Reaction to former Cao supporter shows liberal smear/racemongers (still) have no shame


David Weigel at the Washington Post’s Right Now blog writes about a one on one Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) had at the SRLC yesterday with a constituent who doesn’t support him anymore. After she was done talking to Cao, she talked to Weigel and had some interesting things to say (bolded emphasis added by me):

Yesterday, I talked briefly to Cao but stepped aside as one of those no-longer-happy Republicans read him the riot act over his initial vote for health-care reform. (He voted against the final bill last month.)

“I supported you,” said Kim Hasney, a photographer from Jefferson Parish. “I can’t support you anymore.”

“You have to understand,” said Cao, “that I represent a district that’s 70 percent Democrat.”

Cao thanked Hasney for her honesty, but after she sparred a bit with other Republicans about what it was fair to expect from Cao, she told me of her disappointment with how he was using his vote.

“He had fundraisers, he had meetings, all in the suburbs — the white suburbs,” said Hasney, who attended one of those events. “He had nothing in the district. We got him elected. Then, he goes and says ‘but I have to represent my district,’ which is all liberal, giveaway, spread-the-wealth, welfare, black. We thought he would try to change the demographics of that district by supporting things that were not giveaway things. You know, supporting things that would get them out of the ghetto.”

Hasney made it clear that she opposed Cao’s votes because she thought they were the wrong way to lift poor blacks in New Orleans out of poverty. “I’m not just talking about black people,” she said. “The Vietnamese people flourish in that area because they’re workers.”

Cao, she said, should have focused on free market solutions that could help other residents lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

“I thought that was what he was going to do,” she said. “As a conservative Republican, bring a work ethic, bring a non-welfare ethic.”

Sounds about right, right? A common-sense conservative advocating for free-market solutions that help those in poorer communities so they don’t have to depend on public assistance for generations. Yeah, it does sound good – to those of us who actually want to help those in poor communities find a better way, but apparently not to the clueless wonders at some of the top liberal blogs who, unsurprisingly, believe this former Cao supporter is a racist for daring to suggest Cao should have done more to help his constituents out of poverty. A sampling:

Think Progress (post title):

“GOP supporter: Cao has betrayed us, his white donors, by trying to represent his minority district.”

Clearly not what the “GOP supporter” was saying, but why let facts get in the way of liberals, as usual, shamelessly trying to play the race card for political gain.

Matthew Yglesias, premier blogger at Think Progress (post title):

There Is No Racism In the Conservative Movement


She’s not a racist. She just has no idea what has been happening in Congress for the past 1.5 years, which makes her sound like a racist when she tries to talk about these things — things that were weaker market solutions far to the right of anything liberals wanted, ideally. Also, it doesn’t matter how much cash the benevolent white folks would give his campaign. If he voted like a wingnut, he’d be out in his first re-election campaign. And he did, and he will be.

So the lesson is, people should shut up unless they actually pay attention to policy and politics, or they will be mocked on the Internet, thank you.

Pot, kettle. Thank you.

Last but not least, Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen:

Here’s a helpful tip for conservatives. When you’re talking to a reporter, and you’re complaining that your representative received campaign contributions in the “white suburbs,” but is now focused on his “liberal, giveaway, spread-the-wealth, welfare, black” constituents, it doesn’t help when you add, “I’m not just talking about black people.”

Here’s a helpful tip for head in sand liberals like Steve Benen: When you’re writing about the implied “racist tendencies” of white conservatives in liberal districts, keep in mind that they have issues when they throw their support behind a GOP politician who, instead of working to make his district better by supporting policies conservatives advocate that would lift the poor people in his/their district out of poverty, supports the status quo that will essentially leave them there – and does so apparently not so he can help them but because he wants to keep getting re-elected.

Here’s another helpful tip for the likes of Steve Benen, Matthew Yglesias, and other liberals who apparently think that it’s “racist” for a conservative/Republican to even say the word “black:” It’s racemongers like you who routinely keep this country from being able to have real discussions about race issues because you refuse to believe that conservatives really want to help poor people at all, especially if they’re black, because apparently the only people who have solutions that “work” for poorer communities are liberals, right?

