DLA For Sunday 052310

Finally, and MMD Reporter tells the truth.

Hey folks,

This is amazing. It really is. A Mainstream Reporter going AGAINST the template. According to The Wall Street Journal - Anti-Incumbent? Try Anti-Obama By FRED BARNES Serious Democratic analysts concede it's their party that's facing trouble in the fall.

The hordes are not massing at the gates of Washington—not yet. They won't arrive until after the midterm congressional election in November. Most are likely to be Republicans, a good number of them old Washington hands. Yesterday's primary elections, including the impressive victories of Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky and Democrat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, didn't change that.

The idea that anti-incumbent fever, striking equally at Democrats and Republicans, is the defining feature of the 2010 election is as misguided as last year's notion that President Obama's oratory would tilt the nation in favor of his ambitious agenda. Yet the media, echoing the Obama White House, has adopted anti-incumbency as the all-purpose explanation of this year's political developments.

Their latest (supposed) evidence: Mr. Sestak's ouster of incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter. But incumbency, though it played a part, wasn't the main reason Mr. Specter (who switched parties from Republican to Democrat last year) lost. After voting against the 80-year-old Mr. Specter in five elections dating back to 1980, a majority of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania couldn't bring themselves to vote for him yesterday. They didn't trust him.

Mr. Sestak, a House member since 2006, played on this sentiment. He was the "real" Democrat, Mr. Sestak insisted, while Mr. Specter was an imposter. Recognizing that Mr. Specter might be vulnerable, the White House leaned on Mr. Sestak to stay out of the primary. Mr. Sestak stubbornly refused.

Nor was Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas forced into a runoff with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter yesterday because she's an incumbent. A bigger problem for her was a reputation as an unreliable vote for Democratic initiatives—Mr. Halter attacked her from the left—and polls consistently showed her badly trailing any Republican opponent.

It's true that anti-incumbency was marginally responsible for the defeats recently of three-term Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah and 14-term Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Voters do at times get tired of elected officials. But Mr. Bennett lost chiefly because he was seen as having "gone Washington" and too eager to compromise with Democrats. Mr. Mollohan was defeated by a conservative opponent more in tune with the state's drift to the right over the past decade.

What demolishes the notion of anti-incumbency as a scourge on both parties are the calculations of credible political analysts—Democrats and Republicans from Charles Cook to Jay Cost to Nathan Silver to James Carville—about the outcome of November's general election. They believe dozens of congressional Democrats either trail Republican challengers or face toss-up races, while fewer than a handful of Republicans are in serious re-election trouble.

Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November.

"Republicans have had a significant turnout advantage in midterm elections," Gallup said. "This means . . . Republican candidates would most likely receive a higher percentage of the actual votes cast [and] would also be virtually guaranteed major seat gains, possibly putting them in range of recapturing majority control of the U.S. House."

In Dr. Paul's defeat of Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Senate primary, he benefited from anti-Washington and anti-establishment feelings rampant across the country. Mr. Grayson, Kentucky's secretary of state, was the favorite of Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, and suffered for that. Like Mr. McConnell, he defended earmarks. Dr. Paul, who'd never before run for office, is an eye doctor in rural Bowling Green and the son of Ron Paul, the renegade Republican congressman and presidential candidate from Texas. He denounced earmarks.

But there was more to his 59% to 35% victory than simply exploiting popular trends. Dr. Paul was by far the better candidate. He kept his most controversial views—opposition to the Iraq war, doubts about sending American troops to Afghanistan—largely under wraps. Instead, he sounded like a vintage 1994, Contract-with-America Republican, calling for term limits and a balanced budget amendment.

And Dr. Paul wasn't shy about his support from tea party activists. They turned out to be anything but a stigma on his campaign, contrary to their characterization in the media. Without their fervent backing, he might have lost. That should be a lesson to other Republican candidates.

Republicans suffered one significant setback on Tuesday. Their polling suggested they might win the special election to fill the House seat of the late Democratic Representative John Murtha. The heavily Democratic district wraps around Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. A victory there, Republicans figured, could foreshadow a Republican landslide in the fall.

But their candidate, businessman Tim Burns, lost badly to Mark Critz, a former Murtha aide. Mr. Burns failed to stir Republican turnout with his anti-Obama message. In contrast, Democratic turnout was buoyed by the furious Senate race between Mr. Specter and Mr. Sestak. Republicans insist the mix of voters will be different in the fall. We'll see.

