---Democratic Party Scoreboard---Democratic National Committee Cash On Hand: $4,888,571---Debt: $21,471,458---House Committee Cash On Hand: $1,488,221---Debt: $13,504,304---Senate Committee Cash On Hand: $1,908,958---Debt: $16,049,602---House Of Representatives Members: 201---Senate Members: 52---Affiliated Independents: 2---Vacancies: 1---Total State Lower House: 2,594---Total State Senators: 0,885---Delaware House: 27---Delaware Senate: 13---New Jersey Assembly: 48---New Jersey Senate: 24---Pennsylvania House: 093---Pennsylvania Senate: 23---Maryland House: 98---Maryland Senate: 35---

---Republican Party Scoreboard---Republican National Committee Cash On Hand: $6,219,884---Debt: $00,000,000---House Committee Cash On Hand: $1,534,611---Debt: $12,000,000---Senate Committee Cash On Hand: $3,380,759---Debt: $12,000,000---House Of Representatives Members: 234---Senate Members: 45---Affiliated Independents: 0---Vacancies: 0---Total State Lower House: 2,790---Total State Senators: 1,024---Delaware House: 14---Delaware Senate: 08---New Jersey Assembly: 32---New Jersey Senate: 16---Pennsylvania House: 110---Pennsylvania Senate: 27---Maryland House: 43---Maryland Senate: 12---

The Politics Of Vengence

When Politics Becomes Personal, The Entities Who Get Hurt First And Worst Are Those Who Take Their Differences To The Personal Level

Sunday Special-June 16, 2013
Conservative Politics For The Thoughtful

The Blog Of Michael P. Borgia


Donald Ayotte, Director Of Operations For The Independent Party Of Delaware
Some names in politics these days inspire the most visceral of reactions. People love them or people hate them and there is no middle ground.

Barack Obama is such a man. There are very, very few people who have a "whaddevah" reaction to him. There are those who fall to their knees in supplication at the very thought of him, or those who become consumed by hatred at the very thought of what he's done to our country. On more local levels, there are men like New York's Sheldon Silver, now the longest serving speaker of a state legislative lower house in the nation. With Silver however the contrasting feelings are dread fear among Democrats and loathing among Republicans. Silver has brutally used the speakership of the New York State Assembly to viciously punish members on both sides of the aisle who dare disagree with him. Democrats who cross him are instantly confronted with primary opponents. Republicans who cross him find themselves with their districts redrawn, or with tawdry news headlines generated by Silver's relentless thugs. Silver's reputation for bare knuckled neo-socialist thug politics have earned him more than one rebuke from Bill O'Reilly, who calls Silver the "nation's worst politician."

In Sussex County Delaware Republican circles these days, these reactions can be found about a man who holds no office or portfolio in the party. His name is Donald Ayotte. For years, Ayotte was a tireless campaign worker for the party at the county level. He was a hard working organizer and representative district chairman. After the 2010 Castle-O'Donnell disaster, Ayotte went looking for heads in the Republican establishment. He led a politically bloody coup d'etat against the much respected County Chairman Ron Sams. Sams eventually resigned as Sussex chairman to help bring peace, giving way to Jerry Wood, who restored order. In mounting his assault against the leadership, Ayotte engaged in attacks that many considered deeply personal, offensive and politically disruptive. Still, two years later, Ayotte decided to run for the Republican nomination for a seat on the County Council

Ayotte won the primary for the third district in a tight race against Brett Wangen 1,546 to 1,415. But in the general election, Ayotte was handily defeated by incumbent Democrat Joan Deaver, 11,400 to 9,182. During the campaign, Ayotte fought forcefully and also stood with many of his fellow Republicans. One posting of note on Facebook took place on October 27, 2012, in response to an article written by Sherwood T. "Duke" Brooks. Ayotte wrote "Way to go out and get em and write em Duke. Keep it up."