Well, nearly 50 years ago, a liberal administration implemented Great Society welfare programs that were intended to “help” the poor, and they also implemented “sex ed” programs disguised as “family planning” programs. At the same time, the “free love/man-hating radical feminist movement” gained significant ground by teaching young women (and men) that the family unit was oppressive and “patriarchal” and that it was better to live your life free from responsibility and “judgment” – unless it was judging conservatives and Republicans who dared to call such stupidity and willful ignorance for what it was/is.

The combination of these policies and movements have had a devastating effect on society, in particular the black community in terms of personal responsibility, illegitimacy, disease, employment, and crime. These are the same types of policies, policies that keep poor people – black or otherwise – in poor communities, that liberals not only continue to support but that they are also resistant to try and reform for the better. Remember how the welfare reform bill Bill Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to sign was going to result in even more people needing public assistance as well as “take the food out of babies’ mouths”? Guess what? It actually helped poor communities:

One little-known fact is that we have made gains against poverty in recent decades — and welfare reform deserves some credit. The poverty rate among blacks has fallen sharply, though it’s still discouragingly high. From 1968 to 1994, it barely budged, averaging 32.4 percent. By 2000 it was 22.5 percent. (The poverty rate is the share of people living below the government’s poverty line, about $19,500 for a family of four in 2004.) Similarly, there have been big drops in child poverty. Since 1989 the number of children in poverty has fallen 12 percent for non-Hispanic whites and 14 percent for blacks.

The economic boom of the 1990s explains much of this improvement. But it is not the whole explanation, because even after the 2001 recession, many poverty rates stayed well below previous levels. For all blacks, it was 24.7 percent in 2004.

The 1996 law replaced Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) — traditional welfare — with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Congress created AFDC in 1935 as part of the landmark Social Security Act, which also included unemployment insurance and old-age assistance. In an era when few women worked, AFDC was intended to provide modest income support for widows and their children. By the 1980s, it had evolved into something else: guaranteed payments for single, often never-married mothers. Critics argued that the program bred dependence, weakened self-reliance and rewarded out-of-wedlock births.

TANF set new rules. It eliminated the automatic entitlement to benefits. To qualify, mothers had to look for work, take job training or both (states set exact requirements). There was a general five-year lifetime limit on receiving benefits.

In a new book, “Work Over Welfare,” Brookings Institution senior fellow Ron Haskins — a top Republican congressional staffer during the welfare debate — cites much evidence of success. Welfare caseloads have plunged. From August 1996 to June 2005, the number of people on welfare dropped from 12.2 million to 4.5 million. About 60 percent of mothers who left welfare got work. Their incomes generally rose. Many qualified for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit, which subsidizes low-income workers. Finally, there were intangible benefits: work connections, self-respect.

One lesson is that what people do for themselves often overshadows what government does for them. Since 1991, for example, the teen birthrate has dropped by a third. The mothers least capable of supporting children have had fewer of them. Welfare reform didn’t single-handedly cause this. But it reinforced a broader shift in the social climate — one emphasizing personal responsibility over victimhood.

“[E]mphasizing personal responsibility over victimhood”? Gee, it’s no wonder liberals didn’t support the true welfare reform efforts of the GOP during the Clinton admininstration. And it’s also no wonder that so few of them today will acknowledge the success of a reform effort that they opposed and opposed loudly. They can’t even bear the thought of a victim-free society, can they? Because a society that on the whole refused to be put in the “victim” box would mean that there would be no one left for Democrats to represent which would collectively put them – and big government – out of a job.

So, let’s break this down a bit: Republicans in general support solutions that will lift poor people out of poor communities, support common-sense free market solutions that will give poor people a sense of responsiblity and purpose, that will turn them into productive members of society. Democrats, on the other hand, support “solutions” that keep these same people right where they are because, as modern history continues to show us (especially through the healthcare “reform” bill), liberals simply don’t believe people – especially minorities – can think or do for themselves, and furthermore believe everyone is out to get them, and as a result believe that the government must hold the hands and in effect be the mothers of poor communities every step of the way.