If there's a Republican wave in November, Republicans will capture the Senate seats in Kentucky and Arkansas and probably in Pennsylvania as well. The most important political event of the week may have been the revelation that the Democratic Senate candidate in Connecticut, the state's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, had falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran. That gives a Republican a chance to win in Connecticut, too—and maybe even a Senate majority.

That's right folks. Even some in the MMD can't help but tell you the truth. It IS all about Obama and Crew. It is all ABOUT the Insane Liberal Agenda. Thank you Mr. Barnes. You are the Winner of the Display of Logic Award. Thank you for at least attempting to report the TRUTH.
Peter

AP Says Winning Iraq War Is Bad For Democrats

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to you. Yup, you read the headline correctly. This is something I have been telling you for over a year now. The Democrats are so invested in defeat in Iraq, that they cannot survive politically if we win.

They have done so many things to try to force the President to surrender, that they can no longer shift their position and take part in ANY KIND of victory. From traveling the world, attempting to create their own foreign policy, trying to force withdraw, to delaying funding, and all the political shows, they have done ANY and EVERY thing they can to cause us to lose the war. This is strictly for political gain. They want to blame Bush for the loss.

But there is only one problem. We are WINNING. They KEEP repeating old, outdated, and proven wrong talking points, while more and more Americans are learning the truth. Get this, from the AP -Poll: More in US see progress in Iraq

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago

Growing numbers of people think the U.S. is making progress in Iraq and will eventually be able to claim some success there, a poll showed Tuesday in a sign the politics of the war could become more complicated for Democrats.

STOP! {Laughing} Translation folks, We are winning. Good for America. BAD for Democrats.

With diminishing U.S. and Iraqi casualties and the start of modest troop withdrawals, the public's mood seems to have brightened a bit, the Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed. That is a rarity in what has been a relentlessly unpopular war.

WHY has it been unpopular? Because the Mass Media Drones, simply repeating what they have been told to, a constant bombardment of bad news on a daily bases? Maybe it could be the faked pictures, phony stories, or the leaders in the Senate saying the war is lost? Could it be that the change is because the American people are starting to learn the truth? Even Murtha himself just came back from Iraq and said "The surge is working." In which case he had to "Clarify" his remarks later, after being slapped by Pelosi and the Lunatic base. The LWL.

"I still have hopes the people in Iraq will appreciate us being there," said Daniel Laird, 30, a firefighter from Yuba City, Calif., who leans Republican and was questioned in the survey. "It just seems like we are making a difference."

They DO appreciate us being there. They DO want us there. Regardless of what you have heard Mr. Laird.

Even so, majorities remain upset about the conflict and convinced the invasion was a mistake, and the issue still splits the country deeply along party lines.

Yup, the Sheeple, and those that can think for themselves.

About three-fourths of respondents describe themselves as worried about what's happening in Iraq and nearly six in 10 say they are angry — slight reductions since February, but still strong majorities harboring negative feelings on the eve of an election year. Most Democrats and independents — joined by sizable numbers of Republicans — say they are worried, tired, even angry.

I am also. We could have won this, and been done with this, a long time ago, if we did not have one major political party calling for defeat. If we did not have a Liberal controlled media, blindly reporting what they are told to. If some in Congress were not telling the American people that our troops are dumb hicks, harassing innocent women and children in the dead of night, killing innocent civilians in cold blood, and that there is not way to win. All ABSOLUTLEY and UTTERLY opposite of reality and truth.

People are most positive are about recent gains in security in Iraq.

Amazing when they learn the truth, they change their mind. I though the "surge failed." "It can never work." ETC.

The poll showed a nearly even division over whether President Bush's troop increase this year has helped stabilize the country, with 50 percent saying no and 47 percent yes. Just three months ago, only 36 percent said yes.

By 52 percent to 41 percent, most said the U.S. is making progress in Iraq. When AP-Ipsos last asked that question in September 2006 — a time when vicious sectarian attacks resembled a civil war — just 39 percent saw improvements under way.

Oh? Like the President and commonsense said, it takes time?

While far greater proportions of Republicans than Democrats think progress is being made, even growing numbers of Democrats agree. The portion of Democrats saying the troop increase has helped stabilize the country has nearly doubled since September to 26 percent, and the number saying the U.S. is making progress has shown similar growth.

