Archive for the ‘opinion/news’ Category

But although I agree the political aspects of Patterson’s decision are apparent he is quite correct. Financially it is much better for the county to wait on this special election.

The biggest fights of the year are actually done. There is no question that Patterson wanted to get votes in favor of Obamacare to congress in his scheduling special elections. With the current majorities the only effect that extra republican vote will have is to perhaps remove one dem from the Fishbait column if a tough vote comes up.

The tens of thousands of dollars saved on such an election might not seem like much, but it might mean be one or two less layoffs or a city or town, or maybe the difference between streetlights being on or off.

Do I think he is playing politics? Sure but it doesn’t make it any less an acceptable decision.

Chuck Todd, politico and the DCCC continue to spin this election bigtime. However if you look at the factors deep within this race you see that this race was not the Scott Brown race, in fact it was a race that would be tough for a republican. Lets look at the facts:

1. Statewide race vs District race:

On a Statewide level the dynamic is different than on a local level, individual pork projects for example in Boston won’t impress a person in Worcester or the Berkshires, but in a single district pork is much more noticeable. Whatever else you might say about John Murtha he was an incredible “provider” in his district and congressman Critz was worked for him for years. Kennedy’s impact was much less concentrated.

2. Primary Opponents:

What many people may not be aware of is that the democrat and republican primaries for congress were held at the same time as the special election. While economically it was a good move for the county it meant that both Critz and Burns had to win a primary election as well.

Critz took 72% of his primary vote Burns only took 53% With nearly 40k more votes to grab from Critz has a larger margin for error/anger than Burns. That suggests that Burns was not as popular within his own base. Bad sign for Republicans in the fall: Democrat primary 82,000 votes, Republican primary 45,000. In Massachusetts the primary took place weeks before. Brown’s opponent was easily beaten, Coakley won but her opponents supporters were not enthusiastic about her.

3. Other Ballot races.

One of the things often overlooked in Scott Brown’s victory is the fact that due to democrats being too smart for their own good the race was scheduled as a special election. This meant that it was the ONLY race on the ballot everywhere. In a state where democrats have a huge registration advantage in registration there were no races down the ticket to draw democrats to vote. In Pa of course you had a critical primary on the democratic side that drew national attention between Specter and Sestak that drew over 1,000,000 votes statewide.

Consider in 2008 there were 260k votes cast in pa-12 for congress, in 2006 200k. Yesterday there were less than 135k.

4. Registration/party loyalty::

In Massachusetts the majority of voters are NOT democrats. They are unenrolled 51%. That make a huge difference. Scott Brown had an independent base of voters to draw from. In Pa that is not the case. Lets look at the votes totals from 2006 & 2008 again. In 2006 Murtha took 123,000 votes. In 2008 he took 155k votes On the republican side in 2006 Irey took 79k votes, in 2008 Russell (Burns primary opponent) took 113k votes. Critz had a huge number of votes to draw from.

Yesterday Burns took 59k votes. In other words he drew 75% of Irey’s 2006 vote and just over 53% of Russell’s 2008 votes. Critz drew 65% of Murtha’s vote in 2006 and 52% of Murtha’s 2008 vote. In other words Critz drew 10% less than Burns did among his “base” voters from the last midterm and STILL won by over 12,000 votes. Or to put it another way. In order to defeat Burns Critz needed to draw only 49% of Murtha’s 2006 totals or 39% of Murtha’s 2008 totals. Think about that a second. Critz could afford to have over 60% of his base stay home and would have still won!

On a percentage basis Burns outperformed his republican predecessors by 5 and 2 points respectively Critz underperformed by 7 and 4 points. and STILL won by 9 points. Or to put it another way percentage-wise Burns needed to outperform his republican predecessors by 25 & 20% respectively to get to 50% of the vote. This proves that Ali Akbar like Tip knows how to count.

5. Barack Obama:

Scott Brown ran against Barack Obama and his healthcare plan.. Martha Coakley embraced him and the healthcare plan. President Obama campaigned for Coakley in Boston. Mark Critz ran AWAY from the president, saying (now that there is no vote to cast) that he OPPOSED the healthcare plan. He distanced himself from the president and that distance paid dividends. As Steve Maloney put it:

Admittedly, Critz is a good liar. He proclaimed that he was “pro-life” and “would have voted against the health care bill” (that Murtha voted for). He was “against the Medicare cuts” in the health bill. These comments were all incredible, but he said them with a straight face. Pelosi, whom Critz will worship as he once did “Mr. Murtha,” will tell Critz what to do, and he’ll salute and stand at attention.

There WERE incredible but they were made and the people in the district believed him. If he ran as himself it might have been a very different story.

6. No Sicilian in a Fedora:

Finally the most decisive factor. As Roxeanne De Luca clearly pointed out. “‘Every Campaign Needs to Have a Sicilian Guy in a Fedora” Scott Brown had one. Tim Burns did not. Nuff said.