With that in mind, which party is it exactly that “supports” the enslavement of black people, again? :-w


Liberal SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens to step down mid-summer


Via Fox News:

President Obama called retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens an “impartial guardian of the law” who is leaving at the “top of his game,” as the president lays plans to quickly replace him.

Obama said the 89-year-old Stevens, the court’s oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, was a “brilliant” jurist who had “worn the judicial robe with honor and humility.”

Stevens was appointed by President Gerald Ford in the months after the Watergate scandal. His decision to step down from the high court bench gives Obama the second Supreme Court appointment of his term.

In a letter to the president, Stevens, the longest active serving member, said he has “concluded that it would be in the best interests of the court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the court’s next term” in October.

Stevens said he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July.

White House Counsel Bob Bauer informed Obama of Stevens’ decision by phone Friday morning as the president was flying back to Washington.

Obama said he will move quickly to name a nominee, as he did with Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, and that he’ll look for someone with similar qualities — independent mind, fierce dedication to the rule of law.

Not so sure Justice Stevens (resignation letter here) is of an “independent mind,” considering he is considered the unofficial head of the “liberal wing” of the SCOTUS. Not only that, but Justice Stevens said this just last week:

Stevens, who turns 90 later this month, isn’t quite ready to say. “I can tell you that I love the job, and deciding whether to leave it is a very difficult decision,” he said in an interview. “But I want to make it in a way that’s best for the court.”

That would mean a decision sooner rather than later, in time for the nomination and confirmation process to be completed before a new term begins in October, he said. He acknowledged that he told a reporter early last month that he would decide in about 30 days, but he said with a laugh that he hoped “that wasn’t being treated as a statute of limitations.”

His departure will hand President Obama his second chance to leave a lasting mark on the nine-member Supreme Court. “I will surely do it while he’s still president,” Stevens said, who plans to leave either this year or next.

IOW, he sure as heck doesn’t want a Republican President nominating someone to replace him. Not only that, but he timed it before the possibility that the Senate could be decidedly more Republican after November. Hmmm … wonder why? Well, not really. It also makes you wonder which Justice will be next to retire before Obama’s first (and hopefully only) term is out. My $$ is on Ginsburg, whose health issues are well-known.

The WH is saying that it has a list of roughly ten candidates it has in mind to fill the upcoming SCOTUS vacancy. Republicans in the Senate, meanwhile, are already gearing up for the fight.

VIDEO: Palin rips Obama a new one on foreign policy at SRLC (UPDATE: LINK TO FULL VIDEO OF SPEECH ADDED)


Rock on, gal (via Texans For Sarah Palin):

Michelle Malkin has more on Sarah Palin’s speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, as well as a reminder of President Obama’s nuclear ignorance (something he accused Palin of yesterday).

Update – 2:37 PM: The Right Scoop has the full video of Palin’s speech.

Cross-posted to Right Wiing News.

NJ teacher’s union prays for Chris Christie’s death

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly reports (via @jimgeraghty):

Bergen County representatives of the state teachers union have ratcheted up the campaign against Governor Christie’s agenda in a fiery memo that encourages members to “get some dirt” and “go public,” and adds the education commissioner to the “attack list.”

But it’s the memo’s closing “prayer” that is sure to ignite controversy:

“Dear Lord … this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. … I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.

The memo, sent to locals in the county earlier this week and obtained by The Record on Thursday, is signed by New Jersey Education Association field representatives, including Joe Coppola, president of the Bergen County Education Association.

Coppola said the “prayer” was a joke and was never meant to be made public.

“Obviously, it’s inappropriate,” he said. “I would never wish anybody dead.”


The “prayer” has also been posted by fans a number of times on the Facebook page of New Jersey Teachers United Against Governor Chris Christie’s Pay Freeze, a group that now has nearly 67,000 followers. The site contains other vitriolic and profane postings as well.

The union e-mail blast details local initiatives in the next two months, including rallies, advertisements, a no-confidence vote in Christie and letter-writing campaigns. It was sent to locals in the county that represent more than 17,000 teachers and support staff.

