DCRepublican.com

With all the Convention hoopla I thought I might drop a small blurb on the issue of whether or not Hillary’s supporters should be upset about not only the passing over of their candidate, but also in the manner in which it was done. This question is very relevant considering that Obama is only attracting 52%(!) of Hillary voters (WSJ/NBC poll) at this point and that such a poor performance could lose him the election. So should Hillary and her legions be angry? Considering the lengths the DNC is going through to stress “Unity” the answer is certainly yes. Not only did Obama pass over the most logical choice, but his campaign slighted Clinton in a manner usually reserved for members of the opposing party. There is some pettiness going on and the bad blood could kill the Democrats.

The surrogates get personal

Did Obama snub Clinton? Let’s let look at some facts.

(1) The Obama Campaign went about selecting a running-mate by weighing their strengths and weaknesses in much the same fashion that all campaigns do. No matter how one weighs it, Clinton would have addressed all of Obama’s shortcomings and all but assure victory. For Obama to ignore the electoral elephant in the room is not logical and demonstrates an decision made in a cloud of emotion. No other candidate comes close to completing a perfect ticket.

(2) How have major primary contenders been treated in the past with regard to deference in the VP selection process? To narrow down the field, it is necessary to limit the analysis to those candidates who won a reasonable amount of states as Clinton did. In recent electoral history Jesse Jackson (1988) and George Bush the Elder (1980) won a goodly amount of delegates though not nearly as many as Hillary. Nonetheless, the nominees, Dukakis and Reagan, treated their vanquished foe with respect. Though Dukakis never wanted Jackson as his running-mate, his campaign went through the vetting process out of respect for him and his supporters. Of course, Reagan chose Bush as his choice for Vice-President. Obama’s campaign never even bothered to go through the motions of vetting Clinton and seemingly could care less about placating her 18 million supporters.

(3) Finally, is there any evidence to suggest that the Obama Campaign knowingly slighted Clinton in some fashion? Though the Obama Campaign did not outwardly insult Clinton, they did employ a rather sneaky jab at her in the manner in which they announced Joe Biden’s selection. As you may recall, during the primaries Mrs. Clinton nearly cost Obama the nomination with her highly effective “3 AM Phone Call” ad. Is it coincidence that the Obama Campaign transmitted its official text message announcement of Biden’s selection at 3 AM? I seriously doubt it, after all, 3 AM is hardly a good time to generate a media frenzy. A low blow indeed.

In the end it appears that yes, the Clinton people have a case. The Obama Campaign not only snubbed Clinton but they also deliberately did not accord her the respect due to someone who nearly won the nomination. I have noticed that Obamaniacs have a very arrogant attitude toward those who deign to support their candidate to the point of the need to humiliate and mock all those who oppose them (can we forget the abuse heaped upon Hillary in the primaries?). It seems this attitude may have also influenced the Obama Campaign leadership and their hubris may cost Obama the election.

While there is still a lot of research to be done on this, here are five areas that Senator Joe Biden could help Barack Obama in as they begin their fight to defeat John McCain.

Helps bring in Catholic vote: Joe Biden is very open about the fact that he is Catholic, there will be no emails circulating around the internet questioning the authenticity of his Christianity. Sorry guys, you won’t be seeing emails questioning whether or Joe Biden ever attended a madrasah. Yes, Joe Biden is pro-choice, however there are many Catholics who will always support “their own,” regardless of where they stand.

Helps bring in the female vote: Joe Biden has an extremely interesting life story when it comes to his family and taking charge as a father. Here is a brief summary from his Wikipedia page talking about just one of the tragedies that have made him the family man he is:

“His wife and infant daughter died in a car accident shortly after he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. His two young sons, Beau and Hunter, were seriously injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries. Biden was sworn into office from their bedside. Persuaded not to resign in order to care for them, Biden began the practice of commuting an hour and a half each day on the train from his home in the Wilmington suburbs to Washington, DC, which he continues to do.

Doesn’t create a wealth distraction: One issue that many candidates run into when seeking office is their own personal fortunes and what has been handed down to them, which makes it hard to paint themselves as the candidate for the “middle class.” While Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not poor by any standards, they both come from very humble beginnings (Obama raised by a single mom, Biden by a used car salesman). This is in contrast to John McCain, who is the son of an oil heiress and married an heiress himself (though I personally see nothing wrong with it, but I’m sure some Soros ad will go after it).

