At age 77, long serving Congressman John Murtha has died.
John Murtha was a Marine and he was the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress where he served with as much vim and vigor as any individual fighting on the battlefield of any war.
In 1974, after the incumbent Congressman, John Saylor, died in office, Murtha won a special election to fill the vacancy and held that seat until his own death in office.
As \a rabid liberal that loved to poke and prod conservatives, Murtha saw himself as a true defender of the middle class Americans and veterans and was always a reliable liberal vote on all issues from taxes, abortion and defense spending to education, welfare and hate crimes legislation. During his 36 years or 18 terms of representation of the people from Pennsylvania’s 12th district, Murtha saw his share of controversy. One of the most devastating was his entanglements in the Abscam scandal that had undercover investigators catching political figures taking bribes for favors. After Murtha was caught telling these undercover agents how they could legally invest Murtha was captured on tape saying
“I’m not interested… at this point. [If] we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t”.
In the end, after Murtha cooperated with the FBI and testified against two Congressman who were caught taking the cash from operatives, he was never prosecuted but a crowd of doubt hung over him forever more.
In another 'whoops' moment, during the 2008 Presidential race, Murtha was caught calling the voters of his district rednecks and racists because he felt many would not be voting for Barack Obama for President because of his color.
Meanwhile, in the life goes category, the race replace John Murtha will begin before Murtha is buried. Democrats will soon be scuffling among themselves to find a surefire successor, someone whom they hope will also hold the seat for the rest of their lives.
As for Republicans, such antics are not likely.
The gentleman who ran against Murtha in 2008, Lt. Col. William Russell, (ret.), released the following statement and posted it on his website:
“On behalf of Kasia and our entire family, I want to express our deepest sympathy on the passing of Congressman John Murtha. Today’s news will be met with profound sadness by the hundreds of thousands of constituents he served in Johnstown and throughout the 12th Congressional District.
To Joyce, their children and grandchildren, we extend our heartfelt respect as you honor Mr. Murtha’s memory and reflect on his legacy in the upcoming days and months.”
A retired career Army man, Russell ran one of the strongest challenges to Murtha and is likely to end up being Congressman Murtha’s successor, especially in the current environment that liberals are facing. Murtha’s district is heavily Democrat, but if Russell’s 2008 election returns are a sign of anything, it will be that he has the ability to appeal to rational Democrats as well as common sense Republicans.
By law, seats vacated during a term are filled through special elections, unless the vacancy occurs closer to the next general election date than a pre-established deadline. Seeing as how the next general election is but eight months away, there is not likely to be a special election.
If by chance there is a special election called for, I would hazard to guess that Russell would be the odds on favorite to win. That and the Democrats recent success with “special elections”, don’t look for this seat to be filled until after the November general elections.
The RNC has not exactly been on top of their game since 2006 and they have essentially been floundering since 2008. As a national organization, it has been unable to create one unifying national message representing what the G.O.P. stands for and it has been unable to out-campaign Democrats. Well this week the Republican National Committee finally exhibited a hopeful sign of their getting back on track with some smarts. The day after Illinois voters nominated the candidates that will be running for President Obama’s old senate seat, the RNC was up and running with an ad that defined the Democrat nominee and friend of President Obama, Alexi Giannoulias. The ad compares Giannoulias, the son of a banking magnate, to the Soprano’s and discusses his connections to crime figures and his shady financial arrangements with politicians and slumlords. The episode demonstrates a positive sign for the GOP. They are apparently seeing that we must get out in front of the opposition and define them before they try to define us. Strategists are apparently reawakening to the need to have Democrats run on our playing field, not the other way around. It is a small step, but as someone who has not been very impressed by the job that Republican National Committee has been doing, this was a pleasant sign. Keep this up and finally find a message that articulates what the G.O.P. stands for and that Republicans will unite behind and maybe we’ll be back on track again.
*~Judson Phillips
The founder of the Tea Party Nation pulled off an event billed as the first Tea Party National Convention. The event was a success in the sense that it helped motivate those in attendance and even offered workshops that essentially offered some of the technical knowledge that would help Tea Partiers channel their new found civic interest and anger in a productive way. As for Philips, he was criticized for not using a non-profit model for his grassroots organization but he used a powerful argument to defend any profit made at or during the convention. He stated that sending out letters that tells people, “The world is ending, but for $50 we can put it off for a couple of weeks,” just did not strike him as sincere. He added “My vision for Tea Party Nation was to use the capitalist system to support our activities,” he said. “The whole idea of begging for bucks is absolutely repugnant to me. I’m not saying people who have nonprofits and seek donations are bad people or anything like that. I’m just saying, for our group, I don’t like it.” The argument is compelling and in the end, it worked for him. People who could afford the $500.00 a plate dinner which featured Sarah Palin and her keynote address, were satisfied and those who paid for the chotchkies, souvenirs and workshops at the convention were also content. In the mean time, Phillips’ organization raised a pretty penny and it received a great deal of exposure. So the bottom line is that he proved to be a winner this week.
~ ** --- LOSERS --- ** ~
*~Democrats
After the Senate Democrats passed legislation that raised the debt limit by another 1.9 trillion dollars, this week Democrats in the House also passed the same debt limit increase. As was the case in the Senate, not a single Republican supported the measure. The move adds a debt burden of $6,500 to every man, woman, child, transvestite, transgender and every other human life form that lives in the United States. But if that wasn’t bad enough, when the amendment raising the debt limit was passed, the partisan liberal majority cheered and applauded. Are Democrats jackasses or are they just, to quote Rham Emanuel…..f’ing retarded? When the Stock Market crashed, did stockbrokers and traders on the floor of the Exchange jump up and cheer and clapped? Not exactly. In the 1920’s, when some of them lost their life savings, they jumped up to their windowsills and jumped out of them. They did not jump to their feet in glee as did the Democrats who burdened one generation of Americans and sold out the next generation of Americans. All in one vote. AND THEY CHEERED! If that is their reaction to bad news, they must pee themselves when there is good news.
*~Global Warming
After it was proven that some disingenuous scientific data was exploited by liberals in an attempt to create hysteria over global warming, this week scientists discovered that European liberals had overstated the effects of global warming on the Netherlands. The environmental extremists claimed that the quickening pace of global warming has now placed 50% of the Netherlands below sea level. Well most people know that this dam clustered nation has always had more of its land below sea level than any other nation. Hence the reason for all the dams. But now scientists have come out and established that contrary to the extremists 50% calculation, only 20% of the Netherlands remains below sea level, about the same percentage that it is famous for having under sea level. And then this weekend I found myself in a blizzard at my New Jersey home, where almost two feet of snow fell. Now, two days later, I am told to brace myself for another snowstorm that will dump anywhere from a for to another two foot of snow. This just three days after the second storm this winter that dumped that same amount so far this season. Hey Al Gore………….you and your theory are a losers this week. Man certainly does have an effect our environment but not to the climatologically extremes that the business of global warming hysteria mongering suggests.
Down in Nashville, thousands packed a sprawling Gaylord Opryland Hotel to hear Sarah Palin deliver the keynote address to Tea Party Patriots during their first national convention. Palin spoke to a crowd very friendly to her but she did so amidst a storm of controversy that swirled around acceptance of a speaking fee that totaled $100,000.
For many, not only was the fee exorbitant, it was seen as an insincere gesture. If Governor Palin is truly so supportive of the independent, limited government Tea party crowd that believes in restoring our Constitution and rebuilding our national economy with entrepreneurial spirit and free enterprise, than why did she demand such a high profit margin from those who are part of a such a movement?
The question was taken serious and the Governor made it known that she will be reinvesting that money back into the cause, not her personal bank account.
Now don’t get me wrong, I hold nothing against Sarah Palin charging a speaking for and making a profit. This is America, but I do have a problem with political figures being greedy and $100,000 from a grassroots, essentially voluntary movement , is a bit greedy. But the Governor found a quick way to at least calm the storm by saying that she is not taking the money for herself. Still, it was the wrong move.
And this comes from someone who was touting the merits of Sarah Palin’s selections as Vice President before most Americans ever heard of her. I was among those like Adam Bricker, the creator of the original Draft Palin website and blog that helped coordinate the support that we wanted to show for Sarah. So I am one of her biggest supporters and most ardent defenders. I believe she is not a part of the political class, not a member of the old boys club, and as far removed from Washington, D.C., insider politics as Alaska is from the White House. All of which I find important for a nation that wants change and desires to walk away from the status quo. Sarah Palin is anything but the status quo. She is an outsider with an independent streak that will not allow party loyalty to supersede common sense or national priorities. She is a fiscal conservative, a defender of religious freedom and expression, and get’ er done type of leader. The type of leader America needs. So to say the least, I support Sarah.
I even supported her surprise decision to step down from her last year as Governor of Alaska.
I saw it is a courageous, and bold step, as well as a sacrifice.
Sarah Palin had become such a lightening rod for of attacks from the left, that her time, her limited personal finances and the business of the state of Alaska were all being absorbed and wasted on frivolous lawsuits and false allegations that simply did exactly what Sarah Palin said it did in her resignation announcement……it distracted too much from the business of the state. By stepping down, Sarah Palin knew that her bright Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell, could step up and continue the good work that she started, unhindered by the distractions of the liberal elitists who care more about tearing their opponents down then building our nation up.
Yet as much as I sincerely believe in Sarah Palin and her decisions, I could not defend $100,000 profit from those who you claim to be helping. But she says that she is putting it back into the cause now, so I will believe her.
I also believe in the words that she spoke in her keynote address.
The speech was clear and sharp. Palin herself seemed to lose her place at several points, but her ability to improvise and quickly get back on track made those moments almost unnoticeable. In general, the Governor hit on all the hot button issues. Overspending, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, false job creation blamimng all he world’s problems on President Bush, etc, etc,. Perhaps her strongest point came when she spoke of the national security failings of the current Administration. On that issue she ran through a long list of misdeeds such as pulling our missile defense shield out of Europe, the mishandling of the underwear bomber case, and the President’s inability to prosecute the War On Terror effectively. One of her biggest round of applause came after she looked at a war veteran in the audience and said that the President wants to give foreign terrorist the rights that you fought for us to have and allow him them the “right to remain silent” and then “lawyer up” before we can get any important information out of them.
One of the most important things I believe Sarah Palin told the Tea Party audience is not to be discouraged and understand that no candidate is perfect . This is true and for those Tea party protestors who are finally taking their civic responsibility seriously and getting involved for the first time, if they do not realize that no candidate is 100% with them on every issue, than they will perpetually disappoint and frustrate themselves.
In general, Sarah Palin’s speech did not knock me over, but it was powerful and appropriate and I believe, sincere. However I do wish she was a bit more upfront with the Tea Party audience. They needed to be told that for them to be an enduring movement that effects an enduring change for the better in America, than they better focus their attention on changing things from the inside out. Sarah Palin should have told them that they must takeover the existing political parties and shape them into the organization that truly represents them on the issues and nominate candidates with the same sense of convictions as them.
That would have been the most important things Governor Palin could have told her audience. The people in attendance to hear hermay have now become activists, but it i important that thei activism is not wasted on ditractions that will simply discourage them and succumb to the same fate as all other third party movements in America.
I will say this though, one of my favorite lines in the speech came when Sarah Palin asked, “How’s that hopey-changey thing going for ya“?
This weekend, the largely informal Tea Party movement attempts to take a step toward becoming a formal organization. Thousands are gathering in Tennessee for the Tea Party’s first national convention and begin to organize innumerable numbers of citizens who are dissatisfied with the direction our government has been, and is, going in.
Although the Tea Party movement is new, the anti-government sentiment that motivates those in it, is not new. There has always been an anti-establishment and “they’re all alike” component that has motivated people and inspired attempts to create “third parties”. The most recent one to have come closest to, but still fall short of success was sponsored and headed up by H. Ross Perot in 1992. In his first bid for the presidency, Perot’s near 19% of the vote earned him no electoral votes but did essentially throw the election to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.
Third parties do not have a good track record in the United States. That is in large part due to the fact that we have a two Party system. It is not solely a two Party system, but it essentially is. Even so, there do exist many official third parties. Take a state like New York. There in addition to Democrats and Republicans you have four other major parties. There is the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the libertarian Party and the Right To Life Party.
There are even more than that, but those are the four most prominent. They often run their own candidates but more often than not, they cross endorse candidates.
For instance a Democrat may occasionally be found also running on the Conservative line. Usually, the Republican is endorsed by the Conservative Party and the Democrat is endorsed by the Liberal Party. On many occassions, Republicans run on the Conservative and Right To Life lines. These crossed endorsed candidacies have the total vote on the Republican line added to the total votes that they get on the Right To Life and Conservative Party lines.
What this essentially does is give individuals who can’t get themselves to pull the lever for a Republican, the opportunity to vote for the Republican, but on the Conservative or Right To Life line.
This is how Rudy Giuliani became Mayor of overwhelmingly Democrat New York City.
He won the Republican nomination but there were far too many New Yorkers who refused to ever vote Republican, even if they did like Rudy. So what did he do? He got enough signatures to create a third Party line called the “Independent Fusion Party.”
It was that line that gave Rudy enough votes to win, because the total he received on the Republican line would never have been enough to elect him.
But the point to all this is that regardless of these third party entities that may exist, they more often than not, align themselves with either the Republican or the Democrat candidate. Why? Because we are essentially a two Party nation. For some of us the two Parties represent clear differences. To some of us, it is not so much Republican or Democrat as it is right or wrong. It is that clear cut. For others, both Parties are the same. These angry voters are today calling themselves Tea Party members.
And so at their convention, they are organizing.
For those who could afford the exorbitantly high priced tickets that are required for each of the events at their convention, they are being offered workshops such as “How to do Voter Registration Drives and Where to Find Conservative Votes” & “Women in Politics” or a workshop sponsored by the Young Americans for Freedom called “How to Involve the Youth in the Conservative Movement”. Training in these areas are crucial for any movement so I commend the organizers of the Tea Party convention for understanding what needs to be done to be a successful activist.
But my question to all these new activists and their newfound enthusiasm is ………Where the hell have you been??
Why did it take elected Republicans who went astray and the most left leaning, socialist admiring, wealth spreading, President in history, to wake you up and get you up off of your collective arses?
And now that you have finally woken up to the fact that we are losing our country and shredding its Constitution, what are you doing?
You’re trying to take the same historic path to failure that others who believe the grass is greener on some imaginary third side of the street took. And that is despite the fact that you know there are only two sides to a street.
I find myself greatly frustrated by the new awakening that suddenly has millions of people saying “hey, wait a minute, that isn’t right” or “Hey, can they do that”. What “they” have been doing hasn’t been right for years, but your lack of civic responsibility allowed it to get to where it is today.
Which brings me to the direction I advise that Tea Party activists take.
Now that our government has your attetion, use the Tea Party Convention well. Be inspired by its speakers. Absorb the organizational knowledge being provided in the truly useful workshops that the convention offers. Then take that inspiration and knowledge and do what you should have started doing a long time ago. Apply that organizational ability and activism into taking over the two Parties that exist. Make those Parties the political organization that represent what you want them to represent, not what the establishment political class wants it to stand for.
Start at the local level.
Whether you know it or not, there are elections held that elect your local Republican or Democrat Leaders. The first subset of leaders are your local committeemen. One man and one woman within small sections of your neighborhood are elected by the registered voters of the respective Parties who live in that area. They are usually called “election districts”. The people who win the election in their respective election district or precinct, then become municpal or district committeemen. At the same time, there is also usually an election for either district leaders or Municipal Chairmen. These people organize the district or municipality represented by district or precinct committeemen. In some cases these leaders are not voted on in the general election but by the town or precinct committeemen who were elected by the voters in a general election.
District Leaders or Municipal Chairs then organize their committeemen and together they select County Chairmen. This occurs at a county convention where the county committeemen elect the County Chairmen.
As we climb the organizational pyramid, at a state Party convention, County Chairmen elect a State Chairman and at national conventions, State Chairmen elect a national Chairman.
This is how the Parties, that Tea Party protestors so despise, organize.
Now if only these Tea Party Patriots participated in that process, they could be controlling the Parties and stop being controlled by the Parties.
It should also be known that in many cases, the same process that elects the Party leadership, also takes place in regards to the official endorsement process of candidates. In many cases, it is how nominees of the respective Parties are selected when local, county or state offices open up, especially in the event of seats that become vacant. In those cases, the same process that elected your district or municipal chairmen will select the nominee who will run in a special State Senate, State Assembly or City Council election.
Understanding this process is essential to any Tea Party Patriot.
By understanding the methodology involved, instead of trying to build a third side to a street, you can rebuild the existing side that you prefer and make it into what you want.
If you can get Tea Party Patriots elected to County Committeemen positions, you can put into office the Republican or Democrat Party leader of your municipality. Elect Tea Party Patriots to Municipal Chairmen positions and they can elect the Tea Party protestors that they want to be Republican or Democrat County Chairs. From there you do the same with State Chairmen and ultimately the Chairmen of the Democrat and Republican National Committees. It is also how you effect and in many cases select the candidates for state assembly, state senate, Governor, Congress, and the Senate.
If you were apart of that process, you could shape your party platform, you could also be a part of the screening process that endorses candidates and throws the full weight of the Party establishment behind those endorsed candidates. If you were a part of that process, you would be the establishment and you would be able to eventually take credit for electing people who will take this country in the direction that you want to see it go in.
So my advice to Tea Party Patriots is this. Change things from the inside out. Energize, stay angry and motivated, stay focused and become a part of the process instead of fighting the process and succumbing to the failure of all other third Parties.
Do you want to cross endorse or throw your weight behind the establishment’s candidates or do you want be the candidates that others cross endorse and help? Don’t fight with the political Parties………..
TAKE THEM OVER AND MAKE THEM REPRESENT YOU AND WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO REPRESENT!!!!
The state of the Republican Party is questionable but promising.
After a slew of victories at the end of ‘09, including the gain of Republican Governors in New Jersey and Virginia, combined with the pick up of a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts at the beginning of 2010, the G.O.P. is alive and well. But the successes seen recently have largely come not because voters perceive the Republican Party to be superior. Much of our success was due more to the perception that the Democrat Party is inferior.
Since President Obama took office one year ago, Americans have seen him increase the national debt by $1.693 trillion, try to tax the air that we breathe with a Cap-and-Trade measure, attempt to have government takeover healthcare, initiate hundred of billions of dollars in spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs, break promises for missile defense systems, dither on his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, try to close down Guantanamo Bay, force foreign terrorists to be tried in civilian courts rather than military tribunal and bow down to foreign leaders.
Along the way Americans also got to see President Obama call police officers stupid, expand the size of government, appoint an endless array of unelected and unaccountable czars, participate in 28 fundraisers for Democrats that raised almost $28 million for political coffers, campaign for Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, screw up security measures in the Transportation Security Authority, take more trips to foreign nations in his first year in office than any other U.S. President and we have listened to him apologize for America on foreign soil.
As for the rest of his Party, Americans watched Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pass legislation under the cover of darkness and Democrat Senators and Congressman vote on legislation they never read. We also watched a process that was suppose to be bi-partisan and transparent, turn into one of the most partisan and clandestine operating governments in American history, seen pork barrel spending increase and lawmakers take hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to vote for healthcare reforms that most Americans do not want.
Nothing embodied all that infuriated us more than the Democrat led attempt to have government takeover healthcare. That process contained examples of all of the above. It also hangs above Democrats like a sword of Damocles and represents the precise wrong direction Americans see our nation going in.
The result of all this liberal leadership has been an increase in unemployment as well as spending and our debt, lawmakers who are seemingly irresponsive to the wishes of the people and believe they are above the law, and a nation that has more doubt about our nation’s future than confidence in its future.
So it should come as no surprise that voters are angry.
That anger has been to the detriment of Democrats, while Republicans were the beneficiaries of it. republicans are not the ones in control of government. They are the ones that Democrats have, up to now, chose to shut out. So it is only natural for voters to give credit where credit is due…….right in the laps of liberals.
But as we move ahead, the G.O.P. must not rebuild its majority simply because they aren’t Democrats. Such a rise to power would ultimately be short lived.
In the existing political atmosphere, the opportunities that exists for the Republican Party are golden. People are not pleased with the direction liberals are taking them in. Nationwide, Tea Party organizations have demonstrated loudly and are organizing rapidly. Their goal is to get government off their back. They do not want the government making their healthcare decisions and determining when and where they can receive it. They do not want government in the business of business. They do not want G.M. to stand for Government Motors. They don’t want their children’s futures sold out from under them with endless spending or with pieces of overreaching legislation that are over 2,000 pages long and have not been read but are passed because a majority of lawmakers took bribes for their reelection bids.
These Tea Party patriots are not pro-Republican. They hold the G.O.P. accountable for going along with Democrats and for not reducing debt under George Bush. They are not fans of the G.O.P. . For them, simply being not as bad as liberals does not make Republicans deserving of praise and support.
And they’re right.
That is why we must reinvent our commitment to the principles of our Party and the founding principles of our nation.
As a Party we must bring forth a concrete foundation to run on. A foundation that addresses all that has voters up in arms. We must also not fear that commitment sounding “too strong”. No matter how Republicans address our nation’s problems, liberals will call the G.O.P. “extreme”. But we must remember that our purpose is not to sound like Democrats or to please liberals. Our purpose is to solve problems and be true to the most sacred American document in existence………………the American Constitution.
Americans of every stripe and party affiliation have become acutely aware of the unconstitutional legislative conduct that our process has been advancing. Many Americans are aware of the federal governments overreaching and excesses. They see how states rights are trampled. They are also aware of how our government seems to reward mediocrity and punish success.
So now is the time for the Republican Party to come before the nation with a pledge.
It is a pledge to recommit ourselves to the Constitution. This pledge must outline several areas of focus in which all candidates will commit to and collectively fight for, as a Party and as individual legislators.
~*~
~The Pledge of Commitment~
We, the people, commit ourselves to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity,…… — Equal Justice — Freedom of Speech — Limited Government Power — Private Property Rights — Religious Tolerance and — Respect for women, life and the Rule of Law.
We are committed to a legislative process that does not propose or pass any legislative agenda or initiative that is of questionable constitutional integrity or inequitable, overreaching or excessive.
For these reasons, we dedicate ourselves and our Party to reigning in the excesses of federal spending and unjust control. As such we are committed to the following 10 initiatives and goals.
*-All proposed bills, amendments and spending measures must contain the section of the Constitution that provides the constitutional basis for its consideration and passage.
*-The 2.8% Congressional pay raise that the Democrat led Congress passed in 2009 will be repealed and Congress will then subsequently reduce their salaries by an additional 15%.
*-Link the salaries of federal legislators to the economy they manipulate.
*-Institute a four year federal hiring freeze on all non-essential security, defense and medical related operations .
*-Reduce the federal payroll by eliminating non-essential, security, defense and medical positions through attrition.
*-Obliterate the existing arcane, oppressive loophole ridden, unfair tax code and adopt a one-rate, Flat Tax Reform Act that does not ask any one American to pay a greater percentage than any other American. One rate for one America.
*-Dismantle the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Education and Housing and Urban Development.
*-Make healthcare and health insurance more accessible and more affordable by reducing the healthcare bureaucracy and improving the existing free market based healthcare system, expanding portability and adopting tort reforms.
*-Make no apologies for our defense of freedom and prosecute enemy combatants in military tribunals, not civilian courts.
*-Secure our borders and repair our broken immigration and immigration enforcement laws.
With these legislative goals, we hereby commit ourselves to restoring constitutional integrity to the federal government and seek to be more responsible stewards of the offices the people elect us to.
~*~
This Pledge of Commitment is a reform minded agenda that curbs the excesses of government, respects states rights and personal freedoms and it demonstrates our desires to have a government that lives within its means and allows the people the means to achieve personal prosperity.
It is time that we accept the fact that the founding principles of yesterday were responsible for our nations strength in the past and key to our nation’s and Party’s success in the future.
As the next year unfolds, with primaries and political debates, the next leaders of our Party will emerge. Currently, we are in transition. With many highly competitive Republican primaries taking place, slowly the new guard is replacing the old guard and the next generation of conservative leaders will slowly but surely emerge.
Until that time, with no leading figure, with no singular face to represent us, it is important that all Republicans take this Pledge of Commitment. Without one great messenger to represent us, it is imperative that we act on the 10 goals outlined, together as one. Unity in our pledge is imperative to our ability to distinguish ourselves from Democrats as we move forward.
We are now just months away from the 2010 midterm elections. Currently, we have the chance for big gains. But these gains will only be realized if we stand for something and be more than naysayers. Our Pledge of Commitment represents very specific measures that indicate a new and clear direction for our nation. With this new direction, if we are united, the ripples that were set in motion by the perfect storm that swept a Republican into the United States Senate from Massachusetts, can be turned into waves that can sweep Republicans into office from New York to California.
As it stands now, of the 37 senate contests being held this November, 19 are currently held by Republicans and 18 by Democrats. If the G.O.P. can get on message and demonstrate how and why we are different than Democrats and why voters should have faith in us, our Party is on track to keeping all of the 19 Republican seats that are up for grabs, in our column. At the same time we are on track to take 7 seats away from Democrats……Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.
If a strong opponent emerges, in Washington State, Democrat Patty Murray’s seat could be in jeopardy as well as Kirsten Gillibrand’s seat in New York. That would be 9 seats, for a total of 50. It’s not enough to break a tie with Vice President Joe Biden as the President of the Senate but add to that former Democrat and current Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who has recently stated his willingness to becoming a Republican and that would bring us to 51 Republican seats and control.
Another race that could come into play is California.
51 or 52 seats are unlikely though.
New York is becoming increasingly in play but is not there yet, Washington is probably out of reach, the California race is currently static, and Joe Lieberman won‘t switch until he knows that such a move would put him in the majority Party.
But a lock on picking up seven seats from Democrats is becoming very real. That would reduce liberals influence significantly and bring the balance of power much closer with 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans.
In the House, things are even more unstable for Democrats.
With 256 seats held by Democrats and 178 by Republicans (Democrat Rep. Wexler’s Florida seat is vacant but sure to stay in Democrat hands) the G.O.P is looking like it will pick up a minimum of 27 seats which would bring a more balanced 205 Republicans to 230 Democrats. If all the stars were aligned in our favor and we successfully nationalized our campaigns, I see another 13 seats that could be in play. Remarkably, that would change the make up of the House and produce 218 Republican seats to 217 Democrat seats.
Taking control of either branch of Congress is not likely but it is possible. Whether that is achieved or not will depend on how strongly we unite as a Party and convince voters that we are devoted to our Pledge of Commitment. If we can convince voters of our sincere desires to take a more equitable, honest, transparent, and constitutional approach to governance, than even if we don’t take majority control of Congress, we will have made significant gains and put a stop to the partisan dictatorship that is currently reigning supreme in Washington, D.C. .
In addition to a strong, united campaign based on our Pledge of Commitment, strategic and logistical influences will be essential.
As we move ahead our Party must:
--Unite and get better organized, especially in the area of networking --Hammer home our anti-establishment, anti government sentiment and undying commitment to freedom and prosperity. --Add an emotional component to every issue. --Create new funding channels, including large numbers of small financial donations. --Use technology to organize activists, increase transparency, register voters, and change minds --Invite ideas from the public and develop a way to identify, develop and publicize the best ones. --Turn talk radio listeners into donors and activists and provide them with constructive and productive ways to help local candidates and national causes. --Tap into anti-government constituencies ( i.e.: Libertarians and Tea Partiers) --Poke fun at the Administrations promised “change” and their calls for transparency in government. Mock the “hope” the President was to bring. --Day and night, night and day, reinforce Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the faces and leaders of the Liberal Party. --Exploit all Democrat weaknesses. --Develop clear messages and have policy makers become message makers. --Create media markets and operating systems to inspire, generate and direct activism. --Work closely with all grassroots organizations. Relentlessly exploit the weaknesses of key Democrat leaders. --Put new blood forward and present new ideas. Let voters know that old guard Republicans are on their way out.
The task at hand is daunting.
It took us years to find ourselves in minority status and it will take some time to get back to majority status. But Democrats are helping to measure the amount of time our journey takes in months rather than years.
The one thing in Democrats favor is the timing in which voter anger has been realized.
In 1994, when Republicans took control of both branches of Congress for the first time in four decades, the anti-incumbent sentiments were not fully understood until after the mid-term, when Democrat heads rolled. President Obama however, has the fortune of learning about voter dissatisfaction, almost a year before his mid-term elections.
The fact that the President has gone a full week without having a single major speech about healthcare indicates that he finally understands that people are not happy with his agenda and the way things are going. Further evidence of this new found understanding is his sudden attempts to sound fiscally responsible by trying to enforce a very limited spending freeze. On that, liberals are annoyed by the number of pet projects that would be killed by that move and conservatives are screaming about how too little and too late the President’s concerns with spending are. It’s like a fat man claiming to be on a diet because he drank a can of Slim Fast after a six course, 20,000 calorie meal.
But President Obama will surely begin to shift his focus. Since the voters spoke in Massachusetts he has begun to relentlessly attack any and all unpopular institutions, such as banks. It will be our job to remind voters why he has suddenly changed his agenda and what he changes it from while he still holds on to the hope of passing a massive government takeover of healthcare and some of the greatest transfers of power and wealth in the history of mankind. We must remind voters that President Obama and loyal liberal Democrats promised to “fundamentally change America” and then we must demonstrate that those fundamental changes were to the application of the U.S. Constitution which made us the greatest nation in the world………at least until he tried to make his fundamental changes.
Clearly the state of the Republican Party is promising.
Many Republican leaders have learned from their past mistakes. Many who did not, are being flushed out through the primary process while others are retiring. Democrats are imploding and voters are open to viable alternatives. So the future is promising. What is questionable though is our ability to convincingly become that viable alternative and our willingness to roll up our sleeves and do what needs to be done to take advantage of the promising future that lies ahead.
