An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 16, 2009 10:09 AM

Yes, it’s time for the upside-down elephant. The Stupid Party is at it again. The subject of today’s column: An abomination in the NY23 special congressional race to replace former GOP Rep. John McHugh, who accepted President Obama’s Army Secretary position. Way to go, Beltway GOP establishment. Grass-roots fiscal conservatives are fired up over ACORN, the SEIU, tax-and-spend radicals. Grass-roots social conservatives are battling radical abortion and gay marriage policies. You have been asking movement conservatives to give you money to fight the ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, tax-and-spend, radical Democrats.

Then you use their money to try and elect Dede Scozzafava, an ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, tax-and-spend radical Republican. And you use that money to fight Doug Hoffman, a viable, bona fide conservative candidate in the race who is closing the gap in the polls.

Watch your campaign coffers dry up, NRCC.

The GOP establishment: Always, always its own worst enemy.

Get out your air sickness bags. Guess who endorsed Scozzafava this morning? Newt Gingrich. I hear Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi approve!

Fight the GOP Beltway establishment. Contribute to Doug Hoffman today.
****

An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

Here’s the dirty little secret about political candidates and officeholders labeled by the mainstream media as “moderate Republicans”: There’s usually nothing moderate about them. Consider the case of “moderate Republican” Dede Scozzafava, the GOP nominee in the New York 23rd congressional district’s special election.

Handpicked by local party pooh-bahs and supported by Beltway GOP leaders, Scozzafava is vying to replace former GOP Rep. John McHugh, who abandoned his seat to accept President Obama’s nomination as Army Secretary. There’s certainly no urgency to tack left. The upstate New York district is as safe a Republican district as they come. The GOP has triumphed in every election there since 1871. Obama eked out a victory in the district last fall, but the Democrats have no real traction on the ground.

And the mood of the electorate near and far is far from electric blue. It’s not just Tea Party activists and health care town hall protesters displaying discontent with Big Government in Washington. A recent Gallup Poll reported that self-identified conservatives now outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states — and that more Americans nationwide now say they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

Scozzafava is an abortion rights advocate who favors gay marriage. It would be one thing if Scozzafava balanced that social liberalism with fiscal conservatism. But as a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against.

More troubling, Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party — a socialist outfit whose political DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”

Under fire for her cozy relations with organizations that have shown lifelong hostility toward the Republican Party, Scozzafava now claims she would have voted to de-fund ACORN in the wake of the multiple BigGovernment.com sting videos showing ACORN employees advising undercover journalists on how to evade tax laws, lie on housing applications and smuggle underage illegal alien prostitutes.

But there’s another inextricably linked ACORN and WFP affiliate that Scozzafava would not likely disavow: Big Labor.

Refresher: The Service Employees International Union is co-located with several key ACORN offices across the country. ACORN founder Wade Rathke founded influential SEIU Local 100. As John Wilson reported in the New York Post this spring, the WFP’s largest donors are the SEIU, which pitched in more than $300,000, and the teachers union, which donated $200,000. These organizations have worked together to increase left-wing political clout, undermine capitalism and ensure “social justice” on the public’s dime.

Scozzafava’s husband is a leading upstate New York union organizer. She supports the federal “card-check” legislation that would massively boost union rolls — and Democratic voting rolls — at the expense of rank-and-file workers’ free choice. And for that matter, at the expense of Republican electoral prospects. Card check is the key to a Democratic majority in perpetuity. Big Labor bosses have said as much.

Movement conservatives and limited government activists are battling the establishment GOP over its endorsement of Scozzafava’s candidacy. The Club for Growth, former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson and others have lined up behind a truly mainstream and viable candidate — Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

Meanwhile, “moderate Republican” Scozzafava has earned the enthusiastic endorsement of far-left blog entrepreneur and political strategist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who runs the Daily Kos website. He enthused that Scozzafava has “been willing to raise taxes when budgets require it, and is to the left of most Democrats on social issues.”

That’s not moderation. That’s extremist fringe. This race isn’t a fight over the heart and soul of the Republican Party. It’s a battle over its brain.

