Van Hollen: Democrats Running From Radioactive Obama and Pelosi Proves We're a Big Tent Party or Something

Look at it this way: The only reason Democrats aren't running away from Chris Van Hollen is nobody knows who he is. If he were the House Speaker of the most unpopular Congress ever, he can be sure endangered Democrats wouldn't want to know who he is either. Van Hollen will have some name recognition in 23 days. He'll be the guy from the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee who just saw his efforts result in the loss of dozens of seats.

The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee brushed off various members' ads touting opposition to President Obama and Speakers Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), saying that it simply shows the party is a big tent unlike the right.

On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was asked about a variety of the ads, including one from Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) boasting that he voted with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) 80 percent of the time.

"We're very proud of the fact that we have an ideologically diverse caucus," Van Hollen said. "As opposed to on the other side where you have this ideological purity test," he added, saying the Republican Party litmus test had been moved even further to the right by the Tea Party movement.

Ideologically diverse? Huh? Uh, Chris, having a party consist of the left, far left, hard left, leftover left and outright socialists isn't a big tent. It's a sinking ship, with you at the helm.

"We have a big tent, and we're problem solvers," he said. "And that is, I think, what voters are looking for."

Is Van Hollen even aware independents have abandoned the Democrats? Does he consider all of them as being far right>

Change! Democrats Plan to Run Against Bush This Fall

The same, old tired playbook to be unveiled this fall. They've got nothing to run on themselves so they figure they can play the Bush card again.

Weak. Very weak.

House Democrats plan to revive the political ghost of former President George W. Bush in their bid to retain the majority this fall, according to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the head of the party’s re-election efforts.

Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, on Tuesday signaled House Democrats will try to repeat their success in the last two election cycles by once again running under a change banner.

Well, if their signature legislation of healthcare is so popular, why not run on that?

“This time we will make the case that supporting a Republican is simply turning back the clock to Bush economic policies, the same policies that got us into this mess to begin with,” he told reporters gathered at the downtown offices of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think thank. Republicans, Van Hollen added, “will I think put themselves clearly in the position where they represent the status quo and that the Democrats, while we have the White House and both houses of Congress, remain the party of change and reform.”

Van Hollen waved off comparisons to the 1994 midterm elections, when insurgent Republicans channeled popular dissatisfaction with Democratic control to knock off 54 Democrats and win back the House. But Van Hollen argued that in 1994 — unlike now — the GOP presented itself as a viable alternative; Democrats were caught flat-footed; and President Bill Clinton’s support was sagging.

And while Van Hollen declined to predict how many seats Democrats will lose in November, he stated flatly they will maintain control of the chamber. “Our Republican colleagues are prematurely measuring the curtains in their new offices and prematurely popping the champagne bottles, because we’re going to make sure this is not 1994 all over again,” he said.

Sure, it won't be 1994 all over again.

It'll be 1946.

Recent polls tell me that the Democratic Party is in the worst shape I have seen during my 50 years of following politics closely. So I thought it would be interesting to look back at the biggest Republican victory of the last 80 years, the off-year election of 1946. Republicans in that election gained 13 seats in the Senate and emerged with a 51–45 majority there, the largest majority that they enjoyed between 1930 and 1980. And they gained 55 seats in the House, giving them a 246–188 majority in that body, the largest majority they have held since 1930. The popular vote for the House was 53% Republican and 44% Democratic, a bigger margin than Republicans have won ever since. And that’s even more impressive when you consider that in 1946 Republicans did not seriously contest most seats in the South. In the 11 states that had been part of the Confederacy, Democrats won 103 of 105 seats and Republicans won only 2 seats in east Tennessee. In the 37 non-Confederate states, in contrast, Republicans won 246 of 330 seats, compared to only 85 for Democrats.

Sleazebag Schumer Seeks to Circumvent Supreme Court

For a guy up to his ears in Bernie Madoff's dirty money, Chuckie Schumer has some set of onions to be whining about anyone's political contributions. His sneering disdain and contempt toward the Supreme Court is just breathtaking to behold.

