Tag Archives: Democrats

#TFH on #VLR 10/12 – @EdMorrissey in Hour 1; @moderncomments on #LFNYC!

TFHRsquareVLR2Their Finest Hour returns LIVE to Vigilant Liberty Radio at 10pm Eastern, 7pm Pacific! Please come listen to the program in our chatroom and interact with me and my guests! However, if you don’t want to chat, you can listen using the other available players here or direct over on Spreaker.

First up tonight will be HotAir editor Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) with talk on current political happenings such as the GOP leadership crisis in the House of Representatives, the ongoing “drip, drip” of the Hillary Clinton email scandal, the Benghazi investigation backlash allegations of being partisan driven, we’re on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate, and the GOP candidates still can’t seem to get out of Trump’s shadow.IMG_6696

In hour two, I’ll be welcoming VLR’s own Amy Curtis (@moderncomments) of Modern Comments Radio (Wednesday Nights, 10E/7P). Amy and I attended Liberty Fest NYC this past weekend. We saw some very good speakers and some…well…let’s just say eclectic ones.

During hour two, I’ll definitely open up the phones, so if you have your own point you’d like to sound off on, that’ll be your chance! Be sure to be listening for the call in instructions!



Prediction: Arlen Specter will not be the Democratic candidate in 2010

We’re starting to learn more about the background machinations behind Benedict Arlen’s party flop. It is real interesting how quickly the Left is throwing him under a bus rather than a bone, now that they’ve got him.

Who’s going to stick their neck out to elect Arlen Specter as a Democrat? Harry Reid? “Chuck You” Schumer? Specter believes only in Specter and political expediency, not in “the cause”.

Once the New Soviet Man or his handlers determine who the good, solid, Pennsylvania Marxist is for our 2nd Senate seat, Specter will be dumped by the wayside.


New Voters – Not as Democratic as you might think

We’ve all heard how The New Soviet Man’s electoral fraud machine has registered record numbers of first-time, young voters. We heard the same thing back in 2004 – there was going to be record numbers of first-time, young voters and they were going to vote en masse for John Kerry. Well, did they? Let’s run the numbers, popular votes only:

2000 Presidential Election Stats:
Bush (R): 50,456,002 – 47.87%
Gore (D): 50,999,897 – 48.38%
Nader (G): 2,882,955 – 2.74%
Fringes: 1,066,246 – 1.01%
Total Electorate: 105,405,100

2004 Presidential Election Stats:
Bush (R): 62,040,610 – 50.74%, +11,584,608 from ’00
Kerry (D): 59,028,444 – 48.28%, +8,028,547 from ’00
Fringes: 1,198,499 – 0.98%, essentially unchanged from ’00
Total Electorate: 122,267,553

The difference in the total size of the electorate between 2000 and 2004 is 16,862,453; that many more people voted in 2004 than 2000.

Now, let’s assume that had Ralph Nader not run on the Green Party ticket in 2000, all 2,882,955 of his voters would have voted for the Democratic slate of Al Gore and Joe Liberman (unlikely, since some would have gone off to fringe candidates, but is probably pretty close to reality). As a percentage of the electorate, fringe candidates were essentially unchanged in percentage of votes, so we can discount them for figuring out how the electorate actually changed in the four years from 2000 to 2004.

When you account for Nader’s 2000 votes going to Kerry in 2004 – and also assuming that everybody who voted for Bush voted for him again, and everybody who voted for Gore did so for Kerry (probably pretty close; any side-to-side shifts probably would cancel out) – this is what the net change, Republican vs. Democrat, for the 2004 election looked like:

Bush (R): +11,584,608 votes
Kerry (D): +5,145,592 votes

That totals to 16,730,200 more people who voted Republican or Democrat more than who voted Republican or Democrat (plus Green) in 2000. If you recall from above, the total change in the size of the electorate was 16,862,453 – essentially the same number as those who increased the vote totals of Republicans and Democrats. (The difference in “fringe” voting between the two years is identical to the 132,253 voter count differential between D+R in 00-04 vs. the electorate count in 00-04).