For many Democrats, though, the gains are seen as tentative.

"Yes, there's been progress, but I don't think it will be long-term," said Regina Pitts, 51, a Democrat from Fairview, Tenn. "We can't stay there forever and babysit."

STRAIGHT from the LWL talking points. Like I said, Sheeple.

By some measures, peoples' longer-range views of U.S. accomplishments are also becoming more optimistic.

Forty-two percent said they think history will consider the war mostly a success. While more — 55 percent — said they think it will be judged a failure, those numbers were rosier than in September when 59 percent said they felt that way.

Just one in five Democrats and four in 10 independents think the war will be a long-range success, well less than the three-fourths of Republicans who think so.

Overall, only 38 percent think the 2003 invasion was the right decision, including three-fourths of Republicans, a third of independents and one-seventh of Democrats — a negative perspective that has barely shifted all year.

Even so, the slowly improving views about progress raise the question of whether Iraq will give Democrats the slam-dunk political advantage in next year's presidential election that many in the party have long assumed it will.

It will not. The EXACT opposite actually. This is why they and the mainstream media are shifting focus AWAY from Iraq. But do not worry, they will still report any BAD news that may pop up.

Democratic voters are still strongly against the war and the party's presidential candidates compete for ways to criticize it. Such a tactic, though, might prove less effective when it is time to appeal to the more moderate voters who will participate in next year's general election.

Nah. Just pull a Hillary. Change you position so many times, NO ONE will know where you actually stand on it. Just change with the polls. You will see them saying more positive things now about Iraq in light of this latest poll. It is NOT good for them at all.

So far, the public's improved mood has helped Bush — slightly.

Thirty-six percent now approve of the overall job he is doing — up four percentage points from last month, but still a poor showing for a president. Eight in 10 Republicans, three in 10 independents and one in 10 Democrats approve. His highest marks — 42 percent approval — are for handling foreign policy and terrorism.

Congress' approval remains mired at 25 percent — near its January low of 22 percent.

Bush sent 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year, with most focused on reducing violence in and around Baghdad. U.S. forces in the country exceed 160,000, though Pentagon officials have said that figure could decline to 135,000 next summer — about where it was before the troop increase.

Besides the beefed up U.S. presence, the leader of the Mahdi Army militia, Muqtada al-Sadr, has ordered his fighters to temporarily stand down. And thousands of Iraqis, chiefly Sunni Arabs, have become U.S. allies in the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.

As a result, violence has dropped considerably since June and there have been signs that Baghdad is becoming less chaotic. U.S. casualties have fallen from 101 in June to 37 in November, according to an AP count, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the country, says there has been a 60 percent decline in violence over the past half year.

Among Iraqi civilians, the number of deaths from war-related violence have dropped from 1,640 in June to 718 last month, according to the AP.

The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,009 adults conducted from Dec. 3-5. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

This is why the Congress will be giving President Bush the additional funding he asked for with NO strings attached. They HAVE to. If they do not, these numbers will continue to go up, and they will continue to be seen as failing to support the troops in a time of war. Bad for Democrats, GOOD for America.
Peter

Truth Being Told

Hey folks,

Yes, it time to start telling it like it is. You know, doing what I've been doing here. No, this time it's not Roy Blunt. First up, President Bush. According to the AP - Bush Tells Dems War Denial Is Dangerous By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Another thing I've been saying for going on two years now about Little Hitler.

Bush accused Congress of stalling important pieces of the fight to prevent new terrorist attacks by: dragging out and possibly jeopardizing confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, a key part of his national security team; failing to act on a bill governing eavesdropping on terrorist suspects; and moving too slowly to approve spending measures for the Iraq war, Pentagon and veterans programs.

He's back on track to be confirmed now.

"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Bush's remarks were his second in two days alleging inaction on Capitol Hill, which has been led by Democrats since January. This speech focused on measures related to the war on terror, while Wednesday's emphasized disputes between the White House and Congress over domestic issues.

More on that in a second.

Bush argued the current debate over the Iraq war and the administration's anti-terror methods harkens back to debates decades ago over resisting action when Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin first talked about launching a communist revolution, when Adolf Hitler began moves to establish an "Aryan superstate" in Germany, and in the early days of the Cold War when some advocated accommodation of the Soviet Union.

"Now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East," Bush said. "Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability."

Bush said any denial of war is dangerous.

ABSOLUTELY!

