Archive for October, 2009


The NRCC/RNC spent $900,000 Of Your Donated Money For DeDe!

“Make no mistake about it, Pete Sessions and the NRCC must shoulder most of the blame and responsibility, with Michael Steele and the RNC coming right behind them. They did not listen. They would not listen. They posited themselves as the smartest people in the room. And we’ve cleaned their clocks.”

Erick Erickson (Redstate)


Here’s her statement in full:

“Dear friends and supporters:

“Throughout the course of my campaign for Congress, I have made the people of the 23rd District and the issues that affect them the focal point of my campaign. As a life long resident of this district, I care deeply and passionately about its people and our way of life. Whether as a candidate for Congress, a state Assemblywoman or a small town mayor, I have always sought to act with the best interest of our district and its residents in mind—and today I again seek to act for the good of our community.

“The opportunity to run as the Republican and Independence Party candidate to represent the 23rd District has been and remains one of the greatest honors of my life. During the past several months, as I’ve traveled the district, meeting and talking with voters about the issues that matter most to them, I’ve been overwhelmed by the amount of support I’ve received as I sought to serve as their voice in Washington. However, as Winston Churchill once said, Democracy can be a fickle employer, and the road to public office is not always a smooth one.

“In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record. But as I’ve said from the start of this campaign, this election is not about me, it’s about the people of this district. And, as always, today I will do what I believe serves their interests best.

“It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.

“On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is unlikely. To those who support me – and to those who choose not to – I offer my sincerest thanks. Dede.”

Source:  Watertown Daily News:  SCOZZAFAVA SUSPENDS 23RD CAMPAIGN


Scozzafava endorses Owens

Arlen Specter In A Skirt !!!




73 Wire is Reporting:


Breaking news: DeDe has dropped out of the race here in the NY-23. A source close to the Hoffman campaign confirms to that DeDe Scozzafava has bowed out of the race. According to reports she got very emotional while addressing her supporters and thanking them for their support. Stay tuned to 73wire for more details and audio of Dede addressing supporters.



Bloggers dominate NY23 coverage

Eric Odom – 31 October 2009

About a week ago, Steve Foley and I launched a beta version of “The Campaign Trail” blog. The blog will be a part of the larger news site we’re building at

I had originally intended on using my own blog here to cover the action, but we decided to go ahead and launch a part of to provide a better spot for the content.

Yesterday, the brand new blog had 7,147 unique visits and 18947 pageviews. Our RSS feed was accessed 471 times throughout the day. How could this be?

Most likely it’s because we broke the story about the NRCC sending ground troops into the 23rd district of New York, followed by a breaking story about the NRCC yanking its assets out of the district.

Granted, major news networks see far more than 7,000 visits in a day, but think of the money they spend! And why were they not able to figure out or report on the NRCC story?

On Tuesday, I ran into a reporter for local channel 7 news outside of Dede Scozzafava’s campaign office in Watertown. I asked her what she thought of the fact that Scozzafava’s office was stacked full of NRCC folks. Her response was something along the lines of “We’re reporters so we don’t have an opinion on that sort of thing.”

OK, I understand that. And that’s actually a good thing. But if you’re a reporter, would you not have wanted to go back in to the office you just came out of and ask the question?

Big media reporters don’t ask those questions. Bloggers do.

And that is exactly why just three blogs… 73wire’s Campaign Trail, The Other McCain and TCOT Report have dominated coverage outside of the candidate talking points.

I would also note that NY23 should be a lesson for bloggers on the right. We have to get bloggers on the ground… plain and simple. You can make phone calls, text your contacts, etc, but that never produces the results of face to face interaction.

Robert Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, Steve Foley and I have all been in the district this week and we’ve been able to uncover a ton of news. We’ve live streamed and tweeted debates, we sent out pictures and newsletters, and we’ve broken investigative stories.

This is what blogging is all about. And, in my opinion, this is why big government owned media is dying.

-Eric Odom


Newt got the Boot!

Related Links:

Politico:  Michael Steele: Doug Hoffman win is a GOP win

CNN: Gingrich endorses Hoffman (NOW PLEASE GO AWAY!)

WSJ:  RNC Backs Hoffman in Upstate New York House Race

Hot Air:  Gingrich endorses Hoffman

Redstate:  In NY-23 There Are Four Who Deserve Tremendous Credit



What’s Next?

Endorsements from Huckabee and Romney!

Update: October 31, 2009 – 02:50 PM Statement on Doug Hoffman by Huck PAC

We commend Dede Scozzafava for stepping aside and in light of her very unselfish announcement, we join the RNC and other Republicans in urging support for Doug Hoffman.

LuckyBogey Comment:  Courageous Huck…

Updates:  Added Related Links, Pictures, and Reformatted –  END



Red Skelton Dissects The Pledge of Allegiance Video — DNC Uses Flag Desecration Video to Raise Funds — Firefighter’s Flag to Stay Put — American Flag Ban at Oregon Apartment Complex Reversed After Outcry — Dan Walker Obit — Wiki: Texas v. Johnson



“The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another “idea” or “point of view” competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.

Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.”

William H. Rehnquist dissent opinion Texas v. Johnson


DNC Uses Flag Desecration Video to Raise Funds

As a heart monitor beeps ominously in the background, a graffiti artist paints over the Stars and Stripes with phrases criticizing opposition to the Democratic legislation, including ‘profit over life’ and the crossed-out words ‘death panel.’ The whole flag is eventually smeared with paint and blacked out.

Fox News

A Democratic fundraising video on President Obama’s political Web site shows an American flag mural being covered in graffiti and desecrated with slogans about health care reform.

As a heart monitor beeps ominously in the background, a graffiti artist paints over the Stars and Stripes with phrases criticizing opposition to the Democratic legislation, including “profit over life” and the crossed-out words “death panel.” The whole flag is eventually smeared with paint and blacked out.

Click here to see the video.

One of 20 finalists in the Democratic National Committee’s “Health Reform Video Challenge,” the video shows the Los Angeles-based graffiti artist “Saber” at work, according to a copy of the video posted to YouTube.

The DNC is using the splattered Old Glory to pick up some change, asking for donations to air the winner of its contest. “[T]o put the winning ad on national television, we’ll need folks to chip in and help cover the cost of getting the ad on the air,” the DNC says on its Web site, which hosts its Organizing for America campaign program.

“I think that most Americans no matter what their political persuasion is will find this pretty obscene and pretty shocking,” said Armstrong Williams, a conservative radio host. Williams said it was a bad message to send for the DNC to give “energy and credibility” to an artist desecrating the flag.

The video made it past a panel of judges “comprised of DNC employees,” the site says. All finalists were screened to find “the most apt, creative, original and interesting video” that provides “clarity of message concerning supporting health insurance reform.”

Supporters defended the video and said it might strike a chord with Americans who are interested in health care reform.

“I don’t really think it’s an issue,” said Leonard Jacobs, editor of the Clyde Fitch Report. “It’s one of 20 videos, and graffiti is protected by the First Amendment. And it’s certainly something that might hook up with the way people feel.”

Now in the final round, the remaining 20 videos will be judged by a panel of experts including DNC chief Tim Kaine; Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa.; singer of the Black Eyed Peas; actress Rosario Dawson; and Seth MacFarlane, creator of the TV cartoon “Family Guy.”
A spokesman for Organizing for America told the Politico that the group was not prepared to provide comment on the video, but gave the contest a big push online.

“We’re closer than we’ve ever been to passing real health reform, but we need to keep pushing forward and tipping the debate in favor of reform — and the winning video could do just that,” they wrote.




Firefighter’s Flag to Stay Put

Krapf will be allowed back to work Thursday


A Chester City firefighter who was suspended for displaying an American flag sticker on the front of his locker will not have to remove the decal and he gets to keep his job.

