Tagged: 2014 elections Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 3:11 PM on 06/11/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 2014 elections, brat, cantor, majority leader, ,   

    Cantor Out as Majority Leader 

    A simply stunning outcome last night in Virginia.  A house majority leader loses in his party’s primary.  Something that has never happened in the history of our country.  I personally thought that Cantor didn’t take the race seriously enough but would still win out in the end.  I was wrong.  He lost by more than ten points.

    But I will say that people who don’t understand the ins and outs of Virginia politics are getting some things wrong.  On the national stage they are talking about how Brat won on the amnesty issue.  There may be some of that in there, but it certainly wasn’t the entire reason.  Cantor’s view on immigration is exactly like Lindsay Graham’s and he won easily.

    In Virginia there is no party registration.  As such whenever there is a primary anyone can vote.  It is very easy for people in the other party to show up at the polls and place a vote for a candidate that is most likely to lose to their candidate of choice.  As such, there is great deal of back and forth about conventions vs. primaries within the local political debate.  Cantor firmly falls on the primary side of the debate.  An issue that I agree with him on.  I personally feel that primaries are the most inclusive and that conventions put some voters into the position of not getting their voices heard. But even that isn’t all of the story.  There is a parliamentary rule in Virginia called slating.  In slating when you get 50% of your district to agree to use this rule only a certain amount of people are allowed to vote in a convention or committee meeting.  So if you don’t happen to fall into the chosen few, even if you are willing to travel the convention you can’t vote.

    Many in Virginia have very strong feelings about slating.  Most of which are highly negative.  I personally believe that this is the rule and those who know the rules of the game best win.  So I am not going to put people who like this practice down.  They are following the rules of the game.  If you don’t like the rules, get yourself into position within the local committee to change them.  Complaining and calling others cheaters doesn’t solve anything.  My main point here is that Cantor and his camp really upset many people by using these rules.  At least that is the impression that many have.  Heaven knows that, especially in politics, perception is reality.

    David Brat had no money.  He spent somewhere around $200,000 total on his campaign, whereas Cantor spent more than that on one dinner for his supporters.  But what he did have was very dedicated volunteers that literally knocked on every door in that district that was marked as a republican.  Again, there is no party registration in the state, but voting habits get you listed as a D or an R.  Brat also did get some much needed help from two conservative radio talk show hosts.  Mark Levin, who lives in Virginia, and Laura Ingraham, who lives in D.C.  Both of them had him on their show and Ingraham did at least one rally with him.  Both have large audiences and it seems it had at least a little bit of an effect.

    There also was the issue that many in his district felt that he didn’t listen to them.  That he was no longer representing them, but looking towards being the Speaker of the House when Boehner decides to step down.  He was next in line.  I have heard many in his district say that they didn’t get return calls or letters when they would contact his office.  They felt he lost touch with what his job was supposed to be; representing them not worrying about consolidating his own power.  He rarely spent time in his own district. Another big difference between he and Lindsay Graham. Graham is very well known for being excellent on being there to listen to his voters.  His staff is actually larger in his state than in D.C..

    For those in the media that are saying he (Brat) is some sort of right winged lunatic it is going to be difficult to get that to stick.  Cantor labeled him as the liberal in the race.  Cantor campaigned on being the true conservative.   His policies are simply basic republican fare.  He campaigned on giving power back to the states, the amnesty issue and the rule of law, reducing our national debt, and reigning in out of control government.  There is nothing extreme about those views.  That is what the GOP is supposed to be for.

    Another very interesting part of this story is how Brat campaigned.  He actually stood up and talked policies instead of platitudes.  He never made personal attacks on Cantor.  Many in the media called him a joke based on this alone.

    I think that Brat has shown that people are hungry to be talked to like adults.  They can understand policy issues and they aren’t all that interested in the personal ugly side of politics.  That of course isn’t going to go away anytime soon because they do work.  But a small shift is happening.

    I had no dog in this fight.  I see both sides of Cantor staying and Cantor going.  Politics is much like a marriage; a series of compromises.  But when those compromises almost always walk away from the basic tenets of what the party is supposed to stand for, it may be time for a change in leadership.  Cantor went after the tea party quite publicly.  While no national Tea Party “group” gave Brat the time of day, the local activists took notice and put the work in to show him that they are still there and are expecting results.

    The district is pretty conservative and I personally find it a good thing that dems are going to pour money into that district.  It is less they can use on other races.  It isn’t impossible for a dem to win in that district, but it seems this is lining up to be a republican wave year much like 2010 and it isn’t likely that dems can take advantage of Cantor’s demise.