Foreign policy experience: As we all know, in terms of foreign policy experience, Barack Obama really doesn’t have much. However, Joe Biden is currently the Chairman on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, a committee he has been on consistently since 1973. Those 35 years on the committee have given Joe Biden insider access to all of the international hostilities that have occurred during his tenure.

A son currently serving in the military: While it seems that the economy is going to be the biggest debate for this election, you cant sidestep the fact that we are still a nation at war. Barack Obama has said repeatedly that his goal is to get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, which has left many moderates questioning whether he understands how the military works and the consequences. When you mix the fact that Joe Biden’s son will more than likely be in Iraq when (if) he is innaugerated, with his years of service on the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, many voters may feel reassured knowing that he has a personal and a professional stake in the military, meaning he wont take action that doesn’t make sense for the troops and for the country.

Please don’t hesitate to leave your comments, and additional things that you think Joe Biden brings to the table for Barack Obama.

Of course, expect a post in the coming days of “5 ways Joe Biden hurts Barack Obama.”

Update: 1:05 EST: Biden is the man. Wow, they really want to lose this election.

Update: 9:34 EST: CNN reports a flurry of activity at the Biden house as family and friends arrive and confirms Kaine was not chosen. Obama will announce Saturday morning (isn’t the media frenzy fun?)

Update 9:05 EST: MSNBC reports that Bayh and Kaine have been notified by Obama that they are NOT being chosen.

That Senator Obama is a real tease making us wait this long to find out who his No. 2 is going to be. As I see it, he only has a few choices based on his needs. Obama either needs (or wants) a swing state, help with a demographic or someone experienced. More minor concerns may include the need to change the public’s waning opinion of him as an elitist, ivory tower liberal. A ticket with two Senators may not be a wise choice considering Obama’s lack of executive (or much of any) experience so he may want a governor. With that said let’s have a roll call of possible veeps.

1) We have to remember that Obama is choosing his running-mate, not the DNC or the Democratic laymen. For that reason I think Hillary is unlikely. Obama must win the race and govern on his merits alone. The last thing he wants is Hillary (and Bill) looking over his shoulder on every decision and he does not need the impression that he chose her out of desperation.

2) Obama needs to choose either an experienced leader or someone that can deliver some electoral votes in a swing state. It is unfortunate for him that a combination does not exist. So…

Joe Biden:
Experienced but from a solid blue state. His arrogance may come to haunt the ticket. Moreover, I think the American people won’t be too impressed with him. After all, the man has run for President forty-seven times and has always done poorly.

Biden is a “gaffe machine.” Or is he?

Tim Kaine:
Kaine can deliver Virginia’s electoral votes. However, he is almost as green as Obama when it comes to the experience factor. Two lightweights on one ticket could be a major problem particularly considering the rough month Obama has had with regard to that deficiency.

Evan Bayh:
Bayh is the closest thing that Obama can hope for in experience and winning a swing state. Bayh has been around for a while as Governor of Indiana and US Senator. In a tight race he could turn Indiana blue. His executive experience could be a boost. Conversely, Bayh is also Blah and does not generate any sort of excitement. His ability to win Indiana may also be overstated.

3) Others in the running may be chosen on either their ability to change the perception of the ticket or to placate some demographic.

Chet Edwards and Kathleen Sebelius:
This Aggie has become the topic of interest of late. He is an old school Texas Democrat that likes guns and the Bible. He could help Obama with white Midwestern voters who see the Chosen One as an elitist snob. On the other hand, Edwards would sour the liberal base and he has no chance of winning Texas for Obama. Obviously Obama may think Sebelius can help with the his sub-par polling with white women. She is also a governor and could add to the ticket in that respect. On the other hand, she will not turn Kansas and, boy oh boy, the Hillary folks would be beyond enraged. In the Democratic sorority there is only room for one leader and that is Hillary!

All in all, I think Obama may choose Bayh as he offers the most and detracts the least. He is experienced in both the legislative and executive branches. He does not offend anyone and he won’t make too many gaffes. Chet Edwards is too much of reach, however inspired, and Biden is not very likable. We shall see shortly though.

Rumors have been surfacing about the possibility of Hillary and her minions staging a coup at the Democratic Convention. Could this happen? Yes it can! One can only hope.

Despite Senator Obama’s best efforts, many Hillary supporters are still quite angry at the DNC and Obama for “stealing” the Caucuses and buying off the super delegates. Do they have a point? Yes, I would say so considering that Hillary won more votes. Moreover, the controversy over Florida and Michigan made it quite clear that the Obama Campaign was only interested in ensuring the sanctity of every vote insofar as it benefited Obama. Moroever, let us not forget the misogynistic undertones of many of the attacks on Hillary that emanated from Obama’s supporters. Indeed, who can forget Obama’s dismissal of a female reporter as “sweetie?”