***

Jeri Thompson nails it: “The fact that Republican Party leaders in NY-23 and the NRCC ignored just about everything that has taken place over the past six months — the fight over the Obama stimulus package, the tea party rallies, the health care debate — and put Scozzafava on the ballot, indicates that we need more, not less, common sense and conservative values in the Republican Party. Hoffman represents conservatives’ best chance to send a national message to the Republican Party that they are a force to be reckoned with, and that Hoffman appears to have the energy from the grassroots to pull off a win and help lay the groundwork for a successful 2010 election cycle. As one Hoffman supporter told me yesterday, ‘The feeling of momentum is palpable. The race is between Doug and the Democrat…we hope Dede won’t be a spoiler for conservatives in this race.’”

The Washington Times spotlights the battle: Tea Party conservatives vs. the GOP.

Bill Kristol:

A new poll in the November 3 special election for the congressional seat, NY-23, vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh, confirms what knowledgeable observers have suspected for a while: The candidacy of the official Republican nominee, liberal Dede Scozzafava, selected by local party officials and supported by the national Republican establishment, is collapsing. The Republican who has a real chance to defeat Democrat Bill Owens is Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate—a Republican with a profile far more like the popular McHugh, and one far more in sync with the district. What’s more, if elected, Hoffman would caucus in Congress with Republicans—whereas Scozzafava could well pull an Arlen Specter and defect to the Democrats.

Two weeks ago, the Siena poll had Scozzafava at 35%, Owens at 28%, and Hoffman at 16%. Now Scozzafava, at 29%, trails Owens by 4—and leads Hoffman, who has risen to 23%, by only 6, compared to her 19 point lead over Hoffman two weeks ago. This despite a full-court press for Scozzafava by the state and national GOP establishment—including press releases from the National Republican Congressional Committee attacking Hoffman.

The new poll shows Democrats are coming home to Owens, and that Hoffman is leading among independents. (Scozzafava is running third among independents.) This suggests he’s a far more viable candidate than Scozzafava in the stretch run, especially if Republicans were to begin to coalesce around him—which might well happen if the GOP establishment stopped propping up Scozzafava.

Wealth redistributor-in-chief: Hey, let’s spread around another $13 billion!

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 14, 2009 11:20 PM

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me:

President Obama on Wednesday attempted to preempt the announcement that Social Security recipients will not get an increase in their benefit checks for the first time in three decades, encouraging Congress to provide a one-time payment of $250 to help seniors and disabled Americans weather the recession.

“One-time payment” my foot.

Reminder: There is no such thing as a temporary government entitlement.

Obama endorsed the idea, which is expected to cost at least $13 billion, as the administration gropes for ways to sustain an apparent economic rebound without the kind of massive spending package that critics could label a second stimulus act.”

“$13 billion” my foot.

Reminder: There is no such thing as a temporary entitlement that ever costs less than the government estimates.

An increase in benefit checks each January has been a yearly ritual since the mid-1970s, when the government moved to ensure that its subsidies to retirees, pension recipients and others who receive Social Security benefits kept pace with inflation. Thursday’s announcement by the Labor Department will mark the first time that the federal formula used since then, which is tied to the consumer price index, will translate into no increase at all. That is because consumer prices have remained stagnant in the weak economy — a sharp reversal from this past year, when Social Security checks grew by 5.8 percent, an unusually large amount.

Why bother with the charade of inflation-indexed COLAs if the government is going to redistribute wealth away from younger generations to the elderly whether there’s inflation or not?!

…Congress has already enacted a stimulus package that included a similar $250 payment to retirees and others who depend on Social Security, veterans’ benefits and federal pensions.

Repeat: Congress has already doled out payments to retirees and others.

This new round is a bailout for seniors who have lost money in the stock and housing markets. Obama said so:

The new payments would cost an estimated $14 billion, according to legislative sources, although the White House said the price tag would be $1 billion less than that.

