Monthly Archives: August 2009

Democrat Version of Constituent Service

Posted on by

Representative Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH, earned her seat by attending her opponent’s, Representative Jeb Bradley, Town Hall meetings, heckling the speakers and generally disrupting the entire process. Worked well for her. She won the election.

Now, Ms Shea-Porter is the incumbent and she does not appreciate being asked uncomfortable questions, such as, “Why is the SEIU present?” Rather than answer questions such as these, she has the man, a retired police officer, removed from the room.

Video: Shea-Porter has constituent arrested at town-hall forum

posted at 1:20 pm on August 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

This is a curious re-election strategy, especially for a Representative who made her name by bird-dogging her former Congressman at his town-hall forums. Consistency isn’t Carol Shea-Porter’s strong suit, apparently, as she demonstrates in this clip from the meeting she finally held with constituents after dodging them for most of the month. When one of her constituents challenges the presence of union enforcers in the crowd, Shea-Porter asks for police intervention:

I’ve watched this video a couple of times, and I still can’t figure out why the police took this man out of the room. He was actually less disruptive than the woman behind him. He challenged Shea-Porter on the appearance of SEIU protesters in the room, one of whom got up and disrupted his question. When the first man then challenged the residency of the SEIU rep, police swooped in and removed him.

According to Now Hampshire, they removed the man because he didn’t get a Golden Ticket to allow him to speak at the meeting:

In four short years Carol Shea-Porter has evolved from a rabble-rousing, town hall disrupting anti-war activist who once had to be forcibly removed from a President George Bush event in Portsmouth to a Member of Congress who instructed armed security guards to remove a frustrated voter from her own town hall event in Manchester on Saturday.

In the appended video, Shea-Porter can be seen instructing security to remove a man for standing to ask a question without a ticket. Shea-Porter previously held a lottery to determine who could ask questions. She can also be heard taunting the man on his way out by saying, “I do hope the movie theater can be a little quieter for you.”

Now Hampshire also reports that the man they removed is Carl Tomanelli — a retired policeman.

Shea-Porter heaped disparagement on “tea-baggers” who showed up to dissent on ObamaCare, which is rich with irony, considering Shea-Porter’s history:

“The irony is, of course, that Shea-Porter used to be a ‘tea-bagger’ on the left,” writes Nashua Telegraph columnist Kevin Landrigan. “She stalked then-congressman Jeb Bradley at town hall-style meetings the 1st District Republican incumbent held throughout his district.”

Four years ago Carol Shea-Porter protested at the State House alongside people dressed as Nazis while accusing the federal government of trying “to brand us like sheep.” On Saturday, she disparagingly referred to people who do not trust the same federal government to run our health care system as “these people.”

“We remember when, Carol, do you,” asks Landrigan.

But that was when she was one of the hoi polloi. Now, she’s in power, and Shea-Porter doesn’t deign to take questions without preselecting who can speak in her presence. And that’s a re-election strategy that is both all too familiar and increasing unlikely to succeed in 2010.

Typical democrat. “Us elitist need not respond to questions from the plebs! Boot’em out!”

A well-known democrat pollster and prognosticator says that 2010 democrat losses in congress will be in double-digits. I think his estimate is too conservative.

Facebook

Democrat Version of Constituent Service

Posted on by

Representative Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH, earned her seat by attending her opponent’s, Representative Jeb Bradley, Town Hall meetings, heckling the speakers and generally disrupting the entire process. Worked well for her. She won the election.

Now, Ms Shea-Porter is the incumbent and she does not appreciate being asked uncomfortable questions, such as, “Why is the SEIU present?” Rather than answer questions such as these, she has the man, a retired police officer, removed from the room.

Video: Shea-Porter has constituent arrested at town-hall forum

posted at 1:20 pm on August 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

This is a curious re-election strategy, especially for a Representative who made her name by bird-dogging her former Congressman at his town-hall forums. Consistency isn’t Carol Shea-Porter’s strong suit, apparently, as she demonstrates in this clip from the meeting she finally held with constituents after dodging them for most of the month. When one of her constituents challenges the presence of union enforcers in the crowd, Shea-Porter asks for police intervention:

I’ve watched this video a couple of times, and I still can’t figure out why the police took this man out of the room. He was actually less disruptive than the woman behind him. He challenged Shea-Porter on the appearance of SEIU protesters in the room, one of whom got up and disrupted his question. When the first man then challenged the residency of the SEIU rep, police swooped in and removed him.

