Harry Reid, With A -19 Approval Rating, Still “Absolutely Running For Re-Election”

When I first saw that -19 approval rating at Hot Air, I thought it was pure snark, on Captain Ed’s part, but the -19 represents the difference between his approval: 33% and disapproval: 52%.

Those would seem to be pretty tough odds for the incumbent to overcome, but Harry Reid vows to fight on:

”He’s never backed down from a fight,” Reid campaign manager Brandon Hall said in an interview when asked whether Reid would retire instead of seeking a fifth Senate term. He added, ”We’re not trying to win a beauty contest here.”

Great points. We can all agree that the Dingy one would neeeever back down from a fight when the going gets rough. He’s a fighter, that one is.

Captain Ed thinks it’s a lost cause…

Seems to me that at a -19 favorability, Reid’s war is all but lost. Shouldn’t he take his own advice and retreat ignominiously over an event horizon in Searchlight?

But, ohhhh, is it?

What are the Dems thinking?

ObamaCare: They’ve lost many on the left, never had the right, and don’t have the mushy middle, either. Who they have are the perennially uninformed, the needy, and die-hard O-bots, and although these people admittedly make up a distressing percentage of the electorate, they are in the clear minority. But the Dems are hellbent on pushing it though, anyway.

Cap and Tax: This one’s less popular than ObamaCare, when consequences of the bill are considered, and is looking doubtful for 2010, but the Senate hasn’t given up.

Trying Terrorists in civilian courts: Who’s for this? It’s an obscenity on top of an injustice,  and is probably the main reason why Obama’s poll numbers dropped precipitously  these past couple of months.

Card Check: It’s 2010 or Bust! Says the WH’s most frequent visitor, Andy Stern. Another grossly unpopular initiative.

Yet fightin’  Harry Reid is feeling suspiciously confident about the his chances in 2010.

Why?

What does Harry Reid know that we don’t?

I told Ace o’ Spades in one of his comment sections, a few weeks ago, that even with the growing unpopularity of the Dems’ policies, and their dwindling  chances of keeping both Houses in 2010, I still had a bad feeling out the outcomes of the 2010 and 2012 elections. How can anyone who has been watching this bunch for the past couple of years have any confidence in our electoral system with so many corrupt Dem Sec. of States involved?

I just have a bad feeling about it. Ace poo pooed my fears.

Well, I’m not the only one.

Writing in the American Thinker, a John F. Gaski, Ph.D., assoc Professor at Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, shares my fears.

And then some:

It is time to think the unthinkable and speak the ineffable. Apart from the troubling question of intent, or whether Obama-Pelosi-Reid just have a novel view of the public interest, the national Democrats are unnaturally and mysteriously sanguine despite growing backlash by the American people. Why? One reason:  The Dems don’t believe they will ever have to face a real election again. Is their plan not becoming obvious? It is very straightforward:

(1) Grant amnesty to the illegal aliens (the correct term for lawbreaking invaders, regardless of their natural and rational motives) which will create up to 30 million reliably Democrat voters — especially after being registered at least once each by ACORN. That is cushion enough to carry any national election. Why else could Dems be so fixated on this agenda item?

You can read the entire 6 part plan at The American Thinker.

Whether or not they will be able to get away with it is the only question I have. There are too many agitated, and motivated American citizens on hyper-alert, watching their every move,  for the Dems to steamroll over our rights without massive resistance. The American people will not go quietly into a progressive totalitarian state.

Share

Figures: Dems Plan To Stall Election Certification of Scott Brown In Order To Pass Obamacare

Those filthy degenerates….the fix is in.

The Boston Herald reports that interim Sen. Paul Kirk plans to vote for the health care bill, even if Republican, Scott Brown wins the Senate seat.

Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.

But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Yesterday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.”

Meanwhile, trouble in paradise…

The House Dem “Progressive” caucus is making all kinds of noise about Obama’s latest broken campaign promise, namely his recent support for the “Cadillac Tax”, which he vehemently opposed during the campaign.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) has enlisted 190 House Democrats to sign a letter declaring their opposition to the tax, which has also been fiercely criticized by labor unions — some of whose members would be exposed to the tax — and by other skeptics who fear the tax could hurt the middle class.”

Of course, as Dan Perrin at Red State notes:

Until one liberal who has the back-bone and the courage to say I will be the vote that kills the bill — and the credibility to tell the President and Speaker the same when they come calling or when the White House and the House Leadership put the screws to force them to change their vote — expect more of the same — the liberals get rolled, and then vote Yes. (This is called leadership.)

If they do show some backbone, and actually vote their consciences, the bill dies in the House. But that’s a bit of a stretch, considering who we’re talking about.

So, yeah. Like I said: Fix – In.

UPDATE:

William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, says to Call Dems Bluff On Refusing To Seat Scott Brown

Voters need to call the Democrats’ bluff. The deliberate delay of Brown’s certification in order to push through the health care bill will cause a political explosion unlike anything we have seen before.

There are certain red lines which no one has crossed before. And refusing to seat a duly elected Senator, for the sole purpose of excluding that Senator from voting on a particular piece of legislation, crosses that line.

Democrats are threatening to break the democratic links which bind us as a nation. The electoral outrage at such a tactic will be generational, and the Democratic leadership in Washington knows it.

If on the day of the health care vote, the duly elected Scott Brown shows up at the Senate to claim his seat for the vote, will Harry Reid instruct the Capitol Police to bar Brown from the chamber and from casting his vote? Will that be the legacy of health care “reform”?

You know…as Glenn Beck was saying on his show, yesterday, Progressivism (aka Socialism, Communism, Marxism)  leads to Fascism. It just does. We’re seeing it in real time.

Hat tip: Lucianne