After two hours of negotiations, fire and union officials reached a resolution Monday afternoon to reinstate James Krapf and allowed him to display the red, white and blue on his locker.

“I am glad to be back and ready to go back to doing my job,” said Krapf.

Krapf was suspended last week, without pay, after disobeying an order from Chester City Fire Commissioner James Johnson to remove the American flag from his locker. A department policy prohibited firefighters from posting personal items on lockers after a recent poster was found to be offensive.

“There was never an intent to desecrate the American flag,” said Fire Commissioner James Johnson during a press conference. More than 25 protesters showed up for a rally in support of Krapf outside the firehouse on East 14th Street Monday morning. Krapf said he expects to be reimbursed for a day and a half in back pay.


Firefight Over the Red, White and Blue

Firefighter suspended for refusing to peel American flag sticker from locker


“The chief came out and said ‘You have to remove your stickers,’ I said ‘No disrespect chief, but I’m not taking the flag off,'” Krapf recounted. He says the officer then asked him to leave.

Fire Commissioner James Johnson, who served in the Marine Corps, vows the symbolism of the decal is not the issue.

“We wear the American flag on our uniform…it’s flying outside that station,” he said. “It is not about the American flag or patriotism.”

But Krapf refuses to give up and he’s not alone. The firefighters union plans to negotiate with the department on the issue.

“We applaud Jim Krapf because these colors don’t run,” said union prez Stacy Landrum.

Krapf, who was turned away from the station again Friday, plans to stand his ground. “It’s the American flag, we should be able to fly it wherever we want…I don’t believe it’s offensive to anyone,” he said.

The issue and Krapf’s fate is scheduled to be discussed at a meeting on Monday.

Chester, Pa., firefighter James Krapf wants to know what’s wrong with Old Glory. The 11-year veteran was suspended without pay Thursday after he refused to peel a sticker of the American flag from his locker.

“It’s pride…it’s a matter of pride,” Krapf said.

A new department rule mandates that all stickers and statements — union, cartoon and political — be stripped from lockers after several offensive and racist images showed up in the firehouse. But Krapf figured the red, white and blue was safe.

It seems he was wrong.




American Flag Ban at Oregon Apartment Complex Reversed After Outcry

An Oregon apartment complex reversed its ban prohibiting residents from flying American flags from dwellings and parked vehicles after the property manager decided she didn’t have the legal standing to do so, KATU in Portland reported Wednesday.

October 19, 2009 

The American Civil Liberties Union said that Barb Holcomb’s ban at Oaks Apartments did not violate any laws, but Holcomb said her legal cousel led her to believe otherwise so she reversed the decision.

“If people want to fly any flag of any nationality, it’s their right,” she told KATU. “When a tenant rents the unit, the inside of the unit belongs to the tenant. All automobiles and things attached to the automobiles are the personal property of the tenant.”

Holcomb told KATU that the flag flap was caused by how two sections of the rental agreement that all tenants sign were interpreted.

Residents’ outrage started when Jim Clausen, whose son is in the military and on his way back to Iraq, was told he couldn’t fly an American flag from the back of his motorcycle.

If he didn’t take the flag down, he was told he’d face eviction, the station reported on Monday.

“It floored me,” Clausen told the station. “I can’t believe she was saying what she was saying. It [the flag] stands for the people that can no longer stand — who died in wars. That’s why I fly the flag.”


Holcomb admitted she was wrong to ban the flags after the public outcry received national media attention.

“What we were trying to do was to keep the peace,” she told the station, declining to say if a particular incident sparked the ban. “Obviously, we were wrong. If the peace needs to be kept, it belongs to the police department.”

Holcomb received numerous calls from the media focusing on the American flag ban, although the policy itself did not specifically single out the U.S. flag and allow the flags of other nations.

“I made a policy. I was wrong,” she said.

Sharron White, a long-time resident, was originally told by management to take down the flag she’d flown on her car for eight years because “someone might get offended.”

“I just said to her, ‘They’ll just have to get over it,'” White said before the ban was lifted.

The ban had also applied to flag stickers on cars, as well as sports flags.


Flag ban lifted at Oaks Apartments after outcry

By KVAL News and staff

KVAL is a news partner with

ALBANY, Ore. — Flags are OK again at an Albany apartment complex after the property manager reviewed the policy and decided she didn’t have the legal standing to ban flags from the exteriors of apartments and vehicles parked at the complex.

“If people want to fly any flag of any nationality, it’s their right,” said Barb Holcomb with Oaks Apartments.

KVAL News also contacted the American Civil Liberties Union to ask whether the policy banning flags from the apartment complex violated any laws. The answer from the ACLU: No.

But Holcomb said she received different legal counsel that led her to believe she is wrong to ban the flags.

“When a tenant rents the unit, the inside of the unit belongs to the tenant,” Holcomb said Wednesday. “All automobiles and things attached to the automobiles are the personal property of the tenant.”

Holcomb said the flag ban was based on interpretation of two sections of the rental agreement all tenants sign.

“What we were trying to do was to keep the peace,” she said, declining to say whether a specific incident sparked enforcement of the ban. “Obviously, we were wrong. If the peace needs to be kept, it belongs to the police department.”

She said her boss has stood by her — both when she enforced the policy and when she lifted it.

“I made a policy. I was wrong,” she said. “My boss is a wonderful man. He backed me 100 percent — even when I was wrong.”

The story garnered national attention because of the ban on American flags, although the policy did not specifically single out the U.S. flag and allow the flags of other nations.

The result for Holcomb: Numerous phone calls from the media.

“If they want to speak to me, they speak to me,” she said of the calls. “If they want to yell at me, they yell at me.”

KVAL News asked whether she had talked to the resident who originally went to the media with the story. Holcomb said no, although she said she would talk to him — and would have talked to him before he went to the media. Holcomb said he did not approach her before talking to KVAL News partner KATU.

“He’s just a romping, stomping patriot,” Holcomb said.


Apartment residents told to take down U.S. flags

By Melica Johnson KATU News and Staff

ALBANY, Ore. – At the Oaks Apartments in Albany, the management can fly their own flag advertising one and two bedroom apartments – but residents have been told they can’t fly any flags at all.

Jim Clausen flies the American flag from the back of his motorcycle. He has a son in the military heading back to Iraq, and the flag – he said – is his way of showing support.

“This flag stands for all those people,” said Clausen, an Oaks Apartment resident. “It stands for the people that can no longer stand – who died in wars. That’s why I fly this flag.”

But to Oaks Apartment management, Clausen said, the American flag symbolizes problems.

He was told to remove the red, white and blue from both of his rides, or face eviction.

“It floored me,” he said. “I can’t believe she was saying what she was saying.”

Even long-time residents like Sharron White, who has flown a flag on her car for eight years, has been told to take it down.

White said management told her that “someone might get offended.”

“I just said to her ‘They’ll just have to get over it,'” White said.

Resident we talked to who had been approached to take down their flags all told us the same thing: that management told them the flags could be offensive because they live in a diverse community.

Attempts to find out for ourselves why management would ban flags were unsuccessful. KATU wanted to talk to management at Oaks Apartments, but no one has returned our calls. The woman we were told had made the decision said she was “not going to answer any questions.”

The mother of one soldier fighting in Iraq put up a poster in her son’s apartment window when she learned of the ban. Her son’s roommate said he’ll risk eviction to make sure it stays.

Another Oaks Apartment resident, Judith Sherer, doesn’t have a car. Instead she carries an American flag around the complex to protest the ban, and wonders if the flag pin she wears is next to be “singled out.”

“If I put it on and I walk outside, what’s going to happen?” Sherer muses. “Am I going to be confronted by a manager about this?”