57 year old Zeituni Onyango has an appearance before a federal immigration judge in Boston. She won’t be alone, not in a country that refuses to properly secure its borders and enforce its immigration laws. But despite all the company that Onyango will enjoy, she will be quite unique.
She is the aunt of the President of the United States.
Five years ago Aunt Zeituni ignored deportation orders back to her native Kenya. In the past she cited violence in Kenya as her need for asylum in the United States. If that will the same reason stated now is not known.
The situation is an uncomfortable one for her nephew, the President.
President Obama, could have some influence in the case, “some” (wink, wink) but if he did interject himself into the case, he would most likely be accused of having undue influence in the case. But if he doesn’t do anything…..anything that wouldn’t illegal, what kind of nephew would he be.
Well, no one knows who is paying for he legal representation, so maybe the President is helping his Aunt financially. He does have a little dough you know. He has a lot more than his brother, George.
George Hussein Onyango Obama lives in Kenya on one dollar a month.
Despite his wealthy and powerful brother who sits in the Oval Office and sleeps in the White House, George remains unaffected. He still struggles on a dollar a month. Neither he or Aunt Zeituni even got an invitation to Barack Obama’s inaugural.
Just knowing that Barack has an aunt in America that he leaves hanging and a Kenyan brother that he leaves to live in a life of poverty speaks for itself. In fact it speaks volumes.
Barack Obama loves poverty. It is how he made a name for himself as a “community organizer” who went on to represent one of Chicago’s poorest senate districts in the Illinois State Legislature. His representation of these people provide for the stuff that American dreams are born out of. The championing of the underprivileged. And no one makes it a better story than Barack Obama. But does his story ever conclude with an ounce of his having actually achieving victory or at least an improvement for the underdog?
While representing the people living in the slums of his district, Barack’s tenure in the state senate did little to change conditions in those slums. In fact most of his activity pertaining to those slums swirls around a friend and contributor to Obama’s campaign, Tony Rezko, the now arrested Chicago slum lord.
Just as Barack makes mention of his brother George in his book, Barrack refers to his days as a community organizer for the people of his Chicago district. He often refers to the citizens of the slums that he represents as the “less fortunate” and goes into a glorious speech about all that he will do for them as President.
Yet what has he done for them? He organized them, for what we still do not know. He represented them in the state senate and yet the slums he served are still slums. There is not an ounce of improvement that his representation and so-called leadership has brought to these people. But he mentions them often.
Much like George Hussein Onyango Obama, these people he once represented are no better off for knowing him or for his touted leadership of them. Much like George, the poverty stricken people Obama has known and made a career off of, are just fodder for his grandiose speeches of hope and the facing of challenges.
And so today, Aunt Zeituni, an illegal immigrant, sits in deportation court awaiting to hear her fate and her nephew, the President finds himself in a difficult position. If he intervenes in the case, whether he does so in a proper way or not, he will be accused of tampering with the case. If he doesn’t do anything, he will be seen at the very least, as a bad nephew.
In the end, maybe that lack of any valid birth certificate of his own will be the deciding factor in whether or not President Obama get’s involved.
As for Aunt Zeituni, the judge overseeing her “closed door” hearing could rule on her fate right from the bench or make a determination at a later date.
The race for President Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois has its official slate of candidates after last night‘s primary election. You remember the seat we‘re talking about. It’s the one that went up for auction by Illinois Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich when Barry got elected President.
After the scandal plagued process to fill the vacancy created by then Senator Obama’s victory, under a shroud of doubt, Roland Burris was appointed by Blago and he has been keeping the seat warm ever since. Well now the race to replace Burris is set. On the Democrat side Alexi Giannoulias took the nomination for himself after defeating four others and beating his closest rival by 6%.
On the Republican side, Congressman Mark Kirk fought off five contenders and won the GOP nomination in a landslide that had him swamp his closest opponent by a whopping 37%.
Sounds to me like Republicans are more sure of their nominee than Democrats are with their candidate. And with good reason.
Giannoulias is the State Treasurer of Illinois. It is a job he got after he defeated State Senator Christine Rodagno in 2006 for the open seat. Part of his successful aura was based on his supposed knowledge of finances. Giannoulias’ daddy owns banks and he had his son help manage a few of them.
The ironic part of all this is, since Democrats have tried to shift attention away from their failed government takeover of healthcare, they have made banks the enemy. The President has made speech after speech about how banks are bad and how we must punish them. So now the father-made boy banker ends up being the Democrat’s nominee for Senate. I guess only those banks that don't fund Democrats and their cronies are bad.
Which brings us to the commercial above.
Without skipping a beat, the NRSC, jumped on the odd selection of Giannoulias as their standard bearer, especially given his ties to and support for some of Chicago’s shadiest characters.
The ad gives scandal plagued Illinois voters a reason to think twice about pulling the lever for another politician who is knee deep in questionable ethics and ties to corruption.
As for Republicans, Mark Kirk is really not someone who inspires conservatives. After being one of only 8 Republicans to vote for the liberal Cap-and-Trade, environmental tax scheme, Kirk passes no litmus tests. But hey, aren’t litmus tests suppose to be politically incorrect? So I guess you can say that Kirk is the politically correct candidate.
As for Giannoulias, in his victory speech he told Mark Kirk “come November, your days as a Washington insider are over”. That’s pretty funny coming from a man who has made his money from his daddy’s business and pals around with Washington insider’s like President Obama while financing Chicago political insiders like convicted slumlord Tony Rezko. Leave it to a liberal to show their hypocritical stripes.
Giannoulias is as much an insider as long serving Washington insider, Vice President Joe Biden.
Back in 2006, Crain’s Chicago Business’ reported:
“Just why did Sen. Obama last week endorse for Illinois treasurer an unknown 29-year-old whose financial experience is limited to working at a family-owned Chicago bank, and who, as recently as five years ago, was shooting professional hoops as point guard with team Panionios of Athens, Greece?” (Greg Hinz, Op-Ed, “Halo Tarnish,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 12/12/05)
Beyond that, the record shows the following insider history;
~The Giannoulias family introduced Barack Obama to powerful contributors and raised About $100,000 for his senate race. (Greg Hinz, Op-Ed, “Halo Tarnish,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 12/12/05)
~President Obama kept his senate campaign funds at Broadway Bank, one of the banks owned by Gianoulas (John T. Slania, “On Broadway: City’s Most Profitable Bank,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 10/25/04)
~Giannoulias hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign back in 2007. (Lynn Sweet, “State Giannoulias Hosts Obama Funder In Chicago,” Chicago Sun-Times’ “Lynn Sweet” Blog, blogs.suntimes.com, 9/5/07)
~Since 2003, as a bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign, Giannoulias contributed at least $7,000 to the President’s Senate campaign. (CQ Money Line Website, moneyline.cq.com, Accessed 6/21/08)
President Obama himself stated;
“I’ve got a very personal relationship with Alexi … He was critical for me in terms of reaching out to the Greek community, other ethnic communities in the city. He was there from the start, when people didn’t give me a shot.” (Rick Pearson, “Parties Get Set For Busy Primary,” Chicago Tribune, 12/5/05)
In addition to that, his banks have aided and abetted the criminal activity of many supporters of liberal insiders. The Chicago slumlords of Obama backer Tony Rezko were, in part financed, by Giannoulias banks.
And to top it all off, like any good Chicago political insider, scandal just latches on to Giannoulias.
~ In 2006, he was sharply criticized for loaning money to crime bosses. (Rick Pearson and David Jackson, “Obama Leans On Treasurer Nominee,” Chicago Tribune, 4/13/06)
~ He accepted a $5,000 campaign contribution from a casino owner in Florida, after his uncle was killed in an execution-style shooting and was foundd to have connections to Jack Abramoff. (Erin Calandriello, “Campaign Donation Has Links To Scandal,” Chicago Daily Herald, 2/10/06)
So Democrats have a real gem on their hands. As a person, Giannoulias has ridden his father’s coattails into fame and fortune. As a politician he has become an underhanded insider who trades in political favors with some of the most disreputable and corrupt people you can find. And when he deals with the issues, he is exactly as his campaign described him…..a devout progressive………. a label which President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats et al, have turned into an anchor that, in this anti-liberal election cycle, will be worn around Alexi Giannoulias’ neck.
In fact, the record shows that Alexi Giannoulias fits right in with establishment liberals. He supports the healthcare tax scheme that would have government takeover healthcare in America. He supports the culture of dependency and opposes a proper execution of the War On Terror.
As a state treasurer, Giannoulias initiated several new spending programs and in 2008 Giannoulis invested state money in a Core Plus college savings program that experienced great losses. At the same time, despite the need for federal and state belt tightening, Giannoulias decided to have the state treasurers office purchase a hybrid vehicle that is suppose to allow state workers travel the state to sign up families for a college savings program called Bright Start. So much for fiscal responsibility.
So let the races begin! And let Democrats, and self described progressive everywhere, discover that all the king’s horses and all the kings men will not be able to put their liberal monopoly back together again.
According to a report by National Public Radio, Olberman’s last place rated 8:00 p.m. show among the three major cable news networks is slated to be cancelled.
Olbermann denies this but he also claims that his show is the number one rated show in that time slot. Olbermann’s detachment from reality is nothing new and I would be too embarrassed to admit that Nancy Grace and CNN were beating me too, but Countdown with Keith Olbermann is an undeniable failure that MSNBC can’t afford to waste their time on.
That is good, especially since most American’s have long ago realized that Keith Olbermann and MessBC are not worth their time……hence the low ratings.
Sadly Olbermann’s career won’t be over after his show is put out of our misery. A four year contract that the network has with him, forces them to utilize Olbermann in one way or another…………….got any openings in the janitorial slots set aside for cleaning the executive bathrooms?
All I can say is, its about time. Olbermann’s show has been counting down to no ratings for far longer than anyone expected. But you know what is really sad. This makes Rachel Madcow the senior goofball on MessBC. I wonder how long she has left?
After Massachusetts went Brown for Scott Brown, POLITICS 24/7 recently noted that if the G.O.P. can convince voters that they have learned a lesson and truly understand that Americans are looking for a limited, constitutionally driven government, that minds its own business and focuses on that which it is suppose to, such as our national defense and sovereignty, they are on schedule to pick up a minimum of 27 House seats and 7 Senate seats.
If Republicans can not only convince voters that they learned their lesson but also go a step further and organize themselves around a unified message, I also pointed out that they can actually pick up as many 9 or 10 Senate seats and 41 House seats to achieve a 218 to 217 seat majority and a 50/50 split or 51/49 majority in the Senate.
Over the past few days, (as seen in the map above) the odds of the high end of these predictions rather than the low end, have increased greatly, especially in the Senate, where some seemingly safe Democrat seats are leaning more toward the toss up column.
In Colorado, the Centennial State, Democrat Michael Bennet, whose election is already in doubt, is looking to be in even more doubt. Bennet, was appointed by the state’s unpopular Governor, to fill Republican Ken Salazar’s seat after President Obama appointed Salazar to his Cabinet as Interior Secretary. Now it is looking like Senator Bennet’s shaky bid to a full term in the Senate will be further damaged by a challenge for the Democrat nomination from Andrew Romanoff who has just signed some high priced and reputable Democrat consultants and pollsters to his primary campaign. This will undoubtedly make it even more difficult for Democrats to compete in an environment that is becoming less and less friendly for them in Colorado as each day passes.
A quick fly over to the East and a look at Deleware reveals that since the son of the favorite son of the Diamond State, Joe Biden, is not going to seek his fathers old Senate seat, Republican Congressman Mike Castle has this one almost in the bag. Considering the lousy environment for Democrats this time around, Beau Biden is conceding that race to Castle and running for reelection as the state’s Attorney General.
From the Diamond State in the East, we head back to the West and the Silver State, where another political gem reveals itself for Republicans.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s poll numbers have him plummeting to earth in a death spiral that has gravity hurtling him to the ground faster than Martha Coakley in a race against Scott Brown, and unlike Coakley, who Reid’s Republican opponent will be, is not even official yet.
According to financial filings released this past Friday, the Democrat leader turned out his weakest fundraising quarter of the entire past year. Not a good sign for a campaign that is trying get his reelection bid off the ground. In addition to that, approval ratings in the low 30’s are not a good sign of Reid’s ability to bring in a hell of a lot more money for what is looking like a doomed reelection bid.
While we're here in the West, Washington State is worth looking at. Here we find that once safe Democrat Senator Patty Murray’s sneakers are beginning to wear thin on the voters of the Evergreen State. Here, a new poll shows that three term incumbent Patty Murray pulls 42% against two time Republican Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi who polls 45% in a Murray-Rossi match-up.
But the fault line that lies in the Democrats base does not end there. From The Evergreen State, it meanders eastward to the Badger State where the confident and once secure liberal lion cub, Russ Foolsgold, I mean Feingold, now finds himself at risk if former Governor Tommy Thompson runs against him. If Thompson does decide to go for it, something which he is seriously mulling over, Thompson would take 47% to Feingold’s 43%.
But the more you travel this great land of ours, the worse the news gets for Democrats.
As is the case south of Wisconsin, in Missouri where voters in the Show Me State seem to want to see something more than the Carnahan dynasty represent them. Robin Carnahan, the Secretary of State and daughter of the former Governor Mel Carnahan is looking to run for the seat that her father ran for and won, even though he was killed in a plane crash only days before the election. Governor Carnahan’s posthumous victory allowed the Lieutenant Governor that succeeded Mel upon his death, to appoint Mel’s wife…..Robin’s mother. But since then Mama Carnahan lost that seat in a special election and now Robin is seeking to get back the seat that she sees as part of her families inheritance. The only problem is that Robin Carnahan is now behind her Republican opponent, Roy Blunt by 6 percentage points. On top of that in the last quarter Carnahan’s financial reports indicate that she has been having a tough time getting financial support.
Having seen the Show Me State’s state of political affairs, The Keystone State offers an even sadder situation for Democrats as now incumbent Democrat Arlen Specter finds himself in a primary against Democrat Congressman Joe Sestak. That will be a race that simply saps out whatever life is left in Arlen’s senate career and make it harder to overcome the 14% that a new poll has him trailing the Republican opponent, Pat Toomey, by.
A bit further East of Pennsylvania and Democrats are even finding the friendly liberal environment of the Empire State to be a challenge. Here, Kirsten Gillibrand finds herself having a tough time keeping Hillary Clinton’s old senate seat as former Tennessee Congressman, Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. starts beating up on her before he even officially challenges her in a race for the Democrat nomination.
In a number of polls, Gillibrand already trails former Republican Governor George Pataki, if he enters the race. Whether he runs or not is still highly doubtful. But with Gillibrand viewed highly favorable by a mere 9% of New Yorkers and unfavorably by 17%, finding a decent Republican who can possibly take this should not be hard………“should not be”, but probably will. At the very least, a good candidate will force Democrats to pump money into a seat that the DNSC would rather invest elsewhere.
These are just some of the latest developments that only add to the likely Republican takeover of seats in Arkansas, Illinois and North Dakota. But if none of that worries Democrats yet, one thing that should is a very common denominator. All of these candidates, not to mention Arkansas, Illinois and North Dakota as well, have the Democrat incumbents and the likely Democrats nominees approval ratings that are below 50%. Historically, at this stage of game, just a mere nine or so months away, any incumbent who is preferred by less than half of their constituents, is in trouble.
That in and of itself means big trouble for most Democrats and although things could change, it is getting a little late in the game to turn things around.
*-After once admitting to having a tingle run up his leg over Barack Obama, the partisan television prognosticator who offers some of the most useless and rambling banter on American airwaves, made a statement that goes down on that Best of Chris Matthews CD or maybe that TV’s Top Ten Bloopers show. After President Obama delivered his fifty or so minute State of the Union address, Matthews gushed “I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he’s gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and passed so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it’s something we don’t even think about. I was watching, I said, wait a minute, he’s an African-American guy in front of a bunch of other white people.” Matthews can’t help but spew verbal ejaculations of liberal loving quotes that he is famous for, but it isn’t often that a liberal admits to their preoccupation with race and their racist thoughts. To suggest that Matthews forgot the President was black for one hour indicated that he thinks about President Obama’s color the other 23 hours of everyday. The remark was just another example of talking head stupidity and Chris Matthews proved once and for all that he doesn’t use his head and talks out of his arse. The fact that MSNBC continues to run with this guy made selecting Matthews or MSNBC as one of this week’s losers difficult. It was a close call, but I don’t think any one can truly contest the fact that Matthews is the biggest loser of the two.
---Arlen Specter
*-Arlen Specter spent the past week trying to explain why he was so patronizing to a Congresswoman that he was debating while on a radio talk show. After repeatedly telling Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann to essentially shut up and “act like a lady”, ol’ Arlen helped to demonstrate that he is even more out of touch than we thought. Liberal feminists ignored the remark, but strong, independent women didn’t. Many of them, including Michelle Bachmann await an apology. Not for calling her lady, but for the patronizing tone and context he used the term "act like a lady" in. The suggestion was that as a lady, Bachmann should sit there and listen to Arlen without objection to his accusations. I don’t know about Arlen but I don’t think sharia laws apply to contemporary American women and I would guess Arlen never told his wife to “act like a lady” because if he did, he’d be talking funny with the fat lap he would be walking around with. But things are not going well for Arlen Specter. In addition to acting like Archie Bunker addressing Edith from his armchair, a poll came out and placed him 14 points behind Pat Toomey, his likely Republican opponent for the Senate seat he currently occupies. On top of that, it is becoming more and more clear that this was not the time to be switching parties and trying to latch on to a political label that is sinking faster than the Titanic. Arlen is definitely a loser. Especially this week.
---President Obama
*-Faced with the need to take the focus off of the fact that the American people believe he has not been focusing on the most pressing issues confronting us, President Obama used his first State of the Union to talk out of both sides of his mouth. After using his first year in office to become the most partisan President of out time, spend like a drunken sailor in a liquor store, and really do nothing more for the economy other than increase unemployment, he stood before the nation and chastised Republicans for not being bipartisan enough, and told us how the federal government must tighten its belt end spend less and how we must create jobs. The President’s State of the Union offered a to do list of everything his administration and his policies did not do during his first year in office. But if that did 'nt prove how hypocritical he and his Party is, President Obama spoke of a Christmas tree of tax cuts and even suggested that the he already cut taxes for Americans and that those “tax cuts gave Americans more spending power”. Well here’s a newsflash Mr. President, you campaigned against trickle down economics and you even said you wanted the government to “spread the wealth” through taxes. So which is it? Do you believe that tax cuts help Americans or do you believe that Americans are best off when the government redistributes their wealth? And as far as those tax cuts you claim to have initiated, they were so meager that they were hardly felt. And by the way, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is as good as a tax increase. So rather than suggest that you are a tax cutter, you should fess up and admit that you and your party are tax hikers. Unless of course you really believe that tax cuts give Americans more buying power and that more buying power leads to more job. If you do, you will reinstate the Bush tax cuts and make them permanent...... Until the President’s rhetoric matches his deeds, until he really cuts taxes, creates jobs, grows the economy and insures that his Democrat leaders allow Republican leaders to sit at the table, than he is nothing but a loser dragging us all down. This week, all President Obama did was demonstrate how hypocritical he is. So he must be considered one of the week’s losers.
* ~~~ WINNERS ~~~ *
---New York City
*-President Obama and Eric Holder made us all losers when they proved their inability to properly prosecute the War on the Terror but when they made the decision to try five professed terrorists who were involved in 9//11 as civilians, instead of enemy combatants in a military tribunal, the biggest loser was the location where their civilian trial was going to be held………..New York City. The trial would have cost NYC $1 billion, depressed local commerce, put New Yorkers on edge , paralyzed the City’s already congested streets with closures and other delays created by the humongous security that would have been required, and it would risk victimizing New Yorkers from a retaliatory strike sparked by the trial that would have taken place just a few hundred yards away from ground zero. After Mayor Bloomberg changed his mind and urged the President to change his own mind, the President called upon the Justice Department to find another location for the trial. So New York City came out on top this weeks, where it belongs, and is a winner. But what of the municipality that the civilian trial ends up in? Will that town deserve being the target of threats, being harassed by inconveniences and plundered by expenses that a military tribunal would have avoided. Not really but New Yorker’s made sure that it won’t be them. So they are winners.
---ManCrunch
*-Few ever heard of this gay dating site, or probably ever wanted to hear about it, but after putting CBS on the spot and forcing them out of the closet to admit that they would not air their commercial during the Super Bowl because it did not meet the stations standards, word spread like wild fire and a viral marketing success was born. After ticking off the right by rejecting an anti-abortion ad, it was easy to call attention to the network’s rejection of another ad that this time, ticked off the left. The ad had two men kissing in it, and when the people doing the marketing for ManCrunch let it be known that CBS considered it inappropriate to air, people quickly went to the internet to see the commercial for themselves. As they did, CBS quickly became the "Can’t Be Seen Network” and without spending a dime of the millions it costs for an ad to run during the Super Bowl, ManCrunch got more publicity than it ever could have imagined, and for free! And so now you know what ManCrunch is, which is why they are a big winner of the week. They took political correctness and exploited it to their advantage. It was the type of brilliant strategy that could be used in pulling off something as unimaginable as electing a Republican to the US Senate from Massachusetts.
---Indiana Voters and Their State Legislature
*-Indiana has been seeing an incredible tug of war between the state and local municipal governments. As the national economy soured, the state government, under Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, was forced to cut back on the amount of funds it gave to local governments. The state, tightened its belt, but local governments did not. So they turned to raising property taxes. Since 2008 the high trending property tax rates sparked an Indiana uprising of Tea Party protesters and even ousted the Mayor of Indianapolis. So now, taking the bull by the horn, state lawmakers have approved placing a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would enable state residents to vote on a constitutional Property-Tax Cap. Even though voters understand that this will mean cuts in municipal services, one poll shows them in favor of the cap on property taxes by a margin of 64%. So this week both the voters of Indiana and their state legislature are winners. Not only do they talk about belt tightening and limited government, they are taking steps to insure it. Now, if national Democrats, as well as national Republicans can learn that leson, maybe we will all be better off.
After reversing his decision to have professed 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 co-conspirators, tried in New York because of costs, security concerns and massive disruptions in local commerce and life in the area surrounding the court that the case was suppose to be held in , the Administration finds itself sending a mixed message.
As the Justice Department seeks a new venue for the trial, they are looking at having the civilian trial of the 9/11 five, tried on a military base.
The thinking is that a military base will be a ore secure location that will discourage any retaliatory terrorist threats from taking place as a result of the highly publicized trial. In addition to the security benefits of having the trial on a military base, it is cheaper than trying to secure a whole city. It will also be far less disruptive to the communities adjacent to where these civilians trials would take place.
As the Justice Departments searches for a new venue, using what they learned from attempts to have the civilian trial of the 9/11 terrorists in New York City, the President is now earmarking $200 million dollars to cover the expenses that the trial incur, wherever it is held. In New York City, between the Mayor’s office ands the Police Commissioners office, the total expense for the City was projected to be $1 billion.
The new budget appropriation for the prosecution of the 9/11 terrorists and the search and rationale for changing the venue of the trial to a military base, brings rise to the question of why did the Administration decide against the prescribed military tribunal that the five 9/11 enemy combatants were originally suppose tried in.
The entire episode has led many to question just how seriously the President takes the War on Terror. Many believe that President Obama’s desire to prosecute those who have pledged themselves to a jihad, a holy war, against the United States, as average citizens.
In an attempt to force the President’s hand,make it imposssible to try the 9/11 terrorists in a military court, Republicans are now proposing legislation that would prohibit tfrom funding the prosecution of any 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court. That measure is being proposed later this week by Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Similar legislation has already been proposed by New York Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island.
King’s legislation would prohibit federal funds for the trials of any detainees who have or are held at Guantanamo Bay.
Both bills are meant to force the Justice Department to try either the 9/11 terroists in a military tribunal.
Although I applaud the intentions of these lawmakers, we all know that these “republican” bills will not see the light of day in this liberal controlled regime, despite their sudden, I suggest quite tongue-in-cheekily, desire for “bi-partisanship”. Additionally, before Republicans even get the chance to have Democrats oppose the bill on the record, Democrats will have the ability to say that Republicans tried to cut off the funds that would allow us to prosecute terrorists. Politics is very tangled web that is weaved by very twisted people.
In the meantime, one Mayor is begging for the trial to be held in his town,.
The Mayor of Newburgh, New York, Nicholas Valentine wants his financially strapped city to host the trial in their newly refurbished federal court house.
Newburgh is a poor city. On top of that, they still have not come up with all the cash to pay for their newly refurbished courthouse. So Mayor Valentine says that he knows some town is going to benefit from a community assistance package that will inevitably come with the trial, so why not let it be his town? Hence the President’s $200 million earmark for the trial. Valentine also says that the trial will bring in tourism dollars. So at least the Mayor of one sleepy and depressed town sees the 9/11 trial as something to be exploited for lots of money and in this case, a way to pay off the refurbishment of the court house which he didn’t have them money for in the first place. Leaders of the county that Newburgh is diagree with the Mayor though. They are not so keen on the type of so-called tourism that terrorists will bring.
All things considered, President Obama botched this up in every way possible. It began when he promised to close Guantanamo Bay, a promise he still has not been able to fulfill. He botched it up even more when he decided to give foreign terrorist and enemy combatants the rights of American citizens and try them in civilian courts, where war crimes should not be tried.
Which brings us back to the question of how serious does the President really take the War on Terror?
Sometimes he sounds strongly committed to aggressively prosecuting that war. But his decisions do not match his rhetoric. This is a point driven home by Senator Susan Collins (Rhino-R, ME). A liberal at heart, even Senator Collins sees that the President’s hands are not wrapped very tightly around the anti-terrorism effort. In the Republican weekly radio address, she oddly, but strongly articulated that point. (see the clip above)
I for one stated that the decision to try the five captured and professed terrorists behind 9/11 that we have in custody as civilians was wrong. I also have repeatedly stated that the decision to not prosecute them in a military tribunal will come back to bite the President in the rear end, come election time, which is right about when this trial should be concluding.
As each day passes my expectations are being confirmed.
The unraveling of the people’s confidence in the President’s ability to effectively wage war against terrorists and protect Americans from fundamental Islamic extremists, hell bent on killing Americans, has begun.
Hopefully the terrorists will not be able to take advantage of the vulnerabilities that the President’s lack of leadership has left us open to.
After first offending the right for refusing to air an anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl, now they offend the left and reject an ad for a dating service.
On January 18th, ManCrunch, a gay dating service, submitted an ad to CBS with the intention of getting it aired in one of the highly coveted slots available during the Super Bowl.
The spot is 30 seconds and it shows two men on a sofa, watching a football game. After one of the two throws his hands in the air with a cheer for a touch down for his team, he turns to the other guy who is a fan of the opposing team and offers an in your face “you suck” gotchya moment to his teams loss. As they settle back down , their two hands are seen reaching into a bowl of chips and they touch. Next, you see the two men look at each other and suddenly embrace and make out. The scene widens a bit and a guy in a separate chair, next to the sofa, with a chip in his hand and a dropped jaw look on his face, stares at the two men kissing, in awe. (See ad below)
The ad is actually funny. The key to its humor is the surprise of it. From its start, you do not expect the commercial to go in this direction .
Is it inappropriate? I don’t think so but everyone’s tastes are different. Obviously.
The problem is that after the folks at ManCrunch initially checked on the status of the ad, they “claim” CBS told them that it was not yet deemed appropriate in accordance with network standards, but that “all the Super Bowl spots were sold out”, anyway. The people at ManCrunch asked that the ad continue through the approval process that was ready to air in the event that a sponsor pulls out and a slot for the commercial opens up.
Shortly after that , a CBS representative told Pop Tarts that advertising spots were still open.
This has led many at ManCrunch to believe that CBS is not even considering airing a commercial for their dating resource because it’s a “gay“ dating service. They claim that CBS does “not want to officially ‘reject’ the spot out of fear there may be a backlash from gay advocacy groups.”
To that, a CBS representative said “The ad is still under review, the process takes a little while.” “We still have a lot of ads we have yet to review.”
The episode could be an intentionally created controversy geared at getting some earned media. After all, ads that get rejected often get more attention than the ads that get aired. The controversial nature of a rejected advertisement immediately causes people to swarm to where else…………………you tube…………….where the ad winds up getting viewed by more people for more times than it would have after millions of dollars was spent to have it seen once, during the Super Bowl, when most people are in the bathroom relieving themselves.
So the promoters of ManCrunch played this well. They created a lot of doubt about CBS and their intentions. CBS simply made it easy for ManCrunch because they mishandled the situation. But now CBS finally put an end to the questions surrounding whether they approve of the ad or not.
CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs announced;
“After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot,”
She added;
“We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions.”
ManCrunch is claiming a double standard. They say that CBS runs ads for such things as Viagra during all times of the day and night and so they question the standards that CBS used to reject airing this commercial.
But Viagra commercials do not show couples passionately kissing. Other CBS commercials and programming do though. So what standard is the humorous ManCrunch ad not meeting? Is it not meeting a heterosexual standard? I for one do not know the answer to that question. Only the people in CBS‘ standards and practices department know. But to a degree I am not sure it matters. I have a problem with anyone forcing a private entity to air or censor anything that their service is broadcasting. CBS and all the other networks and cable stations refuse ads of all types, including advocacy commercials.
Last year NBC refused to allow a powerful anti-abortion ad from airing during the Super Bowl. This year, CBS itself has rejected another anti-abortion ad.