How angry are some of Hillary’s foot soldiers? Take a look at this YouTube video:

And for good measure, the pissed off Hillary voter:

So what do these Hillary fanatics expect to achieve in Denver if they cause a ruckus? Do they really think that they can prevent Obama from receiving the nomination? I would wager that they are not so deluded as to think that by some miracle they can convince the supers to vote for Hillary. What they do mean to achieve is illustrating that Obama may be doomed to defeat and that Hillary in no way should be linked to that potential defeat. If Obama loses in November it would leave Hillary as the undisputed master of the Democratic Party.

It looks like there is an update to the post I made back in April, Where ‘States Rights’ Sometimes Get Complicated.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the death penalty was too severe of a sentence for those found guilty of child rape, it appears that many state legislatures will remain steadfast in introducing and attempting to pass laws that provide these offenders with the toughest possible sentencing guidelines.

I was quite surprised Supreme Court was able to develop a majority opinion (5-4) that essentially removed the rights of individual states to determine what is ‘just punishment.’

Even though this was a huge victory for many on the far-left and certain religious types, I was pleased to see how John McCain and Barack Obama addressed this case:

Republican Sen. John McCain called the ruling “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.” Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.

I have to admit, I was quite pleased to see Barack Obama make this statement. All too often to Democratic candidates succumb to the pull of the far-left fringe, and it usually comes back to haunt them, especially in middle America.

Obama’s statement makes me wonder what how he would prioritize the view of states rights when it comes to picking his Supreme Court Justice should he be elected. Would it be more important than a potential nominees stance on abortion? Gay rights?

I think it would be an interesting question to be presented to the candidates in a debate, “if you were given the task of picking a Supreme Court nominee during your presidency, list the top three ideological viewpoints that you would be looking for, in order, based on priority.”

Hopefully if they do another YouTube debate, someone can sneak in a question like this. Maybe the snowman.

Even though it was inevitable that the Democrats would get the cloture vote that Harry Reid was seeking on the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (aka: Housing Bailout Bill), I have to admit that I was quite surprised to see it get the overwhelming support that it did.

The final vote on H.R. 3221 was 83 yea’s, 9 nay’s, and then there were 8 member of the Senate who were either running for President, recovering from surgery, or simply didn’t want to show the American people that they had a pair and stand up for what is right.

Regardless of how this vote turned out, there are 9 members of the Senate who deserve our thanks and gratitude for standing up and speaking out against this horrible piece of legislation.

Senators who have a pair:

Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming

Senator Christopher Bond, Missouri

Senator James Bunning, Kentucky

Senator Michael Crapo, Idaho

Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina

Senator John Ensign, Nevada

Senator Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona

Senator David Vitter, Louisiana

And then there are those Senators who simply don’t get it:

Blogs covering this:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/06/senate_key_vote_doddshelby_hou.php

http://usmegatrends.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-there-goat-in-house.html

http://www.mathies.com/weblog/?p=1319

http://rubechat.kfan.com/forums/thread/3139831.aspx

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/another-emergency-spending-bill-possible-housing-bill-may-be-pushed-back/

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sns-ap-congress-housing,0,2396621.story?track=rss

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2008/06/senate-housing-bailout-further-erodes.html

If you’re covering the post-cloture segments of the Housing Bailout Bill, let me know, I’d be more than happy to add your link to the list.

Sadly, its one of our own that has come up with one of the most ludicrous amendments to what is already seen by many as one horrible package of legislation.

It’s none other than Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa that has developed the language that would essentially open the door to online merchants like Ebay, Amazon, Google Checkout, etc. reporting all of their transaction activity to the government.

First of all, it’s important to note that this provision was packaged in the Housing Bill, which has absolutely nothing to do with online merchants. The provision was buried amongst 600+ pages of legislation, making it more likely to be overlooked by tired Hill staffers. For those who haven’t read the language, here it is (source):

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

It’s quite clear to see the many problems that could be created if this piece of legislation was enacted.

Of course, after this was exposed, Kate Szostak, a staffer on the Banking Committee quickly tried to kill any doubts and/or concerns people had with the legislation:

“This is not a controversial provision or a new one. Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have supported it for months, and it has been included in the Administration’s budget proposal for years. This provision simply requires banks-not small businesses-to report sales transactions to the IRS each year and to merchants at the end of each day. It makes the tax system fair for everyone, without burdening small businesses and without putting consumers’ privacy rights at risk.”

