Artur Davis, a long-time Alabama democrat and the first democrat outside of Illinois to endorse Barack Obama is leaving the democrat party.
Artur Davis, one of President Obama’s earliest supporters and a former co-chairman for his presidential campaign, announced Tuesday that he was leaving the Democratic party for good. — LA Times.
Davis is in the process of moving from Alabama to Virginia. While he is vague about his future plans, he said,“If I were to run, it would be as a Republican.” Davis represented Alabama’s seventh congressional district for nine years. He’ll be a democrat no longer. Davis was a “blue-dog” and was the only member of the Black Congressional Caucus to vote against Obamacare.
In a parting statement, Davis said, “Wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities. On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again,” he said. “I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”
The loss of Davis at this time will be a significant blow to Obama’s campaign. Not only was Davis the first democrat outside Illinois to endorse Obama, he was also the individual to second Obama’s nomination at the 2008 democrat national convention. The Romney campaign noted Davis’ departure as more proof of the failing democrat agenda.
I seem to be on an Education kick lately documenting and protesting the failure of basic education. The farce with the SC “teacher” claiming a person could be arrested for disrespecting Obama is hard to beat. When I read that story I immediately thought, “How can Obama be disrespected when we have no respect for him at all? Subtracting from zero is still zero.”
If you have read any of my education posts you know that I think we have been disserved by the state and federal education departments and more so by the NEA and AFT. The education “system” no longer has a primary interest in insuring our children can read, write coherently with good grammar, be able to perform basic math and algebra, and have a basic understanding of history and our state and federal constitutions.
What we have instead are organizations whose primary interest is preserving their positions—not individual teachers, preserving the institutions, the government agencies, the existence of the education unions, and their pet programs. The irony is those pet programs usually have nothing to do with education.
Mitt Romney is the apparent ‘Pub candidate for President. He has released his plan to reform education. It appears that Romney’s plan is to provide parents with options…and alternatives to public education. I can hear the unions scream now.
Mitt Romney today released his plan to reform America’s ailing education system. It goes big on school choice and parental empowerment and calls for increased transparency of results. Along the way, it admonishes education unions — and rightly so — for standing in the way of reform. — National Review
Romney’s plan includes the following.
“Proposes making federal education funding for low-income children and children with disabilities portable, effectively voucherizing Title I of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”
“Expand D.C.’s embattled Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which provides vouchers to low-income children in the nation’s capital.”
“To receive the full complement of federal education dollars, states must provide students with ample school choice. In addition, digital learning options mustnot be prohibited. And charter schools or similar education choices must be scaled up to meet student demand.”
The Romney agenda hits the nail on the head in terms of the stranglehold special-interest groups — i.e., teachers’ unions — have on education. As Romney pointed out, the NEA alone contributes more to political campaigns than Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, and ExxonMobil combined.
Overall, the Romney plan is choice-driven and tilts heavily in favor of empowering parents. In contrast, President Obama’s “blueprint” for federal education would concentrate more control at the U.S. Department of Education and put the desires of special-interest groups ahead of the needs of families. — National Review.
The Romney plan is a good start. Everything listed should be on his to-do list. However, I’m disappointed that his focus is on the institutions and says nothing about the actual curriculum. Classes in “self-esteem”, social engineering programs are not needed. In many schools, social engineering has usurped meaningful education.
When schools promote students automatically without regard whether the student has actually achieved the necessary skill level for promotion, something is drastically wrong. Reforming the institutions are necessary. But if the end product—educated children with the necessary basic skills for life, is not changed as well, the entire effort is wasted. My concern with Romney’s plan is that it is incomplete.
As a businessman I would expect Romney to understand that a business plan that does not include improving the product is doomed to fail. Education is too important to be allowed to fail as it has since the passage of LBJ’s Great Society.
Occupy Wall Street “is an inchoate, leaderless manifestation of protest,” but it will grow. It has “put on the agenda issues that the institutional left has failed to put on the agenda for a quarter of a century.” He reaches for analysis, produced by the political blog ThinkProgress.org, that shows how the Occupy movement has pushed issues of unemployment up the agenda of major news organizations, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. It reveals that in one week in July of last year the word “debt” was mentioned more than 7,000 times on major U.S. TV news networks. By October, mentions of the word “debt” had dropped to 398 over the course of a week, while “occupy” was mentioned 1,278 times, “Wall Street” 2,378 times, and “jobs” 2,738 times. You can’t keep a financier away from his metrics.
As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
The article is a standard fluff-piece that attempts to show the greatness of George Soros. It conveniently leaves out the fact that the “Occupy New York” movement was funded by Soros. Given that, the statement by Soros above isn’t a prediction of possible events. No, it is nothing more than a threat to the nation by one of Obama’s cronies.
In another planned attack by the left comes this from Indianapolis.
Indiana unions’ latest tactic in their protests of right-to-work legislation is a threat to borrow tactics from Occupy Wall Street and make a public scene at next month’s Super Bowl in Indianapolis. Photo Credit:AP
Indiana unions, opposed to becoming the first right-to-work state in the Rust Belt, may disrupt Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis. Their unnecessary roughness will cost the Hoosiers needed jobs.
On Friday, as the Indiana Senate was scheduled to take up legislation supported by Gov. Mitch Daniels to make Indiana the 23rd right-to-work state, Indiana unions considered copying the disruptive and coercive tactics of Occupy Wall Street to disrupt arguably America’s premier sporting event, the Super Bowl, to be held in Indianapolis on Feb. 5. …
If the bill passes before Feb. 5, some Indiana labor activists are considering protests before a nationwide audience. These protests would include Teamsters clogging city streets with trucks, and electricians staging a slowdown at the convention center site of the NFL village. Read the original article at Investor’s Business Daily
By Luke Rosiak – The Washington Times, Sunday, January 22, 2012
An unlikely combatant has jumped into the big-money battle between independent groups running ads weighing in on the Republican presidential primary: a national union representing public employees. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $1 million Friday on an ad accusing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney of greed, Federal Election Commission records show.
The liberal group’s intent is to sway the outcome of the Republican primary in Florida, with ads running there before the state’s party elections Jan. 31. The strategy seems to indicate that the union views Mr. Romney as the most realistic threat to President Obama and would much prefer to see Republicans field another candidate, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, against Mr. Obama in the general election.
The piling-on of a liberal group on top of the Republican organizations attacking Mr. Romney highlights an irony to the 2010 Supreme Court decision that injected massive independent expenditures into politics with a ruling cheered by many conservatives: The majority of the spending thus far has been used to demonize Republicans.
Now, in addition to the Republican ads comes the union’s buy, by far the largest from a Democratic-leaning group. AFSCME did not return a call for comment.
The large-scale, full-frontal meddling in an opposing party’s primary is rare. The most recent prominent example may be the expenditure that triggered a series of court rulings dramatically expanding the ability of outside groups including corporations to spend on politics: In the Supreme Court case bearing its name, the conservative group Citizens United sought to air a biting, lengthy attack on Hillary Rodham Clinton in the days before she appeared on ballots as a Democratic presidential candidate facing off against Mr. Obama.
Although that film was fueled by genuine opposition to Mrs. Clinton, the AFSCME ad could be an attempt by a liberal group to push Republicans further to the right as part of a forward-thinking strategy.
I suppose if the dems can’t get enough line-crossers to affect the ‘Pub selection process, they’ll try to poison the well. Typical, I suppose.
The left and the ‘Pub establishment of Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, Brit Hume and Ann Coulter, still don’t understand why Newt has risen in the polls and his appeal to the country—conservatives, evangelicals, and the Tea Party. The answer is simple but the establishment will never understand. The time for leadership by wimps has passed. What we need to turn this country around, to re-establish our relations with our allies, to preserve our national security and our borders, is a leader. An aggressive leader with a vision who understands the complexity of the world as it is—not as the establishment wants it to be.
Thomas Sowell wrote the article below in the Investor’s Business Daily. The left understands, the ‘Pub establishment doesn’t.
Just days before the South Carolina primary, polls showed Mitt Romney leading Newt Gingrich. Then came the debates and the question about Gingrich’s private life, which brought a devastating response from the former speaker of the House — and a standing ovation from the audience.
Apparently the television audience felt the same way, judging by the huge turnaround in the support for Gingrich. The stunning victory in South Carolina brought Newt’s candidacy back to life.
But the message from South Carolina was about more than a reaction to how Gingrich dealt with a cheap-shot question from the media. Nor was it simply the Republican voters’ response to Newt’s mastery as a debater.
The more fundamental message is that the Republican primary voters do not want Mitt Romney, even if the Republican establishment does — and it is just a question of which particular conservative alternative voters prefer.
The successive boomlets for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain showed the Republican voter’s constant search for somebody — anybody — as an alternative to Romney. The splintering of the conservative vote among numerous conservative candidates allowed Romney to be the “front-runner,” but he never ran far enough in front to get a majority.
Mitt Romney’s supposed “electability” — his acceptability to moderates and independents — has been his biggest selling point. Moreover, he is just the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has preferred for years: a nice, bland moderate who offends nobody.
This is the kind of candidate that is supposed to be the key to victory, no matter how many such candidates have gone down to defeat. If the bland and inoffensive moderate was in fact the key to victory, Dewey would have won a landslide victory over Truman in 1948, and John McCain would have beaten Barack Obama in 2008.
Whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate is going to have to run against both Barack Obama and the pro-Obama media. Newt Gingrich has shown that he can do that. Romney? Not so much.
I’m not a Ron Paul fan. I’ve said that many times. However he is running as a member of the GOP and that makes him an enemy of the left. He was campaigning in New Hampshire when he was the recipient of this new democrat attack tactic—the media flash mob.
Paul had a scheduled event at a restaurant in Manchester, NH. It was supposed to be a standard Meet ‘n Greet, press a little flesh, speak to some voters, ask and answer some questions. Instead the media mobbed the place and filled the restaurant crowding out the voters disrupting the entire campaign event.
Why should we not be surprised. It’s just another tactic by the statists to corrupt the electoral process.
MANCHESTER, N.H. — A campaign stop at a New Hampshire eatery unraveled into a bit of a circus when the media scrum chasing Ron Paul apparently became too much for the 76-year-old Texas congressman to handle.
Paul had been planning to make the rounds through Moe Joe’s restaurant before settling down to eat breakfast with his wife, Carol — who said he enjoys apple pancakes — at a table in the corner.
But the plans quickly changed. Barely able to move through the restaurant as hundreds of journalists and videographers surrounded him on all sides, Paul ignored the questions being lobbed at him and slowly inched through the restaurant, offering a few autographs to supporters along the way.
“Guys, you’ve got to take it easy,” shouted one Paul staffer, imploring the media to give the congressman some space.
No such luck.
“Ron Paul: We have you surrounded. We are the media,” sounded the voice from a megaphone as Paul staffers ushered him into a waiting SUV, just minutes after he arrived at the restaurant.