Of course there also is the fact that the airwaves any network use are regulated by the government. Because of that, there are certain standards they must abide by. They can’t have cursing, at least not until late in the evening and even then, it is not permitted on the network stations. But the government has yet told a network they can’t air ads for various groups. They merely deal with the content the ads contain regarding language, violence, sex, nudity and in some cases speech, as in hate speech. So like it or not, censorship does exist. But the ManCrunch advertisement is not violent, there is no hate speech or foul language and there is no nudity. Is CBS stating that kissing, in the manner that the two subjects in the ManCrunch commercial are kissing, is inappropriate? If so, why? They air sitcoms and dramas that at times offer such displays of affection. They air commercials where heterosexuals kiss. So why does this commercial not meet CBS’ standards?
The only real reason could be because the two individuals kissing, are men, and they are kissing each other, not two other women.
So the question now becomes, should the government force Viacom, a subsidiary of Westinghouse, to air the commercial for ManCrunch’s gay dating service? Or is Sumner Redstone, the owner of CBS and its parent companies of Westinghouse and Viacom, allowed to air what he wants, so long as it meets the standards of the Federal Communication Commission?
I tend to believe, it’s Sumner Redstone’s call. I don’t own the station. Neither do you and what CBS does as it relates to its success or failure is up to Sumner Redstone not us. We simply have the power and final say in determining whether what is aired or produced, is successful or not. If we like it, it is. If we don‘t, it isn’t.
For me these commercials are much less of a concern than are the prevalent political biases that exist in the programming of the flagship of all networks…..their news divisions.
When Katie Couric or Chris Matthews or someone like Dan Rather, manipulates the news and interjects ever so subtle or not so subtle slants that lead viewers on, in my opinion, that’s when stations need to be called out. News, true news, is not suppose to have a bias. It is suppose to deliver the facts and let you decide. In the case of CBS, it used to be called the Tiffany Network mainly because of news bureau. The fine quality and reputation of its news division.
But, to say the least, standards in news bureaus have slipped After Dan Rather, the news division of CBS has distanced itself so far from fine quality that, today the Tiffany Network of yesterday has become the Dollar Store Network. So I for one am kind of glad to see the predicament that ManCrunch put CBS in. Now after rejecting to air an anti-abortion ad, CBS has offended conservatives, who they always offend with the liberal bias of their news, and the have now offended liberals by rejecting an ad because it featured gay men kissing.
It would seem that CBS is becoming an equal opportunity offender. That does at least help them achieve a fair and balanced standing in one area….offensiveness.
Depending on how gay activists handle this, CBS may just receive “a backlash from gay advocacy groups”. They will surely be seeing a backlash from right-to-life groups. It will be interesting to see if the far left and the far right join forces and really hammer home the impression of CBS as being the “Can‘t Be Seen” network..
Doubtful I know.
In the end, ManCrunch is the winner here. Their ad will get seen and highlighted as it is in this account, and it will have cost them near nothing as compared to a few million dollars. As for CBS, they will still make hundred of millions for all the ads that they do accept for the Super Bowl but their ratings may soon start to slip even more than they already are.
They say you can’t always please everyone. That is true, but for CBS, they are putting a new spin on that old saying as they increasingly become the station that is always not pleasing anyone.
Yesterday, it was confirmed that President Obama will seek a change in venue for the trial of the five enemy combatants who were captured on foreign soil by members of the U.S. military and are suspected to be behind the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
One of them is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the events that took nearly three thousand lives and proved to be the most devastating attack on America in history.
President Obama has stood by his Attorney General’s decision to grant the enemy combatants the same rights and protections of American citizens and try the terrorists in a civilian court rather than the prescribed military tribunal which is designed and geared toward trying those designated as enemy combatants.
The decision added more salt to the existing wounds of 9/11 by choosing to hold the trial for these five terrorist in Downtown New York City at Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Court building , a mere few blocks away from ground zero. The decision sparked outrage from the families of 9/11 victims as well as Americans concerned with any mishandling of the case and most especially, local New Yorkers who would be directly effected by the trial being held in their neighborhood. In addition to that, the increased security challenges and risks that would materialize in such a high profile case would place New Yorkers under an unnecessary, heightened alert and threat of retaliatory attacks taking place in direct response to the trial as it is being conducted.
On Wednesday, after thousands of those residents and merchants near the D.P. Moynihan Federal Court building protested, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who initially approved of this disaster in the making, reversed his decision.
The Mayor sited for his reversal, the inconvenience and burden that the trial would placed on locals and the angst that just the thought of having the trial in NYC caused. He also added that a review of the costs that New York City would incur was at least $1 billion, an astronomical cost burden that, while in the midst of an already severe economic crisis, would help break New York’s bank.
According to Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, the President still stands behind the decision to try the enemy combatants in a civilian court and grant to the terrorists the rights of American citizens but he understands the need to change the venue of the trial.
The White House and Justice Department were reportedly caught by surprise and thrown for a loop by the Mayor’s sudden opposition to the earlier decision and to the amount of shear fury that New Yorker’s demonstrated over the matter.
Clearly, with there being an intense backlash even before the trial begins, the ill advised decision to try the 9/11 terrorist as civilians will have far reaching ramifications. This is especially true given the timing of the trial and its closeness to the 2012 elections.
The decision still leaves many wondering how the 9/11 Five will not have the cases against them thrown out.
In a civilian court, one must be read their Miranda rights. As enemy combatants, the five terrorist were captured on foreign soil by our military’s armed forces, personnel which during times of military conflict are not charged with granting foreign enemies American rights and reading them Miranda rights.
This is just one of the reasons why enemy combatants, caught on fields of battle, are tried in military tribunals.
Now, with New York City pulled as a location for the civilian trial of KSM and his fellow conspirators, the Administration is exploring several other New York State locations and given the intense security that will be required during the trial, they are exploring military bases. That brings us back to the prescribed regulations regarding the trials of enemy combatants. Had the President agreed to do what he was suppose to, a military tribunal would have placed the trial on a military base in the first place.
The situation begs us to wonder if we can save ourselves from ourselves. The President’s decision to fight for the rights of terrorists over the security and rights of fellow Americans is despicable and it will come back to haunt him. Hopefully the results of the decision will no be admitted terrorists being let off the hook.
Yesterday, it was confirmed that President Obama will seek a change in venue for the trial of the five enemy combatants who were captured on foreign soil by members of the U.S. military and are suspected to be behind the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
One of them is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the events that took nearly three thousand lives and proved to be the most devastating attack on America in history.
President Obama has stood by his Attorney General’s decision to grant the enemy combatants the same rights and protections of American citizens and try the terrorists in a civilian court rather than the prescribed military tribunal which is designed and geared toward trying those designated as enemy combatants.
The decision added more salt to the existing wounds of 9/11 by choosing to hold the trial for these five terrorist in Downtown New York City at Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Court building , a mere few blocks away from ground zero. The decision sparked outrage from the families of 9/11 victims as well as Americans concerned with any mishandling of the case and most especially, local New Yorkers who would be directly effected by the trial being held in their neighborhood. In addition to that, the increased security challenges and risks that would materialize in such a high profile case would place New Yorkers under an unnecessary, heightened alert and threat of retaliatory attacks taking place in direct response to the trial as it is being conducted.
On Wednesday, after thousands of those residents and merchants near the D.P. Moynihan Federal Court building protested, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who initially approved of this disaster in the making, reversed his decision.
The Mayor sited for his reversal, the inconvenience and burden that the trial would placed on locals and the angst that just the thought of having the trial in NYC caused. He also added that a review of the costs that New York City would incur was at least $1 billion, an astronomical cost burden that, while in the midst of an already severe economic crisis, would help break New York’s bank.
According to Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, the President still stands behind the decision to try the enemy combatants in a civilian court and grant to the terrorists the rights of American citizens but he understands the need to change the venue of the trial.
The White House and Justice Department were reportedly caught by surprise and thrown for a loop by the Mayor’s sudden opposition to the earlier decision and to the amount of shear fury that New Yorker’s demonstrated over the matter.
Clearly, with there being an intense backlash even before the trial begins, the ill advised decision to try the 9/11 terrorist as civilians will have far reaching ramifications. This is especially true given the timing of the trial and its closeness to the 2012 elections.
The decision still leaves many wondering how the 9/11 Five will not have the cases against them thrown out.
In a civilian court, one must be read their Miranda rights. As enemy combatants, the five terrorist were captured on foreign soil by our military’s armed forces, personnel which during times of military conflict are not charged with granting foreign enemies American rights and reading them Miranda rights.
This is just one of the reasons why enemy combatants, caught on fields of battle, are tried in military tribunals.
Now, with New York City pulled as a location for the civilian trial of KSM and his fellow conspirators, the Administration is exploring several other New York State locations and given the intense security that will be required during the trial, they are exploring military bases. That brings us back to the prescribed regulations regarding the trials of enemy combatants. Had the President agreed to do what he was suppose to, a military tribunal would have placed the trial on a military base in the first place.
The situation begs us to wonder if we can save ourselves from ourselves. The President’s decision to fight for the rights of terrorists over the security and rights of fellow Americans is despicable and it will come back to haunt him. Hopefully the results of the decision will no be admitted terrorists being let off the hook.
Is bipartisanship really what the president and his liberal Party something that they are really looking for? Or was President Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth as I previously pointed out? According to sources on the Hill, liberals are in fact considering going nuclear on their widely rejected government takeover of healthcare.
In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, Mr. asked the following:
There is some talk that the Democrats are going to try reconciliation, a jam down of their bitterly divisive, and almost certainly wrong-headed health care plan. What can you tell us about this?
Senator Kyl gave the following response:
“This is kind of breaking news. As you say, we’re just hearing it.
We haven’t been formally advised, but we have it on relatively good authority. And this would be what they call the nuclear option. This would be we can’t do it with 60 votes, because now we have a new Senator from Massachusetts, so we’ll do it with 51. Now it’s called the nuclear option, because it really upsets all of the tradition and precedent within the Senate which on a really big bill on the magnitude of health care, would always have strong bipartisan support, and therefore the 60 vote requirement really doesn’t matter.
But here, using an arcane part of the budget that ordinarily relates to tax cuts or tax increases, it doesn’t relate to comprehensive bills with a lot of substantive provisions in them, but just changes in the tax code, usually. They’re going to try to rewrite this bill to, where it would only need 51 votes, and still accomplish most of what the bill will accomplish.
Now what this will do is let the Blanche Lincolns and Ben Nelsons and Evan Bayhs and other to say oh, I can’t go along with this now. And of course, that’s exactly what their constituents want to hear. But it doesn’t matter, because their votes in effect at this point don’t count. They don’t matter. All it takes is 51 Democrats to vote for it, and it becomes law. It remains to be seen how long the process will take, and whether, and how much of the provisions of the comprehensive health care reform that we’ve been looking at can be scooped up into this legislation. But it now appears the Democrats are going to try that.”
If this is true, this November Democrats will be annihilated and they will become an almost extinct breed.
Alright, that’s an exaggeration. Kind of like after the 2008 elections when Democrats claimed that the G.O.P. was going the way of the Whig Party. But what is not an exaggeration is to say that if liberals do go nuclear and succeed, the fallout will emaciate their majorities.
Personally, I do not believe that Democrats are stupid enough to try to ram through a government takeover that the people have rejected. But then again they were stupid enough to elect liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to be their leaders, so it is possible. What would be especially astonishing though is if President Obama, on the heels of his passionate plea for the type of bipartisanship that he rejected up to now, does not put a stop to any attempt to by his Party to go nuclear.
I do not believe Democrats are really considering this stunt, but strangers things have happened.
On an occasion such as the State of The Union, there exists a certain suspense that electrifies the air for those who appreciate and understand the power of the presidency. It stems from knowing that a true leader and the ability of powerful articulation can turn things around with the utterance of a just a few words. If a President ever needed to draw on such leadership and powerful articulation, Barack Obama did.
After being undeniably thumped by an electorate unhappy with his priorities and failings, President Obama needed to set a new tone, distract us away from the old one and try to create a new positive, hopeful, agenda. To a degree, a significant portion of the population will fall for the rhetorical pros that the President offered and believe that he really did learn a lesson and drop his aggressive socialist agenda. But in the coming months, it looks like the President’s deeds will betray his words.
President Obama’s address was carefully targeted. For instance, in many ways, the President tried to appeal to his most vocal critics regarding an issue that many are quite critical of Democrats over,………………taxes. Despite claims that Bush tax cuts need to expire because they hurt, President Obama took great credit for offering a Christmas tree of tax cuts. He even touted the merits of trickle-down economics when he stated that his tax cuts “gave Americans more buying power”. What President Obama failed to mention was that his seemingly long list of supposed tax cuts in the past and the ones he is proposing in the future are so meager that their benefits are hardly felt.
President Obama’s newfound faith in tax cuts was merely one of many 180 degree turns that his rhetoric took from the reality of his policies.
He spoke of bi-partisanship.
On this he may have learned lesson, because his words about his future conduct, sharply contrasted his past actions. He promised monthly meetings with the Republican leadership. He endorsed a bipartisan fiscal commission and he even appealed to Republicans and urged them to be bipartisan. Yet, this is the same man who refused to allow Republicans to sit down at the table with him and Democrat leaders as they tried to hammer out their version of healthcare reform. Where was President Obama’s yearning for bipartisanship then?
What a difference an election makes.
The election of Republican Scott Brown destroys the unbridled control of liberals and now, when the President will need to deal with Republicans, he wants bipartisanship. He should get it but he should also practice it as he preaches it.
Our Commander-In-Chief once again spoke of transparency. He demanded that earmarks be posted on a website so that all can see them before they get voted on. I support the concept, so long as it does not call for an entire new federal department to run and as long as it does not distort the numbers as was the case with Recovery.gov, which was suppose to show where all the stimulus money was going and what is was producing. That site created fictitious congressional districts and fake jobs. But what about this push for transparency? Was it practiced by the President when he refused to allow C-Span into his meetings with Democrats involving healthcare reform?
And what about earmarks?
They did not bother the President in any of the 124 bills that he signed into law during his first year in office. I failed to hear him protest the hundreds of millions earmarked for Arkansas’ Blanche Lincloln, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu or North Dakota’s Ben Nelson when they were given earmarks in return for their support of healthcare reform.
President Obama also seemingly reversed his position on energy too.
Suddenly he endorses the construction of nuclear power facilities and the drilling of domestic oil. He opposed such measures in the past, so what accounts for the sudden reversal? The truth is, it is not a reversal at all. As with all that the President said he wants to forge ahead with, subtle caveats were offered, In this case, he would move on nuclear and domestic oil energy independence but only if his Cap-and Trade scheme is passed in Senate. Hence the new use of the both climateand energy together in one bill. The White House intends to link support of his Cap-and-Trade environmental scheme to energy and stand in the way of one without the other. Is that compromise? What the President failed to mention was that Cap-and-Trade would amount to the greatest transfer of wealth in history and tax everything from the air we breathe to the flatulence of each farm animal that a farmer owns.
Indeed President Obama sounded hopeful and at times he even sounded conservative. But the truth is that the Obama soundtrack is as about as out of sync sync with his actual goals as a poorly made karate flick or Japanese monster movie dubbed over in English.
In general the President’s first State of the Union had a rightfully optimistic tone. He is right when he stated ” I have never been more hopeful about America than I am tonight because of our strength” . The phrase was remiscent of First Lady Michelle Obama’s claim to have never been more proud of America than she was when he husband was winnin g Democrat presidential primaries.
But in this case the President was right to be hopeful because of our strength but what he does not yet understand is that that strength comes from the American people, not their government.
In the Republican response to the President , Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell effectively pointed this out when spoke of the need for a proper limited government at every level and reminded us that top down leadership is not working and that the government closest to the people is the best government.
Governor McDonnell reminded us that Cap-and-Trade does not create jobs and lower taxes. Yet while the President spent much time talking about job creation and a prosperous people, his liberal Cap-and-Trade proposals would hurt job growth and make energy more unaffordable.
In short, the President used the State of the Union to restore a badly damaged image and establish some sense of confidence as he moves ahead. But his words contradicted his actions and his policy initiatives contradicted his Party’s direction. In the end, his State of the Union address actually created more questions than it answered and sparked more doubt than confidence. So I suspect that as next 10 months leading up to the midterm elections unfolds, despite his stated dislike for what he called “the perpetual campaign”, President Obama will be campaigning quite hard to save his party’s losses and as such he will continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
A perfect storm is a unique combination of circumstances that allow two or more weather fronts to meet and mix with a moisture rich air mass. The perfect timing and combination often produce storms of unprecedented power and devastation. Although the term is often reserved for meteorological references, it can also be applied to events unrelated to weather. For instance, the recent events that allowed a Republican to be elected to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts is a prime example of a metaphorical use of the phrase “perfect storm”. A unique set of circumstances that brought voter dissatisfaction, and a perceived liberal arrogance together with a good Republican candidate and a bad Democrat candidate, made for a perfect storm that emaciated the filibuster-proof majority that Democrats held over the nation.
That same type of perfect storm is brewing in the political atmosphere of New York State. It takes a vulnerable liberal incumbent, an aggressive former Tennessee Congressman and a former Republican Congresswoman and puts them together to create a scenario that, if all the timing is right, could make for a scenario that recreates in New York, the same type of political Nor’ Easter that we saw in Massachusetts.
After being picked to fill Hillary Clinton’s vacated senate seat by New York’s unpopular Governor David Paterson, Kirsten Gillibrand is seen as one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Ironically her vulnerabilities are more exposed among fellow Democrats than it is with the loyal Republican opposition.
Initially, Gillibrand is most vulnerable to fellow Democrats who want to be the next U.S. Senator from New York.
Gillibrand remains largely unknown as a Senator. So far she has failed to become the champion of any issue and being picked by an unpopular Governor is not helping her. That is why everyone who is anyone looked at challenging her for the Democrat nomination.
Congressman Steve Israel was looking at launching his candidacy. So were several other state figures. But at the behest of President Obama, they all bowed out. The White House does not want to lose what is currently a safe seat because of a bloody primary battle. This was especially the case when it looked like the most popular Republican in the state, Rudy Giuliani might be the G.O.P. nominee against Gillibrand. But Giuliani declined to run, again. That essentially left the road to winning the general election clear for Gillibrand……..so long as she was not dragged through the mud in a primary.
The White House did a good job at discouraging competition. Most New York Democrats heeded the President’s advice and dropped any challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand. All except for one……former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford.
Ford is actually using his disobedience with the White House to his advantage. After getting much attention regarding his possible challenge to Senator Gillibrand, President Obama went very public in trying to deter Ford from actually running. But as Ford embarks on his” listening tour” of the state, he is taking that very public presidential demand and telling people that he will be an independent leader who will not take orders from anyone, including his fellow Democrat, President Obama.
Ford has billed his listening tour as a tool to help him to decide on whether or not he will run. But while shaking hands at a diner in Tappan, New York, he introduced himself by saying “I’m Harold Ford and I’m running for the U.S. Senate”. This Freudian slip was repeated quite a few times and each time, after he let the cat out of the bag, he quickly corrected himself and stated, “I’m thinking about running for the U.S. Senate”.
So it looks like Ford is actually going for it. He is just going through the motions at the moment and using the suspense to get a great deal of free publicity and exposure.
I did not think Ford would actually go through with a primary challenge to Gillibrand. Despite her low name I.D. and less than stellar approval ratings, Gillibrand’s negative ratings are among the lowest of any Democrat in the state and in just one year’s time, she has built quite a large war chest. With over $7 million raised since last February, she has raised more than any other senators with the exceptoion of Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid and her New York colleague, the state’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer.
Given her support from the President along with her potential for getting her numbers up and her hefty fundraising abilities, I did not think Harold Ford would go for it. Especially given the fact that he will be labeled as a carpetbagger.
But Ford is extraordinarily power hungry. That is why he is no longer a Congressman from Tennessee. He gave that seat up when he chose to try to move up the political ladder by running for the U.S. Senate in that state. He lost.
The decision to run for that senate seat came shortly after Ford tried to became the Democrat leader of the House of Representatives.
He ran against Nancy Pelosi. He lost that too.
So now, with his Tennessee political fortunes exhausted, he moved to New York where he became a consultant for Merrill Lynch. That Wall Street name will be something that won’t help him if he does run. But I believe Harold understands that he could overcome that negative by going with the anti-incumbency sentiments and existing anger with the establishment. President Obama’s public attempt to discourage Harold Ford from running simply adds to this strategy. That is why Ford just might be able to get a lot of traction by claiming that he will not take orders from anyone.
If President Obama’s approval ratings continue to drop, and fails to even inspire Democrats, as was the case in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia, Ford’s opposing the President’s wishes will be to his advantage.
It is a gamble, but Harold Ford, Jr. is banking on distancing himself from President Obama and while he makes a run from the President and to the left of the political spectrum, he will hype up the fact that Kirsten Gillibrand is the President’s senator but he will be the people’s senator. The scenario is interesting and very plausible. But essential to it working will be Ford’s fundraising ability.
Winning the Democrat nomination for statewide office in New York is currently viewed as the real fight, because with Rudy out, there is little chance of a Republican winning. Unless of course the Democrat primary between Ford and Gillibrand leaves the winner bloody. If that happens, whether the nominee be Gillibrand or Ford, one Republican might be able to turn things around.
Former Governor George Pataki is considering a run. Against Gillibrand, he could possibly pull it off, but if his opponent were to be the independent minded Harold Ford, Pataki’s chances are diminished greatly. But Pataki is not the potential game changer. That person is former Congresswoman Susan Molinari.
Susan is the daughter of long serving, popular, former Republican New York Congressman Guy Molinari. When Guy did not get a position in President George H. W. Bush’s administration, he retired from Congress. Back then President Bush told Guy that he could not afford losing him in the House. Leaving was Guy’s way of saying “screw you”. So off he went. Guy then went on to become Borough President of Staten Island, the most Republican of New York City’s five counties. Replacing Guy in Congress was his daughter, City Councilwoman Susan Molinari.
For the longest time, Susan was the only Republican in the New York City Council and as such was already fairly well known. But after serving in Congress she soon became a darling of the Party.
Moderate in her politics, Susan played up her pro-choice stance with liberals and women while simultaneously playing up her defense and fiscal policies with conservatives. Both had an appreciation of her. But in 1997 after marrying Buffalo, New York’s former Congressman, Bill Paxon, Susan decided not to run for a urth term in Congress.
Now she is thinking about coming out of retirement.
Her father has said that after no star candidate emerged to challenge Gillibrand, “All of a sudden I think, the best candidate in the entire country is my daughter”.
I know Susan, and I can tell you right now that she is not “the best candidate in the entire country”, but she could be one of the best positioned Republican candidates in New York to take a U.S. Senate seat away from Democrats.
If a bloody Gillibrand is the inevitable nominee, Susan will help to split the women’s vote, especially suburban soccer Moms. If Ford is the badly bruised winner of the primary, he will have severely depleted his campaign war chest and he will have also gone through a campaign that will surely have labeled him an outsider. Put up against native New Yorker, Susan Molinari, who can easily raise a substantial campaign fund, Tennessee Ford will find himself having a tough time beating her. Molinari will, again, get a substantial number of votes from women, she will hold down Democrat numbers coming out of New York City and she will be able to go toe to toe with Ford on who is more independent. In addition to all that, Harry will also have a tough time reconciling the more liberal Harold Ford of New York’s 2010 senate race, with the more conservative Harold Ford who ran in 2006 for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee. Many of his positions hav changed. Gay marriage is just one example. Among the more conservative Tennessee electorate, Harry was opposed to same sex marriage. Now, among more liberal New Yorkers, he is for same sex marriage. Which Ford would New Yorkers really be getting?
Kirsten Gillibrand will have all this amunition too but here’s where another part of this perfect storm comes into play.
Governor Paterson is African-American. He is going to be challenged for the gubernatorial nomination by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, an Itsalian-American. This situation is going to have an effect on a Gillibrand-Ford race.
Paterson is currently expected to lose to Cuomo, but one thing is for sure. Race will play a role and African-American New Yorker’s will be coming out for Governor Paterson.
While at the polls, a great many of them are likely to cast their senate primary vote for Harold Ford, Jr., who is also African-American. So no matter how much Gillibrand may attack Ford for flip-flopping, Ford can count on attratcing many black voters away from Gillibrand.
As a Republican, I for one do hope that Ford runs. By making a strong bid for the Democrat nomination, he will do much more good for the G.O.P. than he will for Democrats and if he wins that nomination, he will make it pretty easy for Susan Molinari to walk right up the middle and into the senate chambers of Washington, D.C..
Now all Republicans have to do is make sure that Susan Molinari becomes their nominee. If she does, New York might pull off a Massachusetts-like surprise that will add to the already substantial gains in Congress that Republicans are heading towards. But one without the other will not work. If Republicans don’t properly seed the storm clouds, their electoral drought will be long lasting.
Last week was nirvana for political junkies who appreciate republicanism and a strong nation.
As the historic special election in Massachusetts was closing, I took advantage of the three day Martin Luther King holiday that proceeded it and made it a 4 day, working vacation.
Strictly as a volunteer, I was invited by the former presidential campaign organization of Governor Mitt Romney, to assist in the Massachusetts senate race. Upon my late morning arrival at campaign headquarters, I was assigned coordination of the phone bank operation for Southeast Boston. I was also asked to assist several local Republican clubs in coordinating their Election Day GOTV operation.
I hate phone banks but since a good campaign gets my adrenaline flowing and since I was not there for pleasure, I gladly took up the task.
There were nearly a hundred volunteers at my phone bank and the calls were continuous, the data collection was seamless and all in all, I was pleased with the way the operation ran. The process was endless but thanks to a steady stream of coffee, I didn’t let up. In fact coffee played an extra special role for me in this race. Massachusetts is the home state of a dear friend of mine, Steve Caldeira. Steve and I first met in the 90’s when he was a top member of former Senator Al D’Amato’s staff. He hired me as a coordinator for the election of a mayoral candidate. As time went by, we became good friends.
Fast forward to today and Steve is now Executive President for Global Communications and Chief Public Affairs Officer for Dunkin’ Donuts. So not only did Steve provide his home for me to crash at while in Massachusetts, he provide the campaign with plenty of coffee. He also kept on reminding that there is much more money to be had in the private sector than in the public sector. But that didn’t stop Steve from taking some time to lend his assistance in getting a Republican elected to the U.S. Senate. He may be in the private sector, but politics always pulls you back in and the Scott Brown race did that for many. And not just Republicans. As the results proved, Independents and even some Democrats were drawn to the election of Scott Brown.
So Steve, myself and about a thousand other people were helping out. Aside from a few nice dinners, with only days to go before the election, there was little sleep and lots of harried work. The phone banks were doing well and getting incredibly positive responses from voters. There were tons of organizational details to also be laid out for the Get Out The Vote operation. I did my part in coordinating the effort that would take place on the coming Tuesday, but I would not be there on that day. That Tuesday I was to attend the inauguration of New Jersey’s new Governor Chris Christie.
After four days of giving my all to the efforts of the Scott Brown race, Monday night I set out for the Garden State.
After a few hours of sleep back home, I woke early to ready myself for the inaugural events that were to take place in Trenton, an hour and a half away from my Manchester location.
Tired, but content, I joined the throngs of guests in attendance. It was an exciting time. After a year of liberal naysayers claiming that the GOP was going the way of the Whigs and was essentially dead, New Jersey ended up electing a Republican Governor in Chris Christie.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not a big fan of Chris Christie. I doubt his conservative credentials, did not like the campaign he ran and fear he may be a pseudo Republican, but the one thing to be happy about was the fact that anyone, including Christie, finally helped us do away with the devastating effects of Democrat Governor Jon Corzine.
As the inaugural ceremony unfolded, there were some decent speeches offered but nothing really outstanding, Then came the big moment. Chris Christie was to be sworn in.
When he uttered the final words of his oath of office, a cloud of dreariness seemed to dissipate over the state. A state full of overtaxed, over regulated, underemployed and underserved people felt a sense of relief and hope, hope that things may finally start getting better. That sense of hope was echoed in Chris Christie’s inaugural address.
In it, he spoke of the strength and innovation of New Jerseyans. He singled out several outstanding citizens including some from the entrepreneurial private sector and others whose efforts were strictly charitable. One of those people was a man who, several years ago, started a web site that was designed to make the wishes of others come true. Since its inception 40,000 underprivileged and unfortunate men, women and children have seen some brighter days, all because of the site’s ability to inspire those that have, to provide for those that have not.
The story behind that man and his web site was one of the best moments in Christie’s speech. The rest of it only helped to make me hope that Christie is all that he claims to be. Most of the speech was pedantic and repetitive. One of the most often stated phrases of his speech, “change has arrived”, was quoted so often that it quickly became a punch line for many sitting in my vicinity.
Perhaps the powerful moment of the address was when Christie slyly put the new Democrat majority leaders of the State Assembly and State Senate on the spot. Before a throng of thousands, he called them up to the podium that he stood at and extended his hand to them as he asked for them to shake his hand and promise a wholehearted, nonpartisan attempt to work together and across party lines. The move was masterful.
After that, I witnessed a first in state history. For the first time ever, New Jersey swore in a Lieutenant Governor, a position that after Jim McGreevey and then Jon Corzine’s near fatal speeding accident, proved to be quite necessary.
With the official ceremony over, I had time to kill before the inaugural cocktail party took place later that night, in Newark, another more than one hour ride away. Fortunately, I was able to attend several invitation-only events being thrown in the new Governor’s honor. But by the time the main event took place, I was exhausted. However; an hour or so into the event, and my adrenaline started to kick in once again. Polls in the Massachusetts special election were soon to closed. By around 7:30 , I and about a few hundred others gathered around television sets at a separately located bars in the Prudential Center, where the inaugural party was unfolding. I quickly realized that I really left my heart in Massachusetts.