  • just a conservative girl 1:15 PM on 02/28/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 2014 elections, , fitzsimmons, , shameful behavior,   

    A Little Twat and a Whole Lot of Controversy – When Republicans are Their Own Worst Enemies 

    Bob Fitzsimmons, Treasurer of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) used the word twat in a facebook discussion a few nights ago.  Twat in case you don’t know is sometimes used as slang for the female vulva. 

    Now, I am not going to sit here and defend the use of that word.  It never should have been used.  The problem is that if you read the exchange in context, he was referring to the comment that someone else had made as ridiculous.  He used the wrong.  Obviously he isn’t up on sexual slang words.  He should have used the word twaddle, which means stupid speech.  


    Now, what you can’t see in the above graphic is the comment he was answering.  That comment was about why Delegate Barbara Comstock should be the nominee in the hotly contested republican primary simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  His comment was about identity politics.  I am not sure who, if anyone, he is backing in this contest, but I can tell you that I support Barbara.  I like Barbara.  I have worked many a days knocking doors in her elections for the state delegate seat that she currently holds.  But I don’t support her simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  I HATE identity politics.  It is a losing game and I have little respect for people who voted based upon gender, skin color, or financial status of the people in the race.  To me that is the democrats game and played a big part in why President Obama won his election.  On this Mr. Fitzsimmons and I agree.  We are never going to beat the democrats in that game, so lets put up the best possible candidate in each and every race.  I happen to believe that Barbara is that person.  Her voting record speaks for itself.  At the end of the day that is what really matters.  

    What really sits in craw about this entire unfortunate episode is that people who don’t like Mr. Fitzsimmons, for reasons ranging from he is a supporter of conventions over primaries (which I am not) and he is also a big supporter of Ken Cuccinelli and more libertarian leaning people, have used this to try and force him from his job.  Insert primal scream here.  

    This has turned into a national story that has been on HuffPo and in The Washington Post simply because people, who I won’t mention by name, even though I would bet my bottom dollar are involved, are using this to oust someone they disagree with.  

    The man made a mistake.  He used an unfortunate word when he wasn’t clear on the meaning.  There is no way that anyone reading what he wrote can misconstrue that he was calling Delegate Comstock a twat or even the young woman he was having the discussion with that word.  

    Here is the post he was responding to with the name of the person not included:

    I also think women are going to be very frustrated about about a man trying to usurp Barbara’s position in this race. If women come out in force for her, it will create a battle cry for Republican women so loud that Howie Lind won’t have a prayer of competing with her. Republican women are a force to be reconed with and I for one want to see this power harnessed effectively in key political races.

    His response was the he doesn’t like sexist twat.  Now, if he was talking about this woman or Barbara it would make sense that you would be able to replace the word with the name and it would still make sense.  But you can’t do that in this case.  Because he wasn’t referring to a person, he was referring to the thought of using identity politics.  

    So, now we have a national story about how republican men and party officials were using sexual terms to talk about a woman when clearly that isn’t what happened.  

    We don’t need the democrats to do anything, we are doing a bang up job all on our own.  Should he have apologized for using that word?  Absolutely.  Should he lose his job over it?  No, a very clear and unambiguous NO.  This has been blown out of proportion by people who don’t like him and his stances.  Those are the people who should be called out in all of this.  Not a man who obviously needs to spend more time with a dictionary.  

  • just a conservative girl 8:35 PM on 01/15/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 2014 elections, , house of representatives, ,   

    Congressman Jim Moran to Retire 

    May I just say this makes me very happy.  Congressman Jim Moron Moran is set to retire at the end of this term.  I really don’t like name calling, I feel we should beyond that in our society, but there are no redeeming qualities to the man, and I mean none.  

    Of course the same should be said for the idiots that kept electing this scum of a human being.  His ex-wife called the police to report that she had been assaulted.  Yes, we have elected a wife beater to congress.  Which may very well not be the only time in history that it has happened, but the problem is that everyone knew about it and pulled the lever for him anyway.   I lived in or around this district for close to twenty years.  I personally know many, not just a few, but many, democrats that can’t stand the man.  They are perfectly aware of his history and voted for him anyway.  Why?  Because they would cut off a body part before they would vote for a republican.  Even in the last election a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, libertarian ran and he still ran away with it.  

    Not only is he a wife beater, he is a racist, an anti-Semite, and he once thought a 8 year old (yes you read that correctly) was trying to steal his car and grabbed the poor child.  He was black, so I guess thinking him a car jacker was perfectly reasonable to this man.  (Yes that is sarcasm on my part).  

    He also had to resign his post in the government of the City of Alexandria because of corruption.  Of course no charges were ever pressed and he went onto to inflict his damage to the rest of the country.  He is scum pure and simple.  

