theory: tax increases won’t increase the total revenue to the Federal Government.  And they will probably decrease revenue.  After the Reagan slashed marginal rates, “individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.”  As Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco economist, discovered: regardless of tax rate, “the federal tax “yield” (revenues divided by GDP) has remained close to 19.5%.” In other words, the key to increasing revenues is increasing GDP.  High tax rates—the favored “solution” of the left—suppress GDP.

Further, lowering tax rates “can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich.”  Thus, when the Left raises rates, they’re actually shifting the burden away from the rich onto the middle class.  Ironically, if Hillary Clinton is right and “the rich aren’t paying their fair share,” then their rates need to be lowered. Facts are stubborn things.

We didn’t cut your benefits! Now be quiet and eat your cat food!

SIMPSON: In the year 2037, instead of getting 100% of your check, you are going to get about 75% of your check. That’s if you touch nothing. If you like that, fine. You’ll be picking with the chickens yourself when you’re 65.

….

LAWSON: Thanks for being so frank. My question is: raising the retirement age, is actually an across-the-board benefit cut?

SIMPSON: There are 15 different options being discussed in here today, and why nail one of them…[inaudible]…if you would like to get one of them that pisses your people off.

LAWSON: Alice Rivlin was just on CNBC saying that that was one of the favorite methods.

SIMPSON: There are 15 of them in there.

I like the folksy “cutting with the chickens” line (although I don’t know what the hell it means.) But this is the thinking: “we’re not cutting , we’re stabilizing.” Expect to hear the word “stabilizing” used to mean “cutting” many times in the month to come – and expect your Social Security to be “stabilized” when it’s time for you to retire if this ideology prevails.

Eskow totally misses the point here.  The panel has taken no action, and while moving the retirement age might be considered a cut, it hasn’t happened and there’s no guarantee it will happen.  As Simpson rightly points out, Lawson chose the one option out of fifteen that most enrages his audience, and acted as if it were the panel’s recommendation.  Finally, raising the retirement age wouldn’t affect those who are already drawing a check.  And knowing how government usually works, it would probably be phased in very slowly.  In other words, raising the age requirement would affect young people, not old people, and we would have plenty of time to plan for that change.

Now, here’s the e-mail I received today from Brad Woodhouse, the DNC Communications Director:

Yesterday, Republican Congressman Joe Barton, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, issued an outrageous personal apology to BP and slammed the President for his efforts to hold them accountable.

Worse, if the GOP wins back the House, Barton is the guy who could be in charge of regulating the oil industry.

Think about it: In the Gulf right now, jobs are being lost, ecosystems are being destroyed, an entire way of life is being upended. And Joe Barton is apologizing to the oil company that caused the disaster.

Note that he conveniently omits Obama’s drilling moratorium will cause the greatest number of job losses and economic damage in the Gulf region as oil companies terminate their leases and rigs are moved to other countries to drill.

We’re whipping together an ad as fast as possible to make sure voters know exactly whose side Barton and the GOP are on and to demand they stop apologizing to big oil, but we need your help to get it on the air.

If you’re as furious as I am, will you chip in $5 to help us fight back?

The message is clear: defy the administration and the Democrat party will devote all available resources to destroying your political career.

“And if Republicans win control of the House, Rep. Barton could be chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — overseeing regulation of the oil and gas industry.”

And of course, that would be devastating because:

“Rep. Barton and Republicans like him don’t understand that the real tragedy is what’s happening to the people in the Gulf Coast.”

Really?  It was Governor Bobbly Jindal who held frequent press conferences because the Obama regime refused to authorize his request to build sand berms to protect the shoreline and provide easier cleanup.  It was Jindal, a Republican, who eventually gave up on the ineffective “Unified Command” and ordered the National Guard to begin building a wall to protect Louisiana’s shoreline.

And during this time, what has Obama done?  He’s taken two vacations; he played six games of golf before meeting with BP’s CEO (for a whopping 20 minutes); he’s had Paul McCartney over for a concert.  It took Obama 12 days just to visit the gulf, and after 57 days, all he managed was to force BP to hand him a $20,000,000 slush fund.  Don’t get me wrong: BP should have to pay damages, but BP should be issuing those payments after court decisions.  The Obama tactic “has all the legality of a car-jacking.”

Rep. Barton had the audacity to point this out in comments during BP’s testimony, which, of course, is the reason he’s being targeted.  As Plouffe says in the letter:

“Let’s be clear. This fund is a major victory for the people of the Gulf. It’s a key step toward making them whole again. BP has a responsibility to those whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by the disaster.”

This is half-true at best.  BP still would have been liable for damages even without handing over control of the new slush fund.  Gulf coast residents would probably be happier if the Administration would work with BP to “just plug the damn hole” instead of running around the country using this crisis as a political tool.

But Plouffe wasn’t done yet.  No Democrat campaign could be complete without taking on the “Great Satan,” Halliburton:

Notably, companies like Halliburton — the folks responsible for cementing the Deepwater Horizon rig — are directing their political committees to deliver thousands of dollars to GOP candidates this cycle. Barton himself has received more than $100,000 from the oil and gas industry this election cycle.

During his Presidential bid, Obama received about $900,000 from the oil and gas industry, and garnered the biggest chunk of BP donations.  Even by Plouffe’s logic, Obama must be 9 times more responsible than Rep. Barton for the oil spill.  Perhaps Plouffe needs to change his focus.

In cases where large companies are controlled by more than one individual, there are four possible outcomes.  One member takes a controlling share by buying out the others, one member of the group takes the position of the CEO and the rest step into the background, the partners hire an outside individual to step in and lead the company, or the company fails.  It cannot continue to exist without a single leader.

Need examples?  Google Inc. founders Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page hired Eric Schmidt to serve as the company’s Chairman and CEO to manage everyday operations.  Microsoft would not have existed with Paul Allen, but it was Bill Gates who became the active leader once the company got off the ground.  Allen eventually stepped away from the company management and sold a significant portion of his stock holdings.  Even academia recognizes the importance of a single leader.  Most, if not all, academic institutions are governed by a Board of Trustees, but it is the Chancellor, Principal, Headmaster, etc. who controls the school’s daily operations.

Now, enter Obama’s disastrous oil spill response.  It’s been almost sixty (60) days since the spill started, and all we’ve got to show for it is a website for the “Unified Command,” and a webcam-quality stream of the oil pouring into the ocean.  Politics aside, a committee of fifteen organizations, thirteen of which are federal bureaucracies—including: the Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service, NOAA, EPA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Department of State, USGS, CDC, and OSHA—cannot work together long enough to fix the leak or cleanup the oil.  We’d have better results if these organizations were all working independently instead of grappling with each other over which organization’s idea gets tried next.

At this point, it really doesn’t matter who is in charge.  Let BP take the reigns and direct the other organizations; actually put one of those thirteen federal bureaucracies in charge of the “Unified Command” so they won’t keep vetoing each other; throw a complete curve-ball and cede command to Shell or Chevron.  It doesn’t matter.  As long as fifteen organizations are all “in-charge” the response will be inefficient and ineffective.

On another note, Kudos to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for finally taking matters into his own hands and ordering the National Guard to begin building a barrier wall to protect the marshes.  While Obama talks, Jindal acts.  And even though he’s blown off the chain of command, it’s not like the “Unified Command” is going to do anything to stop him.

Alvin Greene is the Democrat Party candidate for the United States Senate in South Carolina. If he gets his way, he will challenge incumbent Senator Jim DeMint this fall.  First, this is the most amusing and bizarre story I’ve ever seen in politics.  Alvin Greene is an unemployed veteran who “was kicked out of the Army last year and is facing a pending felony charge.”  By all accounts, the state-level Democrat party was blindsided by the result.  Or, as Salon.com put it:

What does a party do when some random schmuck wins its primary? This is what South Carolina Democrats are now trying to figure out.

With that said, some questions, advice, and other commentary.

First, to Keith Olbermann and Rep. Jim Clyburn (Majority Whip, D-SC): no, he’s not a plant.  I’m not sure where he got the money for the filing fee.  I’m not sure why he got the sudden impulse to run for elected office, but the Republicans had no motive.  Liberal Pollsters at PPP (Public Policy Polling) found DeMint held a 19 point lead over Vic Rawl.  In a year that’s likely to be good for Republicans, it doesn’t make any sense to risk a conspiratorial debacle.  Further, as PPP noted in their blog:

“… Rawl had only 4% favorable name recognition with Democrats in the state. We could make up just about any name and ask their favorability on a poll and get 4% so that more or less amounts to zero name recognition.

…. I don’t put much stock in the theory that there was a plot among Republican voters … it would have been almost impossible for any sort of campaign activity to go completely undetected. At the end of the day this is just what happens in a race where neither candidate runs much of a campaign ….”

To Greene, keep granting interviews.  Every time Alvin Greene gives an interview the Democrat party dies a little. Green is the most incoherent speaker I’ve heard in a long time.  I’m not sure he ever knows exactly what he’s talking about.  He appeared on Charlotte’s news/talk 1110 WBT twice yesterday, and after much rambling, the second host finally asked if he had been drinking.  Subsequent callers shared her sentiments.  On the Mark Levin show, Greene was unable to immediately name his general election opponent.  Although he’s able to spout out some limited talking points, he has no specific plans on any issue.

To Vic Rawl, your loss should remove any doubt that an election can be won without a campaign.  As to your future political career, good luck.  You will always be the man who lost to Alvin Greene.  While I would never expect it to come up in a campaign, the memory will always be there in the back of the voters mind.  I can understand why you’re challenging the results and encourage you to continue your struggle.  Greene is enough on his own, but your actions are helping keep the spectacle in the national spotlight.

And finally, to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP.  Where are the professional race-hustlers?  Greene “is now the first African American major-party U.S. Senate nominee in South Carolina since Reconstruction” and they can’t find five seconds to put a few words in?  Green is being unilaterally bashed as an illegitimate candidate by his own party.  Isn’t this the kind of controversy you’re constantly searching for?  Apparently not, the NAACP too busy fighting Hallmark’s “controversial” graduation card.  Video below:

It must be disappointing to Greene to be considered less important to “leaders in the black community” than fictitious controversies.

The above video is a recent speech by Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts.  Below is my translation:

“The Republican party nationally has moved so far to the right that there has never been a time when it is more important for those of us who have the values of the Democratic Party to keep the government in our hands.”

The Republican Party has, to a large extent, stopped looking to Liberals for advice that will advance our agenda and get them kicked out of office.  They didn’t give us a single vote on health care, how are we supposed to blame them for its flaws?

“The damage these people will do to the environment,”

If BP ever figures out that Republicans might let them drill on land instead of a mile under water, we’re screwed.  No way they’d have given Obama a million bucks if they knew he’d use it to put his boot on their throat or fund his search for asses to kick.

“to the quality of health care availability, to financial regulation,”

We know most voters hate that we’ve taken over the health care industry.  We can’t let Republicans give back that power.  If they do, we may never wrest control over health care from private individuals again. Dittos for financial regulation.

“to the rights of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively, to efforts to combat discrimination.”

Think of union dues as campaign dollars.  We’ve got to make sure they have a constant supply of new members to keep the coffers full.  Also, if anyone asks, Republicans are racist.

“There are no areas where we have a responsibility to each other where they are not as wrong as can be, and I understand that you people are concerned that, ‘well we didn’t get everything done that we wanted to,’ so let me say this, yes, it’s true that because we don’t get every Democrat every time in the Congress, we haven’t been able to accomplish everything we wanted because sometimes a few Democrats will align with the Republicans, but the cure for that is not fewer Democrats and more Republicans.  The cure for that is to send us back.”

I know this was a little long winded and incoherent, but bear with me.  My district went for Scott Brown, a Republican.  He ran on voting against Health Care; I helped jam it through.  I need your vote.

“So I hope .. What the right wing is counting on, in particular, is young people who got excited and voted for President Obama getting turned off because the reality of governing is harder than the speech-making. …. You can reach out to your fellow young people and make it clear to them that while they may not be satisfied with everything that we’ve done—we’re not satisfied with everything we’ve done—the way to cure that is to give us more authority and more ability,”

I also need your friends’ votes.  Browbeat them.  No, I don’t care if they’re not actually from my district, I have power to seize.

“and there is not an issue that is important to young people where the Republican Party—whether it’s financing higher education, or the environment, or any other of those issues that people who are going to be spending the next 40 or 50 years on this earth are going to need to know about—they are dead wrong.”

In conclusion, there is not an issue where the Republican Party is dead wrong.  Wait .. what!? I meant: the Republican party hates young people. They’re ageist.

The above video shortchanges the exchange between Gov. Christie and the teacher, but it still gets the point across.  Essentially, this teacher, who is a member of a union, doesn’t feel she’s being paid enough, and Christie responds by telling her she can quit.  But as good as it feels to see someone in politics who’s not pandering to the unions, it’s more revealing to focus on the disgruntled teacher’s argument.

Rita Wilson’s brief argument is full of holes and glaring inconsistencies.  Let’s start with the pay.  As Governor Christie points out (this is just before the video cuts back in), she’s actually being paid more than $83,000 per year when you consider the annual cost of her benefits.  If we’re generous, her pay accounts for only 6 months of work during the year.  If she were paid $83,000 per year, then she’d be earning an annualized salary of $166,000 per year.  But it gets worse.  If Erick Erickson at RedState is correct, she actually makes $86,000 per year, or an annualized salary of $172,000.  Perhaps Gov. Christie should accept her offer and save the taxpayers some money.

If that weren’t enough, she’s also a member of a teacher’s union.  It’s perfectly fine that she’s made that choice, but did she not understand collective bargaining when she signed up?  Her personal experience became irrelevant when she decided she would rather have the union negotiate her contract.  You don’t get to have it both ways.  She can’t agree to let the union handle her affairs and then whine about the contract she receives.  If you think your qualifications merit better compensation, then ditch the union and bargain for your own contract.

Wilson concludes by responding to Christie, “teachers do it because they love it; that’s the only reason I do it.”  Well, which is it?  Either teachers like Wilson are willing to put up with a salary that immediately places their household in the top 25% nationwide and which is significantly above the state’s median income because they “love it,” or they aren’t.  If Wilson honestly believes she is underpaid, then perhaps she should venture out into the private sector and prove it.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.