By eight o’clock, as the liquor flowed and the returns trickled in, things looked good. But even though Brown was always in the lead, with just a few percent of the total vote in, I was not convinced the lead would hold up in the end. So I made a few calls to some people at Brown headquarters. By 8:40, when I was informed of the totals that we were seeing in several Democrat strongholds, I realized that his lead was going to hold. I could not believe it. For the first time in nearly five decades, the seat normally reserved for a Kennedy was going to be held by a Republican.
When Brown’s victory was finally confirmed, and after a throng of Christie partygoers sent a great cheer that echoed through the Prudential Center, we rejoined the inaugural party. I was overwhelmed with pride and joy. Here I was standing in the middle of the celebration for one newly elected Republican in New Jersey while also celebrating the profound win of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
The added celebratory spirit accelerated the flow of spirits which helped add to the intoxication of the moment. And I was not alone. Governor Christie also quickly kicked things into high gear as he stripped off his suit jacket and took to the stage to join the B Street Band playing on it. There he was, singing Bruce Springsteen’s Glory Day’s. The sight and sounds made me realize two things. Christie actually sings better than he speaks and, oh my,………without that suit jacket on, he looks humongous
By the time I made it home, I was exhausted and totally drained. I was also worn out and run down. Somewhere along this 5 day political journey, I caught the flu.
As I spent the days to follow recuperating, I was curled up in bed and totally congested but still I had a smile face. I knew that within a matter of just under a year, the Party which many were writing the obituary for, was showing a hell of a lot of life. Why that is, is open to debate, but the fact that we Republicans are winning more than we are losing is not open for debate. That is real. It is also something that I was proud to be a part and it is something that I am looking forward to continue to help.
Recently, one of the most un-Republican Republicans on U4prez ,once again, gave the benefit of the doubt to partisan propaganda that tried to distort a legislative initiative connected to a Republican legislator.
First introduced in 2003, the Stop Terrorists Entry Program (STEP) Act was reintroduced by Congressman J. Gresham Barrett.
The bill was introduced to participants of U4Prez by a candidate who cut and pasted a source that obviously distorted the bill. In its presentation to U4Prez, the bill was described as legislation that would deport all Iranian American "citizens".
That was blatantly incorrect.
The bill did at one time seek to deport Iranians who were in the United States on temporary work visas, tourist visas, student visas, and exchange visas, within 60 days of it becoming law. The bill never saw the light day.
Now it was reintroduced by Congressman Barrett and it was done so without any call for deportations of anyone who is in the United States “legally.”
The proposal would however seek to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar citizens of Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States. The five countries mentioned are considered state sponsors of terrorism. That said, the intention of the bill should need no explanation. However; the merits of the bill are still questionable.
There have been many occasions when the United States has prohibited travel to andfrom various countries. So the concept is not unprecedented. In my opinion, my initial reaction to the bill is not positive. But it should be noted that American citizens are not barred from freely traveling to and from these countries. The limitation is put on Iranians, Cubans, the Sudanese, Syrians and Yemeni citizens.
Although I view the bill apprehensively, I would not be so quick to dismiss it out of hand.
If it can be proven that such a ban would reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on flights into the United States, then I might be willing to look at a temporary ban. One that might exist during times of extreme threat alerts or until certain new precautions are in place. Given the circumstances we face and the sovereignty of our own nation which we often ignore in deference to other nations, I would be willing to explore the suggestion offered here and see if it is (a)- An effective measure for reducing threat risks. And (b)- If it can be amended in any way that improves it, and if it can have provisions that allow for it to be reviewed every 6 months for either extension or expiration.
I do not know if I would support this bill in a final version. I do know that the disingenuous way it was presented to U4prez was a shameful sign of ones desire to denigrate the very Party he seeks the support of.
The consistent propensity of some to give the benefit of the doubt to anti-Republican propaganda in order to take a repeated shot at their own Party so that they can distance themselves from the beliefs they claim to hold, is a despicably insincere act of political ambivalence and lack of conviction. One need not to agree with everything with any institution that they seek to be a part of. However; one should be willing to stand by the institution and its basic beliefs, core values and principles and defend it against false charges, mischaracterizations and misleading claims.
Although the strength of any institution requires dissent in the face of an untoward direction, that same institution is only weakened when its members join forces with the loyal opposition and try to tear it down.
In the case of the STEP ACT, the account that was cut and pasted on U4prez offered an intentional distortion of the bills intentions. That is to be expected by those who oppose the party connected to the bill. What is not to be expected is someone from the same party buying into that propaganda and being so quick to join in the loyal opposition’s attempts to derail his own Party’s agenda.
As I stated, I myself am not even sure if I support the actual bill that is being proposed by Rep. Barrett. But I do know that it was pathetic of a fellow Republican to join with liberals and help them mischaracterize the bill and diminish the impression of the Republican Party by attacking others for not denouncing something that was not true.
To set the record straight. It might be helpful for one to read the press release that Congressman Barratt issued in regard to his bill. You and I may still not agree with it, but its comparisons by a Republican to that of FDR’s internment camps for the Japanese during WWII was an insolent act deserving of an apology to fellow Republicans
~~~~*~~~~
BARRETT INTRODUCES S.T.E.P. ACT OF 2010
To Keep Americans Safe, We Must Stop Any Opportunity Terrorists May Have to Enter Our Country
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Congressman J. Gresham Barrett (SC-03) introduced the Stop Terrorists Entry Program Act of 2010. This legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar admission of aliens from countries that have strong ties to terrorist regimes and also from the terrorist detainee facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Barrett released the following statement regarding the STEP Act of 2010:
“Terrorists have made it clear that they will not stop their attempts to harm the United States or its citizens. We must stop any opportunities terrorists may have to enter our country and succeed at their ultimate goal of harming American citizens. In order to ensure that Americans remain safe, I introduced the STEP Act of 2010 that will enhance our national security through common sense changes to our current immigration laws. “Unfortunately, many have been misinformed on the true nature of this legislation. Contrary to some reports, the STEP Act does not contain any language that calls for deportation of citizens from countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States.
“The purpose of this legislation is to ensure the safety of the United States and its citizens, while closing off any avenues terrorists may have to gain access to American soil. These regimes will not stop their attacks; therefore we must strengthen our policies in order to remain as vigilant as possible.”
The State Department has identified the following states as sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Given recent reports of increased levels of terrorist activities in Yemen, Congressman Barrett has requested that its citizens not be allowed to enter the United States.
Citizens from these countries who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States will not be affected by this legislation. Individuals seeking political or religious asylum or emergency medical treatment may be exempt from these provisions, only after an extensive federal screening.
In a few days a dramatic motion picture that could shape politics in one state will be coming to a theatre near you. I have not seen it yet, so it would be premature to declare it to be a cinematic tour de force but I do know it will be inspirational. I also know that it may finally launch the rise of a political force to reckon with from New Jersey.
The movie, “Extraordinary Measures”, stars Harrison Ford and Brendan Fraser and it is based on the very real plight of John and Aileen Crowley who raced time and battled against all odds.
John and Aileen were handed their greatest challenge when their children, Megan and Patrick were both born with a fatal neuromuscular disorder called Pompe disease.
Determined to change the deadly fate that doctors predicted, John and Aileen sought the care and treatment that could keep Patrick and Megan alive. But the disorder was so rare that few if any pharmaceutical entities attempted to develop effective treatments for Pompe. The disease was so rare that it lacked any widespread study. With so relatively few inflicted with Pompe, there was little if any profit motive for either the medical, scientific or pharmaceutical fields to devote much time, manpower and resources to it. Such a rare disease received barely even a fraction of the attention that more common health problems such as cancer receive.
The unimaginable situation that the Crowleys were dealt, compelled them to settle in Princeton, New Jersey so that they could be nearest to where some of the only doctors who had any experience in Pompe disease were located. But even in the hands of the most experienced experts of the disorder, John and Aileen were consistently forced to face the bleak diagnosis originally prescribed to their children.
Determined, John subsequently took up employment with Bristol-Meyers Squibb in the hope of fostering efforts to expedite a cure or treatment for the disease that was killing little Patrick and Megan.
After two years, with little progress and many roadblocks, he left Bristol-Meyers to break through the barriers and embark on a new venture to increase the pace of research into Pompe and the development of a cure. It was a race against time that was slowly taking the lives of his children.
Crowley joined forces with dedicated professionals and became the CEO of a biotech company called Novazyme. Eventually Novazyme merged with the world’s largest biotech company, Genzyme Corp., and soon after that the combined efforts of the two, brought about by John Crowley, expedited the creation of an enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe disease that is keeping the Crowley kids alive today.
Getting to that point was not easy and there were a great many trials and tribulations, but John Crowley, his wife, and the team he assembled, never gave up. The story is the stuff that books are written about. And before the movie was made about it, a book about the Crowley’s was written by a Pulitzer prize winning author. It is called “The Cure: How a Father Raised $100 Million – And Bucked the Medical Establishment – In a Quest to Save His Children” (ISBN 978-0060734398).
The experience now keeps Crowley hard at work as President and CEO of Cranbury, New Jersey based, Amicus Therapeutics. He believes that increased awareness about rare diseases, in general, is of great importance.
According to Crowley:
“There are 7000 rare diseases that collectively affect over 30 million people. That is more than everyone who suffers from all cancers and AIDS combined. So taken together these diseases are not rare at all – in fact they are remarkably prevalent. While the symptoms and severity of these rare diseases may vary, there are commonalities with regards to a framework of development for novel therapies that can and should be applied to all these disorders.”
Unfortunately, success stories like that of the Crowley family are far and few between. The uniqueness of their plight is one reason why it is so worthy of telling. The extraordinary measures that John Crowley and his wife took and the extraordinary feat of overcoming almost insurmountable odds to achieve a miracle of survival can only be accomplished by extraordinary people. Admittedl, few can be more motivated than a parent fighting for their children’s survival, but few have the faith, innovation and leadership required to make the impossible possible. Such qualities are what true leaders are made of. The type of leaders our nation needs more of. Leader’s who understand that personal freedom, can do more than people shackled by government burdens and blocked by government bureaucracies.
Perhaps that is why John Crowley is a Republican. He is not someone who will allow his fate to be written for him. He is determined to write his own. He is not someone content with being restricted by government but happier to get government out of the way.
It is also perhaps why, in the last few election cycles, John Crowley has been seen as a possible candidate for elected office in New Jersey. In 2008, there were some who hoped that Crowley would seek the US Senate seat currently occupied by the long serving, lackluster Frank Lautenberg. Crowley failed to enter the race.
Later that year and in the early part of 2009, there was some speculation that John Crowley might run for Governor of New Jersey. Crowley declined to enter that race too.
I am one of those who held out hope for his candidacy.
Crowley is not a typical politician. He is a doer. His children’s lives are a testimony to that fact. He is not a go-along-to-get-a-long type. He is a man who gets what needs to be done, done. The type of person New Jersey and our nation needs in government, and his record is one of accomplishment, education and dedication.
Before his children were born, John was schooled for three semesters at the U.S. Naval Academy, graduated with degrees in foreign service from Georgetown University and went on to obtain his J.D from Notre Dame Law School before working as a litigation associate in the health care industry. He subsequently furthered his education and received an M.B.A from Harvard Business School. From there he went on to work for a San Francisco based management consulting firm.
Now, at 42, in addition to being a proud parent of three, devoted husband, as well as President and CEO of Amicus Therapeutics, Crowley is an intelligence officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He is also not shy about his political beliefs. As part of a political action committee called “Building the New Majority”, John assists a grassroots network that helps launch the candidacies of good Republicans on the local, county and statewide levels.
Whether or not John Crowley will himself ever be one of those candidates is still a question mark. What the future holds is anybody’s guess. At least anybody who is not John Crowley. I have a feeling he knows what he intends to do.
Despite the recent election of a Republican Governor, New Jersey has few figures who are in any great position to win a statewide office in a state that leans so heavily to the left. But John Crowley would be one the few people who could be a strong candidate and who also has experience with uphill battles. The opportunity for statewide office will not come until 2012 when Democrat Senator Bob Menendez will be up for reelection. For that seat, there has recently been some speculation about financial journalist and anchorman Lou Dobbs running for the against Menendez, but if I had my druthers, the next Republican nominee for US Senate would be John Crowley.
Aside from knowing how to run a successful business that saves lives and aside from his having a track record of accomplishment that few can match, few candidates for elected office have a major motion picture made about them. That kind of introduction to the public can not be matched by any 30 second campaign commercial that airs during Desperate Housewives, when you get up to relieve yourself.
So I am looking forward to catching Extraordinary Measures when it comes out on January 22nd .
Aside from promising to be one of those entertaining, feel good flicks, I look forward to seeing what I believe will be the launch of a new political rising star.
I am not a big believer in miracles. Murphy’s Law….yes. Miracles…..no.
That is why I find it hard to believe that Republican State Senator Scott Brown is within striking distance of snatching Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat from incumbent State Attorney General, Democrat Martha Coakley.
The astonishment has little to do with the caliber of the candidates involved. Brown seems to be a right of center Republican with a good campaign and good ideas that are getting traction among Bay State voters. Coakley is not bad either.....for a liberal. She is nothing special and far to the left, but that is what Massachusetts often elects. This is a state where Barack Obama won with a plurality of 26%.
You don’t get much bluer than that.
My stunned interest in the Massachusetts special election comes from the fact that Democrats are finding themselves struggling to keep Ted Kennedy’s seat in their hands. How true that is questionable. The existing uncertainty stems from two separate, but both partisan, polls. One came from Public Policy Polling or PPP and the other from the Boston Globe. The Boston Globe had Coakley ahead by 15%. That sounds about right to me. But PPP, a Democrat polling outfit found Scott Brown ahead of Coakley by 1%.
This prompted me to examine the conditions which the two polls were conducted under
and upon my review, it was clear that the PPP poll was conducted under conditions that would make it more reliable.
The Globe called far more Democrats than the actual Democrat to Republican ration is. They also called only about 90 Independents while PPP called almost 300 independent voters. The Globe called a much smaller sampling of voters overall than did PPP, not just fewer Independents. And a smaller sampling makes for a greater margin of error. The Globe also used live callers. PPP used automated calls, which are more standardized and typically receive and record responses more accurately.
For these reasons, I believe the PPP survey is showing a more accurate picture than is the Globe. However I still find Brown’s leads hard to believe.
It is not unfathomable, just hard to imagine, at least in Massachusetts.
When you look deeper though, you can see how Brown just might be closing in.
First of all, this a special election and they are a different breed. Special elections are not the draw that general elections are. Add to that the buyers remorse that Massachusetts voters seem to be suffering from and you have a Democrat electorate that is unenthused about this election. Many voters in the Bay State are not too happy with the “hope” and “change” that President Obama sold them in 2008. Evidence of that exist in the fact that here, where President Obama won the presidential election with a 26% plurality in 2008, in 2010 his favorability ratings are now at 44%.
A majority of Massachusetts residents are also not happy with the existing version of the Democrats top agenda item, healthcare reform.
All of this is a burden upon Democrat Martha Coakley that is suppressing her turnout in an already typically low turnout type of election. And don’t forget, this election is being held on January 19th. In Boston. Where the dead of winter, freezing temperatures do not exactly make a trip to the polls very convenient.
I’ll tell you right now, if in addition to cold temperatures, it snows on that day too, Scott Brown is probably in like Flynn.
Democrats are not excited. They are not excited by Moakley who has made a number of missteps. And they are not happy with Democrats in general. This same scenario played out in New Jersey and Virginia this past Fall when uninterested Democrats stayed at home while angry Tea Party protestors and Republicans went out to vote in droves.
Republicans are angry and anger is a great source of motivation. It will surely be enough to get a great many Republicans out to the polls regardless of how cold the winds blow or high the snow gets on January 19th.
Another factor at play here is the gap between Coakley and Brown among Independent voters. Independent voters are overwhelmingly moving toward Brown.
All of these factors, including a definite established trend of momentum swinging in Scott Brown’s favor, are turning what was once seen as no-brainer for Democrats, into a nail biter. Such is why they will be bringing the big guns in…..B.J. Clinton.
Governor-deject Jon Corzine of New Jersey tried a similar tactic. He tried to run with President Obama. His billboards, his commercials, his literature, all had him standing with President Obama. President Obama even came to New Jersey on three separate occasions to campaign throughout the state with Corzine.
It didn’t work.
Democrats are just not happy. They liked the script that they heard in 2008, but the actual play sucks and they just don’t want to be a part of it.
Will Scott Brown pull this off in the end?
I honestly can’t say. There are just too many variables right now. But a trend is developing and the possibility is there And that in and of itself is a miracle.
The mere fact that the seat held by Ted Kennedy, for over four decades, may fall into Republican hands is something that no one would have believed just a few weeks ago.
What makes it even more surprising is Scott Brown himself.
As a state senator, his record seems to be solid and stable. He is somewhat conservative, especially by Massachusetts standards. He is well spoken and outgoing and dring. That all would not appear to be very unusual for a Republican candidate, but that is all that is usual when it comes to Scott Brown.
Back in 1982, at the age of 22, long before he ever thought he might be Ted Kennedy’s successor, he appeared in Cosmo…..naked,……with staples in his bellybutton, under a heading declaring him to be the Sexiest Man of the Year. That is not exactly something you would expect from a Republican and it may not be a side that we need to see in our representatives but it certainly proves that Scott Brown is not your typical Republican.
Nor is his family.
One of Scott’s biggest supporters is his daughter Ayla, who at a young age, has found herself a singing career.
In 2006, Ayla Brown’s talented voice got her a slot on the popular “American Idol” television show. She was a solid contestant who advanced on the show for several weeks until she was cut after making it to the final 16 contestants.
As is the case with many American Idol runner-ups, she still got her shot and soon found herself signing an exclusive record and distribution contract.
So as you can see, the Browns are anything but your typical, stodgy, conservative family. You might even say that they are unconventional. Which is exactly why this special election in dark blue Democrat Massachusetts might just produce some unconventional Republican red results. In the end , Massachusetts voters may end up preferring Senator Centerfold’s stimulus package to the one that his opponent's party came up with in Washington, D.C..
Eight days from now, Republican Chris Christie will be officially sworn in as the 55th Governor of New Jersey (legislation signed on January 10, 2006, allowed people who served as an acting governor for at least 180 days, to drop the “acting” from their title and be officially documented as a “Governor”. The law was retroactive to January 1, 2001). With such little time left, Democrats, who will continue to hold majority control of the state assembly and senate, are trying to pass any all things liberal.
This past Thursday, they feigned an attempt to change the definition of marriage and after dawn breaks on this day, they will try to pass a bill that will offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.
In-state tuition offers residents of New Jersey discounted rates to students who wish to attend any of New Jersey’s exemplary institutions of higher learning. Significant cost reductions are one of the few benefits that a resident of New Jersey receives for living and paying taxes in the Garden State. Students and their families who have not suffered from and shared in Jersey’s tax burden do not get that break.
Until now……at least if Democrats have their way.
In a last ditch effort to pass some of the most contentious parts of their agenda, Democrats are proposing to allow illegal immigrants who reside in New Jersey with in-state-tuition rates.
In other words, New Jersey liberals want illegal immigrants, who are hiding in the state, to be given the benefit of a reduced cost for their college degrees. If you live in New York and your son or daughter dreams of walking the New Brunswick campus of Rutgers University, they will have to account for the full, annual, out-of-state tuition fee of $17,709. With room and board that annual fee is about $30,000. But in-state tuition is $8,541 annually and with room and board it is about $20,000 or ten thousand less than the cost to out-of-state students.
The legislation begs many questions in my mind.
First; if the immigrant in question is illegal, how can their addresses be accurately verified and how can they be positively identified as a New Jersey resident.?
Second; if the student in question is an illegal immigrant, why would their illegal presence in the United States be rewarded with a discount for college and not instead be reported to the authorities?
Third; If you are going to charge American citizens or legal immigrants who are from another state more money than those who live in New Jersey, how could Democrats dare suggest that someone from another nation who is here illegally be charged less? Why should an illegal immigrant who pays no state, or for that matter federal taxes, be rewarded with any benefit.
Fourth; What does the word illegal mean?
A college degree should not be required to understand that the word “illegal” means “not permitted”. It connotes an act that is unlawful and against the rules. In simpler terms, it is “wrong”. To do or be anything that is classified as “illegal” means it is wrong or that you are in the wrong.
So why is it so difficult for Democrats to understand that wrong, bad, or in this case, “illegal” activity is not to be rewarded or extended benefits? Why can they not see the wrongness of charging illegal immigrants less for an education in New Jersey than we would other American citizens or students who are here legally? I am even brought to question how and why Democrats feel that they must make it compulsory for the state to educate illegal immigrants and mandate discounts for their higher educations?
It is legislation like this, legislation that lacks any common sense and tests the bounds of logic, which accounts for the reason why, in political lexicon, the word “liberal” is often viewed as ridiculously reckless and backwards. It is legislative initiatives like this which Democrats sponsor and promote which has made many Americans come to feel that Democrats have become a party of liberal extremists who lack the ability to tell right from wrong.
If somehow, a few Democrats are not so fearful of the whooping that they may eventually get from voters if they support this measure and the bill passes both houses of the legislature, outgoing Governor-deject Jonnie “Obama” Corzine, promises to sign it into law.
If that happens, unless Republicans can take control of both houses in the 2011 elections, this bill is unlikely to be brought up for another vote to repeal it and illegal immigrants will be able to count on New Jersey for many years to come.
The arrangement between Democrats and illegal immigrants is actually a very convenient one. Evidence of that was ironically just yesterday, the day before the liberal agenda extends benefits to illegal immigrants.
In Jersey City, one of the Garden State’s largest cities, Democrat mayor Jeremiah Healy made a much publicized announcement. It was an appeal to illegal immigrants that urged them to be sure to fill out a census form. Healy told illegal immigrants that if they don’t fill out the form , they wont count. He went on to insure illegals that they can not be reported to any authorities or be arrested or deported. The Mayor added that the same even applies to illegal immigrants who have outstanding warrants against them.
You might ask why the Mayor of a city would go out of his way to try to make sure that illegal immigrants, including ones that have arrest warrants out on them, essentially be granted amnesty so that they can be counted in a census?
The answer is simple. Most cities are Democrat strongholds and if Democrats can boost their population figures, they can also increase the representation that they receive in legislative bodies, including Congress. With more representation comes more power. So for Democrats, illegal immigrants are a valuable commodity that they can use to gerrymander legislative districts with. To them, illegal immigrants can remain illegal, undocumented citizens for ever more, so long as they can be used to increase the number of Democrats that can represent strongholds, like New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit or other urban centers.
So really, is it any wonder why Democrats want to cater to illegal immigrants offer and offer them benefits and reduced costs?
In a vote of 14 to 20, yesterday the New Jersey State Senate failed to pass civil rights legislation.
The entire episode was an exercise of disgusting political chicanery. It demonstrated several truths about Democrats in general and also about the type of leader that Democrats have elected to be the next Senate President.
Democrats have been in control, total control, of New Jersey since disgraced former Governor Jim McGreevey was elected in 2001. In what turns out to be quite ironic, McGreevey had outed himself in a speech announcing his resignation that was prompted by financial irregularities and unethical conduct. The admission that he was gay was simply done to distract from the illegal and unethical conduct that was about to bring him down. But during his time as Governor and since then, the state has been driven into utter despair, seen unions hold the state hostage and break the budget, seen the size and scope of government grow exponentially along with taxes, tolls and all other expenses, while businesses fled, unemployment skyrocketed and the quality of life plummeted. The bottom line is that Democrats have done nothing but make things worse while playing games and offer lip service.
Part of that game has been the exploitation of homosexuals.
In the last eight year of their stranglehold on New Jersey government, Democrats have done nothing but offer the gay community lip service. Year after year, on the issue of gay marriage, the homosexual community has been told ‘now is not the time for a vote on that issue, but next year we will take it up for sure’. Each of the eight ‘next years’ came and went as Governor McGreevey, Acting Governor Dick Codey and inept Governor Corzine neglected to make the issue a priority.
Yet in the final weeks of their monopoly-like control of Trenton, as a newly elected Republican Governor is about to come to town, now Democrats in the State senate finally acted.
But why?
The answer is that the Democrat Party could care less about the gay community and simply exploit them for support at election time.
If this were not the case, if Democrats sincerely believed their rhetoric, gay marriage would have been passed at any point during the last past eight years. If their was any sincere motivation behind Democrats supposed support for the gay community, one of the best and most appropriate symbolic times for them to have taken the issue up was shortly after disgraced Governor Jim McGreevey tried to distract from his political scandals by announcing that he was a “gay -American”.
But Democrats were afraid that their hold on power was tenuous. So they refused to rock the boat on gay marriage. Instead they made promises and claimed their undying desire to see same sex unions be called “marriages”.
Incoming Governor Chris Christie has made it clear that he would veto any attempt to redefine marriage as a union between anything but a man and a woman. That made it essential for Democrats to act now.
Even though Governor-deject Corzine failed to move any gay marriage initiative, he said he would, unlike Christie, sign such an initiative into law. So it was now, or if not never, at least not for many years, before gay marriage in New Jersey could sail through the legislative process and become state law.
Previously, Senate President Codey failed to put it at the top of the Senate agenda and several different Assembly Speakers also left the issue on the back burner. And even though the closing days of a Democrat administration that was supportive of gay marriage was upon us, they still hesitated to deal with the issue and cancelled and delayed hearings and votes on the issue.
So why was there suddenly a vote in the State Senate?
Revenge!
Quite unceremoniously, long serving Senate President and often on again and off again Acting Governor Dick Codey, was voted out of his position as Senate President in coup that was orchestrated by State Senator Stephen Sweeney from South Jersey.
Sweeney’s senate district is not quite as safe for Democrats as it is for Dick Codey in his North Jersey district. So even though Dick Codey lost his position as Senate President, his chances of getting reelected to the senate are greater than Sweeney’s. So a vote by Dick Codey for or against gay marriage is not as pivotal to Codey’s reelection chances as it is to Sweeney’s. So while in his final days as Senate President, Dick Codey finally called a vote on gay marriage. He was essentially putting Sweeney, the man who dethroned him, between a rock and a hard place before he assumed leadership of the Senate. Codey was setting up Sweeney to start off his Senate presidency as damaged goods by forcing Sweeney to either offend gay voters and their well organized political lobby machine or a vast number of voters in his district.
As was expected from the get go, gay marriage failed in the senate with only 14 votes for it and 20 votes against it.
But that final tally adds up to 34 votes.
There are 40 State Senators.
17 are Republican and 23 are Democrats. One seat is vacant and Sen. Diane Allen (R-Burlington), was absent for health reasons and Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) was absent for unknown reasons.
That leaves three votes to be accounted for.
Those final three votes were abstentions cast by three Democrats………Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), Sen. Jim Beach (D-Camden) and ironically, Democrat Senate President-elect Stephen Sweeney of Gloucester.
In what proved to be a profile of cowardice, the incoming Democrat leader of the Senate tried to dodge the challenge that the outgoing Senate President presented to him by avoiding a vote on the issue at all.
By avoiding an official position on the issue, Sweeney may think he outsmarted Dick Codey but all he did was wound himself.
The gay community will not forget Sweeney’s lack of support and voters in his district will be leery of him. But more than that, he will now assume office under a cloud of indifference and looking spineless. Not a very good position for a leader to be in during negotiations, an essential part to political leadership.
In the end, this entire tangled web of political gamesmanship has been a ridiculously insincere act that has made a sham of the legislative process. On top of that, aside from proving that the incoming Senate President is a spineless politician concerned more with votes than policies, he has also proven that Democrats simply see the gay community as a voting bloc to be exploited and counted on for votes at election time.
The facts prove it.
Eight years of total control and all Democrats have done is create wedge issues with such things as more severe penalties for crimes committed against homosexuals. The concept of increased penalties for hate crimes simply exists for Democrats to try to make Republicans seem anti-gay by having to vote against bills that are promoted as protection for gays but in reality are anything but more protection. The truth is that increased penalties for crimes committed against someone because of their color, faith or orientation, does not make anyone safer, it simply claims that crime and brutality committed against one person is not as important when committed against another. That is just wrong. But to force Republicans to go on the record and oppose such unfair legislation, allows Democrats to come out and say to the gay community…. ’you see they voted against you’.
Such a claim is untrue but the truth never deters politicians from exploiting an issue or group of people.
In the case of gay marriage, homosexuals were simply used by Democrats.
New Jersey Democrats hemmed and hawed about ever taking up the issue and after being in total control for eight years, they failed to consider gay marriage until it could be used as a way to get revenge. Then and only then did the issue of gay marriage come up.
Part of the problem is the gay community itself.
Gay men and women have placed themselves staunchly in the Democrat camp. Their unconditional support of all Democrats, has allowed them to be taken for granted.
Democrats have come to understand that the gay vote is in their pocket. So aside from using certain gay issues as wedge issues, there is little a Democrat has to do to get the vote of a gay man or woman. They are comfortable in the thought that no matter what they do, homosexuals will not vote for a Republican.
In many ways, the homosexual community deserved being used a pawn in a political game. They blindly support Democrat candidates. In many instances some are motivated more by the prospect of voting against a Republican than they are by the Democrat they end up voting for. But they do vote for that Democrat. No matter what.
This is a mistake.
Most Republicans are not anti-gay. Most…. not all, but most. Most Republicans also do not oppose recognition of same sex marriages with equal legal rights. What many do oppose is simply any attempt to redefine the commonly understood and established meaning of the word marriage.
I for one support domestic unions.
I support maintaining the traditional definition of the word “marriage” as that of a union between heterosexuals and the term “domestic union” as that of a union between homosexuals.
This is not a ‘separate but equal’ position as many liberals have come to argue. There is a difference between the two here.
When we distinguish one individual as a man or a woman, or a boy or girl, are we promoting a separate but equal policy? When you celebrate Christmas do you call it St. Patrick’s Day? There is a difference between each of the two examples stated. A man or a woman are both human but one is a male and the other is a female. Christmas and St. Patrick’s are both holidays but they are distinctly different type of holidays.