On April 15, 2013, Ayotte chose to sever ties with the Republican Party. Part time radio host Douglas Beatty posted to Facebook that Ayotte had left the party. "Donald Ayotte has just announced that he is leaving the GOP and joining the Independent Party of Delaware. We are expecting a major Democrat to cross over as well. Welcome Don," The post continues "Independent isn't just a catchphrase. This is a post partisan party of methodology not ideology."

There's of course one little problem with that line of thought. The Independent Party of Delaware (Ipod) has over the past decade placed on its ballot lines some of the most ideological and partisan left wing figures to be found on both the national and local scene. It has twice chosen to place Ralph Nader on its presidential line. In 2006, it placed the name of a leading far left Democrat, Karen Hartley-Nagle on its line for House of Representatives. And just last year, it gave its ballot line to Alex Pires, the left wing bomb throwing mad man who made his entire campaign about a personal vendetta against Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE). He stood for very little, except to hurt Carper in any way he could. No candidates of a conservative leaning have ever sat on the Ipod's ballot line. Ayotte's Facebook page now lists him as Director of Operations for the Independent Party of Delaware.

Pires invested several hundred thousand dollars in his Senate campaign and in doing so attracted some supporters to join that party. A group that could until recently hold a convention in the back room of a pizza parlor now numbers just under 4,000 members according to its own data. The state only reports data for the major parties, listing all other parties as "other," so there is no other way to independently verify the actual number of registered Ipod members.

Certainly Ipod is a strange place for a man like Ayotte, a man who orchestrated a revolt against Republican Party leadership because it was not conservative enough. This party, regardless of its silly efforts to paint itself as "post partisan" is perhaps the most left wing organization in the state. Don't pay attention to their talking points. Pay attention to whom they put up for office. Pires? Nader? Karen Hartley-Nagle is a nice enough lady, but no one will mistake her for a moderate or post partisan any time soon.

Ayotte this weekend engaged in a bit of character assasination that, more resembles the actions of someone else who once called himself a "post-partisan." Ayotte left a link on Delaware Politics Dot Net to the Maryland judicial database, urging readers of the site to check on the judicial proceedings involving a man Ayotte apparently got along with a few months ago...Duke Brooks.

Let's make some things clear at the outset here. Duke Brooks has made his living in radio for a long time. It's show business, and perhaps its the coldest field in show business. When a radio host loses his show, there are no good byes. No final episodes. No nothing. On Friday, your favorite host is skewering a detested liberal. Come the next Monday, someone else's voice is coming from your radio, with no mention whatsoever of what happened to your favorite drive time host. Or even a mention of the fact that he was ever there. He becomes, as Orwell might have put it, an unperson. It's a rough way to make a living. Unless your a top star like Limbaugh, or Hannity, once you've been thrown from the horse, its very tough to get back on.

Getting cut off from your income is a miserable thing and when that happens, one must decide what bills get paid and what bills don't. Duke Brooks, like many in his business was forced to make those hard calls when things did not go well. So did millions of other Americans who suffered through the tough economy that existed in the early years of the Clinton Administration before Gingrich and Dole rendered him a figurehead. For Don Ayotte though, that was fodder enough for a ruthless man to throw his former Republican colleague under the bus.

An investigation of the record shows that most of the court activity against Brooks occurred in the distant past, between 1993 and 1995, the one exception being a case in 2008. Of the four active civil matters against Brooks, none are for as much as even four thousand dollars. There are inactive cases listed as well, all for relatively small amounts and most in the distant past as well. One relatively recent matter (2009) was dismissed. There is one criminal misdemeanor matter, for possession of small amount of marijuana, likely being used for pain relief. Brooks was fined $200.50 and assessed $60.50 in costs and fees and sentenced to a year of unsupervised probation.