According to Now Hampshire, they removed the man because he didn’t get a Golden Ticket to allow him to speak at the meeting:

In four short years Carol Shea-Porter has evolved from a rabble-rousing, town hall disrupting anti-war activist who once had to be forcibly removed from a President George Bush event in Portsmouth to a Member of Congress who instructed armed security guards to remove a frustrated voter from her own town hall event in Manchester on Saturday.

In the appended video, Shea-Porter can be seen instructing security to remove a man for standing to ask a question without a ticket. Shea-Porter previously held a lottery to determine who could ask questions. She can also be heard taunting the man on his way out by saying, “I do hope the movie theater can be a little quieter for you.”

Now Hampshire also reports that the man they removed is Carl Tomanelli — a retired policeman.

Shea-Porter heaped disparagement on “tea-baggers” who showed up to dissent on ObamaCare, which is rich with irony, considering Shea-Porter’s history:

“The irony is, of course, that Shea-Porter used to be a ‘tea-bagger’ on the left,” writes Nashua Telegraph columnist Kevin Landrigan. “She stalked then-congressman Jeb Bradley at town hall-style meetings the 1st District Republican incumbent held throughout his district.”

Four years ago Carol Shea-Porter protested at the State House alongside people dressed as Nazis while accusing the federal government of trying “to brand us like sheep.” On Saturday, she disparagingly referred to people who do not trust the same federal government to run our health care system as “these people.”

“We remember when, Carol, do you,” asks Landrigan.

But that was when she was one of the hoi polloi. Now, she’s in power, and Shea-Porter doesn’t deign to take questions without preselecting who can speak in her presence. And that’s a re-election strategy that is both all too familiar and increasing unlikely to succeed in 2010.

Typical democrat. “Us elitist need not respond to questions from the plebs! Boot’em out!”

A well-known democrat pollster and prognosticator says that 2010 democrat losses in congress will be in double-digits. I think his estimate is too conservative.

This Ain’t America No More—See!

Posted on by

A week or so ago, I posted that our Republic has died. Here, from Michelle Malkin, is another example that I was correct.

Video of the week: “It ain’t [America] no more, okay?”

By Michelle Malkin • August 28, 2009 11:09 PM

I already gave out one Cone of Shame award today. Officer Wesley Cheeks just needs a Bozo the Clown mask. Watch as he tells a town hall protester in Reston, Virginia, that he can “charge [him] with whatever I want to” because the protester is holding up a sign he doesn’t like.

When the protester asks why other sign-holders aren’t being threatened with trespassing charges, the officer says it’s because the protester’s sign has a picture.

“This used to be America!” the protester exclaims.

The officer retorts: “It ain’t no more, okay?”

No. Not okay.

And yes, this guy would make a perfect candidate for Obama’s civilian defense corps.

Facebook

This Ain’t America No More—See!

Posted on by

A week or so ago, I posted that our Republic has died. Here, from Michelle Malkin, is another example that I was correct.

Video of the week: “It ain’t [America] no more, okay?”

By Michelle Malkin • August 28, 2009 11:09 PM

I already gave out one Cone of Shame award today. Officer Wesley Cheeks just needs a Bozo the Clown mask. Watch as he tells a town hall protester in Reston, Virginia, that he can “charge [him] with whatever I want to” because the protester is holding up a sign he doesn’t like.

When the protester asks why other sign-holders aren’t being threatened with trespassing charges, the officer says it’s because the protester’s sign has a picture.

“This used to be America!” the protester exclaims.

The officer retorts: “It ain’t no more, okay?”

No. Not okay.

And yes, this guy would make a perfect candidate for Obama’s civilian defense corps.

Rove: The electoral consequences of killing Medicare Advantage

Posted on by

I don’t know the demographics of those that read my posts. I am old enough for Medicare and Social Security. I have not subscribed because I’m still working. However, if I were to retire, Medicare Advantage is something I’d be interested in—it’s definitely worth a closer look.

Ed Morrissey writes that Obama is looking to curtail this program. Maybe by 20% it is reported. Here is Morrissey’s column from Hot Air.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about Barack Obama’s plan to kill Medicare Advantage, a successful public-private partnership that extends benefits and access for Medicare patients, in order to pay for the overhaul of the American health-care system. We have personal experience with Medicare before and after buying into the Advantage program (which requires monthly premiums above those of Medicare Part B and D) and understand its value. Karl Rove looks at the electoral consequences of killing the program, to which 20% of all Medicare recipients belong, and warns that it could cost as many as 23,000 votes per Congressional district:

Medicare Advantage was enacted in 2003 to allow seniors to use Medicare funds to buy private insurance plans that fit their needs and their budgets. They get better care and better value for their money.

Medicare Advantage also has built-in incentives to encourage insurers to offer lower costs and better benefits. It’s a program that puts patients in charge, not the government, which is why seniors like it and probably why the administration hates it.