In urging lawmakers to provide a second round of payments to older Americans, the president said the extra help would “not only make a difference for them, but for our economy as a whole,” adding that it would “be especially important in the coming months, as countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis.”

This isn’t about compassion. It’s a naked $13-14 billion bribe for the seniors lobby during the contentious Obamacare debate at the expense of everyone else.

Shame.

***

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein reports:

“We generally think proposals should be paid for, but in this case, we’re providing temporary essential help to people as an extension to the Recovery Act,” the official said. “We plan to work with Congress to discuss financing, but the President is not going to go into those discussions insisting that this be paid for.”

The announcement comes a day before the Social Security Administration is set to announce its cost of living adjustment to beneficiaries. Last year, beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent boost because soaring energy costs pushed up consumer prices, but given the sagging prices in the currently weak economy, beneficiaries aren’t going to receive any raise this year. The proposed $250 payments would represent a 2 percent increase to the typical beneficiary.

The official was quick to push back against the suggestion that this proposal — likely to be financed through deficit spending — represented a second stimulus package. Instead, the official argued that it was merely extending a provision of the $787 billion stimulus bill that is scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

Limbaugh Targeted By Obama Official

Joseph Ashby
The plot thickens on the media’s character-lynching of Rush Limbaugh. Of the four stories run on ESPN.com about Limbaugh’s bid for the Rams (October 6, October 12, October 15, and another October 15) none of them mention that NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith served as counsel to Attorney General Eric Holder and was a member of Barack Obama’s transition team.

The October 12 article references Smith’s anti-Limbaugh email meant to garner opposition against the radio host’s bid. The report refers to Smith only as the executive director of the NFLPA. Despite the fact that Smith’s opposition was based on Limbaugh’s political commentary, the report failed to mention that Smith’s political connections (including those to whom he donated thousands of dollars) have a vested interest in Limbaugh’s discrediting.

The October 15 article (the last of four listed above) is decidedly negative toward Limbaugh, portraying him as paranoid about Obama’s involvement in the decision. The report states:

Limbaugh blamed Smith, executive director of the NFLPA and an “Obama-ite,” along with Sharpton and Jackson, whom he referred to as “race hustlers,” for Checketts’ decision to drop him. He said his sacking was an example of the political clout wielded by President Barack Obama’s administration.

There is no mention in the piece of Smith’s relationship with Holder or his work on the Obama transition.

It is not as if ESPN didn’t know of Smith’s history. The sports web site ran a report in July which stated:

In selecting Smith this year, the union chose Washington smarts over football experience. Smith, a Washington lawyer, served on the Obama transition team and also worked for Eric Holder before Holder became attorney general.

Smith’s gross conflict of interest and apparent political targeting of Obama’s top foe is a huge story. Unfortunately the media appears too blinded by their prejudice of Limbaugh to report on it.

To summarize, we know that a former Obama official and political ally–who was chosen by the NFLPA specifically for his political clout and connections to the highest rungs of power in government–directly attacked Limbaugh for the radio-talker’s political commentary.

Historically politicians have been prone to vindictive and petty behavior, but never in American history has someone had so much power to pummel his political opponents as President Obama. With control over banks, insurance companies, car companies, media (sports media included) and unions (like the NFL players union), Obama tentacles seem to penetrate into nearly every corner of the nation.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/limbaugh_targeted_by_obama_off.html at October 16, 2009 – 09:15:11 AM EDT

War without a War President?

By J. Robert Smith

Is Barack Obama up to being a war president?

 

The smartest strategies and the ablest generals can’t succeed unless the commander-in-chief is resolved for victory.  That resolve is really a passion.  Grit and willpower are critical and flow from passion. These qualities are necessary to carry a leader through the inevitable trials, hardships and setbacks of war.  Without these essential qualities, wars are likely abandoned or lost.   

 

And as Sun Tzu counseled: “[A General] will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.” 

 

In other words, a leader needs to be wise enough to give his generals the means to win and then, for the most part, get out of the way.  Does the incumbent President, by nature, seem more inclined to interfere, like Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam, or give his general, McChrystal, the running room to win in Afghanistan?    