In the end, the distinction between the makeup a heterosexual and homosexual “union” is there. What is not any different is the existing love and commitment that exists. That is something that many Republicans do not deny. For that reason, many Republicans do support equal recognition of both type of unions and equal treatment of both unions under law.
It should be noted that at the inception of U4Prez in 2007, its initial first weeks were dominated the same sex marriage debate. After a great deal of intense discussion and several attempts to hammer out a final resolution to the issue, a compromise was met. A vote of the general membership supported the conclusion and it was turned into a an online petition that can still be viewed today at http://www.petitiononline.com/u4prez1/petition.htm l.
You can visit the link below this article to see it for yourself.
I still support the general conclusion of that compromise.
Oddly, one man who has received wide support from the gay community has a similar view.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that he believes marriage is something that is reserved for a man and a woman. This did not stop gay men and women from voting for him in pluralities that approach that of the 94% total of the African-American vote which he received in 2008.
Perhaps, the gay community which accuses the right of being uncompromising, should stop acting hypocritically and refusing to accept same-sex partnerships that are treated equally by the law but distinguished by there make up.
Another thing that the gay community must begin to do is stop being so monolithically devoted to a political Party that is exploiting them and taking advantage of them. The example that New Jersey Democrats have offered them drives that point home.
(*This is being reposted for two reasons. First, it is as pertinent today as it was when I first posted it in July and with a new year here, I believe many of the points made must be revisited. The other reason is because while some Republicans trash their own party and it's future, I feel it is important to strengthen the Party with constructive criticism and coherent policy. I believe that if one has no faith in the Party they claim to be a member of, than they should not be a member of the Party. While I have no problem criticizing my Party for that which it has failed to follow through on in the past, or that which I may disagree with it on, I look toward creating a Party that does delivers what it sets out to and adheres to the principles that our leadership should come from. I choose to rebuild, not tear down, I choose to shape my party without putting it down and acting as though I oppose my Party.*)
---------------------------------- --
It may seem a shame or insincere to have to be political and develop political strategies to get anything done in American politics. But when you plunge into the sea of politics you better be willing to swim. This does not mean that you can’t be sincere about the issues and their effects on the American people but it does mean that if your gonna swim with the sharks you’d be wise to put on your flippers instead of your running shoes. And that is what this article deals with. It is meant to discuss the political reality behind the Republican Party’s ability to get back into the game and the tools and the political strategies it must utilize to lead again.
As we look ahead you do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the G.O.P. cannot afford a third consecutive election cycle where they lose another 20 or more seats in congress or any more governorships or state legislative chambers. To do so in 2010 will be lethal.
That is when the census takes place and redistricting begins. By losing more congressional seats we will be making it that much harder to reach a majority in 2012. And to lose any more sway in the states will mean that Democrats will have the opportunity to gerrymander Republicans into minority status for a decade or more.
So Republicans can’t wait for the presidential election of 2012 to help them increase their numbers. They must make their gains now and 2010.
In 2009 it looks like Republicans will do well and pick up Governors in New Jersey and Virginia. But for 2010, the G.O.P. needs to get on message and into gear now.
But how do we expect to make a significant run towards majority status when we will be needing it most in 2010?
Sadly, I do not see signs of a national Republican strategy and message shaping up. After supporting Ken Blackwell for RNC Chairman, I was released from my RNC responsibilities when Mike Steele beat Blackwell for the job of Chairman. I had no particular problem with Steele but saw Ken Blackwell as better suited to do what we need to do. In turn, Steele did what he felt he had to do and in an unprecedented move, released and replaced everyone that was in the R.N.C. . As a result I am not privy to the leaderships plans but from the outside I see no movement in the direction that we must take.
We could just sit back and allow the Democrats to get comfortable. That is how the G.O.P. lost control of things in the first place. After the first four years in control of both congress and the White House, complacency and the lack of a need to get the power that they had, allowed many to stop keeping their noses clean and to cease going that extra mile to make our case.
The same fate will eventually come of the current liberal ruling regime in Washington, D.C..
To a degree, Democrats understand this and that is why they are rushing , at a breakneck pace, to consolidate their power immediately by entrenching some of the most expansive and extensive socialized programs we have ever seen into government. They want to do so before the tide turns on them.
But to regain control of congress essentially by default will not make for a meaningful reason for Republicans to be in control or for an enduring leadership role that will last for any significant length of time.
So what are Republicans to do?
For that answer we should look back to a similar time. A time when Republicans were down and out. It was 1980 and much like now, we had a President who on the national stage spoke softly and carried a very small stick. He was a President who also saw government as the solution to all our problems but had policies which essentially drained every dime out of the American economy and made it so that the government and its people could not afford to do anything about anything.
To counter the Democrats and the “days of malaise” that they had us in, the G.O.P. revamped their image in the eyes of the people and became the innovative and anti-establishment, anti-government party. And they did so by presenting easily understood alternative solutions to those being bandied about by the left. They were also able to focus a spotlight on a common enemy that most Americans related to. This common enemy became something to rally against with Republicans.
Common enemies are a very powerful source of unity and support.
President George H.W. Bush spent the first four and a half years of his eight years in office riding a wave of support because terrorists proved themselves to be an undeniably severe threat to Americans and therefore a common enemy to rally against. This was not some political creation. It was a national reality and while terrorists still remain a collective concern, the lack of thousands of Americans falling victim to them again all at once, has made them a less powerful rallying cry these days but hopefully not any less of a concern.
In the 80’s, the Reagan Revolution successfully united a majority of Americans by condensing all the problems that we were facing into a different enemy. Reagan successfully defined government as the enemy. And who was in total control of government? The Democrats.
This theme, this rallying cry, allowed Americans to see that government was not the solution, it was the problem. Over time, the approach increased Republican numbers at every level. From city councils, to state legislatures and governors mansions, slowly but surely, Republicans increased in numbers until a clear majority of state houses and state executive offices were dominated by Republican majorities.
But this message was not just meant for the purpose of having majority control. It was also meant to make a beneficial difference. It was meant to use that power to reduce the size and scope of the government enemy. To reduce government’s tax burden on the people. To eliminate the barriers to economic growth, job opportunities and entrepreneurial expansion. It was also used to rebuild our military capabilities and restore America’s role on the international stage. Defeating the communist enemy was another reason.
With Republican control came the change America needed and that is exactly what the G.O.P. must demonstrate to Americans again. We must convince them that we are currently headed down a road that our nation once ran away from. The road that was plotted for our nation under Jimmy Carter whose increased regulations, increased taxation and government interference created both a deficit of personal economic empowerment and of national morale.
That same Carter-like approach to our federal government is taking place today under President Obama. And at a time when we are again experiencing tough economic times, the liberal tax and spend approach is again making things tougher for all of us.
This case must be made to the people but it cannot be effectively made with an algebraic equation or Ross Perot bar graph. It must be made through a concise, everyday translation that everyone can relate to.
In 1980, during one presidential debate, Ronald Reagan discussed the historic and disastrous inflation rate that the Carter administration brought to bear on us. He spoke of a little girl who when shopping with her mother saw a doll that she fell in love with and desperately wanted. She pleaded with her mother to buy it for her but her mother told her that she had to earn it and with her allowance she must save for it. The former Governor and soon to be President continued to explain that the little girl saved her money until finally she had enough to buy it. But when she went back to the store, the price had increased and she did not have enough money after all. So, disappointed, she went back home hoping to save enough money to buy it the following week. When that next week came, she went back to the store with enough to cover the new purchase price only to discover that the price of that same doll went up again. Reagan described how this disappointing cycle repeated itself for a month and he further explained that this was the effect of inflation and the misery index which was created during the Carter years.
He stated that this was the result of the economic condition that we got ourselves into under the Carter administration and that as hard as we tried to keep our heads above water, the rushing tide of rising costs was a never ending cycle that kept on putting everything out of our reach and like that little girl whose so desired doll was always out of reach because of inflation, so too was the American dream becoming out of reach for all individual Americans.
Reagan helped people to relate to our troubles by encapsulating all of our nation’s problems down to the face of an innocent little girl. And in doing so he made Americans believe that he understood them and their problems.
It allowed him to capture the hearts, minds and votes of the American people.
This is the approach that we again need. Republicans must reconnect and demonstrate that they relate to those not in the political class.
But who is to be the messenger and where are the innovative approaches to come from?
In looking for such a person we can easily see that the House of Representatives is hardly a place where such a face of national stature can be easily be created. The few promising figures in congress who have the innovative minds and anti-establishment mentality that we need must rise to a higher level of prominence before they have a realistic shot at being the right national messenger. Congressmen like Eric Cantor of Ohio, Mike Pence of Indiana and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin are perfect examples of the type of capable, competent leaders we need. But until they are in a position of greater power and prominence like that of a Governor or Senator, there is little chance for them to command the amount of attention that they need to effectively and properly deliver a nationally captivating message
For Cantor, Ryan and Pence, the G.O.P. would be wise to start making room for them as Senators or Governors in the coming years. But that still wont fill the void we have right now.
In looking at the United States Senate, prospects there are thin.
Of the forty Republicans remaining, few have the persona, gravitas and ability to capture the nation’s imagination and trust. McCain is over and was over even before he ran for President. The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, lacks any significant attraction in speech or persona and ideas.
Among the most promising, somewhat conservative figures, whose personalities and abilities can fit the bill, are possibly Bob Corker of Tennessee but more likely Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Thune of South Dakota. Both of these men are consistently strong, sound voices that could emerge as potential standard bearers in 2012 and they could start carrying the banner now by coalescing the party together under the type of “get government out the way” policy alternatives that we could make a message out of.
Gregg though seems always prepared to hang up his hat and return to a quiet life of retirement in the hills and mountains of New Hampshire.
So that leaves Senator John Thune.
He is young, the youngest of them all and I have always appreciated him. In his first run for the Senate, he lost by almost 500 votes that were illegally obtained for incumbent Senator Tim Johnson through a Democrat scheme that involved cash for votes and falsified registrations from two South Dakota Indian registrations.
But two years later, Thune made history when he defeated the Senate’s Democrat leader Tom Daschle.
Since then, Thune has been a relatively strong conservative influence and he has command of the issues, an energetic and confident charisma and clean record.
After sifting through the ranks of federal office holders, the only other obvious place to find the leader we need is from within the ranks of state leadership.
The governors.
It is here where we also find the most innovative and beneficial ideas in government.
The majority of Republican governors are handling things far better than most Democrat governors like those in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington and others. But here too, the right captivating figure is hard to find out of the 22 existing Republican governors.
Mark Sanford was a promising option. His potential was not for any command of communication skills, which he lacked, but because of actual strong policy positions and administrative qualities. That was of course all before he ran off to Argentina and abandoned his state and family for a romp with his “soul mate”.
Donald Carcieri happens to be the most unique of all governors.
He is the Republican governor of Rhode Island, one of, if not the most, liberal states in the most liberal region of the nation, New England.
What makes him most unique there is the fact that he is actually a centrist with a propensity towards conservative positions. He is often in opposition to his Democrat dominated state legislature on such things as the obligations of state workers, separation of powers and illegal immigration. He has even vetoed more than 30 pieces of legislation that they have presented to him. Yet he has still been elected twice.
But we are talking Rhode Island here and Carcieri lacks any great innovative leadership qualities and national appeal. I would hope to see Carcieri eventually take one of the two Democrat U.S. Senate seats, like Sheldon Whitehouse’s seat, but I hardly expect him to capture the national imagination.
Of those remaining, the brightest gubernatorial lights are those of Louisiana’s Boby Jindal, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, and the best of all of them, Mitch Daniels of Indiana.
Daniels won reelection to a second term as governor by as much as 60% while at the same time, Indiana voters elected Barack Obama for President. In some cases he even got 20% of the African-American vote. That is an unusually high percentage for any Republican anywhere. He clearly has crossover appeal.
He can also be an inspiring speaker who conveys his message with conviction and in a way that makes people trusting of him and confident in him. As a conservative he has refrained from the wholesale selling out of the ideals that many in the G.O.P. have done over the past five or so years. Just one example can be demonstrated by the size of Indiana’s government.
While governments in most other states has increased in size, Mitch Daniels has shrunk both the size and cost of government. Currently the state has about 30,000 public employees. That is the smallest number of state employees since 1983.
Another area of distinction for him is in the area of government budgets.
When first coming into office Indiana had an $800 million deficit but Daniels turned it into a surplus of $1.3 billion. Much of this was helped by his reducing the growth rate of state spending from 5.9 percent to 2.8 percent.
The only problem is that Mitch Daniels has stated that he will not ever run for president. That puts a damper on national hopes for him but they have also been the same words uttered by a few people who are now former Presidents.
As for Jindal his record in Congress proves him to be an ideally strong conservative. On issues like abortion, immigration, national security, healthcare, energy, education and on just about every other issues he is right where the right wants a leader to be.
As Louisiana‘s Governor he has maintained his conservative credentials and even reigned in Louisiana‘s state budget problems.
On the downside, Jindal has only been in office since 2007 and during that time, his first, and to date, only appearance on the national stage was a response to President Obama’s State of the Union. In it, Governor Jindal put forward the right message but its delivery fell flat and received rapid fire shots aimed at claiming he was done.
Such is not the case but even Bobby Jindal has admitted that he is a little green and needs more seasoning.
That leaves Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour open for discussion.
Both of these men have produced for their states and both of them are more qualified than President Obama was when he was elected President of the United States.
In Pawlenty we have a strong messenger and practitioner of what he himself has termed, Sam’s Club Republicanism, a combination of social conservatism with working family economic appeal.
He has governed well, put spending under control and geared state government more towards that which it should be dealing with such as responsible infrastructure planning, maintenance and construction.
If Pawlenty can raise money and attract some of the top tier consultants which Mitt Romney has already attracted to his camp. And if he can raise enough money to insure that his campaign for the presidential nomination is not under funded, thaen Pawlenty’s record, populist approach and appeal could be quite successful. But to get to that point, he should really start reaching for more national exposure now.
He should start interpreting his alternative policies to the Obama administration and allow himself to become the natural face of the G.O.P.. In him is the ability to not only shape the message that we as a party need to get out but he also has the ability to shape the policies that we can center that message around. If Tim Pawlenty were to take the lead now on issues like healthcare, taxes, the bailout, energy and job growth, many others will line up behind him as they begin to see that Pawlenty is the figure who can part the seas for the rest of them.
The same applies to Haley Barbour of Mississippi.
He has a folksy, “get’er done” way about himself and an appealing record of accomplishment for his state on budgetary control.
Before, during and after the ravaging of the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina, Barbour effectively prepared his state for it and efficiently dealt with its aftermath. Louisiana was the only state to be hit as hard or harder by Hurricane Katrina and in Louisiana’s case it was prepared for and handled so horrifically that its Governor, Kathleen Blanco was practically forced out of office and ultimately rejected even for consideration to a second term in office.
Both Pawlenty and Barbour have the perfect opportunity to step up and become the leader and messenger that we need. Both of them have the unique ability to convincingly demonstrate to Americans that with the right policy direction, rather than being in our way, government can get out of our way and be an effective tool for insuring opportunity, independence and an enduring quality of life with economic freedom and growth.
Mitch Daniels has the ability to do so too and probably better than any of them………….if he wanted to.
Of course three, now former governor’s have this same ability and opportunity. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and dare I say it, Jeb Bush of Florida.
Jeb has put off any attempts for the White House for now. After two Bush’s in the Oval Office over the course of sixteen years, the obvious notion that the nation is Bushed out is a pretty safe bet.
As the most conservative member of the Bush family to have served in office, Jeb has been a truly effective leader and one that Floridians would have never let go if they had the chance to reelect.
Palin has promise but after resigning from office early she also now has problems. None of which can’t be overcome. Her chances to be the national face and voice of the party is fifty-fifty, much like her standing among Americans. They either love her or hate her.
Now out of office, Palin must walk a very careful line that seeks to diffuse those that hate her and broaden the numbers of those who love her. She will also have to make sure that she is taken seriously at all times. There will be no room for her to flub on any issue and while using her appealing folksy ways, she must convey a command of the issues and demonstrate a breadth of knowledge and competence that can in no way be denied by anyone who hears her. If she can deliver her small government, Washington outsider, equal opportunity, freedom based policy messages, she could out shop Tim Pawlenty when it comes to being a Sam’s Club Republican.
The largest elephant in the room though is Mitt Romney.
He is definitely running for President and he is by all measures the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
In addition to being a successful businessman in his own right, Romney is also a managerial genius. He took the once derailed, scandal ridden, over budget and chaotic build up of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and turned it into a smooth running, ethical and profitable display of organizational perfection.
Beyond that credit is Romney’s term as Governor in a liberal state that is called home by such liberal giants as Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy. The liberal bastion of Massachusetts is no place for a conservative Republican to sprout out from but Romney played politics and outmaneuvered his Democrat opponent.
However; in doing so Mitt created a few problems.
A now long past conversion from pro-abortion rights to pro-life has left many right-to-lifers wondering if he is sincere on the issue. Why right-to-lifers find it hard to believe that someone would agree with them after witnessing a personal family struggle with the issue, itself is hard to understand. But so be it.
On gay rights, previous statements made when Mitt ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate and in his actions as Governor during Massachusetts first in the nation “Gay Marriage” fight have critics claiming that on that issue, Romney experienced another political conversion.
The two issues together give Romney naysayers the opportunity to call him a flip-flopper.
But that charge only adds height to Mitt’s biggest hurdle. Obamacare.
As Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was a central figure in the creation of a state run healthcare program that made the purchase of health insurance by state residents mandatory. The concept was based on the principle that if everyone was covered, healthcare costs would be less expensive. The problem is that such a law of supply and demand doesn’t reconcile when a government bureaucracy is over seeing it.
It would be easy to suggest that Romney did the best he could with a liberal state and an overwhelmingly liberal dominated state legislature and that is true to an extent. However Mitt’s fingerprints are allover this one and to make matters worse he was the first governor to implement a plan of this type anywhere. The episode does make the case for the federal government to avoid the creation of a socialized healthcare program. It also makes a case for allowing experimentation within each individual state until an efficient model is found and emulated by all the states. But when it comes to Massachusetts, this episode proves that socialized medicine is not the way to go and for Romney the problem now is that it was his plan which demonstrated why it is not the way to go.
There are other factors involved though.
The state legislature and Romney’s successor, Governor Deval Patrick did tinker with the original program. They tinkered with it a lot and many of the healthcare reforms made in the original plan have changed from what Romney had influenced. Nevertheless the issue is Romney’s to defend against and explain. It exposes his Achilles heal in any 2012.
Romney’s best defense against possible Republican opponents who were or are governors would probably be “I tried and it failed and I learn from mistakes, whereas my fellow governors up here never even tried to make healthcare more accessible and affordable.”
This assessments of Republican leadership prospects leaves us with the following conclusion.
As it looks now, the most likely and promising of likely individuals to choose from will be a field that consists of Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour and John Thune.
Others will run and some from the above mentioned group may not. But if the six that I bring up were to be the field of candidates for the Republican nomination, it would indeed be a hotly contested race that will also undoubtedly inject a great many substantial policy models and directions that will help to fuel the conservative movement.
But that isn’t till 2012.
What will become of 2010?
Short of any of the possibly convincing figures discussed being ballsy enough to attempt to become our national voice right now, as it currently stands, there is no one person who can do it while also having the ability to enjoin all of the party leadership including the senate and house in a national strategy.
Someone needs to be able to bring all levels of leadership together and get them all on the same page to push one strategy.
It must be a strategy similar to Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America”.
Critics can malign the "Contract With America” all they want but it worked.
After forty years in the wilderness, Newt Gingrich, along with the help of a faltering Clinton administration, brought Republicans in to the majority in the house. And the new generation that came into power with that “Contract” actually adhered to it, at least for as long as Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
As for who can be both the voice of the party and the unifying force for a national Republican strategy, politics being what it is will prohibit everyone from getting behind any potential Republican candidate for President. Each camp and their supporters will not permit any one of them to get the attention and credit for bringing us back.
So this role must be played by a neutral party. It must be someone who is not going to run for President in 2012 and who will not put the momentum of the popularity that will come with this role behind any potential nominee until they have won the nomination.
This person must also have the persona we need to effectively be a persuasive point man. They must be respected with a proven record and untarnished by any of the negative stereotypes that the left can easily pin on Republicans.
All of this points to one man. One man who, if he really means what he says, fits all of the qualities that are required for becoming the coalescing figure that wont be a threat to any single Republican's presidential ambitions or be a threat to any senate or house leaders power over their Republican conference.
That person is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.
If he truly has no desire to run for President, he is the person that can help Republicans deliver a national message which counters the overspending, over controlling liberal government enemy.
With him as the face of the party that delivers a Reagan-like message dealing with the Republican alternatives to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda, the party can rebuild and have a shot at winning more seats instead of losing more seats in 2010.
The stars would be aligned perfectly if Republican National Chairman Mike Steele could get representatives of the Republican Governors Association and of the house and senate together and onboard, hammer out what could be generally be called “The American Agenda” and let Mitch Daniels be the national point man for it.
This would allow for the type of cohesive leadership plan that, with accurate precision, can get Republicans back on message and working together while the message is being delivered loud and clear through what would be a voice from the heartland. A governor’s voice. One with crossover appeal who has been an effective leader with a proven record, cut state budgets, reduced the size and scope of government, practiced a true commitment to both family and conservative values and whom, if he seriously will not run for President himself, is no threat to any other potential candidate. Daniels is the best man for the job and one of the only people who could do that job as well and as convincingly as him.
With whom that messenger should be established, in Part II, we will deal with exactly what that message must be and the Republican organizational plan to deliver and implement it.
2010 is to be a tough year for Democrats. North Dakota’s Senator Byron Dorgan knows it, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter sees it and now, Chris “The Dud” Dodd realizes it. Just a few days into the new year and all three Democrats have chosen to voluntarily retire before the voters of their state retire them in embarrassing electoral beatings. Dodd is just the latest to face the writing on the wall.
As a major player in the regulatory schemes that helped bring the housing and finance markets to their knees and ushered in the existing economic crisis that confronts us today, the doldrums that Dodd was wading into among Connecticut voters was well deserved. As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd, along with his counterpart, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Barney “Elmer Fudd” Frank of Massachusetts, led the way for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue an unprecedented level of trillions of dollars in low-risk investments that were only sustainable if real estate prices continued rising.
The advice and circumstances prompted Republicans in 2006 to sponsor new regulations that would have placed the two housing lenders under strict requirements that would have severely limited their ability to take excessive risks and would have corrected illegitimate recording practices that they were participating in. They would have also averted financial ruin.
The problem is that real estate prices ceased to rise and started to fall. By the time this reversal took place, it was too late. The lack of liquidity that stemmed from an inordinate amount of defaults on an overextended volume of sub-prime loans began to tighten up the lending of money throughout the entire banking system. This spurred the worldwide credit crunch and economic crisis that was born.
It did not have to happen.
In 2005 Alan Greenspan warned Congress of the urgent need to tighten regulations on the systemic abuse that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were partaking in. Before Congress he testified that:
“if Fannie and Freddie continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”
Chris Dodd rejected these corrective measures. And while refusing to adopt these regulatory measures, he was simultaneously collecting oodles of dollars from Fannie and Freddie and became the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the very entities that he refused to correct.
In other words, Dodd dodged efforts that would have helped to stem the troubling tide of the economic red ink and financial calamity that we found ourselves awash in during 2008. But poor policy alone was not enough to doom the potential reelection of Dodd in heavily Democrat Connecticut. After refusing to stem the economic crisis that Dodd and Democrats could have averted, the Connecticut Senator found himself in the key position of shaping the legislative bailout of Countrywide Financial Corp., a company that found itself needing bailout bucks after operating under the regulatory practices that Dodd refused to reform.
But this brought rise to an ugly conflict of interest. It was discovered that in two separate sweetheart deals, Dodd was the recipient of two cut-rate mortgages of nearly $800,000 from Countrywide Financial. The political favoritism that Countrywide afforded to the Chairman of the senate committee that oversees their business practices is seen as, to say the least, shady and Senator Dodd has not been forthcoming with the details of the arrangements. Instead, without remorse he promised to refinance the Countrywide deals, which would save him at least $70,000 over the life of the mortgages.
Then in February of last year, after bailing out AIG, Dodd slipped an amendment into the stimulus bill that ensured that executives of firms bailed out by the government could still collect already contracted bonuses. When this slight of hand came to light, Dodd denied doing it. An intense barrage of outright public indignation forced a glaring spotlight on Dodd until he finally admitted to being responsible for the amendment but ultimately he claimed that President Obama made him do it.
Now after being the first Democrat to throw his Democrat President under the bus, a slew of recent improprieties and slights of hand and a prior history of questionable real estate and financing schemes extending from as far back as 1986, Dodd was facing a very leery and disgruntled Connecticut electorate. At one point, with a negative rating for him of anywhere from 38% to 42%, voters in the Nutmeg State recently had Chris Dodd trailing his likely Republican opponent Rob Simmons by 9%.
It was looking as though Republicans had a great chance of picking up a senate seat in Connecticut. Dodd was considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the nation and Simmons was getting traction and raising a significant campaign war chest. But now, Dodds’ exit has paved the way for the state’s most prominent and popular Democrat to run. Long serving state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will now seek the Party’s nomination. He will also win it and most likely go on to win the general election in November.
Republican Bob Simmons is a good candidate and although I do not wish to diminish his candidacy, Blumenthal is too popular and too well established in this heavily Democrat state. Unless there is a 1994-like Republican Revolution and Blumenthal takes some outrageously extreme liberal positions along with a skeleton in his closet that has yet to be unveiled, the Nutmeg State’s blue blood is not likely to turn Republican Red.
The only Republican who could make the race more competitive than Simons would be Republican Governor Jodi Rell.
Rell recently decided to not seek reelection. The decision was not based her election chances. It was a sincere desire to retire from public life.
Although Republicans are not in favor in Connecticut, Jodi Rell remains popular. She had approval rating in the 70’s. Currently they are down from that very high number to reasonably high numbers in the 60’s. But after serving 3 terms as Lieutenant Governor under her predecessor, popular Republican Governor John Rowland in 1994, 1998 and 2002, and assuming the office of Governor in 2004 after Rowland was convicted on corruption charges, Rell won the office in her own right in 2006 with an astounding 63% of the vote. With it looking like a good year for Republicans, nationally, Rell was probably the best hope that Republicans had to keep the Executive Office in Connecticut and would be the best chance to put Dodd’s seat into Republican hands against Blumenthal if she ran for the U.S. Senate..
A Rell-Blumenthal race would be interesting and probably a nail biter, but Governor Rell is not likely to retire from one office to seek another.
The Dodd decision simply is the latest example of Democrats realizing their fate. However, his decision not to run will turn out to be the best thing Democrats could ask for. Chris Dodd was not going to win. He knew it and the Democrat leadership knew it. But retiring and rejecting an attempt to secure a sixth term in office, Democrats will now run with a much stronger candidate in Richard Blumenthal and are likely stop some of the electoral hemorrhaging that they are expecting in November.
Although Connecticut may remain in Democrat hands, many other seats are looking to be uphill battles or outright losses for Democrats.
The prospect of keeping the magical number of a 60 seat, filibuster proof senate majority while defending 13 incumbents and open seats in Illinois, Florida, Delaware and now in North Dakota, will give Democrats ogida.
No matter what, a loss of just one of those seats will put an end to the partisanship of the Democrat regime. Without 60 senate seats, there will be no more nuclear option available to Harry Reid or whomever the next Democrat leader of the senate is. Reid himself is down in the polls and might be a loss for Democrats. Then there is also Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania who will have a tough time convincing Democrats that he is the best man for the job. Those possible losses are bad enough but the nail in the Democrat coffin will most likely be North Dakota.
Like Dodd, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan was going down but unlike the situation in Connecticut where a stronger Democrat could take his place, North Dakota has no stronger Democrat candidate. Add to that a changed environment that is favoring Republicans and what you have is at least one sure loss and a need for Democrats in 2011, to try to be a little less partisan as they find themselves having to work with Republicans and in need of their votes.
Back in July of 2009, POLITICS 24/7 wrote:
“So as 2010 approaches, look for Connecticut to provide one of the tremors that will lead to a political earthquake that shifts the tectonic plates of ideological influence and shapes a new landscape on Capitol Hill in the not too distant future.”
It would seem that the tremor mentioned took place a little early and shook Chris Dodd out of the race. The event stabilizes Connecticut, for now, but it does confirm that the tectonic plates of politics are shifting fast than anticipated and that Democrats are bracing themselves for a November quake that will have the Richter scale working overtime.
Believe it or not, there are some Republicans who need not lose an election to learn a lesson. There are some Republicans who understand that true Republicans do not legislate like liberals or finance the federal government with Bernie Madoff-like budgeting schemes.
To be honest, while there are practically no such Democrats these days, there are but a handful of such Republicans who hold elected office. But many incumbents continue to play a blame game of pointing fingers at Democrats who are in the majority and doing many of the same things that Republicans did when they were in the majority. That said, there do exist some incumbents who are true to the Republican ideology and practice what they preach. There are people such as Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, a conservative who is trying to get government under control with legislation he calls The Enumerated Powers Act. It would force legislators to reference the specific clause or clauses of the U.S. Constitution that grant them the power to enact any laws or take any other congressional actions.
There are other outstanding House members like Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, Mike Pence of Indiana, Wisconsin's Paul Ryan and Scott Garrett of New Jersey.
In the US Senate you have leaders like South Dakota’s John Thune, Tennessee’s Bob Corker and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
When it comes to Governors, standouts include Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindahl and Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty. All of them continue to streamline government and budgets, while still operating an efficient and effective state government.
