In the 4th congressional district of Pennsylvania (north and west of Pittsburgh), perhaps the most important race in the country (aside from the presidential battle) is shaping up. It pits former congresswoman Melissa Hart against Rep. Jason Altmire.
Altmire seeks to portray himself as a "conservative" Democrat. However, he voted for the Iraq War timetable (after telling voters he would not do so). He also voted for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (after telling voters he was pro-life). And he opposes the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit (after telling seniors they had his undying love). Recently, one of Altmire's minions challenged me on my statement that Altmire supports the largest tax increase in American history.
The situation is this: the congressman backs Nancy Pelosi's and Charlie Rangel's effort to let the Bush tax cuts die in 2010. If that happens, it will re-impose the marriage penalty, reduce deductions for children, and bring back the "death tax," which means you'll still be paying taxes after your demise.
Of great significance, an end to the Bush tax cuts will raise the lowest tax category from 10% to 15%. In other words, it will hit hardest those least able to pay, essentially raising their tax bill by 50%.
Obviously, there are many reasons to oppose Jason Altmire. However, perhaps the most important consideration is the need John McCain will have for a supportive Congress.
Recently, Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama made comments denigrating the religious beliefs and "hunting culture" of Pennsylvanians. Essentially, Obama called the people of Pennsylvania a bunch of gun-toting, Bible-thumping rubes and bigots. We are not.So far, Jason Altmire has made no statement criticizing Obama's statements. Senator McCain and Melissa Hart strongly disagree with Obama's offensive comments.
Are we to take Altmire's silence as a sign that he agrees with Illinois Senator? Jason, in some cases "silence is golden," but in this case it's a sign of political cowardice.
If you're voting for McCain, it makes no sense to vote for Altmire. Why elect McCain and at the same time tie his hands behind his back? Why make it impossible for him to carry out the mandate he will get from American voters?
In other words, anyone who wants to support John McCain should avoid sending Altmire back to Congress. One of the best ways to stand with McCain is to cast a ballot for Melissa Hart. Please go to her web site to see how you can help.
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Monday, April 14, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Obama Spews Venom on Pennsylvanians
For those of you who have been vacationing in a distant land (or, alternatively, don't have access to FOX News), here are the comments Barack Obama made to a group of "wealthy donors" in Nancy Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments. In fact, Obama's San Francisco statements provide no insight in the lives -- and beliefs -- of people in Pennsylvania. There are surveys of beliefs and attitudes that are completely at variance with Obama's views -- the standard ones we hear regularly from liberal journalists and politicians.
I've been writing recently about Rep. Jason Altmire, congressman from PA's 4th congressional district (west and north of Pittsburgh). I'm very curious what Altmire has to say about Obama's negative comments about small-town Pennsylvanians. Actually, I assume Altmire, like most PA Democrats, hopes the whole thing blows over
The national media is based most of its comments on Obama's statement on the word "bitter." In other words, they're saying that bitterness is the core of the San Francisco remarks.
Actually, Obama is saying that Pennsylvanian's Christian faith and their belief in the Second Amendment is reflective of social and economic disorder. He's also saying that many Keystone Staters don't like people who are know like them (us, since I'm one).
In fact, Obama's views reflect his tendency to make broad, racially focused statements about large categories of people. For example, Obama refers to his very untypical grandmother as "a typical white person." Of Kansas farm boys during his grandfather's childhood, Obama says "they stank like pigs." Since he never smelled a single such farm boy, one wonders how he knows.
Frankly, one wonders: what's wrong with this man? If he is a post-racial candidate, as he has claimed, then why does he see everything through the prism of race (or class)? This graduate of Columbia and Harvard reflects the elitism and vague anti-Americanism of those institutions. He's not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate.
"LargeBear" (Randy) of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo is performing a major public service: he is demonstrating, with facts and logic, that the standard Left-wing anti-military and anti-American views have no merit. For example, the notion that American soldiers like to kill civilians is the reverse of our country's military practices. The vast, vast majority of liberals never serve in the military and have no understanding of what makes soldiers tick.