One very important thing must be made very clear about this criminal matter. Duke Brooks served his sentence and paid his fine. When someone who is convicted of any offense serves his sentence, he is considered square with society again. Most of Brooks financial issues with the courts are also in the distant past. Ayotte knew all of this. For him to throw Duke Brooks under the bus in such a way is so profoundly disgusting and unfair that it defies words. If Brooks were running for public office, it might become an issue. If he were running for office, there might have been a reason. He is not. After reading what I saw, I feel more inclined to judge Donald Ayotte for his character, not Duke Brooks.

If one is to feel inclined to judge Duke Brooks, then judge him for what he is today. Duke Brooks worked tirelessly for the Wade for Senate campaign last year mostly for free. His professionally produced releases and media work rivalled anything put out by the far better financed Carper and Pires campaigns. Brooks has also served informally as the lead communications man for the Sussex County Republican Party. In an effor to resurrect his radio career, he's taken to producing a high quality radio show on BlogTalk radio. His insights are as keen and his rhetoric as sharp as any other professional on broadcast airwaves. That's who Duke Brooks is today.

Only Donald Ayotte truly knows why he's chosen the path he has. For what reason would a committed hard core conservative choose to associate himself with one of the state's most hard core left wing operations remains beyond me. Ayotte now associates himself with an organization that laughingly calls itself "post partisan." Yet it's 2012 Senate candidate ran the most bitter, hostile, divisive and partisan campaign in our state's recent history. And it did not work. In spite of outspending Republican Kevin Wade better than five to one, Wade outpolled Alex Pires better than nine to one.

That shows that conservatives, moderates and open minded liberals are rejecting what the likes of Pires, Ayotte and others like them are serving. And after all, it's not like they've not heard this line of "post-partisan" posturing before....

After all...Barack Obama was fond of that line once upon a time too. Guess what he turned out be? Is there really that much different in the mindset of the Barack Obama who hired ballot checkers to run all his opponents off a state Senate ballot...or who saw both of his 2004 Senate opponents befelled by identical sex scandals...or who used the IRS to intimidate and harrass those who dare oppose him...and a man who would bring to light the record of a man who went through some rough financial times...and an immense amount of physical pain...in an effort to smear and defame him? No one should construe this as any attempt to excuse the past mistakes of Duke Brooks. But that was then. Judge him for what he is now. Not what he was.

As for Mr. Ayotte, the same standard applies. For those nostalgic for the good works he once did for the Sussex Republican Party, judge him for what he is today too.

You have been assimiliated.

Immigration Reform On The Ropes

While Charles Schumer Dreams Of Seventy Votes For Gang Of Eight Bill, It May Not Even Have Sixty Votes Needed To Pass Senate

Campaign Friday-June 13, 2013
Conservative Politics For The Thoughtful

The Blog Of Michael P. Borgia


Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Immigration reform officially failed its first real test in the United States Senate Thursday.

Democratic leaders were largely silent after the vote on an amendment proposed by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) was defeated by a 43-57 margin. That would seem to be a victory for Democrats, who are working to resist any changes to the Gang of Eight bill. But the underlying point is that Democrats fell well short of the sixty Senators they will need to support the bill in its existing condition. A tougher vote lies ahead on an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), a senator who's input carries additional weight because he's from the state with the single longest border with Mexico and he's up for re-election next year.

The vote had to be especially disappointing to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), the principle sponsor of the bill now called Schumer-Rubio. Schumer's goal was not just to get sixty votes to pass the bill out of the Senate, but to get a supermajority of seventy Senators. Schumer believes that will force Speaker John Boehner (R-OH-8) to allow a straight up or down vote on Schumer-Rubio as it was written. It now not only appears that Schumer will not only not get the resounding mandate he believes will force House Republicans to bend, he may not even be able to get them a bill to vote on. The loss of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) especially hurts. With their majority reduced to just fifty four members, Schumer watched two of his collegues, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted for the Grassley Amendment. Appointed Sen. Jeff Chiesa (R-NJ) voted for the amendment. Five Republicans voted against it, all four members of the Gang of Eight (Rubio, McCain, Flake, Graham) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

That means to pass the bill as is, Schumer and Democratic leaders will have to win the votes of eight Republicans. Right now, at best they have five. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who last week announced her support for Schumer-Rubio, voted for the Grassley Amendment, making Democratic leader's position even more shaky.

