Wednesday, September 29, 2010
I'd like to introduce Jim Matheson to you. He is a politician who shrouds his votes carefully, masking his true liberal spend-and-tax philosophies. No better example of this comes to mind than Matheson's vote this spring for Obamacare.
Oh, you counter, Matheson did not vote for Obamacare (HR 3590)! Ahh, I rebut, but in the real vote for Obamacare he did vote to unconstitutionally ram it through! Please, allow me to elaborate and take us back to March of this year.
Back in the third week of March the Senate had already passed Obamacare and Speaker Nancy Pelosi was frantically twisting arms to get votes to get Obamacare passed in the House. Out of desperation, scheming, or both, Louise Slaughter (D-NY28 "gerrymandered earmuffs" and Chair of the House Rules Committee; Jill Rowland is in a good fight to unseat her) came up with an idea which would become to be ignominiously known as the "Slaughter Solution": deem Obamacare to have passed without actually voting on it. The Slaughter Solution provided Pelosi twofold objectives: first, a backup plan to pass Obamacare in case Democrats couldn't force enough of their members to vote for it on a direct vote and second, to provide Pelosi a true test vote on Obamacare to see what kind of margin they could get on Obamacare. Many Democrats were "fence sitters" knowing Obamacare was massively unpopular at home but desired to both partisanly please their leader as well as further the expansion of big government and power. Such was the case with supposed fence sitter Democrat Jim Matheson.
On Thursday, March 18th, the infamous "Slaughter Solution" (H RES 1190) passed the house 222-203 providing Pelosi a good indication about how fence sitters were sitting. Joining all the Republicans in opposing the "Slaughter Solution" were 28 so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats who are considered more moderate than the Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughters of the political world. Publicly that week even beyond Thursday, Matheson kept saying how he was undecided about Obamacare while protesters were held daily outside his office. Yet Matheson revealed his desire for government healthcare takeover by voting "aye" on the Obamacare "Slaughter Solution" which is nothing worse than passing unconstitutional Obamacare unconstitutionally (ie Congress has to actually vote on law, they can't deem it to have passed.)
Pelosi kept working the Democrats and prepping them for a Sunday--yes a rare Christian Sabbath Day vote--on Obamacare to be held when Christians across the nation would in their homes and churches praying for deliverance from Sin and Obamacare. The morning of Saturday the 20th broke and I joined a few hundred protestors on the steps of our state capitol for a Code Red Rally. Even after the rally ended Saturday mid-dayish, protestors went over to "undecided" Matheson's empty office to protest. It was after this--less than 24 hours before the vote--that Matheson announced he would be voting no on HR3590 and Pelosi got Bart Stupak to cave in on the anti-abortion measures freeing up some of the Democratic fence sitters like Matheson to vote against the leadership knowing that the vote for HR3590 "Obamacare" would be scrutinized historically far more than H RES 1190 "Slaughter Solution."
Utah needs a better Congressman than Matheson. I have better things to do with my Saturdays than to protest a supposed "fence-sitter" who has already voted for Obamacare in the worse form of the Slaughter Solution.
But let's just say I'm a nutjo who has no idea what I'm talking about. You say Matheson's vote against Obamacare HR3590 proves he is against it. I say the vote was a run for cover and can prove it with one final blow: if Matheson is SO against Obamacare that he didn't vote for it, then why doesn't Matheson sign the pledge to repeal it? Republican Morgan Philpot signed the pledge a long time ago.
The answer to that question reveals the true nature of liberal Democrat Matheson and why we must make every effort to ensure Morgan Philpot defeats him this November.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
What I love about McMahon is her sense of taking her WWE business acumen to town for CT. She knows that the Obama philosophy of spending one's way out of debt is a bunch of horse-dung. And that Obama-touted candidate Blumenthal is a Chris Dodd re-tread with respect to this crucial area of fiscal responsibility. Haven't Nutmeggers borne enough of this fiscal nonsense and irresponsibility?
McMahon is largely self-financing with both her and her opponent Blumenthal vowing not to take PAC money. Knowing the deceitful history of CT politicians, I was quite skeptical about the Blumenthal vow (below).
A review of the Federal Elections Commission site for available donations from the first two quarters of 2010 (Jan-Jun) shows that Blumenthal has received nearly $500,000 in PAC money from 158 PACs including:
- A myriad of union groups including the Teamsters
- Several big businesses and insurance companies such as Comcast, General Dynamics, AFLAC, and Blue Shield of California
- Planned Parenthood
Surprisingly from a candidate that purports to have "never taken PAC money", less than 15% of Blumenthal's PAC donors were even based in Connecticut!
Not knowing McMahon, I was also somewhat skeptical about her promise to not take PAC money and to not take individual contributions over $100. I was very pleasantly surprised to see she had with honor kept true to her word. If you look at her page on the FEC site under the "Other Committees Contributions" line (this is where PAC money is listed) the line is $0. Furthermore, if you examine her FEC individual contributions list, no one has contributed over $100.
I have examined several FEC documents this season and McMahon's documents are impeccable and prominently stand out in a positive way. McMahon has proven to me, an out-of-stater, she is a candidate of integrity and will keep her promises of restoring fiscal discipline to our nation.
To further contrast the integrity of McMahon vs the apparent pathological lying of Blumental let us turn back our memories to the spring of this year when Blumenthal purported to have served in Vietnam. The story broke in the liberal New York Times and even progressive MSNBC covered Blumenthal's lie:
Although I don't share some of McMahon's moderate social values, she is against partial-birth abortion and hasn't taken money from Planned Parenthood which is a step in the right direction over Blumenthal. Thus in light of her strong commitment to restoring sanity to our financial house, I am pleased to announce that for Connecticut Senate in 2010 Linda McMahon earns a strong Nacilbupera endorsement.