We’re told the ban includes sports flags and even flag stickers on cars.



Obama American Flag for sale on eBay


Dan Walker, veteran who buried flag that had been burned by protester, dies at 81

Veteran buried flag burned by protester

FORT WORTH – Dan Walker, an Army war veteran who was honored for gathering and burying a U.S. flag that was burned in protest during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, has died. He was 81.

Walker, who was captured by TV cameras carefully retrieving the flag remnants so they could be buried properly, died Wednesday of prostate cancer at his Fort Worth home.

Walker told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram after the incident that he felt compelled to act after seeing someone try to stomp out the fire.

“I didn’t want someone sweeping it up with a broom and putting it in an ashcan,” said Walker, a veteran of World War II and the Korean War.

The man who burned the flag was convicted under a Texas law banning desecration of the flag. His conviction was thrown out in 1989 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that flag burning was a constitutionally protected free speech.

Walker’s son, Rusty Walker, recalled being shocked but not surprised when he turned on the national news the night of the flag burning and saw his father.

“He was a West Point graduate, and when he saw them burning the flag, he couldn’t stand it,” he said.

Walker disposed of the ashes according to flag care guidelines and buried them in his backyard. He later was presented with the U.S. Army’s highest civilian award and received a letter from President Ronald Reagan.

His pastor said Walker didn’t like all the attention.

“My sense is he saw what was happening and reacted instinctively,” said the Rev. Ken Horton, senior pastor of McKinney Memorial Bible Church, where Walker was a member.

“He had a great love of country and was a man of honor who thought it was his responsibility to protect that flag, or at least rescue it,” Horton said. “I think he was a little bashful about the publicity, but at the same time he was happy that he was at a place where he could do what he thought was right.”

Services will be at 2 p.m. today at McKinney Memorial Bible Church, 4805 Arborlawn Drive in Fort Worth, the Star-Telegram reported.


Bank of America in hot water over SC flag flap




Texas v. Johnson

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant’s act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.

Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted chants, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag taken from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.

When the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted such phrases as, “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under,” and, “Reagan, Mondale, which will it be? Either one means World War III.” No one was hurt, but some witnesses to the flag burning said they were extremely offended. One witness, Daniel E. Walker, received international attention when he collected the burned remains of the flag and buried them according to military protocol in his backyard.

Johnson was charged with violating the Texas law that prohibits vandalizing respected objects. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but he lost this appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would then see his case. This was the highest court in Texas that would see Criminal Appeals. That court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.

The State had said that its interests were more important than Johnson’s symbolic speech rights because it wanted to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity, and because it wanted to maintain order. The court said neither of these state interests could be used to justify Johnson’s conviction.

The court said, “Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . .” The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace.

The State of Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. In 1989, the Court handed down its decision. The opinion of the court came down as a controversial 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion written by William J. Brennan, Jr. Justices Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy joined Brennan, with Kennedy also writing a concurrence.

Source:  Wiki

Additional Flag Information:

Flag Etiquette


History of the Flag of the United States of America



THIS MAGIC MOMENT (JAY AND THE AMERICANS) Music Video — House to Unveil Plan With Public Option, Wealth Tax — BREAKING: Comprehensive List of Taxes In House Democrat Health Bill — Pence: Pelosi plan is “Freight Train of Big Government” Video — CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion — GOP’s COMMON-SENSE HEALTH CARE REFORMS OUR NATION CAN AFFORD



Wait, Did Pelosi Just Get Sworn In As President? Photo by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty

Pelosi marched into the event to her own personal soundtrack, “Elevation” by U2

High, higher than the sun
You shoot me from a gun
I need you to elevate me here
At the corner of your lips
As the orbit of your hips
You elevate my soul
I’ve got no self control
Been living like a mole now
Going down, excavation

I believe the below “MAGIC MOMENT” song is more appropriate for the above losers…


Ad Of The Day (h/t: Don Suber)


House to Unveil Plan With Public Option, Wealth Tax

By James Rowley and Kristin Jensen

Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) — U.S. House leaders today plan to unveil legislation that would create a government-run health- insurance program, require employers to offer coverage to their workers and impose a new tax on the wealthiest Americans.

The legislation comes after three months of negotiations by House Democrats and represents the most sweeping changes to the nation’s health-care system since the 1965 creation of the federal Medicare program for the elderly. The measure would overhaul the insurance market, encourage greater use of preventive medicine and help Americans buy coverage.

“We think we’ll have the votes,” said California Representative George Miller, who runs the House Education and Labor Committee, after meeting with fellow Democrats yesterday. Formal debate is planned for next week, Miller said.

Lawmakers said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a compromise over one of the most divisive issues facing Congress — the establishment of the government insurance program to compete with private insurers try to and drive down costs.

Lacking votes for a program that would tie the program’s reimbursements to doctors to the lower rates paid by Medicare, Pelosi settled on a plan that would instead negotiate rates with providers, as private insurers do, lawmakers said.

Obstacles Ahead

Pelosi’s office scheduled a news conference for this morning in Washington to announce the legislation. The measure would cost $894 billion over 10 years and extend coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans, according to a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate, House Democrats said.

The campaign to revamp the health system still faces major hurdles. The Senate is also considering legislation, and Majority Leader Harry Reid is struggling to reach consensus on a host of issues including a public option that would allow states to opt out of the program.

If both the House and Senate pass their own versions of the bill, lawmakers must work together on a compromise before a new round of votes, a process that may take months.

The House measure, which lawmakers said the Congressional Budget Office estimated will cost less than $900 billion over 10 years, is the product of work done by three committees and White House officials. President Barack Obama has made health care his top domestic priority and said he wants to sign a bill into law by the end of the year.

Legislative Goals

The legislation aims to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while curbing rising medical costs and cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Proposals in both the House and Senate would require all Americans to get insurance, creating purchasing exchanges and increasing government aid to help lower-income Americans.

The measures also encourage greater use of preventive care, electronic records and research on the effectiveness of treatments. Under all the plans, insurers would have to accept new clients, regardless of preexisting conditions.

Miller said House leaders favor an expansion of the government Medicaid program for the poor, which could cost the federal government less than providing subsidies to help people buy insurance. The plan would expand eligibility to people whose incomes are 150 percent of the official poverty level, a congressional aide said, up from 133 percent in the original House proposal.

House lawmakers have also backed a requirement that employers offer insurance or pay a penalty. That is a subject of debate in the Senate, where the health committee included a mandate and the finance panel rejected it…]




BREAKING: Comprehensive List of Taxes In House Democrat Health Bill

Americans For Tax Reform – From Ryan Ellis

H.R. 3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” has been introduced–all 1990 pages of it.  This gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes.  Here they all are, with description and page number (PDF version):


Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages.  Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium.  MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).  Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent).  This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly).  MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest.  This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price.  It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments.  Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons.  Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties.  If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.


CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so.

Penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, would raise $161 billion over that time-frame. That brings the net cost of the bill to $894 billion through 2019, CBO said.

House Democrats have seized on that net cost figure to claim that their bill is below President Barack Obama’s upper limit which he set for health-care legislation of $900 billion.

The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday.

The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs– including the Medicare Advantage and other programs–saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO.

CBO also said the House bill would not add to the deficit in the first decade beyond 2019–a key condition for support from fiscally conservative House Democrats.

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, in a Thursday letter to House Democratic Chairmen, cautioned that his estimates are preliminary and “subject to substantial uncertainty.”

House leaders capped weeks of internal negotiations among Democrats today by unveiling the sweeping legislation. They aim to bring the bill to a vote by the full House by the end of next week.

The bill would create exchanges where people who do not have access to health insurance from their employer could buy coverage. It would create a government- sponsored plan to compete with private plans.