In believing what he does, Schumer also severely misunderstands the tactical position the Speaker is in. Schumer thinks he is dealing from strength and that Boehner is in a "box" as Schumer puts it. But what he does not understand is that when Americans are given the truth about what is in Schumer-Rubio, public opinion overwhelmingly turns against it. The voters overwhelmingly insist that the bill provide enforcible security first. Schumer-Rubio provides no such thing. The path to citizenship begins at once, with no requirement that any metric be met for determining the success of border security.

Boehner is also more worried about his own caucus than he is about Schumer's power. A group of seventy House Republicans, led by Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN-6), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-1) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA-1); is pushing the Speaker to promise he'll adhere to the so called "Hastert Rule." The Hastert Rule is a party policy embraced by both Republican and Democratic majorities of the past decade, stating that no legislation will be voted on by the House unless it enjoys majority support within the majority party. While Bachmann's group makes up less than one third of the Republican House conference, it's voice will wield considerable weight. Many House Republicans want nothing to do with a comprehensive bill, prefering to pass small incremental measures that are easily gauged for their success.

Boehner is more interested in a big bill, and is more likely to get his way. But it will look little like the Senate bill. A bill that can pass the House will absolutely require that the border be secured first before any path to citizenship can begin for illegals, with tough metrics in place to gauge its success. Sen. Grassley agrees, pointing to the failures of the last major immigration bill in 1986 as evidence. "I voted for it, and I acknowledge that what we did in 1986, we got it wrong," the Iowa senator said on the Senate floor Monday. "We can’t afford to make the same mistakes. So don’t repeat 1986. See that the borders are absolutely secure — no excuses on that point, no exceptions on that point." Schumer scoffs at such a notion. “What do we do for five, six years until the border is fully secure? It’s going to take awhile to do it. We need to bring equipment there, we need to build fences there,”

The bombastic Senator from New York it seems, finally gets the point. That's exactly what we need to do. And if it's going to take that long, we'd better get started.

You have been assimilated.

A Matter Of Trust

Can A President Who Has Broken Faith With The American People Continue To Serve Effectively? Barack Obama Cannot And Must Leave

Issues Tuesday-June 11, 2013
Conservative Politics For The Thoughtful

The Blog Of Michael P. Borgia


Obama Ponders How He Might Still Lead A People With Whom He's Broken Faith
Someone had to say it first. It may as well be me. Barack Obama must resign.

As we wrote on Sunday, the odds of it happening are infinitesimally small. As long as Barack Obama thinks he can marshall thirty four Democrats to keep him in office, he will stay there. Convinced he has won an overwhelming mandate to remain in office with his fifty one percent of the vote last year, he will not leave except if dragged out kicking and screaming.

Richard Nixon of course won sixty one percent of the vote in November 1972. By then, Watergate was a far more evolved matter than was any of the individual components of Scandalanche. Just twenty one months after Nixon's overwhelming twenty three point win over Sen. George McGovern (D-SD), Nixon resigned in disgraced. Watergate was but one scandal. Scandalanche now has four different components.

The revelation last week that the Obama Administration has engaged in a massive data mining operation, involving nine major social media web sites; and trolled more than twenty trillion personal phone calls was for me the final straw. As a United States Senator, Barack Obama raged against President Bush's use of warantless tapping of phone calls in which one party was not in the United States to wage the war on terror.

Now the president has engaged in a massive data harverst against every single American in this country who has ever posted on Facebook or made a phone call involving one party on a Verizon wireless phone. Bush's foreign surveillance program involved only tracking calls involving persons of interest and was very narrowly prosecuted. Obama has engaged in a massive effort that is targeted against no one, but rather is generally gathering data from everyone, with or without cause.