There's a recent book out by an economics professor at Syracuse that does more to explain liberals than anything else I've ever seen. (It's the book that uses sophisticated surveys to arrive at the point that conservatives tend to be much happier (and better able to cope with life) than liberals. It also points out how liberals' faith in -- and dependence on -- government makes it extremely difficult for them to handle a free society.
The books author is Dr. Arthur Brooks, and its title is: "Gross National Happiness."Among other things, the book says (in the words of one reviewer): ". . . The American Left is now a coalition of groups that define themselves as the victims of social and economic forces, and in as much as its leaders encourage people to feel aggrieved, he [Brooks] thinks they make America a glummer place."
Reading Brooks's study is like having a 10,000 watt light bulb come on. It won't come as a big surprise to most members of the Black Conservatives Group (or most other conservatives).
One of the fascinating things about Dr. Brooks is that he's not especially conservative; he's a scholar who tells the truth as the evidence indicates.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments. In fact, Obama's San Francisco statements provide no insight in the lives -- and beliefs -- of people in Pennsylvania. There are surveys of beliefs and attitudes that are completely at variance with Obama's views -- the standard ones we hear regularly from liberal journalists and politicians.
I've been writing recently about Rep. Jason Altmire, congressman from PA's 4th congressional district (west and north of Pittsburgh). I'm very curious what Altmire has to say about Obama's negative comments about small-town Pennsylvanians. Actually, I assume Altmire, like most PA Democrats, hopes the whole thing blows over
The national media is based most of its comments on Obama's statement on the word "bitter." In other words, they're saying that bitterness is the core of the San Francisco remarks.
Actually, Obama is saying that Pennsylvanian's Christian faith and their belief in the Second Amendment is reflective of social and economic disorder. He's also saying that many Keystone Staters don't like people who are know like them (us, since I'm one).
In fact, Obama's views reflect his tendency to make broad, racially focused statements about large categories of people. For example, Obama refers to his very untypical grandmother as "a typical white person." Of Kansas farm boys during his grandfather's childhood, Obama says "they stank like pigs." Since he never smelled a single such farm boy, one wonders how he knows.
Frankly, one wonders: what's wrong with this man? If he is a post-racial candidate, as he has claimed, then why does he see everything through the prism of race (or class)? This graduate of Columbia and Harvard reflects the elitism and vague anti-Americanism of those institutions. He's not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate.
"LargeBear" (Randy) of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo is performing a major public service: he is demonstrating, with facts and logic, that the standard Left-wing anti-military and anti-American views have no merit. For example, the notion that American soldiers like to kill civilians is the reverse of our country's military practices. The vast, vast majority of liberals never serve in the military and have no understanding of what makes soldiers tick.
There's a recent book out by an economics professor at Syracuse that does more to explain liberals than anything else I've ever seen. (It's the book that uses sophisticated surveys to arrive at the point that conservatives tend to be much happier (and better able to cope with life) than liberals. It also points out how liberals' faith in -- and dependence on -- government makes it extremely difficult for them to handle a free society.
The books author is Dr. Arthur Brooks, and its title is: "Gross National Happiness."Among other things, the book says (in the words of one reviewer): ". . . The American Left is now a coalition of groups that define themselves as the victims of social and economic forces, and in as much as its leaders encourage people to feel aggrieved, he [Brooks] thinks they make America a glummer place."
Reading Brooks's study is like having a 10,000 watt light bulb come on. It won't come as a big surprise to most members of the Black Conservatives Group (or most other conservatives).
One of the fascinating things about Dr. Brooks is that he's not especially conservative; he's a scholar who tells the truth as the evidence indicates.
For an economist, Brooks has a great sense of humor. For example, he talks about having a child who was a "biter," that is, one who bit other people, children and adults. Brooks says, "There are many things in a parent's life that bring great joy. For example, spending time away from [one's] children." He's being "parentally incorrect," but also accurate.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
A great resource for McCain bloggers and other supporters is Kathy's site at: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com. Please visit it.
Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:
Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%
“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.
Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.
The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.
Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.
Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.
If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:
Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%
“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.
Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.
The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.
Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.
Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.
If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