Yet regardless of how great some incumbent Republicans may be or even how well some behind the scene Republicans have advanced the cause, none of them have yet been able to again convincingly persuade, to their side, the vast number of Americans that are needed to change the balance of power, nor have they convinced a majority of Americans to once again have faith in the Republican Party as an entity that truly represents the principles which made our party great. None of them have been able to round up and organize the incredible mass of Americans who can muster the strength to stop the bandwagon of spending and socialist programming that the current liberal regime of Pelosi, Reid and President Obama have spearheaded. On that measure all have failed.
But if we look beyond incumbent office holders, the promise of those with the skills to can turn things around does exist among a number of very promising candidates that we will see emerge in the coming year and beyond.
It is here where we find the Republican of the Year.
Former Governor Sarah Palin, to the chagrin of many leftists, still captures the essential spirit of the conservative-libertarian heart of the GOP. Despite having sacrificed the last year and a half of her term as Governor in order for her successor to carry on the good work she started, unhindered by lawsuits and malicious malcontents, Palin still has potential and she inspires as many, if not more, than she turns off.
Sarah Palin embodies the anti-establishmentarian, fiscal and social conservative values that are the traditional core of the party. However, while the promise and potential are there, this year, Sarah has not promoted policies or the cause as much as she has her successful book, Going Rogue.
So she is not Republican of the Year.
Another person with potential comes from Ohio.
During his eight terms in Congress, John Kasich proved himself to be an exemplary Republican force. He has been on the forefront of reform and conservatism. He has always been above reproach and he has lived by the rules and refused to go along to get a long. He retired from Congress in 2001 but now, 9 years later, John Kasich is seeking to become Governor of Ohio.
His candidacy will be inspirational. It is one based on core conservative beliefs, especially our fiscally conservative roots. He also values life.
Kasich will not spew mere platitudes. Instead he will put forth detailed policies that will define the course he will put Ohio on. Both Kasich’s campaign, and after winning, his tenure as Governor, will ultimately throw him set a new high standard as his leadership becomes a model for others to follow. He will also be an eventual contender for President.
But that is yet to be and unlike the Nobel Prize, the title of Republican of the Year is not based on potential but rather on achievement and the point to which they have presently come.
Based upon that criteria, and will all else considered, the 2009 title of Republican of the Year goes to Marco Rubio.
Who is Marco Rubio?
Well if you have not already heard of him, in due time, you will.
Marco Rubio is a 38 year old Floridian from West Miami who was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2000 and eventually became the states youngest Speaker of the House, before term limits retired him from office.
Born of Cuban immigrant parents, Marco was brought up on values rooted in honesty and hard work. He grew up understanding that the potential of America lay not in government control but in personal and entrepreneurial freedom.
As a state legislator Marco gained prominence on several political fronts.
He was the state’s leading champion of lower tax rates and helped craft a state government that was leaner and more efficient when he left office than when he first came to office. Another Rubio achievement was his landmark property rights legislation that became a national model which helped to curtail the horrors of eminent domain abuses.
Rubio’s work was not limited to the Florida Statehouse or his Miami legislative district. During his last year in office, Marco traveled all of Florida in what he called an “Idearaisesr.” These events helped him compile some of the best suggestions for the improvement of life in Florida.
Rubio put those ideas all together in a book called “100 Innovative Ideas For Florida’s Future”.
To date, 57 of those 100 ideas have become legislation.
His impeccable record is enough to make Marco Rubio standout but that is not all that accounts for his being named Republican of the Year.
Two of the main reasons for his getting that title are based upon his ability to inspire those around him, articulate the conservative in a way that wins people over and his willingness to buck the establishment.
With a Reaganesque quality that can give Barack Obama a run for his money, Rubio’s oratory and people skills are incredibly powerful. He conveys a Jack Kemp-like message of personal and economic empowerment along with a heartfelt spin that appeals to not just your mind, but your heart as well. This is something that the current generation of Republican politicos lack. The GOP has no clear and powerful voice to deliver our message and Marco Rubio provides both the right voice and the right message.
The other reason Rubio is Republican of the Year is because of his demonstrated ability to buck the establishment.
At 38, Marco could easily sit on his laurels and wait for the Republican establishment to tap him for the next elected office they want him to pursue while in their pockets. But rather than wait in line for his chance to lead, Rubio is stepping up to bat and fighting for that opportunity.
Florida’s incumbent Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, is a popular figure. He is a favorite of the establishment and he is running for the US States Senate. With a well stocked war chest, Crist’s lucrative campaign fund along with his high name ID and the support of the national Republican leadership, is considered a favorite for not only the Republican nomination for Senate but for the actual Senate seat in question. Yet against all odds, Marco Rubio is challenging Crist.
Rubio is not impressed by the popular Florida Governor. He has seen the once conservative oriented leader turn into a waffling moderate politicians who sold out the Sunshine State by endorsing things such as the debt increasing stimulus packages that have promised more than they delivered.
In general, Charlie Crist has proven himself to be a sell out who values political expediency over sound policy and although he still offers leadership that is step up from that delivered by the those rooted in solidly liberal foundations, Rubio knows that Crist is not up to the standards that conservatives should expect.
That is why he has become the GOP’s David in a campaign against the Republican Goliath. Rubio knows his campaign for the US Senate nomination is an uphill battle. He also knows that his challenge to the frontrunner is not winning him any favor from the GOP establishment. But none of this stops Rubio from getting his message out.
In just a few short months, Marco Rubio’s campaign has taken him from an underdog with poll numbers that had him going down to Charlie Crist by as much as 25 or more percent, to where today the race is a dead heat at 43% each. Even more telling is the fact that while Crist’s support has dropped below 50% and his favorability has seen a double digit drop to 19% since August, Marco Rubio’s is now viewed very favorably by 34% of likely primary voters. That is up from 18% in August and a total reverse in direction from Crist.
Underdog Marco Rubio is being outspent and out endorsed by the establishment but with a true adherence to conservative Republicanism, he is tapping into something more powerful than the old boy’s network. He has awakened the grassroots. The grassroots of the Republican Party and the general electorate as well.
While Crist is capturing the pockets of the establishment, Rubio is capturing the hearts and minds of voters. And he is not doing so with money. He is doing so with his message and proven record.
For all these reasons, Marco Rubio is Republican of the Year.
He represents all that our party should, possesses all the qualities and thinking that we are lacking, and he is one of the few Republicans around today who offer the Party the promise of a future based on the principles that are at the heart of our being.
Marco Rubio has taken the true Republican message to the disaffected majority of voters who feel abandoned and have lost faith in the system and the Party. He has also taken it to fellow Republicans who feel disaffected by their own Party and, slowly but surely, he is winning all of them them over. Rubio is reinvigorating many and inspiring many more. He is proving to be the type of Republican that conservatives and disaffected voters have been yearning for. He is the future of the GOP and for that reason, Marco Rubio is Republican of the Year.
With an apparent deal in the works, the United States Senate is about to offer America a Christmas snow job that will initiate a blizzard of bureaucracies, mandates, taxes, fees, Medicare cuts and state budget busting regulations that will turn American healthcare it into a Soviet style government health management process.
With over a hundred new panels, boards, agencies, commissions, divisions and government entities, the Senate version of Obamacare assures the hiring of a hundred thousand new government employees, all of who will be managing your health————or at least how and when you can get health care.
All of this promises to increase the national debt, degrade the quality of care, create a shortage medical professionals and caregivers, increase premiums, tax businesses, grow the size of the federal deficit, cut Medicare to senior citizens, initiate unfunded mandates that will prove to budget busters for states, and place government bureaucrats between doctors and their patients. And let us not forget another small thing———– it’s also not constitutional.
Contrary to President Obama’s promise for transparency and a process that will hammer together a healthcare reform bill that we will see take place on C-Span, both the House and Senate reform bills were pieced together behind closed doors and with the use of more deal making and arm twisting than you saw take place in an entire season of The Sopranos. Democrat lawmakers were bribed with taxpayer dollars as some had entire sections of the of the over 2,000 page bill written strictly for the purpose of providing certain liberal lawmakers with hundreds of millions of dollars in return for their vote.
Now, without any transparency and without posting the final bill online for the promised 72 hours of public scrutiny, Harry “The Pimp” Reid wants to rush a vote on heathscare reform before Santa shimmies down his first chimney.
This Christmas , Democrats are simply leaving a lump of coal in your stocking and calling it gold.
Well it’s time to pull the wool off your eyes America——————Senate shysters are about to steal more than your Christmas. They’re getting ready to bum rush Santa, shoot his reindeer, and hijack his sleigh. Then, they plan on going home for the holidays.
Today the Obama Administration makes it official. Our democracy is an endangered form of governance.
Today the Environmental Protection Agency officially declares greenhouse gas emissions to be hazardous to our health. The announcement is not exactly a disputed revelation. What is disputed is the degree to which greenhouse gasses may be unhealthy to us and our environment.
Recent disclosures have shown that political lobbyists have influenced the slanting of scientific studies in an attempt to turn hypothetical extremes of global warming into mass hysteria. The attempts to exaggerate scientific results has set both science and the “sky is falling” radical left, back by leaps and bounds and most importantly blemished the reputation of the scientific community. It has also made many skeptical of the real reason behind the radical agenda for such things as a cap-and-trade bill that would amount to a tax on the air that we breathe and the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. Many skeptics see the whole exaggeration and attempts at generating hysteria over manmade global warming effects, as simply a way of gaining more control over our finances and lives.
At the same time, skeptics are not rushing out to pump greenhouse gas emissions into their homes. They realize that sound environmental policies, which lead to logical scientific advances and practical applications, are desired. But they must be rational ones that do not abuse science and are not used as excuses for controlling us and taking rights away from us.
For those of us who understand this, the announcement by the EPA concerning greenhouse gas emissions is not a sincere attempt at sound environmental policy. It is a power grab that will take our rights and finances away. By officially declaring GHG emissions dangerous to our health and using the endangered species act to combat it, is a technical measure that triggers the EPA’s ability to act without congressional approval. That means that the Environmental Protection Agency will now be able to freely enact policies and taxes as they wish.
This paves the way for the EPA to go ahead with suggestions they made early this year which would charge farmers fees for each head of cattle or pigs on their farm all because their such farm animal seemingly produce gassy emissions (farts) that are said to produce lethal lethal doses of CO2 which trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere.
But the free reign of the EPA does not stop there. The technical declaration that they establish will enable them to dictate and mandate costly regulations and procedures that can amount to taxes and fees that will help to put businesses and industries out of business and force families into situations where they can be forced out of their homes or taxed into poverty.
It has been almost six months since the House approved the cap-and-trade initiative, by a paper thin margin. The Administration and EPA bureaucrats were quite pleased with this. However the Senate has failed to take up the measure and it looks like they may not do so anytime soon. Which is why the impatient EPA cleared the way to do as they please without any congressional action.
Just as is the case with President Obama’s great appreciation for creating czars, who are unelected officials that remain unaccountable for the federal policies they set, the President has now made it possible for an entire federal agency to do the same.
The Administrations decision to move ahead with the use of the endangerment act in regards to curbing CO2 emikssions in order to allow the EPA to independently set and enforce regulations, is seen as a sign as President Obama’s willingness to reach international environmental agreements without congressional consent. This decision to launch a new EPA dictatorship and the signal it sends, coincidentally comes just as 1,200 limos and 140 private jets gather in Copenhagen to discuss the environment while leaving a larger carbon footprint and release more GHG than most Americans families do in an entire year. Ironically, these fuel consuming environmental hypocrites believe they can save the world by urging the United States to sign on to radical environmental standards that we are not yet prepared to meet without crippling the American economy. In the meantime, nations like India and China, the world’s most egregious polluters, continue to forge ahead unabated and unaffected by environmental regulations. This allows them to continue growing their economies as they produce goods at a far lower rate than the United States which continues to see its economy shrink.
Perhaps the most important message that the Obama Administration and the one world union leaders in Copenhagen are really sending us today is that global warming is probably the least of our worries. They are proving that we should actually fear our government the most.
Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus admitted to sending a nomination for his girlfriend and former staffer, Melodee Hanes to President Obama for the job of US Attorney for Montana. The admission came only after a news outlet that that covers events involving the US Department of Justice, discovered the relationship between Baucus, Hanes, and her nomination. Were it not for the discovery by a third party, Senator Baucus would not have admitted to anything. Hanes was not ultimately selected for the job by President Obama and since Hanes did not get the position, it is not an issue. However, what is at issue is the integrity of another powerful Democrat. Any politician who is sincere and above reproach, would recuse themselves from making such a nomination, with the understanding that even if their girlfriend was the most qualified person for the job, the romantic involvement would not, given the circumstances, provide the greatest sense of confidence in the nomination. Patronage is nothing new and this incident is not necessarily a scandal, especially compared with the improprieties of other Democrat leaders like Charlie Rangel, but it does show that Max Baucus is just as much a part of the problem in Washington as the rest of them.
*Mike Huckabee
In a story that ended this past week and began the week before that, the former Republican Governor from Arkansas and GOP presidential hopeful who turned into a Fox News Channel T.V. show host, lost any chance of aspiring to the presidency of the United States anytime soon. As governor Huckabee pardoned and commuted the sentences of more criminals than all of his three predecessors put together, a few of those whose sentences were expedited by him were found to have committed violent rapes after being freed early. The issue was a mark against him in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But now another criminal offered leniency by Huck, killed 4 police officers in Washington state after his early release from prison. No matter what, Mike Huckabee bears a burden of responsibility for the process that made this possible and no matter what reasoning or excuses that may be made, the early releases of prisoners by Huckabee have expedited the deaths of a combined total of at least five, if not more people, as well as several rapes. Huckabee’s leadership failed those people and their families and failed to protect all of us. At the very least, Huckabee should suffer a dashing of any hope of becoming President of the United States and to call him a loser of the week is an understatement.
*The Economy
Nationally, Democrats are boasting the virtues of the fact that we only lost 110,000 jobs in October. The fact that October typically brings large numbers of seasonal holiday hiring’s and that we still lost more than a hundred thousand jobs does not seem to matter to Democrats. They ignore the fact that jobs are still being lost and that the imploding economy held down seasonal hiring. They also ignore the continued hemorrhaging of jobs in areas associated with a sustainable rebound in activity, including trade, transportation, utilities, construction and manufacturing. And while the Administration celebrates there only being 110,000 jobs lost, they fail to embark upon any policies that will truly increase any longterm job growth and establish sustainable economic growth. Instead they promote government spending which produces no return on the dollar and no long term promise. Adding to the liberal celebration over things “not being worse” is the Administration’s proven doctoring of the books, ala Recovery.org which recorded jobs in places that don’t exist, and you have liberal slights of hand that do not include 100,000 jobs deleted from the rolls of those looking for a work because they gave up. In the end what you have is no reason to party or to be optimistic about current economic policies. No matter what, despite White House spawned celebrations that areextolled by a media hypnotized by the President, the economy was a loser this week and if things keep going this way, it will be losing for a long time to come.
* ~~~~~WINNERS~~~~~ *
*General Stanley McChrystal
After a long awaited decision, President Obama has agreed to send the man on the ground and in charge of the war effort in Afghanistan, the forces that he requested to get the job done. McChrystal was smart though. He didn’t just request the troops. Several weeks ago, frustrated by no signs of the President’s commitment to the cause, McChrystal allowed his position on more troops to “leak” out. Word quickly spread that the man who knew what he was doing and what needed to be done in Afghanistan was ready to resign if he didn’t get what he wanted. Such “leaks” do not happen by chance in the covert world of military planning and operations…………..at least not unless of course they are intentionally orchestrated. The events helped put the issue of Afghanistan on the front burner and consequently put in motion the chain of events that spurred the President into action. Shortly after the “leak”, the President met with McChrystal and all of sudden convened meetings with his war council, among the first of his administration. McChrystal did not get the full compliment of forces that he officially requested but something tells me that the good General is a good poker player and that heexaggerated his numbers intentionally so that he would wound up with what he really needed. On this one, it’s McChrystal one, politicians zero.
*The Taliban
Although President Obama finally moved on his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, which he calls a war of necessity, he provided the main enemy, in the war there, with some crucial information. President Obama told the enemy when they can expect the pressure to be taken off of them by letting them know that the US will begin to pull out of Afghanistan in 18 months. That type of itinerary is not exactly the one that should be shared with those who we are trying to keep in the dark on things. Perhaps that type of public timeline is a good way for a “community organizer” to let his volunteers knows how long they have to get their message out but it is not the way a President should organize a war effort. Of course this timeline could always be moved up. Problem is, in 18 months, if President Obama back pedals on this one, his liberal base, which wants us out as soon as yesterday, will be quite angered an not at a very good time. That will be only 18 months before his reelection effort. Not a good time to have your base of support pissed at you. President Obama would have been best served, and would have best served us, by not letting the Taliban know how long they have to hold on and how long they need to stay hidden under their rocks and in their caves.
*Carly Fiorina
The former CEO of Hewlett Packard recently declared that she will be seeking the opportunity to run against California’s US Senator Barbara “Call Me Senator” Boxer and this past Saturday she made it clear that she is a force to be reckoned with. After winning her own battle against breast cancer, Republicans turned to Fiorina to give their response to the President’s weekly Saturday address. With the ongoing healthcare debate taking center stage, her response was one that resonated loudly, clearly and much more profoundly than anything President Obama has ever said on the issue. In her six and a half minute address (See the video below for yourself), Fiorina highlighted a recent government medical panel’s conclusion to delay mammogram tests by a decade in an attempt to save costs. Quite eloquently and with a tone of calmness and dignity that Barbara Boxer could only find in others when it is pointed out to her, Fiorina explained how the same Preventive Services Task Force that recommended women put of testing, is the same task force that the current healthcare reform bill empowers to influence the coverage and preventive care that government run healthcare will allow for or provide. She also pointed out that the bill specifically authorizes (sec. 4105) that the Secretary of Health and Human Services deny payment for preventive services that this same Preventive Service Task Force recommends against. She adds, “do we really want government bureaucrats dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer”? She also points out that “there is a reason why American women with breast cancer have a higher survival rate than women in countries with government run health care.” All in all, Carly Fiorina delivered one of the most powerful speeches against government run healthcare that this most recent debate has yet seen. And at the same time, she just gained herself the confidence of a lot of people who are looking for the right person to fire that silver bullet into the career of the nasty, flippant, onoxious, and arrogant, liberal queen of mean, Barbara Boxer.
I have never been a big fan of Mike Huckabee. He is a well spoken man who can appeal to ones logic and presents a homespun, commonsense message that makes you tend to agree with him. But a look at his ten years as Governor of Arkansas shows that the former preacher doesn’t always practice what he preaches when it comes to the practical application of government. A further looks leads me to conclude that this former Southern Baptist Minister cannot be trusted to effectively separate church from state.
I sense that in at least one aspect, the former Governor’s religious beliefs have been applied to governmental decisions in a way that may have allowed him to personally practice and adhere to his personal religious faith but to the detriment of government’s responsibility to public safety. This conclusion is not reached in haste. It is one that is not based solely on Mike Huckabee’s commutation of Maurice Clemmons, who recently killed 4 police officers in an ambush that took place in Washington state near Tacoma.
Huckabee has a long history of taking the Christian creed of hate the sin, love the sinner too far into the realm of blind justice and government responsibility. Prior to today, the most prominent example of this existed in a case that came before the Governor about a decade ago.
Back in 1999, in a letter to then Governor Huckabee, a rape victim made clear her position regarding, Wayne Dumond, a man who was convicted of raping her.
She wrote;
“I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time.”
Her prediction of events over the course of time came, to fruition in Missouri, after Huckabee granted an early release from prison to Wayne Dumond. Thanks to Governor Huckabee’s compassionate concerns, 23-year-old Sara Andrasek of Platte County Missouri was raped and murdered. It was not until Dumond was arrested for the rape and murder by suffocation of another woman, 39 year old Carol Sue Shields, that it was discovered that he was also the rapist and murderer of Sara Andrasek. That was realized only one day before Dumond was arrested for the murder of Carol Shields,........a day too late.
Mike Huckabee tried to explain away his decision which led to Dumond’s being freed. He claimed that he did not have any indication that would have led anyone to believe that Dumond was a continued threat to society. He even tried to deny that any letters from any of those who were raped but not killed by Dumond, were ever sent to the Governor’s office or the parole board.
This was just one prominent case that existed prior to the November massacre of the four policemen that Maurice Clemmons carried out after Governor Huckabee commuted his sentence.
In the 10 years that Huckabee served as Governor, he issued 1,000 commutations and pardons. This was a total that exceeded the total number of pardons and commutations that all three of his predecessors granted. I do not believe that Mike Huckabee is soft on crime or that he means to be soft on crime, but he is personally torn between practicing his faith and carrying out the duties of government.
A Minister’s job may be saving souls but a Governor’s responsibility is to protect lives and help make our mortal lives better. In the case of Huckabee’s commutations and paroles, he did neither and it takes a great deal of personal restraint for me to not state that the former Governor bears a certain amount of responsibility for the rapes and deaths of women and now the massacre of 4 policemen. To make such a claim may not be fair but life is not always fair. The fact is that had Mike Huckabee not been so quick to make clear that he hates the sins but loves the sinners, a few sinners may not have had the opportunity to kill and rape and continue in the life of crime that his inordinate number of commutations and parole recommendations afforded criminals.
To be sure, Huckabee did not set any of these men free. This is a point the he makes in his own defense. It is true but it is not the full story and Huckabee must be made to understand that he made it possible for these men to be considered for parole and he allowed them to be released earlier than original sentences for their original crimes called for. So although it is true Huckabee did not set violent criminals free, he did expedite their release.
For that, Mike Huckabee indirectly assisted in causing the pain, suffering, violation and deaths of way too many. The former Governor may try to make excuses and claim that he did not have proper background information on the decisions he made. He could try to claim that no one could have known what these men would have done. That may be so, but what we do know is that had Wayne Dumond and Maurice Clemmons been serving their full prison sentences, they would not have victimized more people and their victims would not be dead. What we do know is that had Mike Huckabee not intervened, lives would have been spared.
Mike Huckabee can make excuses but there comes a point in time when one must just admit they are wrong and that they failed us. For Mike Huckabee, now that there exists more victims of his decisions than excuses for those decisions, that time is now.
He needs to admit to his mistakes and to try to live with himself knowing that as Governor of Arkansas, his decisions led to the deaths of many and the victimization of many more from coast to coast.
She was an older woman. Her face was etched with a history of struggles and her heart strengthened by a faith in a force that was the backbone of her survival. She was a bright lady, industrious and ingenious. Determined and strong willed, her fury could be unlike the scorn of no other, but compassion and fairness ruled her every action.
She was married to truth and loyal to justice. Her family was an unruly bunch and a large one too. It consisted of those born of her and those adopted into her arms. But all were embraced with equal amounts of love.
Each morning, she woke, without ever actually having fully slept, and prepared to fuel all those in her home with the energy to face the day ahead. Wheat from her heartlands was risen in dough. Corn from the fields she tilled flavored the muffins in wicker baskets made with her own hands, and the bacon cured and eggs laid on her farms, sizzled in the cast iron griddles milled from the iron mined out of her mountains.
When breakfast was done, the work had just begun. Every member of her family had to go out on their own. One by one, as each left, she reminded them of their bounty and of the future that could be theirs if they made the new day they embarked upon, more productive than the last.
Each of her loved ones did something different. They worked in auto factories, others in shipyards. Some worked as lawyers, others as teachers. Some kept financial records, tended bars, stocked supermarket shelves, sang beautiful songs and played magnificent music, prepared luscious meals, made haute couture, wrote for newspapers, provided protection and some cured the ill. What each one did, did not matter to her so much as did their doing it well. For sure, she knew that each one was as valuable as the other. She knew that without each one doing their part, her household would suffer. And suffering was not in her plan.
She herself had suffered many tough times. She had been faced with financial ruin, been battered and forced to face many violent confrontations. She had been stolen from, taken advantage of, beaten upon and endured mental anguish as she struggled with harsh decisions and extradoridnary moral and ethical questions. Her life was never easy and the assaults of time on her very being, often showed. Many adored her and looked up to her. Some were jealous of her, others were leery of her and a few often challenged her. But each challenge dropped in her lap and each hurdle crossed, made each of her many successes, all the more grand and incredibly more exhilarating. She took to the skies, crossed the seas, scaled over, through and under mountains, created artificial light and virtual reality, wrote enduringly prophetic pieces of literature, invented life saving practices and products, bridged islands and worlds and even gave birth to freedom, the force that she would eventually come to realize was the key to her being.
But she never basked too long in any glory.
Instead, she always looked forward and prepared herself for the next challenge ahead. The changing weather, the shifting earth, the roiling seas, the changing opinions and needs of her own family, and the influences of her neighbors, never allowed for a static day. And besides, she was too wise to ever sit on her laurels. The future offered too much promise to ever allow her to just be happy with what was and too many counted her own to make the most of what will be.
So she trudged ahead with the start of every new day. She knew that as tough as things may be, her freedoms enabled her, and all those in her family, to do their part so that each next challenge could be and would be overcome. By doing her part and insuring her household with freedom and also responsibilities, all those in her household could become increasingly strong and they in turn would keep the roof over their heads strong. She knew that as each member of her family did their part, in that which they were best at doing, the bounty of her existence would always be there.
Appreciative of all that bounty, as this day progressed, she prepared a meal for all to share as they came home from their missions.
She made sure that there was a place for everyone at her table, and as, one by one, they took their places, she placed atop the table a wealth of hearty riches that fed their hungry stomachs and fueled the hunger in their hearts for a better day tomorrow.
As they joined hands together as one family, they gave thanks for the wealth of the strong willed lady who provided and insured the freedom that allowed them to lead rich lives with endless opportunities.
Today Lady Liberty has set the table for a celebration of thanks for all that she has made available to us and all that she continues to offer us……..So long as, we all always, do our part.
Happy Thanksgiving America and thank you Lady Liberty. I love you.
Summertime often provides a steady stream of traffic. If you’re not struggling through rush hour traffic on the weekday, come late afternoon Friday, you’re finding yourself coping with congested roads filled with weekend tourists traveling to the mountains, the beaches, the lake or the quaint and once quiet hamlet that becomes inundated by antiquing city slickers. Yet as busy and as rough as things can be made by summertime fun and sun seekers, when the holidays come rolling around, that’s when you really start pulling your hair out.
No holiday provides for more traffic than Thanksgiving. All transportation organizations, from triple A to the National Highway Safety Administration and the FAA, all concede that the Thanksgiving holiday makes for the most heavily traveled day of the year. Everyone is rushing to make it home in time to be with friends and loved ones before the turkey hit’s the table.
Then when the turkey is done and the last piece of pumpkin pie has been wrapped up for a guest to take home with them, Black Friday hits.
Any roadway within five miles of any mall or shopping hub comes to an agonizing crawl as we all join in the traditional holiday gift shopping season. It isn’t disturbing enough that you had to mortgage the house to buy gifts for co-workers you really don’t like and find special presents for the strangers who are the guests of family members that will be spending Christmas with you, but now your are sitting in an hour long back up on the Garden State Parkway. You have been elbowing your way through endless crowds of crazed Moms knocking over other women and children to make sure that Bobby , Jr. gets that latest monogrammed cell phone cover or the newest “Rap Idol” game player. No,—- now your legs are cramping, your feet are killing you, you have to pee, its starting to snow and you know that even without traffic, you’re still more than a half an hour from home.
And then it happens.
That jackass in the BMW, jumping up in down in his seat to some horrible tune playing so loudly on his stereo that the windows are vibrating, is screeching up along side of you on the shoulder just as you are at the merge.
And he just keeps trying to inch in front of you like you’re not even there.
What are you gonna do? You keep looking at him but he is ignoring you. To him you don’t exist. You honk and he honks back as he keeps trying to inch in. You’re ready to shoot the guy, but you know you left your gun at home because you knew that at some point during this day, you would be too tempted to use it. You want to roll down the window and curse him at the top of your lungs, but the kids are in the backseat and you really don’t think it appropriate to be shouting out profanities over your radio that is playing Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer for the umteenth time. At least not in front of the kids.
You’d get out of the car but you know that as soon as you step out, the traffic will start moving and besides, the punk in the BMW may not have left his gun at home like you did.
Your screwed and all you can do is hope that this game of chicken doesn’t wind up denting your car. And since your in the ‘01 Chevy Cavaleir and he’s in the ‘09 BMW, you really don’t want to pay for the damage to his two door lease. So whatta ya do?
Well now there’s Plate Hate.
Just let that punk go. Let him get in front of you so that you can take his plate number down because when you get in the house, after you drop the dozen or so bags that you just went into hock for, and after you run to the bathroom, go make yourself a nice cup of coffee and turn on the computer. Once it has loaded up and is ready to go, let your fingers fly across the keyboard as you type in http://platehate.eu/ . Once there, let the whole world know about that jackass.
Plate Hate is a site where fellow victims of inconsiderate, reckless and plain old stupid drivers can register their rage in a safe and “slightly” more civilized way than actually demonstrating your physical rage on the face of that idiot that cut you off. Here you get to post their license plate number and describe the offenders actions. And you can do so by expressing all the contempt for the inconsiderate jerk, that you want.
The creators of the site write:
“You need to relax a bit. Road rage isn’t good for anyone, least of all the rest of the drivers who may be affected by you doing something stupid to counter what just happened to you. Take a deep breath, take some consolation that you’re a better driver that the moron in the X5, and have a rant here. It’ll make you feel better.” The developers of Plate Hate are actually right. You never know who you’re dealing with and no one is worth having your holidays ruined for. But still there is always that need to get back at those fools who are driving while brushing their hair or putting on lipstick. You can never quite just totally let go of that schmuck who was doing 90 mph and zigzagging in and out of lanes and cutting off car after car.