Already, an estimated 10.2 million seniors—one out of five in America—have enrolled in Medicare Advantage. Mr. Obama is proposing to cut the program by nearly 20% and thus reduce the amount of money each will have to buy insurance. This will likely force most of them to lose the insurance they have now. Yet Mr. Obama promised in late July in New Hampshire that, “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan.”

There are roughly 23,400 seniors on average in a congressional district who have Medicare Advantage, but who face losing it if Mr. Obama has his way. That’s enough votes to tip most competitive House and Senate races.

Obama already has problems with seniors. His polling numbers have dropped dramatically among older voters, who see his targeting of Medicare and Medicare Advantage as dangerous to their health-care coverage. Continuing to press for its elimination will certainly motivate them to fight back at the voting booth in 2010.

The average difference between Democrats and Republicans in House races in 2008, by the way, was 22,979. Bear in mind that the Democrats had several strong winds at their backs, including an unpopular Republican administration against which to run, Barack Obama’s ability to turn out voters for his historic campaign, and a sense that the Democrats hadn’t had a chance to lay out their agenda. They managed to build a strong majority in the House with that average margin, which falls below Rove’s calculations of Medicare Advantage subscribers.

None of those strong winds will be at the backs of Democrats. Obama won’t be on the ballot, and the midterms will be a referendum on his policies rather than his personality. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s agenda has lost favor with the majority of Americans now that they’ve taken off the masks and laid it out for the nation to see. Democrats no longer have Bush to run against, although they’ll probably still try to use him as a bogeyman — and will get spanked for doing so. They can’t afford to lose 2,000 seniors in each district, let alone 23,400 — and seniors have the highest turnouts on Election Day.

This is as big a political loser as can be possibly imagined, and Blue Dogs should keep that in mind.

It is becoming more and more clear that the dem’s worse enemy is Barack Obama. I just hope the country can survive until the 2010 elections.

Facebook

Rove: The electoral consequences of killing Medicare Advantage

Posted on by

I don’t know the demographics of those that read my posts. I am old enough for Medicare and Social Security. I have not subscribed because I’m still working. However, if I were to retire, Medicare Advantage is something I’d be interested in—it’s definitely worth a closer look.

Ed Morrissey writes that Obama is looking to curtail this program. Maybe by 20% it is reported. Here is Morrissey’s column from Hot Air.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about Barack Obama’s plan to kill Medicare Advantage, a successful public-private partnership that extends benefits and access for Medicare patients, in order to pay for the overhaul of the American health-care system. We have personal experience with Medicare before and after buying into the Advantage program (which requires monthly premiums above those of Medicare Part B and D) and understand its value. Karl Rove looks at the electoral consequences of killing the program, to which 20% of all Medicare recipients belong, and warns that it could cost as many as 23,000 votes per Congressional district:

Medicare Advantage was enacted in 2003 to allow seniors to use Medicare funds to buy private insurance plans that fit their needs and their budgets. They get better care and better value for their money.

Medicare Advantage also has built-in incentives to encourage insurers to offer lower costs and better benefits. It’s a program that puts patients in charge, not the government, which is why seniors like it and probably why the administration hates it.

Already, an estimated 10.2 million seniors—one out of five in America—have enrolled in Medicare Advantage. Mr. Obama is proposing to cut the program by nearly 20% and thus reduce the amount of money each will have to buy insurance. This will likely force most of them to lose the insurance they have now. Yet Mr. Obama promised in late July in New Hampshire that, “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan.”

There are roughly 23,400 seniors on average in a congressional district who have Medicare Advantage, but who face losing it if Mr. Obama has his way. That’s enough votes to tip most competitive House and Senate races.

Obama already has problems with seniors. His polling numbers have dropped dramatically among older voters, who see his targeting of Medicare and Medicare Advantage as dangerous to their health-care coverage. Continuing to press for its elimination will certainly motivate them to fight back at the voting booth in 2010.

The average difference between Democrats and Republicans in House races in 2008, by the way, was 22,979. Bear in mind that the Democrats had several strong winds at their backs, including an unpopular Republican administration against which to run, Barack Obama’s ability to turn out voters for his historic campaign, and a sense that the Democrats hadn’t had a chance to lay out their agenda. They managed to build a strong majority in the House with that average margin, which falls below Rove’s calculations of Medicare Advantage subscribers.

None of those strong winds will be at the backs of Democrats. Obama won’t be on the ballot, and the midterms will be a referendum on his policies rather than his personality. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s agenda has lost favor with the majority of Americans now that they’ve taken off the masks and laid it out for the nation to see. Democrats no longer have Bush to run against, although they’ll probably still try to use him as a bogeyman — and will get spanked for doing so. They can’t afford to lose 2,000 seniors in each district, let alone 23,400 — and seniors have the highest turnouts on Election Day.