 

The adjectives increasingly used in conjunction by the mainstream media to describe Mr. Obama are “young and untested,” as if describing John Kennedy in the first days of his presidency. 

 

But there’s a world of difference between the two men.  Kennedy was a navy veteran and battle-tested.  He was a hero for his actions after the PT-109 was sunk by the Japanese.  He was a Cold Warrior.  He didn’t begin his tenure as president apologizing to tin-pot dictators and condescending allies.  Being a Kennedy, he never wondered if winning was worthwhile.  He learned from his dustup with Khrushchev and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.  Both strengthened his resolve.  He successfully confronted the Russians over Berlin and Cuba.

 

President Obama is a different breed of cat.  He’s come along in different times.  Too young to have experienced the Vietnam War or the nation’s struggles over it, Mr. Obama, however, grew up in a left-liberal milieu, where the adults vociferously opposed the war.  That same cohort was largely counterculture and despised traditional America. 

 

In the 1980s, as Mr. Obama started his college years, the left was pressing the idea that the Soviet Union and the United States were morally equivalent.  Toward the end of the Cold War, the left sought greater accommodation with the Soviets.   

 

President Reagan’s anti-communism and determination to defeat the Soviet Union was met on the left with undisguised hostility.  Is there much doubt that Mr. Obama shared the left’s sentiments?

 

In Mr. Obama’s brief political career, he’s made it plain that he opposed President George W. Bush’s taking the war on terror to Iraq.  He opposed General Petraeus’ surge in Iraq, and has yet to acknowledge its success, at least without qualification. 

 

Where’s the evidence — the convincing evidence — that Mr. Obama has overcome the influences that shaped him in his formative and early professional years?

 

In his brief tenure as president, he snuggles up to dictators like Castro and Chavez, and spurns allies like the Israelis, Hondurans, Poles and Czechs.  He’s given short shrift to a steadfast ally, Great Britain.  And he went on the infamous apology tour.   

 

His worldview is grossly flawed because his understanding of the nation is deeply flawed.  We are, to his way of thinking, a nation of transgressors.  Our actions — moreover, who we are as a people — have invited disapproval and hostility around the world.  Ultimately, we’re at fault.  It’s we who must change at very basic levels to accommodate and appease the world.    

 

And now the President vacillates about Afghanistan, giving the lie to his and the left’s arguments that Afghanistan should be the real focus of the war on terror.  

 

It’s increasingly apparent that the President’s predisposition would take the nation out of Afghanistan, or appreciably minimize our involvement there.  Just a couple of months after declaring that the Afghanistan War was “necessary,” the President is muddling through various options for the war’s conduct. 

 

The President would have been better advised to keep his own counsel rather than publicly claiming, again and again, the Afghanistan War as necessary before defining what necessary is.  He should have weighed strategies prior to the breakout of a very public tug-of-war between his Vice President, Mr. Biden, who favors a scaled-down counterterrorism effort, and his field commander, General McChrystal, who is foursquare for a counterinsurgency strategy.  

 

The recent statement issued from the White House that the nation will not leave Afghanistan appears more a response to the public pressures brought by General McChrystal’s leaked situation analysis and the avalanche of criticism from conservatives.  Not by the President’s resolve.  

 

But declaring that the United States will not leave Afghanistan is a far cry from declaring for victory. 

 

Another essential from Sun Tzu is: “[A General] will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”  The same holds for leaders.  Mr. Obama seems not to know his own mind.     

 

As to Iran, Mr. Obama opened direct talks with the mullahs’ representatives knowing full well that Iran is developing nuclear materials for weapons use.  He knows that previous talks, via the U.N. and with European allies, have availed little. 

 

With Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, he chides them and then retreats.  The mullahs aren’t going to have a change of heart, nor soften their resolve.  But they’ll gladly talk; talk buys the time needed to finish their nuclear materials programs. 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/war_without_a_war_president.html at October 16, 2009 – 09:12:09 AM EDT