That’s what makes Hate Plate so great. You no longer need to even deal with such unsavory persons as that. Just wait till you’re home and then let the world know just how mush of an ass that inconsiderate driver you encountered really is. A tour of Hate Plate will also make you feel less alone in the world. Looking at the comments of others will make you realize that you are not the only one confronting the most obnoxious drivers or those uniquely dangerous maneuvers and traffic violations that the cops are never around to see
There are all sorts of comments about infractions others have had to endure. For example : ____________ 7301BE -Lexington, KY, US – Thu, 19th Nov 2009 – (0 comments)
“Park between the lines bitch!!” ____________ or there was this; ____________ GTT 6028 - Zelienople, PA, US – Mon, 16th Nov 2009 – (2 comments)
“Blows through stop sign almost hitting us. Then doesn’t like being flashed lights. Tough guy is going to shoot us.” _____________
Then there’s this one from Texas. We’ve all been behind this guy: _____________
OLE MEX – North Houston, US – Mon, 16th Nov 2009 - (1 comment)
“The speed limit along Veterans Memorial is 45 mph, but this A** can’t seem to get it over 35. My time is being wasted and nobody has the fricken right to waste my time but me. Someone told me that illegal Mexicans don’t drive very fast because they don’t want to be pulled over. If that is the case then this dumb A** is on the most wanted list.” ____________
According to the person behind Plate Hate ;
“being the cynical type who believes that any calls to a ‘how’s my driving’ hotline would be promptly answered by a spotty automaton, thought that maybe the perfect place to vent their rage would be on the Internet. Where people actually care*“.
The meaning of the asterisk is denoted as follows “* flame the opinions of others, relentlessly”.
Hate Plate was first created in the UK, but I for one am glad that someone brought it to the states. After all, those guys in the the UK are all messed up. They legally drive on the wrong side of the road but here in America, it is not a habit we appreciate. So having a place to blast those who do stuff like here, is a great relief.
Look at Plate Hate as an online holiday stress relief . See it as an early Christmas present, one that will help you make it to Christmas Day, without having an anurism due to all the S.O.B.’s driving around you. I for one fully expect to be taking advantage of Plate Hate this Thanksgiving when I suspect the site to be as busy as the roadways.
Oh……..By the way, if you are one of those drivers people like us hate and you find your plates on the site and wish to have them pulled off, the creators of Plate Hate have the following message……………
“Maybe you should be a little more considerate when you’re driving your vehicle?”
That’s a pretty good idea, especially during a time of the year when we’re suppose to be giving thanks and celebrating goodwill to all.
Today, the families of 9/11 victims gathered together to make an emotional appeal for support from fellow Americans.
Led by Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles Burlingame, the pilot of the hijacked plane that was intentionally flown into The Pentagon, the “9/11 Never Forget Coalition” urged all to join them on December 5th at Foley Square in New York at 12 noon for a protest against Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to allow the 5 enemy combatants who admitted to their having a role roll in the events of 9/11, to have a civilian trial.
Along with first responders and elected officials Burlingame made a passionate appeal for all of us to join together and and make it clear that the five madmen who willingly and proudly took part in a conspiracy that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, must be tried in a military tribunal.
Perhaps some of you do not understand how wrong minded the decision for a civilain trial was. Perhaps the phrase “civilian trial” needs to be explained inorder to fully comprehend the true meaning of what the Obama Administration did here.
Civilian trials are a place where American civilians are allowed to exercise their rights.
By deciding to have a civilian trial for the 5 enemey terrorists who were caught on the field of battle during combat and confessed their guilt , President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are essentailly giving the radical Isalmic jihadists more rights than they are allowed or should be allowed. These 5 mass murderers are not Americans, do not have the rights of Americans, and should not be accorded such rights.
Ladies and gentlemen have you forgotten that WE ARE AT WAR WITH TERRORISM!
It is not some bumper sticker slogan or an opportunity for liberals to mock the defense of America. It is real and it is happening right now.
As such, this nation decided, officially, that we are to try those involved in terrorism as war criminals. By not doing so and by giving the 9/11 Five a civilain trial in place of a military tribunal, we are actually giving the enemy more rights. Is that what this Administration stands for? Do they really want to grant the enemy more rights to and in our democracy? Is this how President Obama intends on conducting this war?
There is absolutely NO REASON why these 5 soldiers of Allah who initially confessed their complictiy in 9/11 and were captured as enemy combatants , should be given rights that are not theirs and granted a forun in n American civilian court of justice. There are reasons why war criminals are tried in military tribunals. There are reasons why cases involving the military are tried by the military and those same reasons must be applied here.
Currently there are 6 navy seals who are facing charges involving a terrorist whom they captured and took in to custody. The prisoner was brought in with a fat lip. For this, these 6 seals who eliminated the threat of another terrorist on the field of battle, are beimng charged with abuse and having their lives put on hold as a military tibunal awaits them……a MILITARY TRIBUNAL!. NOT A CIVILIAN TRIAL!
Now President Obama and Eric Holder are willing to grant the five 9/11, enemy combatant conspirators the right to a civilian trial, but 6 Americans serving their country and combatting terrorism are denied the same right. Is this logical? Is there not a stench of deeply hypocritical injustice permeating the atmosphere here?
The justice department and the courts belong to the American people. They do not belong to the foreign enemies and war criminals who are trying to kill us. For President Obama to allow them access to “our” courts, is a crime in and of itself.
I urge you to listen Debra Burlingame in the video below and hear her appeal at today’s 9/11 Never Forget press conference. In it you will be made to see that you are not alone your anger at the President and Atorney General. You will also come to understand why it is so important for us to stand together, with her, and all those effected by 9/11, to show not just our opposition to the sick decision of the Administration but exactly how angry and offended we are.
This is no joke folks….we are giving the enemies the benefit of the doubt and by placing them in a civilian court, President Obama is declaring that these war criminals who killed almost 3,000 Americans are innocent until proven guilty. He is also giving the enemy the type of stage that they is usually reserved for the attention that their terrosit attcks afford them. One of thesze terrorists own defense attorney has warned that the decision to have to try his client is a national security risk. And do we actually need an expert to tell us that the actual trial and attention that these five jihadist heros will receive, are sure to incite and inspire an enemy reaction that will be anything but helpful to our efforts to combat terrorism.
_________________________
The following is the press release issued by the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition: ________________________
SATU RDAY DECEMBER 5 RALLY IN FOLEY SQUARE: STOP THE TERROR TRIAL IN NYC! NEW YORKERS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER: “WE WILL FIGHT YOU ALL THE WAY!”
What: December 5th rally protesting the NYC based trial of 9/11 conspirators Where: FOLEY SQUARE, MANHATTAN When: Saturday, December 5th, 2009 12:00 noon Who:
The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, a diverse group of 9/11 victims, family members, first responders, active and reserve members of the military, veterans, and concerned Americans, is holding December 5th rally protesting the plan to bring the 9/11 terrorist conspirators to trial in New York City. The Coalition formed to fight the decision of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York City’s federal court, effectively giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens while endangering the safety of all New Yorkers.
Two weeks ago, we sent a letter signed by 300 family members of 9/11 victims to the President, Attorney General and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking them to reverse course. The letter has now been signed by over 120,000 Americans and is posted at http://www.keepamericasafe.com.
Debra Burlingame, founder of 911 Families for a Safe and Strong America, said “Our rally on Saturday, December 5 will tell Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and their supporters in Congress: We will fight you all the way! ”
I wish I could take credit for this little gem but it comes to POLITICS 24/7 from our great conservative compatriots at PatriotRoom.com.
But more than that, I wish I were the creative individual that came up with the snappy play on words and use of imagery that makes the product that Patriot Room brought to our attention a must have for anyone concerned with the direction our country is being taken in.
*~-------~*
From Patriot Room:
T-shirt of the day: Hope is Fading Fast by: Bill Dupray posted: 2009-11-24 11:13:00
If the U4Prez blogs had html capability, that section would have shown the image of the T-shirt that you see in the image above and taken you to the link which I provided.
I think the T-shirt is just great!
But I will tell you now, a look behind the maker and distributor of this shirt, “The Propagandist” and “Freshjive”, tells me that I won’t be parting with any of my money for their profit.
The two outfits seem to be a little out there in their perceptions. For them “Hope Is Fading Fast” because they see President Obama as being just like President Bush, and for them, hope is fading fast” because the liberal messiah is not as liberal as they “hoped” for.
So……. sorry, but my dough goes for that which is made in America (whatever is still made in America) and to those who are not trying to promote anarchy or socialism.
But in this great capitalist, democracy of ours, perhaps a knockoff is in the works? I am pretty sure that President Obama has not yet patented the word he used to describe himself and his ascendency to the presidency, “Hope”. I am also sure that ”Freshjive” and ”The Propagandist” have not patented or gotten their own copywrite on the already, Associated Press copywritten image that artist Shepherd Fairey stole inorder to paint his iconic emblem of the presidential campaign, in the first place. I see no reason why others can’t make similar, shirts, keyword “similar”.
If I could only find all of my old silk screening accessories, I’d be on it like on white on rice.
Now if Mike Steele could start worrying more about fundraising for the RNC than the credit he wants and the press he is seeking, he’d be having “similar” shirts made up and sold to bring in some additional profits for next year’s midterm elections (if there was html capbility you would be able to link to that see story here) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29849.ht ml
But since Mike Steele is busy firing RNC staffers because he feels they haven’t done enough to get him the press that gives him all the credit for the recent Republican successes in the ‘09 election cycle, I wont be counting on that. So I am looking into my own version of “Hope Is Fading Fast”. Perhaps one that has the POLITICS 24/7 logo on the back. If I can work that one out, as a Republican, with whatever profit there is, I will donate half to the 2010 campaigns of the most deserving candidates and as a proud pro-capitalist American , keep the other half for myself.
Anyone want to make it a joint venture? All conservative backers can contact me, Kempite, at LiberalsRlosers@aol.com. Let’s make a deal!
*~----------~*
*For the full html version of this story, see the link below
Last week POLITICS 24/7 listed Lou Dobbs, the financial guru and now former CNN anchor, as a winner of the week.
We congratulated him for leaving a news outfit that was beneath him and discussed speculation about him possibly running for US Senate in his home state of New Jersey.
Well today, word comes that Lou is contemplating different plans. He is thinking about running for president in 2012.
I always thought that Lou Dobbs had a high opinion of himself. Don’t get me wrong, I think he is a fine man and talented. He knows his stuff. But I have never been able to get over what I perceived as a pretty sizable ego. But then again, all politicians have overinflated egos. I mean is there anyone who loves themselves more than the current President?
So I guess a Lou Dobb for president effort is not impossible. In fact, if done right, he could have a shot at it, but not as a third party candidate.
Dobbs has been enamored with himself because of his change from Republican to independent, a few years back. He sees it as a badge of honor because he has made clear that he believes both parties are ineffective and wrong minded. I for one can understand that. That is why I oppose my Party every time they start acting like Democrats for political expediency and it is why I actively participate in Republican primaries and support the more conservative, anti-establishment candidate. You see, while Dobbs sees his independence voter registration status as a right-minded, courageous stand that makes him better than all those knuckleheads in a political party, I see his independent status as a show of weakness. To me, he gave up the fight to unsure that the principles which made him a Republican, are the principles that we fight to keep.
Dobbs gave that fight up.
And should he decide to run for president as an independent because he gave up on Republicans, no one will benefit accept for the Democrats and President Obama.
If Dobbs made a run for President as an independent, he would split the vote between him and the strong campaign that Republicans will surely run, most likely with Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket in 2012. Romney have some name ID of his own and can easily match Dobbs name ID. Romney also has a pretty good handle on finances and the economy and he ran one as a Governor. He also has his own established constituency. But even if Romney is not the G.O.P. nominee, Republicans will be running a strong candidate and waging a strong race. If Dobbs were to run a third party candidacy, he could probably do well. With money, he could do as well as Ross Perot did when in 1992, he polled a total percentage of the vote that was in the high teens.
He also cost George H. W. Bush the election and gave us Bill Clinton.
Dobbs could do that again.
Unless he tries to run as a Republican.
Personally, I’d rather see him start a little lower on his first time out. I would love to see him run for the Republican Senate nomination in New Jersey, against Bob Menendez. And I can tell you this, if he didn’t run for the Senate as a Republican and instead ran as an independent, if New Jersey Republicans nominated another pathetic, pseudo Republican like Tom Kean, Jr., Dobbs could even get my vote.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that a spending package as big as his historic stimulus package, we had to make sure we spend it right. He added “Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending,”. He then proceeded to give the job of insuring that it was spent right and that every dime was accounted for to Vice Presdinet Bonehead….I mean Biden. The President said “I’ve asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort — because nobody messes with Joe.” Really? If that’s true——-WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED THAN?
10 or so months since the deficit busting measure was enacted, with its main purpose being “job creation”, here we are and with the highest unemployment in over a quarter of a century and more people out work since he took office than were out of work before he took office, 3.8 million more in fact The President insists his great stimulus package is greasing the engine that creates jobs.
NOT EXACTLY!
It would seem that it is greasing more palms than job creating cogs and thanks to Recovery.gov and Vice President Biden we have no idea of what has really been spent, who has really gotten the money and what jobs, if any have really been created. Joe’s great oversight had Recovery.org recording that a whole host of jobs were being created in one state’s fifteenth Congressional District. Problem is the state in question only has 8 Congressional Districts. In Oklahoma, a joint effort that received six military contracts counted the same 10 jobs six times. According to Recovery.org and the Vice President, a shoe-store owner claimed he created nine jobs on an $889.60 contract. In fact, he supplied nine pairs of shoes to the Army Corps of Engineers. In Washington state, The Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency reported 205 jobs created or saved with $397,761. The money was actually used for pay raises.
There were literally hundreds of false reports such as this discovered so far——-so far!.
What this essentially means is that President Obama was full of crap when he promised the most transparent and ethical Administration ever. It means that the American people are being lied to and that the job figures coming out of the Whitehouse are wrong and not to be taken seriously. It also means that although nobody may “mess with Joe”, Joe is actually more messed up than any of us thought when we told, then Senator Obama, that Joe Biden was a dimwitted dunce with a mouth so big he could fit both his and the President’s set of feet in it.
Recovery.Org and the man in charge of accounting for the so called stimulus money, are the biggest losers of the week. Unfortunately and more importantly, all of us are also losers because right now billions of our tax dollars are being wasted on we don’t what.
*-----------Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
I call him Pimp Daddy Reid and this week he is the biggest loser because he literally broke the bank on trying to get his healthcare bill over a procedural hurdle. He didn’t get the bill passed, he simply help avoid a filibuster thereby giving his government takeover of health care the chance to see another day of light. But just to pass this simple procedural hurdle, he pimped out at least a fourth of his fellow Democrat Senators. None more than Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, the Magnolia Madame. This political prostitute held out for $100 million dollars that was artfully written into the healthcare reform bill and designated to go to her state for Medicaid subsidies.
Now she can go back to Louisianans and tell them that she got them a hundred million bucks. But what she wont tell them is that she may have cost them about 650 million with a bill, that if passed, will tax the life out of the health of her state’s people.
In the meantime, Reid conducted the entire bill drafting and deal making process behind closed doors. He never once tried to work with Republicans or let them work with him and is clearly going for the nuclear option on passage of the bill. And while all this scheming is going on, lord knows how much all his deal making is costing us. He promised $100 million to Landrieu, to sit back, shut and do what he says but how much will he be paying to the other liberal whores out that there that face a tough reelection bid in 2010? How much will Max Baucus get? What will Lieberman be offered?
This week, even though Pimp Daddy Reid won a strictly party line that prevented a filibuster, he is a loser. He promised so much pork barrel spending just to make sure that his conference agreed to debate the bill that healthcare reform is already proving to be too costly. Lord knows how much more of our money he will pimp out other Democrats for to actually get them to pass the bill.
*-----------President Obama
President Obama promised to have a health care reform bill that Americans could be confident in. He promised that the entire process creating the bill would be carried on C-Span and he promised America that his entire presidency would be the most ethical and transparent ever.
Well guess what Mr. President? As Joe Wilson would say————YOU LIED!!!!!
The entire health care reform process was conducted behind closed doors and among Democrats only. The President’s party is preparing to go nuclear on the issue and his legislative leaders have turned the House into a brothel, chock filled with political prostitutes.
And at the same time, President Obama has failed to even once step in and offer leadership on the issue…… Real leadership. He has offered lip service and rhetoric but nothing more. He has not once been man enough to have his chief of staff, Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel, sit down and draft any aspect of this bill with the President and tell Congress, “this is something we should work with”. In 1993, when Hillary care flopped, part of the problem was the her husband B.J. Clinton had his wife write the entire bill. Congress had nothing to do with it. In the end, they still had nothing to do with it. They simply rejected it. Now in President Obama’s case, he hasn’t written a thing. Instead he just threw this piece of raw meat on the floor of Congress and allowed for a free for all that has so far written almost 5,000 pages of healthcare legislation that pays for everything from Mary Landrieu’s reelection effort to loans to veterinarians….that’s veterinarians, not veterans.
Essentially what we have here is a mess that only promises to get messier, especially if this mess becomes law.
President Obama is truly a loser this week and I believe that this week will produce a significant dip in his poll numbers because I also believe that many other people are seeing what Politics 24/7 is seeing.
* * - WINNERS - * *
*---------Pat Toomey
The Pennsylvania conservative who still believes that the Republican Party could again someday stand for the principles that once made it great, is a winner this week. He did nothing special to earn the win, but he didn’t do anything to detract from it. In the meantime, whoever is going to oppose him has really deepened themselves into a primary that will be bloody and costly.
Liberal Democrat Congressman Joe Sestak has kicked up his campaign for the Democrat nomination while Liberal Republican turned Liberal Democrat, incumbent, Arlen “How Many Years Have I Been Here” Specter, also dug his heels in. Specter became a Democrat because he could not beatToomey in a promised Republican primary and now it is not certain if he can win a Democrat primary. And if he doesn’t win, Joe Sestak will have exhausted a lot of his own financial resources to remain standing for the general election.
A few weeks ago Toomey was considered the underdog in the general election, but now, as his opponents start slicing eachother up, Pat Toomey is now even in polls that have Toomey in hypothetical match ups with either Sestak or Specter. Between that and the growing dissatisfaction that voters, nationwide, have with incumbents right now, the environment is continuously becoming more and more favorable for a Toomey victory in 2010. So this week, he’s a winner
*---------Scott Fenstermaker
Fenstermaker is the defense attorney for one of the 9/11 Five enemy combatants currently in the Guantanamo Bay prison. On Sunday, Fenstermaker came out and warned officials that they really need to reconsider having these murderers tried in a civilian court rather than in the military tribunal that they are suppose to be tried in.
After visiting with his client in Guantanamo, Fenstermaker warned that a long trial is going to create some severe national security risks due to both the testimony that will have to come out and the retaliatory acts of terror that the public trial will inspire. He also confirmed that all five will be pleading not guilty and they will use the platform given to them, to spread their anti-American messages and articulate their opinion of American foreign policy.
This is coming from the man defending one of these five terrorists. Now if the defense attorney can see this, how come the Attorney General of the United states can’t see it? The fact that Scott Fenstermakercame forward to provide this insider opinion of the dangerous situation, makes him a winner.
*---------Ed Mangano
Who the heck is Ed Mangano? Well he just may be the next County Executive of New York’s Nassau County on Long Island. Even though Nassau County has been a fairly strong Republican county, Managano was given little chance of defeating popular incumbent Tom Souzzi. Democrats have seen their voter registrations increase and they not only took the back the county executive office but they had also taken control of the county legislature. So it was looking like Nassau County was trending towards a blue future.
However; in the November 3rd election, Republicans regained control of the county legislature and Tom Souzzi, well he was denied the opportunity to make a victory speech. Onnelection night Tommy Boy found himself with a lead that was too close to call.
Now weeks later, with 8,000 paper ballots needed to be counted, Ed Managano is leading Tom Souzzi by more than 350 votes. This is a pretty harsh blow to a man who after once winning a relatively good Republican in New York saw himself as a candidate with so much wide appeal, that he immediately decided to run for Governor. He challenged, then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, for the Democrat nomination. Souzzi ended up with less than 29% of the vote. As it turned out, with the scandalous conduct of Spitzer that forced him out of the Governor’s office, Suozzi might have been the better choice. New Yorker’s would have had the Governor they elected and Suozzi would still have a job.
The importance of Managano’s race is not based so much on him. It is based more on the fact that Nassau is a crucial downstate County in statewide elections. Without a good Republican operation and groundswell of Republican support in Nassau County that can compensate for the heavy Democrat vote that comes out of neighboring New York City, the chances for any Republican to win any statewide election are slim. So Mangano’s come from behind signifies some important momentum in 2010.
As it stands now, Suozzi may be out of his job and the underdog, Ed Mangano, seems to be on his way to an unanticipated election victory. There are still many ballots to be counted and Mangano could lose his lead but even if that does happen and Suozzi gets sworn in again, the fact that Mangano has gotten this far makes him a winner and a shoe in next time around. But it looks like he will not have to wait. I think he will ultimately widen his lead and be declared the winner this time around.
Scott Fenstermaker is the attorney for one of the 9/11 Five…….the five enemy combatants who admitted to playing a roll in the attacks of September 11th in 2001.
Under the direction of attorney General Eric Holder, the Obama Administration decided that these mass murders, who are responsible for the most devastating attack on America in our history, are to be tried in a civilian court that is only blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City.
Today, Scott Fenstermaker, the man who will be representing one of the five men facing trial. has urged that we get these guys through the system quickly.
Even their own defense attorney believes that the these five terrorists should be tried in a military tribunal instead of a civilian court.
Fenstermaker visited his clients in their Guantanamo Bay prison last week and today he reports that all five 9/11 conspirators will not deny the specific roles they played in the tragedy but they will also use the stage they are given to deliver their radical messages. According to Fenstermaker each one is preparing to give their assessment of foreign policy and how it caused them to kill 3,000 Americans. They will also make clear why they believe more must die.
Is this justice? Is this what the United States Department of Justice considers a good way to deliver justice to those who made America stand still for a time? These are of course rhetorical questions. No sane person can conclude that any good can come from allowing those who were responsible for 9/11 to deliver their political views and promote their radical Islamic message. This is not justice, it is simply a reward. A reward that allows them to try to repeat the statement they tried to make on 9/11.
Each day since the Obama Administration refused to let the enemy combatants to be tried as such, more and more evidence has been produced that proves the decision to try these terrorists in a civilian court is nothing but wrong. The recent remarks of the man who is suppose to be on these guys side in court confirm that. And even he disagrees with the venue for clients trial.
Is the Obama Administration so mentally incapacitated that they do not understand this? Does the President not realize that the heightened tension that the specter of a circus-like civilian trial will create increased national security risks and gamble with the lives of civilians? This is a decision that will haunt President Obama right up until his last day office. In the mean time, the men behind 9/11 appreciate the paltform the President is giving them to denounce America from.
Some one is going to inevitably pay a price for this decision. I just pray that it won’t be us, the American people who have already been the victim of one of the most massive terrorits attacks ever.
POLITICS 24/7 has uncovered another Capitol Hill prostitution ring.
In light of Saturday’s procedural vote to prevent a filibuster that would kill the Senate version of a government healthcare takeover, Politics 24/7 confirms that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu is an active political prostitute and it has been further confirmed that Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is her pimp.
According to legislation, pages 472 through 474 of the Senate healthcare takeover bill, dedicates $100 million to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, aka; The Magnolia Madame. The money was requested by the senator for “Medicaid subsidies” and the bill has specific requirements that make it so that $100 million only goes to Landrieu’s Louisiana for this purpose. Harry Reid, Landrieu’s pimp, insured Landrieu her bonus, so long as he gets what at he wants, keeps her mouth shut and provides the 60th vote he needs.
The government takeover of healthcare will advance to the full senate for debate and it is likely to be amended. What that essentially means is that many Democrats who face some stiff competition in their 2010 reelection bids, will all be offering their services as Pimp Daddy Reid takes advantage of the amendment process by insuring that many more Magnolia Madame-like deals are made. Reid is going to have pimp his members on this one hard. The Pimp of all pimps, President Obama, has put too much on the line on this issue and for them, failure is not an option. So they will pay any price to save face and kiss all the ass they can to insure that the senate version of a government healthcare takeover passes under the nuclear option of a party line vote.
Of course, Vermont’ Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will be knocking on the whorehouse door, to see if they too can make a dime for their services and support of a government takeover. If Pimp Daddy Reid can swing enough green their way, Snowe and Collins will make Eliot Spitzer’s high priced hooker, Ashley Dupree look like Mother Theresa. You can also be sure that Reid’s prostitution ring is not limited to women only. Montana’s Max Baucus will be showered with pork in more than a few amendments that will swing money his way. As for Joe Lieberman, his involvement in the prostitution ring does not involve financial remuneration. It involves his chairmanship of the lucrative and powerful Homeland Security Committee. If Lieberman is not willing to bend over on this vote, he is not likely to be chairman of anything, for very long.
This is not the first political prostitution ring on The Hill and it won’t be the last. But so far it is the most clandestine and most expensive one yet. More healthcare reform business has taken place behind closed doors and more pork barrel, monkey business has taken place under the sheets on this one than any other legislation that has ever preceded it.
Sadly, the existing prostitution ring is immune from prosecution. This ring is as legal as prostitution is in Vegas. But a grand jury of voters could still have a say come November of 2010. It is then that senators like Pimp Daddy Reid and Louisiana’s version of Ashley Dupree, Louisiana’s Magnolia Madame Mary Landrieu, along with Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln and several others, could be found incompetent and kicked out of office. But in the mean time, it may be too late. The damage may be done, because the more hurdles this government takeover overcomes, the more likely it is to pass.
After House Democrats passed a 1,990 page bill that would have the government takeover health care in America, today, in an unusual Saturday session, Democrats in the US Senate have voted to place their own 2,074-page bill that would have government takeover healthcare in America. Democrats claim that the bill is the answer to all our problems. They ignore the fact that it will raise taxes, increase a shortage of healthcare givers as well as increase the size a nd cost of government by $2.4 trillion dollars, place bureaucratic, political appointees between people and their doctors and ultimately place all health care procedures under the control of the federal government, including the decisions you should be able to make for your own self when it comes to the care you feel you need.
The procedural vote taken tonight, overcame a big first hurdle for Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. With many Republicans prepared to call for a filibuster, the liberal led Senate needed all 60 of its Democrat Senators to overcome the process that would have allowed the opposition to kill the bill and prevent it from coming up for a full and final vote.
In a strict party line vote, Democrats avoided a filibuster with no votes to spare.
This now means that the Senate can actually begin debate on their bill any time after their Thanksgiving recess.
There was some initial doubts about this procedural vote. Several Democrats made their apprehension over the bill known and in the end, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu was found to be the 60th vote that the liberal side of the aisle needed. Landrieu was among 4 skeptical Democrats who were possibly ready to vote with Republicans on the bill. But one by one Lincoln of Arkansas, Baucus of Montana and Lieberman of Connecticut made it known that they will vote to allow debate on their healthcare measure to begin. Landrieu soon followed suit.
But not until she received a legal bribe.
On page 472 of the senate healthcare reform bill, Landrieu was promised 100 million additional federal dollars to Medicaid subsidies. But only for states that qualified for it. And what were those qualification? In two pages devoted to this money, it essentially came down to qualifications that only Mary Landrieu’s state of Louisiana met. Clearly, for her vote, Harry Reid secured the sending of money to Landrieu's state as a form of down payment for her reelection bid next year.
So as expected, Democrats got their way. Their government takeover of healthcare, lives to see another day. But one must ask, if it took $100 million to get just one Senator to knuckle under, how many more hundreds of million will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi convert into to pork that will bribe members for the final approval of government run health care?
At this rate, we will be have spent all the money they wanted to use for their government takeover.
So today I came on to U4Prez and read a blog that was an open letter to Eric Gurr. I am not quite sure where this open letter went. I stopped reading it when I came to the point where the author wrote….”I am sick of reading Erock’s and Kempites blog, they overblog”.
The remark was a backhanded slap that at first stung. It initially compelled me to write the following comment:
“You big ol' oaf. I'm sick of the New York Times. Does that mean it should stop being printed? Well yeah it does, but that is besides my point. I simply don't buy it. If you don't like what I write....DON'T READ IT, YOU DUMBASS! And just so you know, I stopped reading all of your useless crap after you posted the entire healthcare bill and crippled the site with it. This one, I stopped reading once you mentioned my name. I am not a patient person. Two chances are a lot for me to offer and I don't offer more than two chances, so in my book "yer out" buddy. Now run along and quietly go play with yourself”
And then I got a phone call that I had to take. Twenty minutes later, I looked at what I wrote before I hit “enter” and just as my finger flinched, I pulled back and said to myself ….you know what, don’t do that. It helped me realize that it is often better to let a few moments pass before one react.
But my change of mind was also due to the fact that I had resolved to try to get more enjoyment out of U4Prez than I may have in the past. This sense of pleasantry has come over me as we approach the holidays. I love the holidays. As I told someone else on U4Prez, I love the spirit of it and everything from all its tastes to all of its sights, scenes and scents and sounds.
I have not really been able to enjoy the season that much these past few years. A lot of unfortuinate drama developed during the previous two years and this past year I was away too much dealing with the primaries to enjoy it. This year is different. I am broke and it will be a Charlie Brown Christmas but I want to make the most of the upcoming holidays. That can’t be done by harping on hate and half-assed remarks.
Well the same applies to U4Prez.