So, 16,730,200 more people voted for either George W. Bush or John Kerry in 2004 than voted for the corresponding tickets in 2000. Now, were all of those “new” voters? Considering that the total electorate size in 1992 was 104,423,923 (-981,177 vs. 2000, -17,843,630 vs. 2004) and just 96,277,634 in 1996 (-9,127,466 vs 2000, -25,989,919 vs. 2004), for the purposes of this excercise I think it’s safe to say that the net effect is that all of the 16,730,200 new Democrat or Republican voters in 2004 did not vote in 2000, 1996, or 1992.

Now, if you’ve haven’t been calculating this in your head, here’s how this works out:

Percentage of “new” voters who voted for John Kerry in 2004: 30.76%
Percentage of “new” voters who voted for George Bush in 2004: 69.24%

In other words, “new” voters to the electorate voted for George W. Bush in 2004 by a 2.25-to-1 margin.

I think it’s dangerous to assume that “new” voters are automatically liberals, regardless of who the candidate is. I’m sure that that type of electorate assumption is skewing some of the polls dramatically.

As Sean Hannity would say, “Let not your heart be troubled” – unless you’re an Obama supporter, that is.

All of us Republicans and conservatives MUST get out and vote.

Eight days to go…


In Defense of Michelle Bachmann

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has come under fire for saying on MSNoBamaC that Barack Obama could be considered to be “anti-American” for his associations and potentially his policies. The blowhard host of Hardball, Chris Matthews, pressed the point and, at least in the context of the program, got Representative Bachmann to extend her sentiment to other liberals in the Congress. (See Power Line for details)

She’s now backed off the statement a bit. No surprise there, since the party line is “we don’t question patriotism, we question judgement.”

So, are our Liberal opponents anti-American or just judgementally challenged? Let’s let them speak for themselves:

[Our military is] air raiding villages and killing civilians…
— Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.
— Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.
— Representative John Murtha (D-PA), May 17, 2006; the US Marines he accused of murder in the Iraqi town of Haditha were later completely exonerated; Rep. Murtha has yet to apologize.

[In reference to the Iraq surge] The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.
— Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer.
— Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (this from over 4 years ago BTW, still no attacks on US soil since 9/11)

I believe the president has no strategy for success in Iraq. His plan is to muddle through, and hand the problem off to his successor.
— Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), April 2008

And I could go on, and on, and on. So, do these and other statements rise to the level of “anti-Americanism”? To quote:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

In case you don’t know, that is the text of 18 USC 2381. All of the Left’s anti-American, anti-Military statements rise to the level of “aid and comfort” to our enemies – especially when our enemies quote the Democratic Party and its members when they spout off with their own anti-American scree. When you combine that with their willingness to associate and sit on boards with known domestic terrorist murderers like Bill Ayers – self-confessed purveyors and supporters of insurrection and sedition – then this is not a judgement issue.

It is an issue of patriotism, and the seeming way these individuals trample on their oaths to the Constitution of the United States.

There is a very good reason why, when the oath to the Constitution is administered, that it says: “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.”


Thank You, Congressman Jason Altmire

As you’ve probably heard, the massive socialization of the US economy cloaked as a financial rescue has passed both houses of Congress and will be signed into law by President Bush.

171 American Patriots of both parties stood fast and voted NO on this legislative travesty.

One of them was my Congressman, Mr. Jason Altmire (Democrat) of the Pennsylvania 4th District.

I contacted Mr. Altmire’s office several times during these past days to first encourage him to vote against any bailout, then to thank him for his original vote on Monday against the bailout, and then to continue to oppose the measure. I’m thankful that many others in our district did the same, and that Mr. Altmire listened to his constituents.

I do not support Mr. Altmire’s reelection, but on this day, I am proud he is representing me.