"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-.N.Y., running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, took issue with Bush's comparisons.

"George Bush's faulty and offensive historical analogies aren't going to end the war in Iraq, make America safer or bring our troops home," she said in a statement. "Americans are tired of the president's efforts to play politics with national security and practice the politics of division."

Complete and utter bunk. YOU Supreme Leader Wannabe Hillary, and your ilk, are those that are playing politics with the soldiers, war, and kids here at home, with your attempt to take over the country. YOU and the rest of the LWL.

Congress earned Bush's scorn even while he offered praise because a key Senate committee has passed a new eavesdropping bill containing many provisions the president wants. "It's an important step in the right direction," he said.

Bush repeated earlier criticisms of a move to combine spending bills for the Defense Department and veterans programs with one for labor, health and education matters that Republicans consider bloated. Bush also lamented that his emergency spending request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still languishes.

I LOVE THIS LINE.

"When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground," Bush said, "and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters."

{Laughing Hard} No doubt about it.

Then you have this, written by Senator Jim DeMint, posted at Real Clear Politics - Time for Compromise on SCHIP, Fri Nov 2, 1:25 PM ET

The debate in Washington over the State Children Health Insurance program (SCHIP) has reached a fever pitch. Even as the House of Representatives has sustained President Bush's veto, congressional Democrats and their supporters on the outside vow to pass the same bill again and force a repeat performance.

This will no doubt be accompanied by the same kind of propaganda we have seen over the last few weeks, including the shameless use of children as political props.

It comes as no surprise though that these tactics are employed. Every Democratic candidate for President and virtually all of their members of congress have expressed support for Washington-run health care in which, once and for all, the federal government takes over the responsibility for our health and our healthcare.

AKA Socialism. A step toward the New United Soviet Union waving the Red White and Blue Flag.

The stakes are high.

But what has been lost amongst all the claptrap is that there are very real problems with our health care system that must be fixed. Folks need help, and we need real reform to ensure they receive it.

The good news is that there is a better way to fix our health care system that should serve as a compromise between congressional Democrats and Republicans.

My colleague Senator Mel Martinez has proposed a compromise that is anchored in the common ground that both Republicans and Democrats share: we all want to ensure that poor children receive the care they need and we all want every American to have access to quality health care. I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Martinez's plan.

Rather than expand the government-run SCHIP program to cover middle-income children in homes making more than $80,000 a year (which will include over 70% of America's children), our plan reauthorizes SCHIP to ensure poor children continue to receive health care. The plan goes further to tackle the problem of the uninsured by providing a tax credit to middle class families for their children's health insurance.

Tax credits? No wonder the Libs do not like it. {Smile}

This would allow families to purchase health plans for their kids that they choose, rather than being handed a one-size-fits-all Washington-run plan. Another benefit of this approach is that unlike the Democrat's SCHIP proposal, our plan would not force children off private insurance and onto government plans. By turning patients into shoppers we will inject more choice and competition into the health care market resulting in more competitive prices for health care premiums.

All told, the tax credit approach provides health care to 10.5 million children whereas the Democrat SCHIP plan forces 1.2 million kids onto government rolls. Through this innovative approach we offer better coverage to far more.

Another important component of this plan is an outreach program designed to ensure that all eligible poor children receive SCHIP coverage. Current estimates project that as many as 1.5 million poor children are not receiving coverage under SCHIP for the simple reason that their parents are unaware the program exists. Poor kids need to be covered first, and this helps ensure that they are.

Which is what it is all about. Or at least, what it SHOULD be all about. Not middle class, not adults, and most definitely NOT government run.

It's time that we be very honest with ourselves about the debate we are engaged in. We are either going to move down the path of Washington-run health care that has proven disastrous in countless European nations, or we are going to reform our current health care system to empower individuals, not Washington politicians, to make choices about their own health care.

I support the latter approach and believe that this compromise on SCHIP is the best thing we can do for our kids' future. We should continue to provide a safety net that covers our nation's poor children while at the same time offering alternatives that allow individual Americans have control of their own health care decisions.

It's time for this Congress to put politics aside and for once actually act in the best interest of our children.

I love it, people are actually starting to tell it like it is. No wonder why the Left Wing Loonies are so up in arms. They cannot handle YOU knowing the truth.
Peter

Sources:
RCP - Time for Compromise on SCHIP

AP - Bush Tells Dems War Denial Is Dangerous