I find that I can often enjoy the chat of candidates like SRobien and Lucky or others who I do not always agree with. It is just a matter of keeping things in perspective. That is something that I often allow my passions for policies to make me forget. Well not this year. This year I am going to do my best to not act in-kind, but instead act better. I am going to do my best to ignore stupidity and obvious lacks of reasoned thinking. If people are not reasonable, they are not likely to accept reason. So why try to offer reason with such people? I will do my best to ignore such conduct and characteristics, when they are demonstrated.
So I didn’t stoop down to FnG’s level. I didn’t act like a Liberal411 or an Imagine89. Instead I didn’t send that comment that I originally intended to post as a comment.
No, instead I turned it into a post and decided to try to maintain my holiday spirit(and still get mt feelings off my chest..lol).
Goodwill can be more powerful than ill will. It is also more productive. And that is what I hope to be during this coming year on U4Prez-------more productive. I know I am not getting elected to anything. Therew are too many FnG-like haters out there. But the winning lasts for a moment whereas the campaign to win or lose lasts longer, and it is that campaign that I intend to have fun with and hopefully advance my opinion with.
This year there seems to be a strong sense of resolve to advance the effectiveness and popularity of U4Prez. I join in that resolve and I hope to be able to enjoy the efforts that our resolve will cause us to join in. Oh, I am sure that some knucklehead will force someone on the site to have to remind me that I wrote this blog and how I claimed I wanted to be. But I will do my best to remember that those who would bring me to such a point, are not worth the walk in the gutter that I have often taken because of those who sought to wallow in it. Instead I look forward to working with all of you. The decent, strong willed candidates who are as passionate about the issues as I am and who understand that productivity propelled by pleasantries goes much further than the negative naybobs of negativism that pop up and poop on our parade.
Some realities are so disturbing that we would rather not deal with them. This habit tends to be a political phenomenon that we often encounter and that we often pay a dear price for.
For decades our federal government has refused to face the harsh realities of deficit spending. They just can’t find it in themselves to deny their spending habits and tighten our federal belt. Unless we eventually legitimately confront the reality of runaway deficit spending and face the unpleasant facts that we can’t continue to spend what we don’t have for much longer, we will soon have a rude awakening. All because we did not want to face the facts.
World Wars I and II were realities that we did not want to have anything to do with. Woodrow Wilson spent the years 1914 through 1917 trying to not have anything to do with the war. An American population that had no desire to be a part of what was happening “over there” also wanted to stay out of it. Their fears of the possibility of Americans getting involved in World War I even drove Woodrow Wilson to, in 1914, draw up a declaration of neutrality. He even urged Americans not to take any sides. In 1916 a grateful American electorate reelected Wilson on the slogan “he kept us out of war”.
A year later, American was at war. After neutrality did not prevent Germans from killing Americans, Wilson turned around and stated that we were going to be a part of World War I in an attempt to fight a “a war to end all wars” and to make “the world safe for democracy”.
Our need to defend ourselves and our interests were inevitable. We just didn’t want to face the truth.
As Franklin Delano Roosevelt presided over our nation, he and most Americans again did not want to be involved in the war “over there”. Our allies begged on hands on knee, but we refused to officially get involved. We did however try to covertly help our allies like Great Britain. Although we did not want to fight, we knew how important it was for our allies to not go down in defeat. So we offered minimal, under the table, support.
And then Japan attacked and killed what was up to then, the most devastating foreign attack on America ever.
A short time later, we were not just fighting in World War II, we were leading the war effort.
There is often question as to just how much history would have been altered had we put our muscle into these fights before it was too late and could no longer deny the facts. There is also question as to just how much, our leaders and we the people, as a nation, have learned from past denials.
Today, our war weary nation wants nothing more than to put an end to conflict. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we want the war in Afghanistan to be over and our military involvement in Iraq to be done. The only difference there is that some want to end when we have achieved our goal and eliminated the threats that sent us there in the first place, while others just want us out of the two countries at any cost. I happen to be a party to the former school of thought. I also happen to be of the school of thought that, as troubling and unpleasant as some realities are, we, as a nation, can not sweep them under the rug. By doing so, we will eventually trip over what sweep there and fall.
Currently an unpleasant reality that we must confront is Iran.
Put aside for a moment their nuclear ambitions. For a moment, don’t even consider the Iranian Presidents stated desire to push Israel off in to the sea. Let us ignore for a brief second the possible threats that we don’t want to deal with. Instead let us just look at the existing threats that we are dealing with right now—–threats that we do not want to acknowledge because the truth of them happening creates “a reality so disturbing that we would rather not deal with it”.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the greatest threats and challenge to our missions being completely accomplished are insurgents. These are extremist rebels who seek to engage the democratic installed governments of the two nations in battle and ultimately overthrow them. We have long known that Iran is providing many of these insurgents. Not only are they providing the actual rebels, they are also supplying them with explosives and other military hardware.
This is a point made quite obvious in a recent article in AsiaTimes.com entitled Afghans Fear Infiltration From Iran.
In it, the authors document the events in a tiny border town between Iran and Afghanistan named Islam Qala. The article details the ease in which Iranian insurgents are helping the Taliban to defeat the American born democracy behind the new Afghan government.
Take a moment to review this account of Iranian involvement. And then understand this. The ugly truth in what we must confront is the only way we can assure a success with any longevity in Afghanistan and Iraq. The truth of the disturbing realities Iran confronts us with are so undesired that I will not even bring myself to state the harsh truth of what we must do. Read the Asia Times article that I reference and link to here and draw your own conclusions. But before you do remember what Wilson and Roosevelt wanted to believe and then remember what they had to do.
Once considered one of the most prominent prosecutors in America, Eric Holder’s decision to forego a military tribunal for the five enemy combatants who have plead guilty to planning the attacks of 9/11, is an irresponsible travesty that will have a negative impact of such longevity that I believe it will become partly responsible for the defeat of President Obama in 2012. The fact that Holder has called for a civilian trial in New York City will haunt him, the President, New Yorkers and the nation for year’s to come. Jury selection alone will take months if not almost a year. Than there will be the public declarations and messages of the 9/11 Five who will love every minute they have to get their message out. This is in addition to the heightened threat that the worldwide attention the attention will provide and produce. These murdering bastards admit to their deeds, were caught on the engaging our forces on the field of battle and should be tried in the suitable environment that a military tribunal provides for. Not allowing that to happen is something that can cost the President his presidency and more importantly, many Americans their lives. Eric Holder is a loser so large that we will all end up suffering because of him.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
After Nancy Pelosi delivered on a plan for big government takeover of healthcare, Dirty Harry is on the spot. Now with Harry’s hands on healthcare he is trying to whip his members into a compromise version that will please the President and please his liberal base. Harry’s house is going to be a difficult one to keep in order. There are many on his own side of the aisle who are already saying that the bill the senate is working is already a no go. One senator who caucuses with Democrats is even threatening to join Republicans and filibuster. In the mean time, instead of offering leadership on healthcare and doing something his counterpart in the House didn’t do, Harry trudges along, behind closed doors and refuses to bring Republicans into negotiations. And what pray tell do we here is going on behind closed? We hear that Harry is inventing a new tax to pay for whatever it is that he allows a final vote on
President Barack H. Obama
The President went off to Asia on another attempt to make this one world, under Barack, unrecognizable and insufferable, for all. His first stop was Japan where met up with the new Prime Minister. Then he stopped by to offer his “wass ups” to the Emperor of Japan. And what did he go and do? He bows down to Hirohito’s son——Hirohito’s son! The gesture was disrespectful to every World War II, veteran, dead or alive, and to all those currently serving our nation as well. With no demonstration of mutual respect in the greeting from one head of state to the other, the bow sends a signal of inferiority that is just….well, …un-American. Thankfully he didn’t go to Japan and apologize for America getting in Japan’s way before they could finish their “good work”, back in the 40’s, but to go and bow to their Emperor? Come on man, act like the President of the United States, not like the President and C.E.O of Banana Republic. We all know by now just how enthralled this President is with all things foreign. He would drink a snifter full of urine if the French gave it a fancy name, but this disrespecting of America has got to stop. It wasn’t bad enough that he bowed to Saudi Kings and Princes, which the White House still denies he did, but now he has to go to Japan and bow to their Emperor, Hirohito’s heir. Does President Obama not realize that it was our opposition to royalty that founded this nation and gave birth to democracy? Does he not realize that we look down on monarchies, not bow down to them?
~~~~~~~~~~*WINNERS*~~~~~~~~~~
L ou Dobbs
The distinguished journalist and economist quit CNN, the Cable News Network. The move was a damn good one. I am not a big fan of Dobbs. Nothing personal, but he sometimes rubs me the wrong way. However; he is decent man who knows of what he speaks and speaks it well. He is a far cry better than the pseudo intellectuals running around the Communist News Network and patting themselves on the back. And after it was recently discovered that CNN was actually the lowest rated news network of them all, it became clear that Dobbs really is too good for them. I mean, it says a lot if MSNBC can be considered better than you at something. So Louie’s leaving CNN can now allow him to move on to bigger and better things. Any network would pay good money to have him. Perhaps Fox Business News would make a good home for him. But maybe his home state will have something for him. New Jersey, where Lou lives, will be targeting the seat of liberal US Senator Bob Menendez in 2012. If someone like my favored choice, John Crowley, doesn’t jump in the race, Lou Dobbs might be just the man to give Bobby Menendez a run for his money. Dobbs is a strong right leaning, independent with impressive credentials on things like the economy and he has plenty of name recognition in New Jersey. In a state where one must buy exposure for themselves in the nation’s two most expensive media markets, name ID is half the battle and he could be just what the NJGOP to finally win a senate seat in Jersey. Whatever Lou Dobbs decides to do though, breaking free from the losers at CNN makes him a big winner.
Sarah Palin
Liberals can make all the fun of Sarah Palin that they want, but while they are spewing their venom and making fun of her, she is making money and having the last laugh. Even before her book “Going Rogue” hits the shelves this Tuesday, it has already made several bestsellers lists and is number one in advanced sales on Amazon.com. “Going Rogue” is going gold and while the left is wallowing in contempt for Sarah, she is rolling in the dough. It is a sign of her popularity and further evidence that her options are still open. Whether she wants to run for the US Senate, national office or dog catcher, her future is so bright that we have to wear shades. All this promise in Palin is a big difference from the popularity that Nancy Pelosi’s book received. Her 2008 release of “Know Your Power” didn’t really spark much interest. In its first week, “Know Your Power” sold only less than 2,800 copies and even less than that each week from there on. The interest in Pelosi’s book was so nonexistent that I believe she owed her publisher money when all was said and done. In fact, Barnes & Nobels had to send Nancy a bill for garbage collection services that were needed to remove her book from their shelves. Not Sarah though. She didn’t even have to endure hours of plastic surgery, like Nancy did, just so that she would look halfway decent on her book cover. Poor Nancy. But good going Sarahcuda! “Going Rogue” makes her a winner this week.
The 9/11 Five
I pray to God that people as horrible as these never again be given the opportunity to be placed in a winners column. These five demonic deliverers of devastation and death were caught on the field of battle and proudly admitted to having played a role in the events of 9/11. Yet Eric Holder and the Obama Administration refuse to have these sons of bitches appropriately tried in a military tribunal. Instead they will be tried in a New York City civilian court where they will have the opportunity to deliver their message to a world wide audience provided to them by the decision of this administration. The granting of a civilian trial will allow these murderers the opportunity for the type of attention that only another major terrorist attack could afford them. Hopefully these bastards will get what is coming to them. But I also hope that those who made the decision to treat the 9/11 five like civilians, go to the same hell and face an eternity of pain and suffering similar to that of the pain and suffering that their decision may cause. Sound harsh? Well too bad! I am going to compensate for the lack of strong language that this Administration is willing to use when it comes to combating terrorism………which by the way, is word they refuse to use. In the mean time, getting the against-all-odds opportunity to be heard in a civilian court gives these five 9/11 conspirators, just what they want and for that, unfortunately, they are winners this week. Thank you very much much Mr. President.
As we look forward to the upcoming year on U4Prez, we will be experiencing the site’s fourth presidential election. Hopefully it can be one that offers an inundation of great policy proposals, enjoyable creative expressions that make persuasive arguments and have a real impact, and that will all be the culmination of a year worth of exciting runoffs that feature scintillating debate.
To achieve that, we would be wise to learn from past mistakes and to move ahead in a spirit of cooperation and mutually beneficial conduct.
As we do move ahead, it would behoove all candidates to actively engage and respectfully challenge U4Prez as it explores its potential growth and value.
For that reason, I would like to introduce a new caucus platform and offer the possibility of the reintroduction of an old trailblazing platform that went dormant after making its indelible mark on U4Prez forever more.
Today I would like to unveil the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center.
The Site Improvement Center is a new profile within the “Caucuses” category and is meant strictly for the active participation of fellow U4Prez candidates who would like to help improve existing conditions and develop innovative ideas and additions to U4Prez that can help to maintain and improve the quality of debate and efficient functionality of the available platforms and procedures on the site.
This "candidate based, site improvement center" is intended as a useful platform for those who see the value and potential in U4Prez, and enable them to gather and collect their thoughts as they offer ways to increase traffic to the site, spark interesting and pertinent debate on the site and create and coordinate special events and procedures to enhance the site.
Currently, I ask that those who wish to become major forces in this candidate based site improvement effort to visit the profile and leave your name in the comments section. Everyone is invited to participate in the process that the profile is designed to aide in, but of those who are willing and able to commit to the cause, it may be wise for such individuals to become a small working network that manages the handling of proposed ideas and the process which can improve and finalize the most popular and beneficial proposals presented. Those interested in such a possible role should so indicate so in their comments.
Another announcement I would like to make is one which I have received several requests about. It is regarding the possible reactivation of the very first caucus of all on U4Prez.
Liberty4U.
How to go about reactivating and reassembling a modernized Liberty4U is not up to me alone anymore. I may have initiated the creation of L4U, but a dozen other people gave it life, made it strong, effective and the most popular and productive caucus U4Prez has seen yet. So it is among those people who must be a part of how a renewed Liberty4U caucus will operate and be reintroduced. No member more than Mduminiak will have to weigh in on this process and other founding members must also have a say.
Liberty4U was designed to be a microcosm of the U4Prez big tent of candidates that actually tackled the hard issues confronting our nation by allowing a ,limited number of members, from all sides of the political spectrum to reach decisive policy positions for a big tent nation to live under. It shall continue to do so and as in the past, I expect it to help set the debate agenda for the greater U4Prez community.
The limited membership model of Liberty4u is necessary in order to allow for orderly debate and progress on the issues. The members of Liberty4U should be reflective of all the ideological opinions on U4Prez. For Liberty4U to remain a force on U4Prez, its membership should consist of those candidates who are the best representatives of the differing ideological starting points that many come from. Once such criteria is set and established, it is my hope that the limited membership, which focuses on one issue at a time, will once again reach the most appropriate and nationally beneficial policies for our nation and submit those policies, one by one, to the entire U4Prez community for debate. This system is much like the process in Congress which entrusts smaller groups of people, called committees, to devote their full focus and research abilities on to specific issues and causes at hand. Once these committees have digested all the available data and exhausted all the options, they then propose their findings to the full body of Congress.
This is the role that Liberty4U played and that I intend to have play once again.
So as we await the results of the 2009 U4Prez general election, I extend my congratulations to the winner, hopefully a winner who is deserving and whose victory is legitimate and I look forward to their participation in the activities which can bring new and improved life to U4Prez.
I urge you all to visit the Site Improvement Center on its U4Prez profile page provided in the link below this post, and I look forward to being able to join you in being a more productive member and on candidate on U4Prez.com.
He is pushing for the establishment of free trade agreements, similar to those that we have elsewhere in the world. On his first leg of the trip, the President went to Japan and met with the island nation’s new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama.
After several meetings and press gatherings, the President swung by to see Japan’s Emperor Akihito. It was really a courtesy call. Nothing much came of the visit, nor could it have. The Japanese royal family is largely ceremonial with no official role in foreign or domestic affairs. But while he was in the neighborhood, why not do the courteous thing and stop by to say hi?
Nothing wrong with that.
But leave it to President Obama to turn it into something troubling.
Since he did not see fit to go abroad and apologize for America or make sure that terrorists know we’re willing to be friends if they just stop trying to kill us, he had to instead, bow down to the Emperor of Japan.
Now I know many of you Obama apologists will suggest it was a mere sign of respect.
That would be a convenient response but not a justifiable one. Diplomacy is both an art and a science. It is a careful dance of signals, gestures and messages combined with a rather heavy dose of traditional formality and a careful pinch of a personal touch that allows world leaders to connect on a level that is deeper than the grip and grin photo-ops afford.
All diplomatic journeys are carefully orchestrated events and many times , they are even rehearsed. For American Presidents, no where is bowing down to foreign leaders or royalty a part of that rehearsal. The symbolic importance of a formal, public bow doesn’t usually go unnoticed by Presidents. That is why they refrain from doing it. Foreign heads of states accept and understand that.
As for respect, Apparently the President does not understand that the mere fact that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, personally traveling to Japan and acknowledged their role in the world is itself a respectful. He seemingly also does not comprehend the additional fact that the scheduling of a visit from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world to stop by and say hello to the Japanese royal family, rather than just ignore, them, was also a show of respect.
Unlike the President and his liberal admirers, the sight of my American President, bowing to the son of Hirohito, is actually quite sad and highly disrespectful, especially to all the veterans of World War II who have given more for their country than this or many other Presidents have.
Perhaps I have more respect and reverence for the office of the presidency than some do. Maybe even more than the current President does? I understand that President Obama is no longer just some citizen of the United States. I realize that he represents all citizens of the United States. I understand that he is the leader and representative of the nation that has done more and sacrificed more for freedom than many or any combination of nation’s on the face of the earth. This understanding allows me to realize that the President of the United States does not bow down to anyone or anything other than the alter of democracy of which our nation is the King of Kings.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that the President’s bowing down to the Emperor of Japan won’t prevent the terrorists that he wants to try in a New York civilian court, from having a national stage to deliver message. I realize it won’t get the above 10 percent unemployment rate down any lower. His bowing wont change the price of tea in China…….at least I don’t think so? But the symbolic importance of his almost knee jerk reaction to bowing down to foreign leaders every time he jets out of the country is becoming embarrassing and the symbolism in it is degrading to the American presence on the world stage. Defenders of the President will charge that symbolism is not important and that it doesn’t really matter. To them I find myself asking, if symbolism is not important than why is President Obama bowing down to Muslim royalty, Saudi princes and Japanese Emperors? A bow is merely nothing more than a symbolic gesture of respect, but it is symbolic. So if symbolism doesn’t matter, why would this President go out of his way to break normal diplomatic conduct and bow down to foreign leaders?
I will tell you this.
President Obama’s bowing problem may not be quite as bad as President George H. W. Bush was on one trip to Japan on January 8th of 1992. During a state dinner, he took ill and started feeling faint. He soon began to pass out and proceeded to vomit into the lap of Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa.
That was pretty bad. But that was an accident. What President Obama is doing is no accident. He goes to Europe and apologizes for America. He goes to Japan and bows to the son of the man who helped lead a World War against us. He goes to the Middle East and tells the enemy we want to be friends with them and bows to Saudi Princes.
Personally, I’d rather have my President throw up on a few particularly troubling despots than bow down to all of them.
The President’s habit of bowing has helped me though.
As the holiday’s approach I have been wondering what in the world I could get our great leader. Well now I got it. It’s both patriotic and practical. This year I am getting the President a diplomatic tool that will help us save face and help him act presidential. It’s a metal rod with instructions that explain to the White House Diplomatic Corps how it is to be used. Before the President visit’s foreign dignitaries, they are to stuff the rod down the back of his his pants and duct tape his body around it, thereby making it impossible for the President to bend anything but his neck.
Even President’s could use a good stocking stuffer and this one, I hope really stuffs it.
*~~~~~~ For a clip of the most recent bow visit the link below this post.~~~~~~~*
To be fair I have posted a the clip of President George H.W. Bush's little 1992 faux pas in Japan. It inlcludes a little reenactment of events too
He is pushing for the establishment of free trade agreements, similar to those that we have elsewhere in the world. On his first leg of the trip, the President went to Japan and met with the island nation’s new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama.
After several meetings and press gatherings, the President swung by to see Japan’s Emperor Akihito. It was really a courtesy call. Nothing much came of the visit, nor could it have. The Japanese royal family is largely ceremonial with no official role in foreign or domestic affairs. But while he was in the neighborhood, why not do the courteous thing and stop by to say hi?
Nothing wrong with that.
But leave it to President Obama to turn it into something troubling.
Since he did not see fit to go abroad and apologize for America or make sure that terrorists know we’re willing to be friends if they just stop trying to kill us, he had to instead, bow down to the Emperor of Japan.
Now I know many of you Obama apologists will suggest it was a mere sign of respect.
That would be a convenient response but not a justifiable one. Diplomacy is both an art and a science. It is a careful dance of signals, gestures and messages combined with a rather heavy dose of traditional formality and a careful pinch of a personal touch that allows world leaders to connect on a level that is deeper than the grip and grin photo-ops afford.
All diplomatic journeys are carefully orchestrated events and many times , they are even rehearsed. For American Presidents, no where is bowing down to foreign leaders or royalty a part of that rehearsal. The symbolic importance of a formal, public bow doesn’t usually go unnoticed by Presidents. That is why they refrain from doing it. Foreign heads of states accept and understand that.
As for respect, Apparently the President does not understand that the mere fact that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, personally traveling to Japan and acknowledged their role in the world is itself a respectful. He seemingly also does not comprehend the additional fact that the scheduling of a visit from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world to stop by and say hello to the Japanese royal family, rather than just ignore, them, was also a show of respect.
Unlike the President and his liberal admirers, the sight of my American President, bowing to the son of Hirohito, is actually quite sad and highly disrespectful, especially to all the veterans of World War II who have given more for their country than this or many other Presidents have.
Perhaps I have more respect and reverence for the office of the presidency than some do. Maybe even more than the current President does? I understand that President Obama is no longer just some citizen of the United States. I realize that he represents all citizens of the United States. I understand that he is the leader and representative of the nation that has done more and sacrificed more for freedom than many or any combination of nation’s on the face of the earth. This understanding allows me to realize that the President of the United States does not bow down to anyone or anything other than the alter of democracy of which our nation is the King of Kings.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that the President’s bowing down to the Emperor of Japan won’t prevent the terrorists that he wants to try in a New York civilian court, from having a national stage to deliver message. I realize it won’t get the above 10 percent unemployment rate down any lower. His bowing wont change the price of tea in China…….at least I don’t think so? But the symbolic importance of his almost knee jerk reaction to bowing down to foreign leaders every time he jets out of the country is becoming embarrassing and the symbolism in it is degrading to the American presence on the world stage. Defenders of the President will charge that symbolism is not important and that it doesn’t really matter. To them I find myself asking, if symbolism is not important than why is President Obama bowing down to Muslim royalty, Saudi princes and Japanese Emperors? A bow is merely nothing more than a symbolic gesture of respect, but it is symbolic. So if symbolism doesn’t matter, why would this President go out of his way to break normal diplomatic conduct and bow down to foreign leaders?
I will tell you this.
President Obama’s bowing problem may not be quite as bad as President George H. W. Bush was on one trip to Japan on January 8th of 1992. During a state dinner, he took ill and started feeling faint. He soon began to pass out and proceeded to vomit into the lap of Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa.
That was pretty bad. But that was an accident. What President Obama is doing is no accident. He goes to Europe and apologizes for America. He goes to Japan and bows to the son of the man who helped lead a World War against us. He goes to the Middle East and tells the enemy we want to be friends with them and bows to Saudi Princes.
Personally, I’d rather have my President throw up on a few particularly troubling despots than bow down to all of them.
The President’s habit of bowing has helped me though.
As the holiday’s approach I have been wondering what in the world I could get our great leader. Well now I got it. It’s both patriotic and practical. This year I am getting the President a diplomatic tool that will help us save face and help him act presidential. It’s a metal rod with instructions that explain to the White House Diplomatic Corps how it is to be used. Before the President visit’s foreign dignitaries, they are to stuff the rod down the back of his his pants and duct tape his body around it, thereby making it impossible for the President to bend anything but his neck.
Even President’s could use a good stocking stuffer and this one, I hope really stuffs it.
We must all live with the consequences of our decisions but not all of us make decisions that hundreds of millions of other people will heave to live with as well. Perhaps that is why whom we choose to elect and represent us in government is much more important than we sometimes fully comprehend.
Case in point; who would have thought, just a couple of years ago, that Americans would elect a person who would assemble an administration that would go out of its way to provide terrorists with an international stage to spread their message from and provide other lurking terrorists with a terrific opportunity to unleash their fury when all the world is watching the eventstaking place in a public courtroom that is merely a couple of blocks away from 9/11’s Ground Zero?
Not me.
After having wittnessed the events of 9/11 and existing in a post 9/11 nation where it is now commonplace for police to blatantly wave M-16’s as they walk around my nation’s Capitol and my City’s streets, I would have expected our nation’s leaders to err on the side of caution and deny any act of terrorism or terrorist the chance to take a single breath of air while under under their watch.
Well how wrong was I?!
In came President Barack H. Obama and apparently out went the priortiy of national security. With President Obama, not only does terrorism get to take a deep breath, they are exhilerated by a wind of change that practically helps terrorists to set up their next perfect attack.
Led by Attorney General Eric Holder and approved by President Obama, five murdeous, fear brokers behind the world changing, 9/11 attacks will go from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to a federal court in New York where they will be tried as civilians.
Thank you Barry! Thank you for taking these five American enemies who were combating the United States and caught doing so on the field of battle and not trying them as enemy combatants in a secure military tribunal. Thank you for giving them the opportunity for a “if it don’t fit, you must acquit” moment.
In fact, by giving these five enemy combatants a civilian trial, you are giving them more rights than an average American citizen. A case of this much international notoriety will undoubtedly provide these five sons of bitches with attorneys far more experienced talented and expensive than the average American could afford . These five sand devils aren’t going to pay for their top notch defense attorneys, we, the people will and you can rest assured that they will get attorneys far better than we could ever afford with our money.
Who knows, maybe there is some funding in the latest stimulus package that the liberal regime in Washington passed.
The absolutely unfounded decision to try five of the conspirators behind the deadliest attack on American soil in our nation’s history is nothing but a reckless and irresponsible miscarriage of justice and an utter dereliction of duty on behalf of the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder, this Administration and President Obama.
Their uncalled for and inappropriate decision disallowing a military tribunal to determine the guilt or innocence of these “enemy combatants” charged with allegedly playing significant roles in the attacks of September 11th, will lead to at best, nothing less than an unnecessary security risk. By placing them within the civilian courts, their trials will provide a new cottage industry of public reporting that will afford all five of these jihadists with a stage to preach their hate from and and a forum to possibly deliver their deadly messages to——-and all at the expense of our security.
Such a trial and circus atmosphere will be an unavoidable focal point of a world concerned with terrorisms. Such attention is what terrorists dream of. The opportunity to deal the United States another blow while all the world is glued to their screens is just what attention starved martyrs of Allah are waiting for. Add to that the desire for retribution that the trial will inspire from fellow virgin loving jihadist and now you have a situation where the administration is placing New York at unnecessary and added risk. Is that the job of a President of the United States? Is that really the goal of his Administration? Our President is suppose to eliminate threats, not increase them.
Does President Obama need to be reminded that we are at war with these people. WE ARE A NATION AT WAR! And as such, the enemy must be treated like the enemy. Yet the President will not allow five enemy combatants who have been implicated in one of the greatest terrorist attacks ever, to even be alled “terrorists”. So it should not come as a surprise that this Administration will not try these terrorists properly, in a military tribunal, where all the evidence to convict these Islamic extremists will be heard along side of any conflicting evidence which could possibly prove that all of the five or any combination of are innocent. Instead, we will take almost a year just to seat a New York City jury to do the same thing as an appropriate wartime should do in this case.
The decision has raised concerns over this Administrations prosecution of both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the larger effort to combat terrorism throughout the globe.
Rudy Giuliani, was the Mayor of New York City when it became Ground Zero. The man took New York City from an economically depressed, emotionally distressed, crime ridden city of rubble and turned it into the nation’s safest large city and produced for it a thriving economy and bright future. In the days and months after the City was attacked, he led it and its people through its darkest hours in history. He knows New York, he loves New York, and in many ways is New York. Of the decision to treat the five terrorists like civilians the former Mayor and one time, highly successful federal prosecutor stated “
“Returning some of the Guantanamo detainees to New York City for trial, specifically Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has now brought us full circle — we have regressed to a pre-9/11 mentality with respect to Islamic extremist terrorism. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be treated like the war criminal he is and tried in a military court. He is not just another murderer, or even a mass murderer. He murdered as part of a declared war against us — America.
This is the same mistake we made with the 1993 terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center. We treated them like domestic criminals, when in fact they were terrorists. In the dangerous world we live in today, a nation unable to identify and properly define its enemies is a nation in danger.”
The Mayor is correct. But unfortunately, he is not the one making the decisions here. He is not the one deciding something that hundreds of millions Americans have to live with and suffer the consequences of. President Obama is. And God help us if this soft handed prosecution of crime and irresponsible decision of his leads to a single death, no less than the death of any number of the countless New Yorkers whose lives he is putting at risk. No matter what happens here, President Obama is being recklessly irresponsible. If any lives are taken because of his desire to hold an unnecessary, protracted public circus in civilian courts, just blocks away from where New York was brought to its knees, than he and only he, will be responsible for them. Totally responsible. And even if the public spectacle he is about to unleash produces no violence at all, President Obama will still be at blame——blame for taking a chance with the lives of Americans, all for the sake of five enemy combatants who helped kill 3,000 Americans
Thank you Mr. President but if you want to gamble anything away, go to Las Vegas and gamble away the profits from your books, but don’t sit in the security of the Oval Office and gamble away the lives of American civilians. That is not presidential. It is practically impeachable.
<< Home