What was that the demagoguing Democrats and MSM have been saying again about the hostile post-healthcare reform passage rhetoric and threats “only” coming from the right?

Don’t expect this news report to make national headlines, though. It doesn’t fit the “violent right wingers are out to get us!!” narrative. Besides, isn’t this sort of how Democrat NJ politicos/associates are anyway? ;)

Breaking: Bart Stupak set to retire


Just a day after he was denying reports that he wasn’t going to run for re-election, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak is set to announce today that he will. Via AP:

Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, who was the central figure in the abortion debate surrounding the health care law, will retire from Congress at the end of this term.

Stupak, who’s been in Congress for 18 years, will make the announcement at a 12:30 p.m. ET press conference in Marquette, Mich.

Stupak told The Associated Press that attacks on him for his role in the abortion debate did not influence his decision and he could win re-election if he tried.


In the final analysis, the left accused Stupak of attempting to make abortion access more difficult while the right said he caved at the last minute by agreeing to weaker Senate provisions.

As much as Stupak claimed he was a good candidate for re-election, he may be among the first casualties of the law, which has not gained traction among Americans who roundly disapproved of it throughout debate, in part because of its massive price tag.

The Tea Party Express, a group who opposed the federal spending, has been calling for Stupak’s defeat at rallies in his sprawling northern Michigan district this week. Republican doctor Dan Benishek also announced he would challenge Stupak in the election.


Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who had a central role in the health reform fight as the leader of anti-abortion Democrats, plans to announce Friday that he will not run for reelection, a Democratic official said. Without Stupak on the ballot, the seat becomes an immediate pickup opportunity for Republicans.

“Now with health care done, he’s retiring,” a friend said. “He has thought about retiring for the last three cycles, but was always talked into staying: to elect John Kerry to help end the war, to elect a Democratic majority to get health care done.”

President Barack Obama called Stupak on Wednesday and asked him not to retire. Stupak, 58, also resisted entreaties from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the Wolverine State delegation.


Republicans believe that other pro-life Democrats, like freshman Reps. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.), will also face serious trouble because of their support for the health care legislation without strict anti-abortion provisions.

Stupak plans to continue to live in the district, the Democratic official said. He plans to say that as he opens a new chapter, he will continue to serve the people of the First District, just not as their congressman.

Friends said Stupak was not leaving because of the health fight but because of the exertion that would be required to hold his sprawling Upper Peninsula District. He made the final decision during a conversation with his family while in Indianapolis to root for Michigan State in the Final Four basketball game.

The Upper Peninsula seat gave President Obama just 50 percent of the vote, and supported former President Bush in 2004 with 53 percent. But Stupak never had faced difficulty winning re-election, always prevailing with at least 57 percent of the vote since first elected in 1992.


And Republicans have rallied around surgeon Dan Benishek, a Tea Party favorite, who received very little attention until Stupak voted for the health care legislation even without receiving anti-abortion language in the bill itself. Benishek is expected to raise over $100,000 this quarter, according to GOP sources, a large amount for a first-time candidate who had virtually no campaign infrastructure before Stupak received national attention over his health care positioning.

Democrats who could hold the seat include state senator Jim Barcia (a former congressman), Mike Prusi and Gary McDowell, and state representatives Joel Sheltrown and Jeff Mayes.

The filing deadline to enter the race for this House seat is May 11.

Ed Morrissey predicts:

The Upper Peninsula district that Stupak represents normally wouldn’t be entirely hostile to a Democrat. They tend to be working-class, pro-life but not necessarily deeply conservative. Stupak offered them a kind of middle-road populism with a pro-life core that suited his constituents.

After Stupak’s reversal, Democrats won’t get that chance. His populist-lite patter merely enabled the radicals in the Democratic Party to seize control of Congress, and Stupak in the end refused to stand against it. In this district, expect to see a referendum on Nancy Pelosi, and don’t expect the constituents to get enthusiastic about sending another Democrat to Washington to enable her and her radical agenda.

Stay tuned …