This is as big a political loser as can be possibly imagined, and Blue Dogs should keep that in mind.

It is becoming more and more clear that the dem’s worse enemy is Barack Obama. I just hope the country can survive until the 2010 elections.

Response to a KC Star Columnist…

Posted on by

C. W. Gusewelle is a columnist for the Kansas City “Red” Star. I’ve added the “Red” to the name since it is appropriate given their leftist politcal bias. Gusewelle likes to present himself as an outdoorsman and hunter and has frequently waxed poetic about his dogs, cabin and the outdoors. In reality, he’s another leftist hack supporting the liberal political line.

In Gusewelle’s August 23rd, 2009 column, as seen here, Gusewelle, speaking about moving the Gitmo prisoners to Leavenworth, said this.

On the Guantanamo issue, the central complaint seems to be that bringing the detainees into the U.S. would put the civilian population at unacceptable risk.

Utter, unadulterated nonsense! The Disciplinary Barracks, if that were to be the choice, is a rigorously secured installation.

Bear in mind that these relentless kibitzers are the same worthies who would resist to their last breath any government move to further regulate gun ownership in this country.

They subscribe to the paranoid notion whipped up by the NRA that, at any moment, some federal functionary might come barging in to snatch hunting guns from the closets of law-abiding sportsmen.

In their view, locking up enemy combatants in a maximum-security prison would be an unbearable threat to public safety. Whereas allowing legions of gangbangers, truants, psychopaths and professional criminals to roam city neighborhoods, loosing volleys from their easily gotten assault rifles, is no particular cause for concern.

Gusewelle claims that it is the NRA’s fault for all the killings in KC from “assault rifles” completely ignoring the facts that no such thing has occurred. Are there “legions” of gangbangers, truants, psychopaths and professional criminals roaming Kansas City neighborhoods? Probably. But I doubt any are NRA members, nor any acquired their weapons in the same manner you or I would. Most likely they either stole them or bought them through the black market for much more than the price at a gun store.

In addition, while the Disciplinary Barracks are secure to keep prisoners from escaping, they are not designed to prevent attack from outside. Nor is the surrounding community. That fact, of course, Gusewelle ignores as irrelevant and immaterial.

Kevin Jamison, is a local Kansas City attorney, a staunch backer of the 2nd Amendment and was one of the leaders who finally won Concealed Carry for Missouri residents. Jamison answered Gusewelle’s statement about the government seizing our guns in this article.

SNATCHING GUNS
“DOES IT MATTER CASSANDRA?”
K. L. Jamison
KLJamisonLaw@earthlink.net

       In his 23 August, 2009 column Mr. Gusewelle refers to the “paranoid notion whipped up by the NRA that, at any moment, some federal functionary might come barging in to snatch hunting guns from the closets of law-abiding sportsmen.”  Perhaps we might be forgiven this “notion” because it has already happened.  After the Katrina hurricane hunting guns were seized from law-abiding sportsmen all without a speck of legal authority.  Closer to home, following the Greensburg, Kansas tornado, hunting guns were seized from sportsmen, again without a speck of legal authority.  Mr. Gusewelle may choose not to believe these reports, but a federal district judge in New Orleans did.  When the National Rifle Association filed suit to stop the theft of hunting guns from sportsmen New Orleans denied that it had stolen guns.  After video was introduced of the chief of police declaring that no one would be allowed to have guns and of the seizures themselves the City admitted the seizures but denied having the guns.  When this lie was revealed New Orleans agreed to stop stealing guns and to return the ones they had stolen.  However, in order to retrieve his property the sportsman was required to produce ownership documentation calculated to discourage even those persons who had not been through a hurricane.  While the court proceedings ground on, the guns rusted to dust; which may have been the intention.

       We trust that such seizures shall not occur in Missouri.  The National Rifle Association which Mr. Gusewelle disparages pushed through a law forbidding confiscation of Mr. Gusewelle’s treasured shotgun on such specious grounds as seen in New Orleans and Greensburg.  It has also promoted laws to preserve wetlands for hunting, shooting ranges to sharpen skills, and imposed a tax on ammunition to fund the Department of Conservation in order to ensure that there are open spaces for the many decades we trust are left to him.  Throughout those decades NRA members will defend his right and opportunity to shoot such birds he finds necessary or convenient.  In the fullness of time six of our members shall carry Mr. Gusewelle to his reward, after all, we have carried him thus far.

Well written, Kevin.

Facebook