With all due respect to Kate, this is indeed a very controversial provision that could greatly effect how business is done online.

For example, let’s say I sell 500 widgets on Ebay every month and at the end of each month, $20,000 or so is transferred into my bank account. Stop. That is basically what is going to be reported to the IRS and filed away under your EIN or SSN and it should be no surprise that they are going to be there at the end of the year waiting for you to pay taxes on it.

However, if you’re a business owner, there is much more to this equation than the IRS would be seeing. Nowhere in this reporting would Ebay or the IRS have any idea how much each of these widgets cost you. Sure, you might have had $20,000 transferred to your account, but what if you had to spend $19,500 on acquisition and shipping of the widgets?

This number has to first be deducted from the $20,000 before any accurate representation of income can be generated. When you tack on other things like operating costs, it’s even easier to see how the IRS is going to have skewed numbers.

I’m sure many of you are now asking, so what, you’ll report all of this on your tax forms and pay taxes based on that.

The reality is that even if this is the case, with the IRS having all of this data, they are going to be looking harder than ever for anyone that is cheating the system. Any discrepancy on either end could potentially throw up a red flag and lead to an audit. No matter what criteria they create, there is always going to be a discrepancy in numbers, simply because each small business operates in a different way, having different pricing structures, sales models, operating costs, exposure, etc.

With this legislation, I don’t see how the IRS would be able to operate without a major expansion, and that’s just to cover the oversight of this data. There are many other arguments that people have brought up over this legislation, including privacy concerns and other important logistics, but for some reason, some of our elected officials don’t want to bring this up for more debate and are hoping to end discussion of this in the next 48 hours.

So, that’s where we come in and help disseminate information exposing America’s #1 R.I.N.O., Senator Chuck Grassley.

Here are some other bloggers that are also covering this topic, and have made excellent posts.

http://techliberation.com/2008/06/23/senate-housing-bill-to-require-collecting-of-online-payment-information/

http://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/06/credit-card-tracking-slipped-i.html

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2785

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/housing-bailout-bill-new-provision-report

http://osispeaks.com/

http://fetchingjen.blogspot.com/

http://www.oregonconservative.com

http://www.conservativerecord.com

FreedomWorks interns at their finest, showing the DC and the country what grassroots activism is all about (@ approx. 2:00 into the video). Watch out Chris Dodd, not only will ethics investigators be breathing down your neck, but you’ll also have to deal with the 5′10″, 180lb. Panda.

More coverage of the Dodd/Countrywide Scandal:
Commentary: Be honest, we all wish to be VIPs
Major Networks Avoid Dem Senators’ Countrywide Loan Scandals
UPDATE 1-US Senate presses ahead on housing, delay rejected

Eerie video of a giant panda showing up at Senator Chris Dodd’s house in DC. Looks like he had an agenda: exposing Dodd’s Countrywide Financial scandal. Watch the video!

read more | digg story

Below is an email I received this evening from the DNC. While it’s obvious that I wont be making a contribution, this is definitely an approach that I’m curious to see the results for. What if you’re a lobbyist who just happens to like Barack Obama?

Is the ‘party of inclusion’ now becoming the party that has a theme of telling people that they cant play a role in this election? But I guess it’s their party, they’ll do what they want to.

Dear DC Republican,

I wanted to drop you a quick note about a major policy change here at the Democratic Party.

As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you’re a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won’t be accepting your contribution.

This is an unprecedented move for a political party to make — one that has sent shockwaves through Washington and has turned the debate on clean campaigns upside down. We’ve unilaterally agreed to shut lobbyists out of the process, and are we’re relying on people just like you.

Just imagine what hundreds of thousands of Americans donating $20, $30, or $50 at a time can accomplish together. Imagine the signal that it sends to anyone who looks at John McCain’s political machine and the special interest money it needs to fuel every move it makes.

We have a chance to change the way business is done in this country, and we’re taking the lead. Will you join us and make a contribution right now to help us elect Barack Obama?

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I’ve written before about guys like Charlie Black and Rick Davis, lobbyists who are at the highest levels of McCain’s campaign. But they’re just the start — John McCain and the RNC suck up lobbyist money millions of dollars at a time.

In May, McCain had his best fundraising month of the campaign, and it was directly because he refuses to shut special interests out.

But we did, and we need your help. This is an example of the kind of White House Barack Obama would run. Make a contribution to help elect him:

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I’ll be in touch later about our plans for the general election, but I wanted to let you know about our policy change right away.

Thanks,

Howard Dean