Democratic leaders in Congress unveiled proposals Thursday that would limit the impact of a Supreme Court decision allowing unfettered corporate spending on political campaigns.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) called for a ban on companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership, government contractors and bank bailout recipients from participating in U.S. elections. They also want to require companies to inform shareholders about political spending, and to mandate that corporate chief executives to appear in any political advertising funded by their companies.

Schumer told reporters that the proposals will be introduced later this month.

"If we don't act quickly, the court's ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections," said Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

Translation: Republicans will beat our brains in so we need to reduce the amount of money they get to use to crush us.

The court's decision has come under sharp criticism from Democrats, who historically have attracted less campaign money from corporations than Republicans. During his State of the Union address, President Obama said the ruling would "open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

Many Republicans and conservative campaign experts, by contrast, argue that Democrats are overstating the ruling's potential impact and are attempting to demonize corporations in the process. Justice Samuel A. Alito, who sided with the court's majority, mouthed the words "not true" in response to Obama.

Schumer is also living in a fantasy world.

"We hope to get Republican support," he said. "It's hard to see how Republicans could be against disclosure for influence on our government and so-called pay to play."

Any Republican voting for this cockamamie legislation deserves to be ousted from offic come November.

Republicans Begin Their 40 Years of Wandering in the Wilderness

I hope it doesn't take them 40 years to figure out what their problem is, but if Rep Tom Cole (R-OK), Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, (pictured on the right) is any indication that appears to be where they are headed. First off when visiting his official web site, the most current entry is from January 8, 2007; uh, I think it is time to update, dude. It is an entry about digital television. How about the whole digital age?

What brought this Congress critter to my attention is remarks credited to him earlier this week about Republicans needing to campaign on a platform of change. Really? But the change he proposes is adopting the previous agenda of failed policies from the Democrats now that they have moved on to far more socialistic goals.

How about trying to come back to the right? You know, reduce government wasteful spending of my tax dollars. It was my money before it was yours. How about standing up in defense of military and quit letting all the slanders and lies about them and their mission going unanswered or unchallenged? How about at least pretending you are serious about securing our border and exporting the illegal aliens?

Anyway, Mr. Cole. along with his Democrat counterpart, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD),(pictured on the left) were on Fox News Sunday today with Chris Wallace and while neither man appears to possess one bit of knowledge of anything outside of that giant vacuum of Washington DC, the Dem once again managed to get off some jabs that went unchallenged.

The basic strategy outlined by the two representatives was this.

For the Dems they simply want to continue stalling legislation, even though they have the majority and should be able to get around any Republican attempt to block it, so that they can plead with the American public to please send them more Dems and also to hopefully have their man in the White House to really get their socialist agenda fast-tracked. Really, the only thing that has stopped the Dems is the so-called Blue Dog Dems; it certainly hasn't been the Republicans.

As for Mr. Cole, his basic strategy for the Republicans appears to be vote Republican because we aren't Democrats. Real good plan, Bubba.

When Wallace asked him about the Republicans voting for the earmark-laden Farm Bill, his defense was "Well it was less then we originally asked for." Well ain't that special? What happened to setting a bottom line and sticking to it? What happened to cutting out all the earmarks in all legislation? Why can't the Republicans stand up say that while some of these bills have great sounding titles the devil is in the details?

The same thing is being done on the Defense Appropriations bill and the GI Bill. Republicans afraid to vote against them because of the title rather then what is contained in the bills.

I don't know if videos of the segment of these two men will be available later but if you manage to see it either on a replay of the Fox News Sunday show or from video somewhere I urge conservatives to view it and see just why the Republican Party no longer cares or represents the conservative voices that used to be in their party.

Yes, I said used to be, because more and more in talking to people I am hearing folks that are not even what could be considered hard conservatives, talking about how frustrated they are with the Republicans and are earnestly in search of a new party to represent them.

If the Republicans don't make a right turn soon they are going to find themselves in a dead-end alley from which they will not be able to get out of.

Of course I could be wrong, but that is certainly my opinion.