    This from a Jezebel:

    I am voting based on the positions and not whether they, for instance, get blow jobs in the Union Station’s men’s rooms. There is one exception to this rule for me, and that exception is my Congressman, Jim Moran.Jim Moran votes exactly the way I would want my Congressperson to vote — he’s pro-choice, he votes the right way on women’s issues, he’s decent on economic issues (from my perspective — he’s fairly conservative), he’s anti-war. But, today, for the 4th time, I cast my ballot for Jim Moran’s Republican opponent (who, for once, isn’t a rabid anti-abortion freak, thanks NoVa Republicans). Why? Because of his personal life. In June 1999, Mary Moran (née Craig) called Alexandria Police claiming that her husband had hit her. Her husband was, of course, Congressman and former mayor of Alexandria (1985-1990) Jim Moran. Notably, Moran ran for mayor after 2 years as Vice Mayor — a position he was forced to resign as part of a plea deal on bribery charges which, due to his many friends and relationships in the Democratic party, had no effect on his political aspirations or friendships. Mary Moran later refused to testify and divorce papers were filed the next morning instead. Three weeks later, he filed a cross-complaint in their divorce claiming that the marriage broke up over financial problems for which she was supposedly responsible. Yes, when his former wife filed divorce papers because he smacked her around one night, he turned around and blamed the dissolution of the marriage (and, by extension, the argument that precipitated the domestic abuse) on her. It’s not the first or the only time Jim Moran’s laid his hands on someone in anger. In 1995, he shoved Randy Cunningham in the House cloakroom (granted, Cunningham is an asshole, but still) and in 2000, he manhandled an 8-year-old African-American boy that was looking at his car. And let’s not talk about the time he got caught with a $25,000 interest-free loan from a pharmaceutical company lobbyist, or said “the Jews” were the reason we went into Iraq. He is, quite frankly, an embarrassment to the Democrat establishment, which nonetheless clutches him to their bosom because he’s their guy, a member of their party and, thus, not subject to the standards to which we, as Democrats, would certainly hold a Republican challenger. Jim Moran is a wife-smacking, bribe-taking, black child-shaking anti-Semite that has earned the protection of the local Democratic party as well as many prominent, national Democratic women like Donna Brazile and Patricia Ireland in exchange for voting the “right” way. He gets to be the antithesis of a feminist and to live his personal life in opposition to every supposed ideal of the Democratic party because he’d never vote for a ban on partial-birth abortion or a Constitutional amendment on same sex marriage. Well, great. This “my guy because he’s my party” bullshit that I decried yesterday when it came wrapped in the form of National Review Online editor Katherine Jean Lopez is equally abhorrent when practiced by people that I agree with politically and even admire. And if this year, with the Democrats poised to strengthen their majority in the House isn’t the year that the feminists — let alone the women — of the Democratic Party are going to be willing to dump this guy (and the other guys like him) or support a primary opponent, then when will it be the year? Why does he get a pass for wife beating — because of Roe v. Wade? Fuck that. Roe isn’t getting overturned by a House member, and I’m not voting for a guy that gets away with domestic violence just because he votes for laws to send other men to prison for it.

    Sadly, she was in the minority and he was allowed to stay until his heart was contented and did damage to our country as a whole.  

    Good Riddance Mr. Moran.  May you rot.   

  • just a conservative girl 1:59 PM on 01/08/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 2014 elections, connecticut, , income inequality, livable wage, ,   

    The Myth of a “Living Wage” 

    This is the new war that the democrats are fighting to retain political power.  The others, such as the “War on Women”, will be trotted out as needed, but this is the one that they are concentrating on this election season.  The mid-terms are now just 10 months away.

    The President and his ilk are talking about a raise in the minimum wage and income equality with vigor.  There is also a push for the workers at McDonald’s to get a rate of $15 per hour, so they can live on it.  Wonderful.  But what does a “living wage” really mean?  I relocated a year ago to just outside of New York City from just outside of Washington, DC.  While I was growing up in Fairfield County, CT it was then the most expensive county in the country to live in.   Now that county is the one I just left,  Fairfax County, VA.  Another words I have spent almost my entire life living in very high cost of living areas.  My cost of living is much higher than someone who lives in say rural Nebraska or Wyoming.

    In Virginia, I could have gone say thirty miles south and my cost of living would have dropped, considerably in fact.  The rents in Fredericksburg, VA are substantially lower.  But I wouldn’t have made nearly the same amount of money.  The same holds true in Connecticut.  I could go live in the “valley” and the housing is much cheaper.  A smaller percentage of my income would go to housing.   But the better paying jobs are closer to New York City.  I could commute that distance I suppose, but then I would then be spending my money on transportation instead of housing.  I would also have fewer hours to live a life outside of work.

    Making a national minimum wage that is a “livable wage” may sound good on the surface, but it won’t work.  You can’t compare the cost of living of very rural areas of the country to large cities.  They are just not the same.  Buzzfeed did a comparison between two twenty-somethings who made virtually the same salaries, but live in very different areas of the country.  The way they live is very different.