Update: Ruby Slippers has more

Update 2: As does conservatives 4 Palin

Update 3: Robert Stacy who has spent more time than anyone else there puts in his two cents.

1. They are not giving Blumenthal a break on the “misspoke” business you can see Mika is simply disgusted because she knows the person and apparently expected better from him. This is consistent with the Allahpundit report of yesterday. Then again even the NYT editorial page didn’t support him.

2. When talking about pa-12 they pointed out that the democrat ran away from Obama. They are not treating it as a victory for the administration.

You would never know it was MSNBC

Update: They are reading the times editorial and are playing it up. You can see Mika is VERY pained over having to say what she is saying but it didn’t stop her from saying it.

On Pa-12 They now are playing up Capehart column saying that Pa-12 is a loss for the president. Exactly right, they are giving lip service to the NYT can’t win one race how will they win 100 business. Maybe when Todd is on they will spin it more

President Obama when signing the freedom of the press act had an interesting omission, and I don’t mean the lack of questions being allowed. I’m talking about what Jennifer Rubin noted:

Has Obama done anything about the suppression of media critics in Egypt (other than prepare a lucrative financial package for the Egyptian government)? Has Obama made this a priority with any thugocracy? No. And when signing a bill in the name of someone who elevated and personified the freedom of expression, Obama at least could have departed from his campaign to delete the name of our enemies from the public lexicon.

It’s not that odd a lot of information get suppressed in the war on terror and the worldwide war against Jews. A few examples:

Item: The “right of return

Yet still the Palestinians fled their homes, and at an ever growing pace. By early April some 100,000 had gone, though the Jews were still on the defensive and in no position to evict them. (On March 23, fully four months after the outbreak of hostilities, ALA commander-in-chief Safwat noted with some astonishment that the Jews “have so far not attacked a single Arab village unless provoked by it.”) By the time of Israel’s declaration of independence on May 14, the numbers of Arab refugees had more than trebled. Even then, none of the 170,000-180,000 Arabs fleeing urban centers, and only a handful of the 130,000-160,000 villagers who left their homes, had been forced out by the Jews.

Well it’s not like Arabs were mistreating their own at this time, oh wait:

No wonder, then, that so few among the Palestinian refugees themselves blamed their collapse and dispersal on the Jews. During a fact-finding mission to Gaza in June 1949, Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo and no friend to Israel or the Jews, was surprised to discover that while the refugees

express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. “We know who our enemies are,” they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes. . . . I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over.

Sixty years after their dispersion, the refugees of 1948 and their descendants remain in the squalid camps where they have been kept by their fellow Arabs for decades, nourished on hate and false hope. Meanwhile, their erstwhile leaders have squandered successive opportunities for statehood.

You don’t see much of this talked about in history but it was years ago. Hey it’s not like Arabs are still driving “Palestinians” out of their homes; oh wait:

Hamas police wielding clubs beat and pushed residents out of dozens of homes in the southern Gaza town of Rafah on Sunday before knocking the buildings down with bulldozers, residents said.

Gaza’s militant Hamas rulers said the homes were built illegally on government land. Newly homeless residents were furious over Palestinians on bulldozers razing Palestinian homes.

For years, Palestinians have criticized Israel for destroying houses, mostly because they were built without permits issued by the military. Now, Rafah residents complained, their own government, run by the Islamic militant Hamas that seized power in Gaza in July 2007, has done the same.

Funny how this doesn’t rate a big story in the papers. And that doesn’t even count the young Arab American who given the chance to denounce the idea of genocide of Jews in Israel declared herself “for it
Well even that isn’t the same as violence threatened in America; oh wait again:

With Draw Muhammad Day drawing closer, death threats have been leveled (warning, exceedingly bad language through link) against Dan McLeod, creator of the Facebook group that urges people to draw a picture of Islam’s prophet. The threats are made in one of the group’s discussion pages with the label “F*** that Person who Celebrate this Day” (edited for language and removed all-caps).

I’ve already declared that I will not be drawing Muhammad. I will not be buffaloed into doing what I wouldn’t normally do one way or the other. I will be doing my own protests in my own style on that day.

But I will publicly declare as a believing Roman Catholic that Muhammad is a false prophet and that Muslims are are wrong in declaring Christ a prophet he is the son of God and no amount of beheading or outrage will change that fact. The difference between us I am secure enough in my beliefs to make my points in argument and let God sort out who is right and wrong on this issue in the end. Our Islamic friends are so insecure in their beliefs that they hide their uncertainly behind the sword or their silence in the face of the sword. If their argument had weight then they wouldn’t be afraid of Christian Churches in their midst, they wouldn’t have a bounty on the head of a priest that they can’t out argue and they wouldn’t be burning the houses of cartoonists.

That is all.