And we've also learned this week, he's building a two billion dollar storehouse in Utah to hide all the data he's gathered.

Obama will likely have the support of his own party in upcoming House of Representatives investigations because most Democrats have completely abandoned principal on the issue. In 2006, a Pew survey found that nearly seventy percent of Democrats opposed Bush's efforts in the war on terror. Today, even though Obama has all but declared the Terror Wars to be over, viturally an identical number of Democrats have reversed their position. The problem Democrats have is not with data mining, but with who is doing it.

Granted there has been some shift among Republicans too, but not nearly to that degree. About seventy percent of Republicans supported Bush's efforts. Under Obama support falls to just south of fifty percent. So Republicans are not without their own hypocrites. But what is important to remember is what the two presidents are doing is not the same.

Bush used narrow mandates from the FISA court to surveil foreign targets. Barack Obama has no mandate but has launched the most broadbased surveillance of the American people in history. Bush at least could claim consistency in that his policy was enacted to protect the people in a nation at war. Obama has put the policy on steroids, aimed it at the people he claims to be protecting and at the same time claiming that the war such policy is needed to prosecute is essentially over.

It's not the first time Barack Obama has lied to us. It's not the first time his administration has been caught abusing the power of the government. We've seen the EPA persecute Americans over a puddle in their back yard. We've seen the massive and systemic efforts to cover up the Benghazi scandal. His administration has used the power of the Justice Department to persue his enemies at Fox News and even the administration friendlier AP. We've seen his administration use the power of the IRS to persecute his political opponents and to disseminate their private information to his political allies.

Now nothing has happened yet that directly ties this president to any wrong doing. In each case, the NSA issue not withstanding, the wrong doing was the fault of low level civil servants. But that does not absolve Obama. He is the leader. He sets the tone. The civil service follows his lead. When Obama says bring a gun to a knife fight, the IRS listens to that. When Obama says the administration should reward it friends and punish its enemies, the Justice Department listens to that. So does the EPA and the NSA.

Even if Obama can never be tied directly to any of this, it is all his fault. He set the tone and the direction that allowed for it to happen. He bears complete and full responsibility. This could never have happened under President Bush because President Bush would not have tolerated it. But its standard operating procedure for President Obama. Policy making is now completely frozen. It is now highly unlikely an immigration bill can get done while Obama is president. Nor can desperately needed tax reform. In a nation that is still in economic crisis, a government frozen by scandal cannot be tolerated.

Democrats are running from him, having already completelly frozen him out of the immigration debate. Any Republicans who might have at least been willing to give his office the trust it deserves, if not the man, are now completely unwilling to deal with him. Democratic leaders are growing increasingly desperate to cover for him. Yesterday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7) essentiallly declared the IRS case was "solved" and that it was time to "move on."

That actually raises even more alarm bells. Cummings actions are those of a man who knows something so terrifying that he desperately does not want the American people to know what it is. Cummings of course is not the chairman of the committee and has no power to stop anything. So he's trying to throw what fire retardent he has on a spreading flame front. Matter in the IRS scandal will likely soon get much much worse.

The bottom line is simply this. President Obama has broken faith with the American people. Just as Nixon did. Nixon, who won a far more wide reaching mandate than Obama did knew when it was time to leave, rather than subject the nation to a bloody impeachment trial. One can only hope Barack Obama will have enough love of his country to do the same. Or that somewhere in the bowels of the Democratic Senate caucus, someone can be his party's Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN) and have the guts to go to the president and tell him its time to leave.

Obama sadly does not love his country enough to leave. Nor will any Democratic senator dare go to the White House, as Baker did forty one years ago and tell him to. That shows that not just Obama has broken faith with the American people. So has an entire political party, desperate to protect one man, no matter what the cost to the nation.

You have been assimilated.