The bill would reduce the number of uninsured in the U.S. by 36 million by 2019. By that time, 30 million people would be covered through the insurance exchanges, of which 6 million would be covered by the public option.

An expansion in eligibility rules for the Medicaid program would bring an additional 15 million enrollees to Medicaid by 2019, CBO said.



“It’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. That’s what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents. Replacing your family’s current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. We can do better, with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems.”
– Rep. Charles Boustany, Jr. , MD, September 9, 2009

The American people have spoken. They oppose government-run health care. Republicans are on the side of the American people.

What Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problems. In the Republican address following President Obama’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) outlined a series of such solutions:

  • “We do need medical liability reform, and it needs to be real reform. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care.”
  • “Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance.”
  • “All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions.”
  • “Individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.”
  • “We can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.”
  • “[I]nsurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life.”

For more information about these and some of the other common-sense health care reforms proposed by Republicans, please visit these links:

Related Previous Posts:

Obamacare: Shameful Backroom Deals And Unconstitutional?

Breaking: HealthCare Reform Bill Posted

CBO/JCT Preliminary Analysis: America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (Baucus Plan)

Senate To Use Sleazy Maneuver to Pass ObamaCare

Washington: Cri de Coeur! Susan Speaks For Us…

Related Links:

Washington Times: House health bill event closed to public

Politico:  GOP: Pelosi blocked us from announcement

Breitbart TV:  Cantor Knocks Hoyer’s Touting of Transparency in House Health Bill Process

Real Clear Politics:  House Leader Calls Health Bill “1,990 Pages Of Bureaucracy”

Investors:  A 1,990-Page Medical Monstrosity

Kaiser Health News:  Finance Bill’s Fine Print May Cause Sticker Shock For Some Consumers


Big Government:  Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers

SF Politics Examiner:  Speaker Pelosi’s arrogance–a San Francisco tradition

Gateway Pundit:  Michelle Bachman on Pelosi Health Care Bill: “This Is the Crown Jewel of Socialism” (Video)



Updated:  Added CBO Newswire Article, GOP Healthcare Solutions, & Updated Related Links – end

Larry David Blasted for ‘Curb’ Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting — Note To “Edgy” Larry David: Show Us How You “Make Fun Of Everyone” And Urinate On A Koran Next Time — Waiting for Nov. 4th — Would he piss on an image of Obama? — Obama signs ‘hate crimes’ bill-Christian broadcasters concerned

'Curb Your Enthusiasm' Larry David Urinates on Picture of Jesus 1

HBO and Larry David are vile and repulsive! Imagine a Christian comic urinating on a Star of David or desecrating a Koran or insulting Mohamad.  Meanwhile, the dinosaur media and CBS are showcasing their newest sensation: Levi Johnston (UpdateSarah P Responds) Webster‘s Unabridged Dictionary defines blasphemy as:

  • An indignity offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to, or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God; also, the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of deity. When used generally in statutes or at common law, blasphemy is the use of irreverent words or signs in reference to the Supreme Being in such a way as to produce scandal or provoke violence.
  • Figuratively, of things held in high honor: Calumny; abuse; vilification.


Christian theology condemns blasphemy. One verse from the Bible that directly concerns the sin reads as follows:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7 KJV) ”

In addition, it is spoken of in Luke 12:10, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable – the eternal sin.

Larry David Blasted for ‘Curb’ Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting

Fox News

Comedian Larry David is under attack from critics who say he pushed the mocking of religion and Christian belief in miracles over the edge in the latest episode of his HBO series “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which the cable network defended as “playful.”

On the show’s most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying.

Deal Hudson, author and publisher of, said he doesn’t find any humor in the episode.

“I don’t think it’s funny,” Hudson told “Why is it that people are allowed to publicly show that level of disrespect for Christian symbols? If the same thing was done to a symbol of any other religions — Jewish or Muslim — there’d be a huge outcry. It’s simply not a level playing field.”

Hudson said an apology from the show’s producers and writing team should be issued.

“Somebody should [apologize],” Hudson said. “When is it going to stop? When is common sense going to dictate that people realize this willingness of artists to do to Christianity what they would never do to Judaism or Islam?”

In a statement to, HBO downplayed the controversy.

“Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire,” the statement read. “Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself.  The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.”

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, also criticized the episode, saying David should “quit while he’s ahead,” and that the show is proof that the comedian’s best years are behind him.

“Was Larry David always this crude? Would he think it’s comedic if someone urinated on a picture of his mother?” Donohue said in a statement. “This might be fun to watch, but since HBO only likes to dump on Catholics (it was just a couple of weeks ago that Sarah Silverman insulted Catholics on ‘Real Time with Bill Maher’) and David is Jewish, we’ll never know.”

During Sunday’s episode, David, who created, wrote and produced “Seinfeld,” visits a bathroom in his assistant’s home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus. Instead of wiping it off, David leaves the restroom. Minutes later, David’s assistant enters the bathroom and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her mother to the bathroom, where both women kneel in prayer.

“When David and Jerry Seinfeld (playing himself) are asked if they ever experienced a miracle, David answers, ‘every erection is a miracle,’ Donohue’s statement continued. “That’s what passes for creativity these days.”

The episode, “The Bare Midriff,” primarily revolves around David’s assistant and her belly-revealing attire. According to the show’s Web site, a “new pill” increased David’s urine flow, leading to the “misunderstanding about a miraculously weeping Jesus.”

HBO promoted the controversial scene on the show’s site, complete with a “squirm-o-meter” that ranked the urine incident ahead of David’s confronting his assistant about her exposed midriff.


Note To “Edgy” Larry David: Show Us How You “Make Fun Of Everyone” And Urinate On A Koran Next Time

Say Anything Blog, By Pilgrim

Here we go again.

On HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm Larry David takes a pill that increases his urine flow to the extent that he hoses a picture of Christ hanging on the wall, which causes a woman to marvel that the picture is weeping.

Funny, right?

The scene has some people understandably upset and is drawing fire:

On the show’s most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying.

Deal Hudson, author and publisher of, said he doesn’t find any humor in the episode.

“I don’t think it’s funny,” Hudson told “Why is it that people are allowed to publicly show that level of disrespect for Christian symbols? If the same thing was done to a symbol of any other religions—Jewish or Muslim—there’d be a huge outcry. It’s simply not a level playing field.”

HBO, of course, is defending David:

In a statement to, HBO downplayed the controversy.

“Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire,” the statement read. “Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself.  The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.”

Which brings me to my point. Why is it that asshats like David have the courage to urinate on a picture of Christ and call it comedy but wouldn’t dream of using the Koran in the same way?

Oh, I know what they’d say if cornered on this – they’d say it would be offensive to Muslims if they did so while completey poo-pooing the notion that offending Catholics is still, well, offensive. Catholics, it seems, are fair game to the intellectual elite. And, guess what? They’d be lying.

The real reason they would never in a million years urinate on a Koran and call it comedy is simple cowardice of the worst kind. The know that the worst Catholics – and Christians in general – will do is to appeal to reason and demand an apology. The worst that offended Muslims would do? Ask Theo Van Gogh about that. And they know it.

In fact, the very softest response from Muslims should their Koran be used in this manner would be far more angry and dangerous than the harshest response from Catholics.

But, if comedy is so important, HBO and Larry David should show us just how they’re equal opportunity offenders. Show us some of that “parody and satire.” Show us how he “makes fun of everyone.” Piss on a Koran, or maybe write a skit where you’ve run out of toilet paper and happen to have a Koran handy. That would be a knee slapper. Show us some edgy humor.

They are a bunch of intellectual and physical cowards, bullies who will pick on the softest and kindest while not daring to approach those who will strike back, and that disqualifies them from any sort of validity except for what they give each other in self-congratulating back slaps.

And, no, I’m not a religious person at all, but my offense meter pegs out when I see cowardly weasels like this at work. The show is aptly named. Curb my enthusiasm?

Consider it done, fool.

Larry David

Waiting for Nov. 4th

Huffington Post – Larry David, October 22, 2008

I can’t take much more of this. Two weeks to go, and I’m at the end of my rope. I can’t work. I can eat, but mostly standing up. I’m anxious all the time and taking it out on my ex-wife, which, ironically, I’m finding enjoyable. This is like waiting for the results of a biopsy. Actually, it’s worse. Biopsies only take a few days, maybe a week at the most, and if the biopsy comes back positive, there’s still a potential cure. With this, there’s no cure. The result is final. Like death.

Five times a day I’ll still say to someone, “I don’t know what I’m going to do if McCain wins.” Of course, the reality is I’m probably not going to do anything. What can I do? I’m not going to kill myself. If I didn’t kill myself when I became impotent for two months in 1979, I’m certainly not going to do it if McCain and Palin are elected, even if it’s by nefarious means. If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it’s due to racism rather than if it’s stolen.

If it’s racism, I can say, “Okay, we lost, but at least it’s a democracy. Sure, it’s a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it’s a democracy.” If he loses because it’s stolen, that will be much worse. Call me crazy, but I’d rather live in a democratic racist country than a non-democratic non-racist one. (It’s not exactly a Hobson’s choice, but it’s close, and I think Hobson would compliment me on how close I’ve actually come to giving him no choice. He’d love that!)

The one concession I’ve made to maintain some form of sanity is that I’ve taken to censoring my news, just like the old Soviet Union. The citizenry (me) only gets to read and listen to what I deem appropriate for its health and well-being. Sure, there are times when the system breaks down. Michele Bachmann got through my radar this week, right before bedtime. That’s not supposed to happen. That was a lapse in security, and I’ve had to make some adjustments.

The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d’oeuvres. “Sit down or get out!” my host demanded. “Okay,” I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn’t watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of “Shut up, you prick!” or “You’re a fucking liar!!!” or “Go to hell, you cocksucker!” was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

Assuming November 4th ever comes, my big decision won’t be where I’ll be watching the returns, but if I’ll be watching. I believe I have big jinx potential and may have actually cost the Dems the last two elections. I know I’ve jinxed sporting events. When my teams are losing and I want them to make a comeback, all I have to do is leave the room. Works every time. S

o if I do watch, I’ll do it alone. I can’t subject other people to me in my current condition. I just don’t like what I’ve turned into — and frankly I wasn’t that crazy about me even before the turn. This election is having the same effect on me as marijuana. All of my worst qualities have been exacerbated. I’m paranoid, obsessive, nervous, and totally mental. It’s one long, intense, bad trip. I need to come down. Soon.


Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art‘s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition, which is sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

Would he piss on an image of Obama?

The Anchoress

Larry David found comedy fodder in piety on the latest episode of his series, “Curb Your Enthusiasm.’

On the show’s most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying.

During Sunday’s episode, David, who created, wrote and produced “Seinfeld,” visits a bathroom in his assistant’s home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus. Instead of wiping it off, David leaves the restroom. Minutes later, David’s assistant enters the bathroom and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her mother to the bathroom, where both women kneel in prayer.

I’ve never seen this show, does anyone know if the assistant is recognizably ethnic? Is this “brave” comedian also taking a swipe at Hispanic (or for that matter Italian or Irish) piety? I’m just asking.

Look, there is aways some satirical fun to be had at the expense of those people who find images of religious figures in piece of toast, and in tree stumps and oil stains, but there is also a line. An image of Christ is merely an image, true, but it is an image that is sacred to over a billion people on the planet. Deal Hudson, in the linked article says:

“Why is it that people are allowed to publicly show that level of disrespect for Christian symbols? If the same thing was done to a symbol of any other religions — Jewish or Muslim — there’d be a huge outcry. It’s simply not a level playing field.”

Forget Jewish, forget Muslim. If, let’s say, Kelsey Grammer had done precisely the same thing on his show, but using an image of, oh, let’s just say ferinstance, Barack Obama, do you think he’d still have a career?

Frankly, the idea of an image of a pissed-on Obama “weeping,” and some of his fans falling to their knees over it, would have a lot of satirical value; it would offer commentary both on the excesses of religious and political worship, and offend fewer people than David’s cowardly joke.

It takes no courage for an rich, unbelieving “artist” to piss on Christ. After all, that’s been done before. And Jesus voluntarily submitted himself to much worse, which means nothing an “artist” does to any image of Christ can do anything but reflect on the spiritual poverty of the “artist,” himself. For an “artist” to use Jesus for a cheap joke is about as “courageous” and “bold” as making a joke about George W. Bush before an audience of like-thinkers; it takes no courage at all.

But for an “artist” to make an identical satirical “joke” on Obama and his adorers? That would take great courage. That would be bold, and daring. And it would speak reassuring volumes about free speech in America.

I would not want to see it. I would not want to see the image of any American President so ill-used; he’s my president, too.

But if Larry David could see the humor in pissing on Christ and the excesses of Catholic piety, surely he must see the humor in pissing on Obama, and the excesses of Obama worship?

Haha. It’s all so funny, isn’t it? Are you laughing? Are you not entertained?

Hate Crime

Obama signs ‘hate crimes’ bill – Christian broadcasters concerned

Charlie Butss – OneNewsNow

The “hate crimes” bill approved recently by Congress could be a problem for broadcasters — most importantly, Christian broadcasters — now that it has been signed into law.

President Barack Obama has signed into law a measure that adds to the list of federal hate crimes attacks on people based on their sexual orientation. Congress approved the legislation last week as part of the $680-billion FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill. Appended to the hate crimes amendment was a statement ensuring that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the bases if his or her speech, beliefs, or association.

But Craig Parshall, chief counsel for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), discounts that statement, pointing out that such laws in other countries have been used to silence people of faith. He believes the law approved by Congress is potentially dangerous as it relates to comments made about homosexuality or another religion.

“Under the criminal law of incitement, if something is said in a broadcast that another person uses as a motivation to go out and commit an act of what they call ‘bodily injury’ in the statute, then a broadcaster could be held criminally liable,” he explains.

Or an outspoken broadcaster could be held to be co-conspirator, adds Parshall. He says the supposed bodily injury could be something as insignificant as someone being jostled during a rally or shoved in a protest march.

Parshall acknowledges the amendment that was passed to provide some degree of protection for Christians, but points out that interpretations of such statements are ultimately left up to the court.

“And that’s always a problem,” he laments. “We have a court system that has been notorious for getting it wrong when it pits the power of government on one hand and the free exercise of religious rights of individuals on the other.”

According to the NRB attorney, there could also be repercussions in agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Parshall says the FCC, for example, could develop rules on what broadcasters can and cannot say about homosexuality, possibly jeopardizing their licenses.

“Public school curriculum could be built entirely on the idea of what is illegal hate in our culture,” says the attorney. “And our children could be indoctrinated [to believe that] if you criticize another religion or mention Jesus as being the only way, that’s hateful— [or] if you say that homosexuality is a sin, that’s hateful.”

And then there is the IRS, which Parshall says could apply the hate crimes law as a national policy on homosexuality and other world religions.

“And [they] could start taking a look at Christian non-profit ministries and [telling them if they] want to be tax exempt, [they] can’t speak hatefully about other groups,” he suggests. “That would be defined as not criticizing Islam or not being critical of the homosexual lifestyle. Those are just a few of the ripple-out effects.”

Parshall contends that an examination of the motive behind the hate crimes law reveals it is not about hate — and will have no effect on stopping crime, because that is already outlawed in all 50 states. In his opinion, it is designed to shut up the opposition — Christians specifically — and close down any debate against the homosexual lifestyle.

The NRB spokesman does expect lawsuits to be filed against the hate crimes law after it is signed.

Related Links:

Town Hall:  Outrage: HBO’s Larry David Crosses the Line of Religious Respect in Comedic Attempt

Hot Air:  Video: The obligatory “Larry David pees on a painting of Jesus” clip


STAR: Exclusive: Al Gore Cheats with Larry David’s Ex

“You only write little jokes on TV… I am saving the planet…
Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll have your wife…”

Updated Related Links (Contains Video Until You Tube Removes Again) – end

Music Video: Creedence Clearwater Revival “Have you ever seen the rain?” —NRCC sending campaign ground troops to NY23 — It Comes Down to Two Very Different Candidates – Hoffman and Owens — GOP Reps. Cole And Rohrabacher Back Conservative Party’s Hoffman In NY-23 — TPMTV Video Boehner: ‘There’s No Question That New York-23 Is A Bit Of A Mess’ — Why NY-23 Isn’t a Third-Party Race — Doug Hoffman @ NRO: Yes, We Can



Someone told me long ago there’s a calm before the storm,

I know; it’s been comin for some time.

When it’s over, so they say, it’ll rain a sunny day,

I know; shinin down like water.

I want to know, have you ever seen the rain?

I want to know, have you ever seen the rain

Comin down on a sunny day?

Yesterday, and days before, sun is cold and rain is hard,

I know; been that way for all my time.

til forever, on it goes through the circle, fast and slow,

I know; it can’t stop, I wonder.


NRCC sending campaign ground troops to NY23

73 Wire  by Eric Odom

From what we were able to see in Watertown, NY, the Scozzafava campaign is being driven by beltway Republican organizations.

Not only is the NRCC pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the media campaign of Dede Scozzafava, they’re also organizing and coordinating teams of GOTV volunteers in the district. And they’re picking up the tab.

Our team just finished meeting with a NRCC volunteer named “James” who works out of the Watertown office for the Scozzafava campaign. James informed us that he was sent to Watertown, NY from Washington D.C. as a volunteer for the NRCC. We asked about expenses, and he said the NRCC was paying for everything.

We had a great chat with James and learned that a good portion of the Scozzafava campaign volunteers were indeed brought in from outside of the district.

Ironically, James claimed a few minutes earlier that one of the reasons he was so passionate about the Scozzafava campaign is that Hoffman was receiving so much support from outside the district. Seems odd that in an individual from outside the district is complaining about help coming from outside the district.

At this point, there should be no doubt that the NRCC is going to do whatever they possibly can to help beat Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate in the race.

As a side note, we found it interesting that James seemed to take a little pride in the Scozzafava card check stance. We didn’t even bring the issue up… James volunteered his opinion on the matter and told us that he believed the NRCC was comfortable with her position because the previous Congressman supported it as well.

Food for thought…

-Eric Odom



GOP Reps. Cole And Rohrabacher Back Conservative Party’s Hoffman In NY-23

TPM – Eric Kleefeld

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 special election, has picked up two more endorsements from sitting House Republicans, Tom Cole of Oklahoma and Dana Rohrabacher of California, who are joining in the right-wing revolt against the nomination of moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava.

Cole’s endorsement is big news, because he is in fact a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee — the party organization dedicated to electing Republicans to the House. He was NRCC chair during the disastrous 2008 cycle, and is now going against the party’s candidate in a seat that the GOP could potentially lose as a result of the Republican split.

“Doug Hoffman is right on the critical issues facing America — and he is the only Republican who can win this special election,” said Cole, whose endorsement was initially reported by Bill Kristol. “For those reasons I have chosen to endorse Mr. Hoffman and my leadership PAC has contributed to his campaign. I look forward to working with Doug in Congress and welcoming him into the Republican Conference.”

Rohrabacher said in a statement: “We don’t need Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dee, we need Hoffman. He’s not afraid to stand up and speak the truth. A Republican Majority in name only means nothing, especially in a district that can elect a real Republican.”

Hoffman has been endorsed by five GOP House members: Michele Bachmann (MN), Todd Tiahrt (KS), John Linder (GA), plus Cole and Rohrabacher. And he has been endorsed by one Republican Senator, Jim DeMint of South Carolina.



Sargent Shultz (Hogans Heroes)… “I Know Nothing”.



Why NY-23 Isn’t a Third-Party Race

This was a special election without a GOP primary.


RUSH: In NY-23, Real Clear Politics: “Doug Hoffman, plus five.”  Doug Hoffman may in fact win this with nowhere near the amount of money the two Democrats have.  I know there’s a Democrat called a Republican, but we actually have two liberal Obama Democrats, one calling herself a Republican, and you’ve got the Reagan conservative Hoffman in there.  Tim Pawlenty threw in with him today, by the way, so you have Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum, who else?  (interruption)  Sue Collins endorsed — so?  Is that a surprise?  That’s going to sway a lot of votes.  Susan Collins from Maine — who?  Endorsed Scozzafava?  You know, the Republican Party, I really do not know what Newt Gingrich was thinking.  Maybe he hasn’t gotten over the budget battle of 1995.  I don’t know, but this is stunning.  I ruined two hours of my day when I saw that the Republican Party was running ads against Hoffman.  They have a death wish.  The Republican Party has a death wish.  Gallup: 40% of Americans now say they are conservative, 20% say they’re liberal, 36% say they’re moderates.  And of those three groups, which one is being ignored — not just ignored — which one is being attacked by the Republican Party?  The conservatives!

It’s worse than I thought.  I thought this was just based on elitism and Northeast moderate liberalism, and embarrassment of the people that the social issues attract to the party.  But now it’s just plain stupidity.  The Republican Party, as constituted is as dangerous to this country as the Democrat Party is.  “But, Rush, party loyalty is party loyalty, and the local Republican committee up there has endorsed Scozzafava.”  So?  I’m saying the two parties are the same.  I guess I need to amend it a little bit, but, man, when I saw that they were running ads, as I say, ruined two hours of my day.


RUSH:  All right, folks, we’ll get to your phone calls in the next hour, really getting beat up in the e-mail over my third-party stance here.  I’m going to try to explain to you why this is not a third-party example what’s happening in NY- 23.


RUSH: You people are beating me up here over my stance at the third-party business. I want to try to walk you through this as I see it.  Now, this is from by Matt Lewis.  “‘Newt Gingrich Takes Heat From the Right, but Will It Stick?’ — A few days ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich irritated many movement conservatives when he endorsed liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman for the upcoming special election –” and that’s key to remember here. “– in New York’s 23rd congressional district.  Running in a conservative district, where the incumbent went off to be secretary of the Army, all three candidates have the distinction … of seeing their race attract national attention and national surrogates. Hoffman had previously earned the backing of prominent conservative organizations such as the fiscally conservative Club for Growth and the socially conservative Concerned Women for America PAC. In the end, Gingrich’s endorsement may not matter to the outcome of that race — Scozzafava seems to be losing steam anyway — but down the line it may matter to Gingrich.

“The former House speaker drew immediate fire from popular conservative blogs like RedState and, who cast him as an apostate. Erick Erickson of wrote that Gingrich’s endorsement of Scozzafava ‘aligns Newt with ACORN, which has twice endorsed Dede [and] with Planned Parenthood and NARAL, active supporters of Dede.’ … In response, Gingrich invoked Big Tent Reaganism, saying, ‘If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority. That’s not how Reagan built his revolution, or how we won back the House in 1994.'”  This revisionist history is upsetting to me.  This is not how Reagan won.  Reagan was not out there talking about a big tent.  If I recall correctly Reagan publicly invited liberal Republicans to go their own way.  His tent was a little narrow but it was crowded.  His tent was just mainstream conservatism, the kind of conservatism that founded the country.

Now, this little article here says: “Make no mistake; this special election in New York is not just one mere congressional race. As Erickson himself Tweeted, for conservative activists it is ‘a hill to die on.'”  Now, this is a teachable moment here, and it’s nuanced, gotta be careful.  In New York, the rules allow for very strong third parties in certain elections.  The Conservative Party in New York generally, now, only runs candidates when the Republicans are liberal.  Otherwise they don’t work against the Republicans to help the Democrats, but here, you have an off-year election, you have an extreme liberal Republican.  This is not a RINO.  This is not a Republican-in-name-only.  This is an extreme liberal Republican who may as well be a Democrat.  You also have a far-out, wacko, lib Democrat, and then people say this is a real chance for a third party.  But this is not the same as running a third party in a national election against a Republican-in-name-only like McCain.  This is a totally different circumstance.

Let me see if I can explain this.  NY-23 is a special election.  There was no primary.  Doug Hoffman would have challenged Scozzafava in the Republican primary had there been one.  He would have had the backing of New York’s Conservative Party as is often the case there.  You have to understand that the Conservative Party does not look at themselves as a third party.  Only do they get in gear when the Republicans nominate some liberal.  Ronald Reagan opposed third-party races because he believed that conservatives needed to take back the Republican Party and not surrender it to liberals.  He told the liberals, “Go your own way.”  He didn’t go his own way and form a Republican Party.  It took a while.  He narrowly lost to Gerald Ford in ’76.  He was the most popular Republican emerging from that convention, but Ford, the establishment Republican, the fix was in.  Reagan didn’t slink away and start a third party.  He began to take over the Republican Party.

Third parties lose.  Speaking personally, I am not interested in creating another Reform Party like Perot did, like Buchanan did.  It’s a losing proposition.  I want to defeat what’s going on.  Now, if Hoffman loses he can run again in the GOP primary next year, a primary that did not happen this year.  If there had been a primary, he would have run, and he would have had the backing of the Conservative Party. I’m sure that the Republican Party would have backed Dede Scozzafava, and then you would have ended up with a traditional two-party race against a Democrat whoever that would have been in their primary.  But there wasn’t one.  He can run as the Republican candidate if the Democrat, the guy’s name is Owens.  If Owens wins he can come back and run a year from now.  The Congressional Campaign Committee is out there saying there’s no clear path to victory for Doug Hoffman.  Now, the Club for Growth is running polls up there, and they’ve got Hoffman up five.  Everybody watching this race admits that Dede Scozzafava has lost steam.  I mean she’s a pretender.  It’s a teachable moment here.

Forty percent of the public now, according to Gallup, identify themselves as conservative, 20% as liberal, and 36% as independent.  Now, Hoffman wanted to run as a Republican.  He is a Republican.  He was passed over by the GOP, who picked Scozzafava instead.  So he’s running on the Conservative Party ticket because the GOP passed him over, but this is a wake-up call for both parties.  Look what’s happening in Virginia now.  Last Friday the Washington Post comes out with this front-page story dumping on Creigh Deeds, Obama White House dumping on him. “It’s their fault, they didn’t use Obama wisely enough, didn’t use Obama enough.”  The Democrat Party has no clue.  Well, maybe they do have a clue, which is why they’re trying to rush all this stuff in so quickly, but I don’t think they understand just how much the people oppose what they’re doing. Corzine in New Jersey is down three points.  Now, that’s margin of error.  But this is a corrupt Democrat state.  This Chris Christie guy ought to be nowhere close.  And he still may not win but as close as it is, and the Democrats are already sensing a Creigh Deeds type situation in New Jersey, “Well, you can’t blame this on Obama.”  Of course not.

Obama will not be blamed for anything.  He’ll only take credit for things that go well.  But if you fail, it’s your fault, if you fail aligning yourself with Obama’s policies, it’s not Obama’s policy or him, it’s you, and he’ll throw you under the bus as fast as you would kick a paper cup under the bus as soon as pick it up and put it in the trash can.  I know the temptation for a third party is tempting, but right now conservatism is on the ascendancy, it’s actually good to be a conservative, and this is the time to reassert control over the Republican Party.  It’s not going to be easy but the Democrats, the far left didn’t go out and form a third party.  They took over the Democrat Party.  Anyway, gotta take a break.  I know a lot of you are still looking at this and seeing a third party here, but this is not the way a third-party candidacy, a third party would actually operate.  It’s really key to understand there was no primary here.


RUSH:  By the way, just to remind you, Sarah Palin, when she endorsed Hoffman in this race, she said it was a message to the Republican Party, not a third-party movement.  And something the Republican Party needs to ask itself: do you people running this show actually think that Doug Hoffman is not going to vote with the Republicans in the House when he gets there?  What in the world are you thinking?  Scozzafava will vote with the Democrats just like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins do, more often than not.  She’s an Obama Republican.  She is such a liberal the Democrat has run ads being critical of all the tax increases she is for.  This is absolutely absurd.  It doesn’t surprise me.  It made me mad when they ran an ad against him.  Running ads against a conservative?  Run the ads against the Democrat for crying out loud.


Kirsten in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  Great to have you.  You’re up first today on the Rush Limbaugh program.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush. I just want to talk about Newt Gingrich and how I lost all respect for him since he endorsed Scozzafava and basically, on Fox News, implied that the rest of us who aren’t from upstate New York need to butt out of it.

RUSH:  I didn’t hear him say that, but I have only been tuned in sporadically over the course of the past couple, three days.

CALLER:  He said something about the rest of us think that we know what’s best for upstate New York are wrong or something like that.

RUSH:  Well, there’s a little subtext here, and to me it’s disappointing.  Arguably the architect of the conservative revolution, the Republican revolution in the House in 1994 has drifted so far away from what it was that got him there, but if you recall the 2008 presidential election, one of the Republican Party laments was, “Oh, no, oh, no, we don’t have one elected Republican from the Northeast.”  Christopher Shays lost in Connecticut.  “Oh, no, we don’t have a single Republican from the Northeast.  Our constituents aren’t being represented.  We’ve gotta understand that people who live in the Northeast are liberal to moderate, and if we want our party to be strong we’ve gotta –” and when Newt says, I’m just guessing, but when Newt says, “We don’t understand NY-23,” it’s a solid Republican, almost conservative district, and that’s why putting Scozzafava in there is just an insult.

But lots of e-mails, like your call, from people who are just mystified by Newt who don’t think he’s reliable anymore.  Nobody denies his intelligence, nobody denies his ability to think strategically, but this is not the first time, joining Pelosi in a global warming commercial and joining Hillary in a health care commercial or a health care appearance, people are scratching their heads over this.  I remember seeing him on Hannity’s show one night about six months ago or four months ago, maybe three, sometime this past summer.  I forget the exact news cycle that was going on, but it was clear by now what a radical Obama was and Newt was apologizing to Hannity for not recognizing it as soon as Hannity had, which was a year-and-a-half ago.  Beltwayitis, I don’t know what it is, but it’s something.


RUSH:  Got another endorsement for Doug Hoffman, NY-23, the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.  This is the bunch running ads against Hoffman, but Tom Cole does not run the thing anymore.  Tom Cole is a Republican from Oklahoma.  He’s former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, a member of the GOP steering committee, “A deputy GOP House whip says that he will be endorsing Doug Hoffman in the New York 23 race.”  So a lot of prominent Republican conservatives are stepping up here and look, I want to emphasize on this third-party business again, in a functioning two-party system the primary system is the check on the worst impulse or impulses of the party bosses.  That’s the theme here that I think people need to understand because it’s easy to understand, and it’s right on the money.

If it weren’t for the primaries — let’s look at Reagan, 1976 and 1980.  It was the primaries where Reagan got the chance to show the strengths that he had.  Reagan would not have gotten the nomination in 1980 without the primaries.  The Republican Party did not want Ronald Reagan in 1980.  People have forgotten this.  I have not.  They didn’t want him in 1976.  They didn’t want him in 1980.  If there were no primary system, and if the party bosses in the smoke-filled rooms as they used to do, picked the nominees, you’d have had some hack that the Republicans would have picked and in 2000 had there not been a primary system I guarantee you McCain would have been the nominee because the media wanted McCain.  Remember the Straight Talk Express?  Remember all the stuff that went on in South Carolina?  All the crossover Democrats in the primaries, they were crossing over and voting for McCain because they wanted McCain ’cause they knew they could beat him, and McCain was the media’s favorite candidate in 2000.

If it weren’t for the primary system, Bush might not have gotten the nomination in 2000, because the media and the party bosses would have preferred McCain.  When you have primaries, the rank-and-file cannot only overrule the party bosses, they can actually make the party bosses behave better.  If Scozzafava had had to face a primary and the prospect of getting drubbed in the primary, people like Michael Steele and Newt might not have supported her because they don’t want to be associated with a drubbing by the base.  They tried to get away with one this time because there was no primary, so they sensed an opportunity to show everybody how nuanced and centrist they are so they can attract respect and love and adoration from the Beltway media and so forth.  They run around, “Oh, we don’t have any elected representatives in the Northeast.”  That’s right, because they’ve all run as moderates and liberals and been shellacked.  If you’re going to be a moderate and liberal, be a Democrat.  If you want to be a Republican and you want to win, be a conservative.  That’s the message.  But these guys are all missing it.

They’ve been in Washington too long, and they get the sense that Washington is America ’cause it’s their world.  This happens to Republicans and Democrats alike.  You go back to 1980, can I ask you if you remember who the number one challenger to Ronald Reagan was in 1980?  That’s exactly right, Snerdley, it was Bush 41, voodoo economics.  Charge H.W. Bush, voodoo economics.  And had there been no primary system, George Bush 41 would have been the nominee.  Now, the relevance here is that there was no primary in NY-23.  It’s a special election.  Had there been a primary, Hoffman would have run as a Republican against Scozzafava, as a Republican, and he would have shellacked her.  And then the Republican Party would be supporting this guy because he had won the primary.  Now, they might have still thrown in with Scozzafava because they think they have to show that they’re sophisticated and not closed-minded by being able to support moderates or even liberal Republicans.

But it’s a huge error, ladies and gentlemen, to think that what is happening in NY-23 is a portend of third-party success.  Hoffman tried to get the Republican nomination.  He is a Republican and he’s going to be voting with the Republicans in the House of Representatives if he’s elected there.  The primary system is key here and it was not present in this race.  Had it been, none of what’s happening now would be happening, the party bosses woulda stood back.  You’d have had two Republicans running, they woulda stood back, they wouldn’t have gotten involved and endorsed one. But now Hoffman says screw it, you guys don’t want me in the Republican Party, fine, there’s a conservative party that gets in action when the Republican Party goes liberal.  The conservative party is not active all the time.  They’re a stopgap in New York.



laurel_hardyYes, another fine mess from the NRCC!


Yes, We Can [Doug Hoffman ]

How quickly things can change.

Two weeks ago, political observers noticed a poll from New York’s 23rd congressional district that showed the liberal candidate fading fast and the conservative candidate gaining faster. This is the resurgence Republicans have been hoping for!

Unfortunately, the Republican party had nominated the liberal candidate. The conservative candidate is running against both the Republican party and the Democratic party.

Isn’t that a good metaphor for the state in which conservatives find themselves?

I am that conservative candidate for Congress in New York’s 23rd District, and I believe conservatives can win our fight.

Since those polls two weeks ago, my campaign has attracted astonishing support from across the country. What could be responsible for our break-out success?

It’s simple, and it’s much larger than just my candidacy: Americans are taking a stand. With two candidates — two parties — each representing Left-liberalism, our mission was to offer a clear alternative and make sure people knew about it.

Everything since then — the remarkable outpouring of attention, support, donations, and activism — grew out of the simple act of standing for something.

Most importantly, it hasn’t just been about the fact that I stand for our core conservative values. NY-23 is important because it is all of us — conservatives around the country — who are emerging to take a stand against liberalism from both parties.

That sort of emergence is natural to the American worldview. We believe that great things are built on simple virtues. We understand that real prosperity is created by free people living by clear rules. We trust people whose actions arise naturally from principles. We admire leadership, but are skeptical of command.

Conservatives won’t be prodded to support something we don’t believe in, not for clever “strategic” reasons or because of party labels. We see that the danger to our nation posed by unrestrained government has become fiercely urgent, and we have stopped accepting excuses from those who won’t stand strong to stop it. We have declared independence from party politics because too many people in both parties either have been complicit in creating the danger, or have shrunk from challenging it.

Republicans and Democrats alike seem content to keep playing this game, but people who work hard to build a living — as we must in upstate New York — are appalled to see our politicians playing games while our debt mushrooms, unemployment looms, and our nation’s security is neglected. We want our children to inherit a better country, not a flood of debt; we want them to be confident in their nation, not afraid of its shadow.

We can’t bear the sight of politicians making deals with unions, banks, and other special interests, giving them the tools to bludgeon their competition and cut a bigger slice of a shrinking economy.

That is why, even though I had never desired to be a politician, I had to run for office. I felt we had to challenge the tacit agreement between the GOP and the Democrats to make this election about trivialities. I saw that a confident conservatism could win here. I didn’t foresee the part that a nationwide groundswell of support would play in it, but I knew we could prevail.

Now the establishment Republicans are beginning to panic. Establishment Republicans think that principled conservatives’ taking a stand in this contest will weaken conservatism and the Republican party. The Wall Street Journal recently suggested that “Tea-Party Activists Complicate Republican Comeback Strategy.”

They’re wrong.

As William Kristol has said, the truth is exactly the opposite. It is the “GOP establishment” that stands in the way of a conservative comeback.

Our goal should not be a Republican majority. It should be a conservative majority. If the Republican party will not be conservative, then we are going to run against them . . . and we’re going to win.



Join Us On The Couch! No Thank You…


Related Previous Posts:

Welcome Aboard The “Rogue Train” Sarah: We Have Been Saving You A Seat Up Front…

The Grand Old Party (GOP): You Left Me Just When I Needed You Most

GOP Talking Points This Week: Attack-Attack And Call The Tea Party Supporters “Ron-Bots”

The Republican Party Can Go To Hell !!!

Related Links:

The Hill: Gingrich calls GOP support for Hoffman a ‘purge’

Flopping Aces: GOP: Get a Clue! [Reader Post]

Redstate:  Jim DeMint on Why He Supports Doug Hoffman for Congress

From Sea To Shining Sea: A Crucial Special Election in Upstate NY

Dump Dede: Dump Dede or Dump the GOP: They Decide

The Collins Report:  Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” just as important 45 years later

Washington Times:  Crist steers clear of Obama during visit

Politico:  Mike Huckabee steers PAC to 2012 swing states

American Spectator:  NY23: ‘Do You Believe in Miracles’?

NRO: Video: Hoffman Attacked By DCCC, NRCC

Riehl World View:  Update: Exclusive: How The NRCC Bungled NY – 23


Politico:  Mike Huckabee hearts no one in New York’s 23rd districtIn shift, GOP leaders embrace Hoffman



Updated Related Links – end