    Twenty-two-year-old Madeleine Harrington of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, makes slightly less than Brooklyn’s average median income of $32,135, racking in $31,000 a year working two part-time jobs. Harrington also pays less in rent than Brooklyn’s average: Her home costs only $2,000 a month. Still out of her price range, the two-bedroom apartment has been converted into a three-bedroom, although the additional room is “questionable.” There are no walls, and you have to walk through it to reach the bathroom.

    While this might be standard for a NYC lifestyle, it is an anomaly in other parts of the country: In Waco, Texas, for example, the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment is just $683. Mia Francis, 22, of Waco, makes well over her city’s average of $26,264, pulling in $33,000 a year, and is able to live in a spacious three-bedroom, two-bathroom house, equipped with a backyard, patio, washing machine, and a driveway for her car. The monthly rent is $900, and she splits it evenly with her fiancé.

    Madeleine will have to make a really good bank to live in New York the way Mia lives in Waco.  Many people who live in New York aren’t really all that interested in owning a large single family home with a backyard, when it  doesn’t have a great deal to offer in terms of entertainment and cultural activities.  Many people who live in Waco  want no part of the all the noise and congestion that comes with living in a large city.  Different people have different needs and that dictates how they live.  I personally would never want to live on a farm or in the middle of nowhere.  I have friends who recently relocated to a small town in New Hampshire.  While I like going to visit them on occasion, the desolate nature of that town is not for me.  I am a ‘burbs girl.  I live living close to large city, but not actually living in one.  I want access to a 24 hour store, but one single CVS works just fine for me.

    How can we possibly pass legislation on the federal level that addresses all of these issues?  The short answer is that we can’t.  The country is far too diverse to say that this is a “livable wage” for the entire country.  Small rural areas of the country couldn’t possibly support paying the wages it costs to live in a large city.

    If this is to be done, which I am not advocating at all, it would have to be done on a state level.  Even then it wouldn’t work, because the costs from one part of the state to another can differ just as widely.  Another issue that is not being really being addressed is how do we define “livable wage”?

    Does this wage mean that you can live with four roommates in a tiny cramped apartment or does it mean that you can afford a single family home?  Does everyone have to able to afford a car?  If so, a Hyundai or BMW?  What foods does this wage need to cover?  Does everyone have to eat rice and beans or do they get surf and turf?  I personally am a big fan of Salmon.  Should I be able to afford to buy it daily, weekly, or monthly?  Does my television have to have WiFi, as many of the brand new models now have?  A laptop, desktop, or I-Pad?  After all, we had disgraced, and currently jailed, former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr, talking about how I-Pads are a right.  So that must fit into the equation of “livable” does it not?  We have had other progressive elected officials saying that homeownership is a constitutional right.  In my neck of the woods a single family home can, and normally does,  cost over a million dollars.

    All of this opens up all kinds of questions about who gets to decide what “livable” means.  Does some politician I have never met, that lives off a tax payer salary, get to decide what foods I need to be able to afford to call my way of living “livable”?   What if I prefer to eat beans & rice and pasta every night instead of filet mignon and arugula.

    This is the problem with politicians making broad statements about “inequality”.  They never define what it really means nor does anyone explain how we get there.  Yes, we can have the federal government force businesses to pay a higher wage all across the country.  But that doesn’t mean that people will live “better”.  Those increase costs in labor will show up in costs to the consumer.  That is simple economics.  President Obama doesn’t tell us how a much a bar of soap will cost in this utopia he is trying to create.  Yes, people will make more, but they also will be spending more on goods and services.  We also find that certain businesses will have fewer people doing more, as that is what they can afford to pay out in labor costs.  So we will find fewer available jobs and fewer hours.  That will not help people live better.

    Many of the goals of progressives can be described as laudable.  That doesn’t mean that in the real world they will work.  While I am not making light of the people who live with limited means.  It is a difficult life to be sure.  The reality is that today in America, what we define as poverty is still rich in comparison to the poverty that we see around the world.  With few exceptions in America, we have electricity, we have indoor plumbing, we have potable water, and access to basic needs of life.  If we are truly looking to address poverty in the world, America really isn’t the place to be doing so.  We should be looking at the huts that people live in South Africa and India.  Most of Africa lives in poverty that very few in this country can understand.  We can even move much closer to home to Mexico and South American countries and see what real poverty is.  We hear that people in the richest country in the world shouldn’t be living in poverty.  When you go and look at the rest of the world, we aren’t.  A “livable wage” is a myth and won’t address the real issues of why people in this country live in “poverty”.  But government never really addresses the real issues, do they?

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc