Just 2 weeks from tonight, we Americans will sit down in front of the TV and watch the returns of the Presidential Election. I hope and pray we will witness one state after another placed in the Mitt Romney column, and a sure win for Romney will be evident by long before Midnight.
Unfortunately, it may not be that easy that night or these 2 weeks leading up to it. The debates are over and now the hit pieces on both candidates are getting warmed up. It appears the hit piece on Romney will be brought to light tomorrow morning. Also, the Friday prior to the election may show unemployment down to 7.6%; even less than last month's suspicious report.
As Ohio seems to teeter on the edge of falling into Obama's column, and possibly being the trump card to another 4 years, conservatives shouldn't be medicated by National Polls showing Romney slightly increasing a small lead. Many unforeseen events could happen in these 2 weeks, and the electoral college may not come out right.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
A Small Victory: Romney Joins Scores of Moderate Republicans Crowned by Moderate Illinois Voters
Last Tuesday, Mitt Romney won the Illinois Republican Presidential Primary over Rick Santorum by 12 percentage points. With the victory, Romney increased his delegate lead by 33 delegates. Admittedly, Romney's delegate lead is comfortable, and delegates determine the nomination. However comfortable Mitt Romney's delegate lead, he still is not half way to the 1,144 delegates which clinch the nomination. If you don't have the delegates to clinch by convention time, then the other factors for determining the nomination come into the forefront.
These factors include which States each candidate has one, and which candidate has the most relevant message at that moment in history, during convention week. At that moment, Mitt Romney's success with the Salt Lake City Olympics and his private sector experience may longer matter. Even more so, his greatest asset, the idea that he is the most electable over Obama, may be a lost asset by convention time. Inevitability and purchasing power, has been the engine of Romney's campaign. His recent speeches where he sounds like a life long conservative may bring a brief moment of peace to conservatives like me, but it hasn't won him delegates near as much as the air of inevitability, assumed electability, and cash. Take away these 3 things, and he would become an underdog against Gingrich or Santorum in the battle for the conservative mantle.
Which brings me to the completed Illinois Primary and the sudden calls, for Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to hang up their spurs and hold hands with Mitt Romney all the way to the White House. Allow me to declare: winning Illinois does not make a Moderate Republican electable and does not bring with it a consensus that the big tent supports a Moderate Republican for the nomination. Illinois is a Moderate Republican State. Even when winning landslide congressional victories in 2010, those representatives who won made little effort to move Illinois in a conservative direction.
Take for instance the Tea Party Freshman of Illinois. There are but 2 out of 5 Freshman in Illinois who have a high conservative rating; Joe Walsh and Randy Hultgren. Ironically, Walsh represents a District where a Conservative Republican would be most vulnerable, but he put conservative principles over his future electoral success. Walsh received an American Conservative Union (ACU) Legislative Rating of 92% and a Heritage Action Score of 96% during his 1st session in Congress in 2011.
By comparison, Freshman Bobby Shilling, while representing a much more rural and conservative District, received an ACU Score of 76% and a Heritage Action Score of 57%. The other 2 Illinois Freshmen, Adam Kinzinger and Bob Dold were no better, Dold has been abysmal, with an ACU score of 44% and Heritage Action score of 49%.
His 10th District predecesor, now Senator Mark Kirk, has a 58% rating, and has long been thought by Illinois Republicans to be too much on the liberal side. Illinois Republican Primary voters of the 10th District in 2010 would have had no expectation that Dold would have amassed such a poor conservative rating during his
1st term. The same can be said for voters in the 11th District, where Adam Kinzinger rode in on the Tea Party wave and immediately became a lock to vote for John Boehner's pitiful deals with Obama resulting in minimal spending cuts. Kinzinger voted against ammendments that would have cut billions in early 2011. For those voters in the 11th who realized what Kinzinger did, they quickly became aware that Kinzinger's votes in Congress didn't live up to the message of his 2010 campaign.
So Mitt Romney, a man with a weak record of conservativism, who now campaigns as a severe conservative wins the votes of Illinois Republicans by 12 points. Other than an increased lead of 33 delegates, and millions spend in Ad money, there is nothing else gained. Just 4 short days later Rick Santorum trampled Romney in Louisiana by 22points. Chicagoland Republican voters have handed victories to liberal and moderate Republicans many times in recent years. It's no wonder that Romney's past liberal record coupled with a round of carpetbombing the airwaves swayed these voters to pick Romney. Unfortunately, come November, these same voters will be neutralized by the Democrat machine, as Obama tops Romney by 20 points.
These factors include which States each candidate has one, and which candidate has the most relevant message at that moment in history, during convention week. At that moment, Mitt Romney's success with the Salt Lake City Olympics and his private sector experience may longer matter. Even more so, his greatest asset, the idea that he is the most electable over Obama, may be a lost asset by convention time. Inevitability and purchasing power, has been the engine of Romney's campaign. His recent speeches where he sounds like a life long conservative may bring a brief moment of peace to conservatives like me, but it hasn't won him delegates near as much as the air of inevitability, assumed electability, and cash. Take away these 3 things, and he would become an underdog against Gingrich or Santorum in the battle for the conservative mantle.
Which brings me to the completed Illinois Primary and the sudden calls, for Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to hang up their spurs and hold hands with Mitt Romney all the way to the White House. Allow me to declare: winning Illinois does not make a Moderate Republican electable and does not bring with it a consensus that the big tent supports a Moderate Republican for the nomination. Illinois is a Moderate Republican State. Even when winning landslide congressional victories in 2010, those representatives who won made little effort to move Illinois in a conservative direction.
Take for instance the Tea Party Freshman of Illinois. There are but 2 out of 5 Freshman in Illinois who have a high conservative rating; Joe Walsh and Randy Hultgren. Ironically, Walsh represents a District where a Conservative Republican would be most vulnerable, but he put conservative principles over his future electoral success. Walsh received an American Conservative Union (ACU) Legislative Rating of 92% and a Heritage Action Score of 96% during his 1st session in Congress in 2011.
By comparison, Freshman Bobby Shilling, while representing a much more rural and conservative District, received an ACU Score of 76% and a Heritage Action Score of 57%. The other 2 Illinois Freshmen, Adam Kinzinger and Bob Dold were no better, Dold has been abysmal, with an ACU score of 44% and Heritage Action score of 49%.
His 10th District predecesor, now Senator Mark Kirk, has a 58% rating, and has long been thought by Illinois Republicans to be too much on the liberal side. Illinois Republican Primary voters of the 10th District in 2010 would have had no expectation that Dold would have amassed such a poor conservative rating during his
1st term. The same can be said for voters in the 11th District, where Adam Kinzinger rode in on the Tea Party wave and immediately became a lock to vote for John Boehner's pitiful deals with Obama resulting in minimal spending cuts. Kinzinger voted against ammendments that would have cut billions in early 2011. For those voters in the 11th who realized what Kinzinger did, they quickly became aware that Kinzinger's votes in Congress didn't live up to the message of his 2010 campaign.
So Mitt Romney, a man with a weak record of conservativism, who now campaigns as a severe conservative wins the votes of Illinois Republicans by 12 points. Other than an increased lead of 33 delegates, and millions spend in Ad money, there is nothing else gained. Just 4 short days later Rick Santorum trampled Romney in Louisiana by 22points. Chicagoland Republican voters have handed victories to liberal and moderate Republicans many times in recent years. It's no wonder that Romney's past liberal record coupled with a round of carpetbombing the airwaves swayed these voters to pick Romney. Unfortunately, come November, these same voters will be neutralized by the Democrat machine, as Obama tops Romney by 20 points.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
2012 Illinois Primary Congressional Race- Manzullo vs. Kinzinger
Red State's Erick Erickson lays out the case for Don Manzullo over Adam Kinzinger. I have to agree. As Erickson outlines and as I specifically remember from early in 2011, Kinzinger blew his chances to cut spending, mostly because he wasn't informed on what was to be cut. As a crutch, Kinzinger has taken his cues from John Boehner and House Leadership throughout his 1st term. A young man who ran as a Tea Party guy and rode the Tea Party wave, became an establishment Republican overnight, and is now endorsed by House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, over the more time-tested Conservative, Don Manzullo.
In early 2011, after Kinzinger voted down further spending cuts, I posted my displeasure of this on his Facebook page. He replied in a message to me with this defense:
"Here's your opportunity to ask me anything about those cuts. Let me say I voted on 150 amendments in two days, which means sometimes I have no idea the impact of what Im voting on when we are discussing cuts...(I.e. an amendment might read "take $100 million from the Natural resources subsection of forestry account").
If I dont know the impact, I dont vote for it. That's what I call being a conservative legislator. If you disagree or have something specifically that you would have done differently, please share."
I admit, in my surprise at being confronted by Kinzinger, I quickly replied, "That seems to be a good explanation. I agree that it is better to vote NO when you don't know the impact. I'm sure as you gain more experience as a member of Congress, you will learn more of what you need to know. Thank you for your time."
But on second thought, what I would have done differently is consulted the conservatives in the House and studied up on the impact of these cuts. That's what he is sent to Congress to do. These cuts that Kinzinger was so fearful of, were proposed by fellow Republicans. If there was anything that if cut, would have been a disaster, I'm sure the House Leadership that Kinzinger consults so often would have let him know, and the Democrats would have thrown fits. The thing is, Kinzinger didn't simply abstain from voting on the spending cuts he knew nothing about, he voted No.
Kinzinger's current seat was re-districted, and rather than stay and fight against Jesse Jackson, Jr., for the new District 2 seat, Kinzinger put himself first and stepped into the District that Dan Manzullo has served for almost 20 years. Personally, Kinzinger's residence is still listed in Manteno, Illinois, which is fully in the new District 2. But, since Kinzinger's campaign headquarters is in the new District 16, he is technically allowed to represent a District he doesn't have residence in.
In early 2011, after Kinzinger voted down further spending cuts, I posted my displeasure of this on his Facebook page. He replied in a message to me with this defense:
"Here's your opportunity to ask me anything about those cuts. Let me say I voted on 150 amendments in two days, which means sometimes I have no idea the impact of what Im voting on when we are discussing cuts...(I.e. an amendment might read "take $100 million from the Natural resources subsection of forestry account").
If I dont know the impact, I dont vote for it. That's what I call being a conservative legislator. If you disagree or have something specifically that you would have done differently, please share."
I admit, in my surprise at being confronted by Kinzinger, I quickly replied, "That seems to be a good explanation. I agree that it is better to vote NO when you don't know the impact. I'm sure as you gain more experience as a member of Congress, you will learn more of what you need to know. Thank you for your time."
But on second thought, what I would have done differently is consulted the conservatives in the House and studied up on the impact of these cuts. That's what he is sent to Congress to do. These cuts that Kinzinger was so fearful of, were proposed by fellow Republicans. If there was anything that if cut, would have been a disaster, I'm sure the House Leadership that Kinzinger consults so often would have let him know, and the Democrats would have thrown fits. The thing is, Kinzinger didn't simply abstain from voting on the spending cuts he knew nothing about, he voted No.
Kinzinger's current seat was re-districted, and rather than stay and fight against Jesse Jackson, Jr., for the new District 2 seat, Kinzinger put himself first and stepped into the District that Dan Manzullo has served for almost 20 years. Personally, Kinzinger's residence is still listed in Manteno, Illinois, which is fully in the new District 2. But, since Kinzinger's campaign headquarters is in the new District 16, he is technically allowed to represent a District he doesn't have residence in.
2012 Campaign Approaches the Doorstep of Illinois
Illinois Votes on March 20.
Newt Gingrich will hold a rally at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont on Wednesday, March 14. Rick Santorum will hold a rally Friday night,
March 16, at Northridge Prep in Niles, IL. More details to come as the campaigns release specifics.
Newt Gingrich will hold a rally at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont on Wednesday, March 14. Rick Santorum will hold a rally Friday night,
March 16, at Northridge Prep in Niles, IL. More details to come as the campaigns release specifics.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
This Is Dedicated from a Conservative to the GOP House
This one's solely dedicated to the GOP House of Representatives with a special shout out to Misters John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy.
We are amazed but not amused
By all the things you say that you'll do
Though much concerned but not involved
With decisions that are made by you
But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!
It's not too cool to be ridiculed
But you brought this upon yourself
The world is tired of pacifiers
We want the truth and nothing else
And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!
We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
That's becoming real life
But when mislead who knows a person's mind
Can turn as cold as ice un hum
Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!
Yeah
We are amazed but not amused
By all the things you say that you'll do
Though much concerned but not involved
With decisions that are made by you
But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!
It's not too cool to be ridiculed
But you brought this upon yourself
The world is tired of pacifiers
We want the truth and nothing else
And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!
We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
That's becoming real life
But when mislead who knows a person's mind
Can turn as cold as ice un hum
Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!
Yeah
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Blind Praise For Paul Ryan
I guess the nut cases like Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann, who actually won't budge and vote YES for bad legislation, are not qualified for the presidency. However, a guy like Paul Ryan, who talks like he won't budge but does budge time and again, is as conservative as conservative gets and would be a GRRRRRRREAT Candidate for President! I just don't understand the blind praise.
Paul Ryan voted YES for TARP 1, GM Bailout, Boehner's first budget deal with Obama which cut millions not billions, and Boehner's debt ceiling deal, which has a trigger that drastically cuts defense and medicare reimbursement to doctors if the Republicans can't reach an agreement with left wingers like Patty Murray and John Kerry on tax increases.
DO THESE FACTS ABOUT PAUL RYAN'S VOTING RECORD MATTER TO ANYONE?
Paul Ryan voted YES for TARP 1, GM Bailout, Boehner's first budget deal with Obama which cut millions not billions, and Boehner's debt ceiling deal, which has a trigger that drastically cuts defense and medicare reimbursement to doctors if the Republicans can't reach an agreement with left wingers like Patty Murray and John Kerry on tax increases.
DO THESE FACTS ABOUT PAUL RYAN'S VOTING RECORD MATTER TO ANYONE?
Saturday, August 6, 2011
It is About the Quality of Their Judgement
The S&P has downgraded the U.S. Credit Rating. The Treasury Secretary is Tim Geithner appointed to serve at the beginning of Obama's term.
Attorney General Eric Holder was appointed by Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate at the beginning of Obama's term. Holder's tenure has included Operation Gun Runner, and much more.
Of course, in order for any cabinet appointments and judicial appointments to be allowed to serve, they must receive confirmation from the U.S. Senate. Let us not look past the Republican Senators who currently serve in office, and voted YES to confirm such appointments. The review below also notes votes in favor of the confirmation Obama's controversial Supreme Court picks, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. One additional big mistake that 2 Republican Senators made, was being the only Republicans to vote YES on Obama's failed stimulus package in 2009. Let us review and let us run primary opponents against these failing Republican Senators. I have rated their lack on success based on their confirmation votes.
#1
Olympia Snowe (Maine, currently serving her 3rd- 6 year Term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
* In addition Snowe voted YES on the failed Obama Stimulus
Senator Snowe is up for re-election in 2012. She should be the prime target of all grass roots conservatives and conservative voters in Maine, in the 2012 Primaries. If you are looking to donate to primary campaigns, look to donate to her opponent. There is no state in the union that should have a Republican Senator who has voted the way Snowe has. She clearly can be called a Republican in Name Only (RINO), no matter how misused and overused this label has become in recent years.
#2
Richard Lugar (Indiana, currently serving his 6th- 6 year Term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
Senator Lugar is up for re-election in 2012. He has had many additional votes that should be called into question by primary voters. I will write a review with further information on his Senate votes in recent years. It is very likely that a strong conservative and electable candidate will run a primary against Lugar in 2012. Put your money on Lugar's primary challenger.
# 3
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina, currently serving his 2nd- 6 year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
Senator Graham is up for re-election in 2014. After the 2012 Elections are complete, Graham should replace Snowe as primary opponent #1 during the 2014 Republican Primary. He has attempted to position himself as a conservative over the past year, but his voting record is plain as day. In addition to his voting record, he has talked out of both sides of his mouth during his entire Senate career. As with Lugar, a review is forthcoming.
#4
Susan Collins (Maine, currently serving her 3rd- 6 year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
* In addition Collins voted YES on the failed Obama Stimulus.
Senator Collins is up for re-election in 2014, and after the 2012 Elections are complete, she will be next in line after Lindsey Graham to face a strong primary challenge. It is said that it is difficult for a conservative to win the Republican Primary in Maine, so it all depends on the quality of the candidate who runs against Collins. It is likely that only the grass roots will be present to extend an effort to oust Collins and Snowe. No one out of the established GOP is going to step forward, so a quality candidate (i.e. a conservative who is articulate with a clean record) is the best bet.
#5
Orrin Hatch (Utah, currently serving his 6th- 6 Year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Senator Hatch is up for re-election in 2012. Like many Senators in a conservative state, as a long 6 year term begins to wrap up, he shifts completely to the right and hopes that voters don't remember the previous 5 years of the term. Hatch has had some good moments in his Senate career, but he has also had many unwise votes. Hatch is a politician who earns brownie points for a gentlemanly demeanor and statesman like air, but the effort to appear above the fray, honorable, and esteemed has taken away from a steadfast conservative position that a Senator from Utah should take. Review on the way.
#6
Bob Corker (Tennessee, currently serving his 1st- 6 Year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Senator Corker is up for re-election in 2012. Word comes from Tennessee that many voters have not gotten from Corker what they expected when they voted him into office in 2006. More on Corker to come.
#7
Lamar Alexander (Tennessee, currently serving his 2nd- 6 Year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Senator Alexander is up for re-election in 2014.
Only grass roots conservatives can create the environment to unseat these Senators in the Republican Primary. Seeking out conservative candidates who have shown the ability to win and live their lives fairly and honestly is the place to start. Conservative voters dedicated to replacing politicians who do not get the job done right and have been lackluster in the defense of liberty and American values, will be ready to team up with the right candidate and see to it that a conservative takes a seat in the Senate.
Attorney General Eric Holder was appointed by Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate at the beginning of Obama's term. Holder's tenure has included Operation Gun Runner, and much more.
Of course, in order for any cabinet appointments and judicial appointments to be allowed to serve, they must receive confirmation from the U.S. Senate. Let us not look past the Republican Senators who currently serve in office, and voted YES to confirm such appointments. The review below also notes votes in favor of the confirmation Obama's controversial Supreme Court picks, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. One additional big mistake that 2 Republican Senators made, was being the only Republicans to vote YES on Obama's failed stimulus package in 2009. Let us review and let us run primary opponents against these failing Republican Senators. I have rated their lack on success based on their confirmation votes.
#1
Olympia Snowe (Maine, currently serving her 3rd- 6 year Term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
* In addition Snowe voted YES on the failed Obama Stimulus
Senator Snowe is up for re-election in 2012. She should be the prime target of all grass roots conservatives and conservative voters in Maine, in the 2012 Primaries. If you are looking to donate to primary campaigns, look to donate to her opponent. There is no state in the union that should have a Republican Senator who has voted the way Snowe has. She clearly can be called a Republican in Name Only (RINO), no matter how misused and overused this label has become in recent years.
#2
Richard Lugar (Indiana, currently serving his 6th- 6 year Term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
Senator Lugar is up for re-election in 2012. He has had many additional votes that should be called into question by primary voters. I will write a review with further information on his Senate votes in recent years. It is very likely that a strong conservative and electable candidate will run a primary against Lugar in 2012. Put your money on Lugar's primary challenger.
# 3
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina, currently serving his 2nd- 6 year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
Senator Graham is up for re-election in 2014. After the 2012 Elections are complete, Graham should replace Snowe as primary opponent #1 during the 2014 Republican Primary. He has attempted to position himself as a conservative over the past year, but his voting record is plain as day. In addition to his voting record, he has talked out of both sides of his mouth during his entire Senate career. As with Lugar, a review is forthcoming.
#4
Susan Collins (Maine, currently serving her 3rd- 6 year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court
* In addition Collins voted YES on the failed Obama Stimulus.
Senator Collins is up for re-election in 2014, and after the 2012 Elections are complete, she will be next in line after Lindsey Graham to face a strong primary challenge. It is said that it is difficult for a conservative to win the Republican Primary in Maine, so it all depends on the quality of the candidate who runs against Collins. It is likely that only the grass roots will be present to extend an effort to oust Collins and Snowe. No one out of the established GOP is going to step forward, so a quality candidate (i.e. a conservative who is articulate with a clean record) is the best bet.
#5
Orrin Hatch (Utah, currently serving his 6th- 6 Year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Senator Hatch is up for re-election in 2012. Like many Senators in a conservative state, as a long 6 year term begins to wrap up, he shifts completely to the right and hopes that voters don't remember the previous 5 years of the term. Hatch has had some good moments in his Senate career, but he has also had many unwise votes. Hatch is a politician who earns brownie points for a gentlemanly demeanor and statesman like air, but the effort to appear above the fray, honorable, and esteemed has taken away from a steadfast conservative position that a Senator from Utah should take. Review on the way.
#6
Bob Corker (Tennessee, currently serving his 1st- 6 Year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Senator Corker is up for re-election in 2012. Word comes from Tennessee that many voters have not gotten from Corker what they expected when they voted him into office in 2006. More on Corker to come.
#7
Lamar Alexander (Tennessee, currently serving his 2nd- 6 Year term)
Voted YES to confirm the following individuals:
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court
Senator Alexander is up for re-election in 2014.
Only grass roots conservatives can create the environment to unseat these Senators in the Republican Primary. Seeking out conservative candidates who have shown the ability to win and live their lives fairly and honestly is the place to start. Conservative voters dedicated to replacing politicians who do not get the job done right and have been lackluster in the defense of liberty and American values, will be ready to team up with the right candidate and see to it that a conservative takes a seat in the Senate.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Washington Wants Help from Wall Street
As each day gets closer to the Y2K of 2011 (Obama's Debt Default Day), word is getting out that the DC amatuers (likely kids just out of college who got a gig working for a Congressman) are hoping for Wall Street to have a plunge, to influence more Congressman to vote for whatever junk bill Harry Reid and John Boehner can gin up. It's all too clear that we need to decrease the role government has in tanking stocks.
Washington Is Annoyed at Wall Street's Failure to Panic
Washington Is Annoyed at Wall Street's Failure to Panic
As he explained it, lots of people in Washington, D.C. expected that this would be a week marked by panic in the markets. Stocks would tank. Bonds would get clobbered. The dollar would do something dramatic. And all of this would help convince reluctant lawmakers that they had to reach a compromise on the debt ceiling.
Boehner's House Bill
I guess this is just how things get done in Washington. When I went to the Library of Congress website to see the vote rolls for the Boehner Bill, I came across this bill, which was sponsered by Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy. Strange. This is it, this is the Boehner Bill, couldn't even get its own bill number or anything.
61. S.627 : Faster FOIA Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 3/17/2011) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Oversight and Government Reform
Latest Major Action: 7/29/2011 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 218 - 210 (Roll no. 677).
Latest Action: 7/29/2011 Motion by Senator Reid to refer to Senate Committee on the Budget the House message to accompany the bill (S. 627) to report back forthwith with amendment SA 591 made in Senate.
Note: The bill is the House vehicle to raise the debt ceiling, make budget deficit reductions, and require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:61:./temp/~bdtxdA::
61. S.627 : Faster FOIA Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 3/17/2011) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Oversight and Government Reform
Latest Major Action: 7/29/2011 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 218 - 210 (Roll no. 677).
Latest Action: 7/29/2011 Motion by Senator Reid to refer to Senate Committee on the Budget the House message to accompany the bill (S. 627) to report back forthwith with amendment SA 591 made in Senate.
Note: The bill is the House vehicle to raise the debt ceiling, make budget deficit reductions, and require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:61:./temp/~bdtxdA::
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
It's Called Getting Primaried
O'Donnell beats Castle, and by a good 6 points. Many have said unflattering things about O'Donnell, O.K., we'll see how bad she really is.
The key is that Mike Castle; who would have probably become the most Liberal Republican Senator, won't have his chance. Conservative Republicans will never have to worry about what he might do and what big govt. legislation he will vote YES on. He won't get to go on Meet the Press to poorly represent the Republican Party, and most of all, an example was made out him.
Those Republicans who wish to reach across the aisle and enable the Democrat Party to micro manage the citizenry can keep Mike Castle in the back of their minds, when 20 something year old staffers on the Hill attempt to convince them that voting YES on something like Cap and Trade is a political winner. Remember boys, there is a primary to be won. Also, the Northeast Republicans might want to think twice the next time they buck the party and join a coalition of 2-3 Republicans who join hands with Harry Reid's crew to pass legislation like Financial Reform, the brainchild of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Such a Republican can get primaried in states other than Delaware.
The key is that Mike Castle; who would have probably become the most Liberal Republican Senator, won't have his chance. Conservative Republicans will never have to worry about what he might do and what big govt. legislation he will vote YES on. He won't get to go on Meet the Press to poorly represent the Republican Party, and most of all, an example was made out him.
Those Republicans who wish to reach across the aisle and enable the Democrat Party to micro manage the citizenry can keep Mike Castle in the back of their minds, when 20 something year old staffers on the Hill attempt to convince them that voting YES on something like Cap and Trade is a political winner. Remember boys, there is a primary to be won. Also, the Northeast Republicans might want to think twice the next time they buck the party and join a coalition of 2-3 Republicans who join hands with Harry Reid's crew to pass legislation like Financial Reform, the brainchild of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Such a Republican can get primaried in states other than Delaware.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Lately
Here is a little roundup of tidbits from American Spectator writers.
Some of them serve as yet another reminder that Republicans are the great enablers of progressive policies, and a dysfunctional band of reactive hand-wringing lovers of Washington DC. Guys who will do anything to stay in their relationship with the swampy capitol and all her friends. Like a man who would stay married to his promiscuous wife, as long as she brings him along to the parties, the long-time GOP grand daddys shamefully, bicker a little, but in the end let the Democrat bells of the ball win the day. Afterall, no matter how immoral or destructive, the power lies with them. That is, until the Republicans are brave enough to take a few lumps and stand up to what is wrong, no matter the cost. If they have to move into a small bachelor's apartment and do their own laundry, they should. If they need to step out of the limelight and accept only the power of their vote, they must.
Some of them serve as yet another reminder that Republicans are the great enablers of progressive policies, and a dysfunctional band of reactive hand-wringing lovers of Washington DC. Guys who will do anything to stay in their relationship with the swampy capitol and all her friends. Like a man who would stay married to his promiscuous wife, as long as she brings him along to the parties, the long-time GOP grand daddys shamefully, bicker a little, but in the end let the Democrat bells of the ball win the day. Afterall, no matter how immoral or destructive, the power lies with them. That is, until the Republicans are brave enough to take a few lumps and stand up to what is wrong, no matter the cost. If they have to move into a small bachelor's apartment and do their own laundry, they should. If they need to step out of the limelight and accept only the power of their vote, they must.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Conservative Media: A Critique from a Conservative Whom They Drive Nuts
For the sake of keeping this article short and simple, I will divide those I mention into two camps, conservative and liberal. Many who I place in the conservative camp, probably belong in no camp. Perhaps they belong in a camp of their own, where they can collect their own wood and make a fire to shed light on their pages of opinions poking at both camps while they stand firm as an army of one. However, since they think they are conservatives and speak for everyday Americans, I have to put them in a camp. They may be armies of one, but they still like D.C. cocktail parties.
The first conservative writer of note, who decided to discount the value of Sarah Palin, was Washington Post Columnist, Kathleen Parker. Ms. Parker had seen Sarah Palin’s T.V. interviews with Charles Gibson on ABC, and Katie Couric on CBS, and that was enough for Ms. Parker to sadly throw in the towel and lament that 4 decades of a women’s liberation movement, resulting in the drop of the U.S. birth rate, could only give Republicans a female Vice-Presidential Candidate who was from Alaska, had 5 kids, and gave imperfect T.V. interviews. A shame no doubt. The Democrats had already had Geraldine Ferraro take the national stage 2 decades earlier, and now the Republican’s big chance, only produced a moose hunting airhead expressing the values of freedom better than anyone, including a former Vietnam POW, but one easily stumped by questions from liberal journalists, who were able to convince so many that we had a folly on our hands, by simply displaying a displeased frown and a look above the eyeglasses.
After Ms. Parker’s article was published not only by her employer, The Washington Post, but also dutifully by the soft conservative National Review Online, I was driving in my car on a nice Saturday morning in September, when the top of the hour news came on, and touted that even conservative columnists, like Kathleen Parker, are beginning to have their doubts. Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy, two more conservative school marms, were caught unaware that the microphone was still on as they went on to explain to one another what a joke Palin was. The media barrage from both camps commenced for the following months and Palin’s reputation as a woman with at least the knowledge of a 12th grader was badly tarnished. Such an unnecessary and unfounded notion, yet the false reality was created for millions of American Idol voters to mutter how stupid and how frequently pregnant that lady who tried to be Vice-President is. Nice job Ms. Parker, I’m sure Mrs. Palin thanks you for being honest and for not holding back even for a week or so, to see if the newly selected candidate could get her footing. I thank you too, Ms. Parker, because you helped to rescue the U.S. from having an imperfect woman be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and you went on to support our current president, Barack Obama, and he won. Now he leads us, and how we have witnessed his noble and humble leadership.
Let me now move on to another conservative media man who I think might wear a nose plug during his nightly radio show; a show chocked with a who’s who list of conservative interviewees who make it possible for Hugh Hewitt to have a show containing more than the 15 minutes worth of things he would be able to talk about on his own, therefore allowing him to fill a three hour show. Hugh should definitely be giving 80% of his earnings to his guests, because without them, he wouldn’t have a show. I mean, this guy even has to book the left wing writers of the Washington Post to fill time.
At one time, I was a fan of the Hugh Hewitt Show. He talked a pretty big game, and he laid out some good goals for our elected officials to follow; goals which he later stopped mentioning after the Republicans drafted a nominee for President who wouldn’t come close to following them. In January of 2008, I was listening to Hugh’s show, when he said that the in the week to follow, the people of Florida and Michigan were going to vote Romney and end this charade of the McCain campaign. I sure hoped Hugh was right, and I loved his tough talk. Only, McCain won Florida and the Republican nomination. Now, it was early February, 2008, and Hillary Clinton and President Obama had months to go before one would finally be given the rights to take up the Democrat mantle. Their was no rush to become an overnight John McCain cheerleader, but Hugh became one instantly, and urged us all to do the same. If we didn’t, we would only be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Suddenly, we were expected to be happy that John McCain, complete with his bi-partisan deals with Democrats, which resulted in giving away the store, incoherent explanations about amnesty for illegal immigrants, and hell bent effort toward protecting terrorists, was now the Republican standard bearer. I spent the next few months hoping for a reason that McCain would become unable to run, but alas, I had to wait until November 3, 2008, to be relieved of the McCain candidacy.
The other night, I was listening to Hugh’s show again, and he was on the road, probably promoting a book about Mitt Romney. A caller from Arizona was up, and began saying how he supported J.D. Hayworth over McCain in the Arizona Primary. Hugh wouldn’t even let the caller say McCain’s name, because Hugh didn’t have his “dump button” with him in case the caller said an unkind word about McCain. I didn’t understand this one bit. I can only assume that callers that night were allowed to raise points of argument against Barack Obama throughout the night, unless Hugh had every minute booked up with guests that night, allowing the show to go on. However, Hugh did allow himself to point out that J.D. Hayworth was one of those “Birthers”, implying that it would be better to go the McCain route once again, than be tagged as supporting a “Birther”. Hugh needs to keep his moderate interviewees happy; after all; his show depends on it. That, and it gave Hugh the chance to use his favorite word and describe yet another person as a, “nutter”. Hugh’s new adaptation of forced civility apparently doesn’t apply to himself.
I was momentarily away from that evening’s Hugh Hewitt show, but when I tuned back in, he was just finishing up yet another interview with a politician, who said something like, “we need to put the brakes on Obama’s agenda”, and Hugh cut him off saying that he refuses to allow analogies on his show. O.K., Mark Steyn had better get off the guest list then. No wonder I never hear Dennis Miller on the Hewitt show.
So there you have it. This is a sample of our conservative media. Of course, not all conservative media personalities live in a bubble insulated with their own demands of perfection from conservative politicians and conservative Americans. If you look closely, you’ll also find that conservative media members will choose an issue for which to offer a defense for a liberal politician. Usually, they pick something that they don’t know enough about to discover that what they picked is indefensible. Some will even pick Bill Clinton’s lying under oath as the issue they decide is, “no big deal” and “overblown” (See David Frum). Erick Erickson has decided that in regards to Barack Obama he will pick the issue (birth certificate) that the President spent millions on to keep from seeing the light of day. Erickson will even ban anyone who goes on his site and brings the matter to attention. It seems as if that which is indeed indefensible has an expiration date. Usually, the ramifications of misdeeds might only expire after apologies are given, but some conservatives no longer require such a thing, while they mock the apologies of fellow conservatives. And when it comes to their own apologies or issued corrections forget about it. Many in the conservative media aren’t talented enough to admit their weaknesses and mistakes.
The first conservative writer of note, who decided to discount the value of Sarah Palin, was Washington Post Columnist, Kathleen Parker. Ms. Parker had seen Sarah Palin’s T.V. interviews with Charles Gibson on ABC, and Katie Couric on CBS, and that was enough for Ms. Parker to sadly throw in the towel and lament that 4 decades of a women’s liberation movement, resulting in the drop of the U.S. birth rate, could only give Republicans a female Vice-Presidential Candidate who was from Alaska, had 5 kids, and gave imperfect T.V. interviews. A shame no doubt. The Democrats had already had Geraldine Ferraro take the national stage 2 decades earlier, and now the Republican’s big chance, only produced a moose hunting airhead expressing the values of freedom better than anyone, including a former Vietnam POW, but one easily stumped by questions from liberal journalists, who were able to convince so many that we had a folly on our hands, by simply displaying a displeased frown and a look above the eyeglasses.
After Ms. Parker’s article was published not only by her employer, The Washington Post, but also dutifully by the soft conservative National Review Online, I was driving in my car on a nice Saturday morning in September, when the top of the hour news came on, and touted that even conservative columnists, like Kathleen Parker, are beginning to have their doubts. Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy, two more conservative school marms, were caught unaware that the microphone was still on as they went on to explain to one another what a joke Palin was. The media barrage from both camps commenced for the following months and Palin’s reputation as a woman with at least the knowledge of a 12th grader was badly tarnished. Such an unnecessary and unfounded notion, yet the false reality was created for millions of American Idol voters to mutter how stupid and how frequently pregnant that lady who tried to be Vice-President is. Nice job Ms. Parker, I’m sure Mrs. Palin thanks you for being honest and for not holding back even for a week or so, to see if the newly selected candidate could get her footing. I thank you too, Ms. Parker, because you helped to rescue the U.S. from having an imperfect woman be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and you went on to support our current president, Barack Obama, and he won. Now he leads us, and how we have witnessed his noble and humble leadership.
Let me now move on to another conservative media man who I think might wear a nose plug during his nightly radio show; a show chocked with a who’s who list of conservative interviewees who make it possible for Hugh Hewitt to have a show containing more than the 15 minutes worth of things he would be able to talk about on his own, therefore allowing him to fill a three hour show. Hugh should definitely be giving 80% of his earnings to his guests, because without them, he wouldn’t have a show. I mean, this guy even has to book the left wing writers of the Washington Post to fill time.
At one time, I was a fan of the Hugh Hewitt Show. He talked a pretty big game, and he laid out some good goals for our elected officials to follow; goals which he later stopped mentioning after the Republicans drafted a nominee for President who wouldn’t come close to following them. In January of 2008, I was listening to Hugh’s show, when he said that the in the week to follow, the people of Florida and Michigan were going to vote Romney and end this charade of the McCain campaign. I sure hoped Hugh was right, and I loved his tough talk. Only, McCain won Florida and the Republican nomination. Now, it was early February, 2008, and Hillary Clinton and President Obama had months to go before one would finally be given the rights to take up the Democrat mantle. Their was no rush to become an overnight John McCain cheerleader, but Hugh became one instantly, and urged us all to do the same. If we didn’t, we would only be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Suddenly, we were expected to be happy that John McCain, complete with his bi-partisan deals with Democrats, which resulted in giving away the store, incoherent explanations about amnesty for illegal immigrants, and hell bent effort toward protecting terrorists, was now the Republican standard bearer. I spent the next few months hoping for a reason that McCain would become unable to run, but alas, I had to wait until November 3, 2008, to be relieved of the McCain candidacy.
The other night, I was listening to Hugh’s show again, and he was on the road, probably promoting a book about Mitt Romney. A caller from Arizona was up, and began saying how he supported J.D. Hayworth over McCain in the Arizona Primary. Hugh wouldn’t even let the caller say McCain’s name, because Hugh didn’t have his “dump button” with him in case the caller said an unkind word about McCain. I didn’t understand this one bit. I can only assume that callers that night were allowed to raise points of argument against Barack Obama throughout the night, unless Hugh had every minute booked up with guests that night, allowing the show to go on. However, Hugh did allow himself to point out that J.D. Hayworth was one of those “Birthers”, implying that it would be better to go the McCain route once again, than be tagged as supporting a “Birther”. Hugh needs to keep his moderate interviewees happy; after all; his show depends on it. That, and it gave Hugh the chance to use his favorite word and describe yet another person as a, “nutter”. Hugh’s new adaptation of forced civility apparently doesn’t apply to himself.
I was momentarily away from that evening’s Hugh Hewitt show, but when I tuned back in, he was just finishing up yet another interview with a politician, who said something like, “we need to put the brakes on Obama’s agenda”, and Hugh cut him off saying that he refuses to allow analogies on his show. O.K., Mark Steyn had better get off the guest list then. No wonder I never hear Dennis Miller on the Hewitt show.
So there you have it. This is a sample of our conservative media. Of course, not all conservative media personalities live in a bubble insulated with their own demands of perfection from conservative politicians and conservative Americans. If you look closely, you’ll also find that conservative media members will choose an issue for which to offer a defense for a liberal politician. Usually, they pick something that they don’t know enough about to discover that what they picked is indefensible. Some will even pick Bill Clinton’s lying under oath as the issue they decide is, “no big deal” and “overblown” (See David Frum). Erick Erickson has decided that in regards to Barack Obama he will pick the issue (birth certificate) that the President spent millions on to keep from seeing the light of day. Erickson will even ban anyone who goes on his site and brings the matter to attention. It seems as if that which is indeed indefensible has an expiration date. Usually, the ramifications of misdeeds might only expire after apologies are given, but some conservatives no longer require such a thing, while they mock the apologies of fellow conservatives. And when it comes to their own apologies or issued corrections forget about it. Many in the conservative media aren’t talented enough to admit their weaknesses and mistakes.
Ban of the "Birthers" and Redefining Reality
On February 12, 2010, Erick Erickson of Redstate.com declared that “Birfers and Truthers” would be banned from, I can only assume, posting comments on the Redstate.com site. O.K. fine, go ahead and ban people, whatever floats your boat. The problem that I have is that Mr. Erickson equates those who know that Barack Obama has not provided a long form birth certificate, with those who believe the U.S. Government plotted 9/11. He is equating those displaying an unpleasant fact, with those rendering a more deeply unpleasant opinion. For me, it is difficult to swallow and carry on quietly while the self-professed conservatives aim to define the boundaries for which freedom loving Americans express their opinions and form arguments. They therefore limit argument in a similar way that those on the left do, and many times, without knowing it, ally themselves with the opinions of the American left wing.
The comments board at Redstate.com now features the unbridled ridicule, once reserved for Code Pink types and cheerleaders of socialism, directed at anyone who questions the opinions of Erick Erickson, or entertains the possibility that a man who spent multiple years as a child in another nation (Barack Obama) might have been born in another nation and doesn’t meet the requirements of the constitution to serve as president. I don’t believe that it has been proved otherwise. Many of the Redstate.com commenters fear that the presence of “birfers” will cause the site to be, “taken off message”, as if that blog is actually going to lead the conservative movement with its anonymous bloggers and poor user interface. I personally don’t put a lot of effort into studying the matter of Obama’s citizenship or talking about it, but I don’t get the least bit upset if someone else does. The 9/11 conspiracy does upset me, but I’m willing to put up with hearing about it, as long as someone offers a little detail with elements of sanity and absent the appearance of an axe to grind. From what I’ve learned about the Kennedy assassination, I’m more inclined to believe Oswald had accomplices, but I’m not going to spend any extra time investigating it. If someone wants to, good. All three of these national questions, may be better unsolved, at least for now.
However, Erickson acts as if his own personal credibility depends on who views his site and posts comments. The move he has made with this ban is a purge to hide the rubbage, while the new and more elite viewers browse his postings. Another way to increase credibility might be ban those bloggers of Redstate.com who post full articles using aliases such as Haystack. Come out secret identity bloggers, and let us know who you are. Some, such as Allahpundit on HotAir.com have so many frequent postings throughout the day, I don’t see how they could actually have a real job to jeopardize.
Update: Red State continues digging the hole they are stuck in.
Erick Erickson assures readers in his latest post, that this is his last word on the Birfer and Truther issue. To argue in defense of Obama’s official Erickson Seal of Natural Born Citizenship, Erick tries to impress us with his knowledge of 14th Century British law defining natural born citizenship as having been born anywhere in the world by two parents who are citizens of Britain. So, Erickson refers to foreign law to make his case. I hope Erick doesn’t later bemoan Justice Breyer’s support of using foreign law in U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the issue again presents itself. Also, it seems that Erickson personally re-writes the U.S. definition of natural born citizen to read, “anyone born anywhere, who has parents who are U.S. Citizens”. By Erickson’s definition, one could conceivably be born in Iran by a U.S. businessman and his wife, attend Iranian schools and spend years of his life in Iran, only to later move to the U.S. in his 30s, begin a political career and become an Iranian sympathizing President of the United States. That is O.K. by Erickson’s standards because his parents were U.S. Citizens after all.
The question that is not asked by Erickson or his enlightened readers, is “Why does the Constitution require that the President be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen?” Is there a reason for this provision? Also, we simply need to know the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution and/or Supreme Court Case. That is all.
Erickson instead focuses on his ridiculous assumption that those questioning Obama’s citizenship, believe that there was a cover up from the highest places of government since the day of his birth. I challenge him to find someone who believes that. Instead, the question should be asked, “how would Obama’s U.S. Citizenship benefit him and/or his parents at the time of his birth?”, and the other germane question is, “how many years of Obama’s childhood were spent in Indonesia?”
With the world becoming smaller and smaller, this is an issue that is likely to come to life in the future. It raises a question of sovereignty when the qualifications for a U.S. President become so skewed and more and more people like Erickson re-write history and make false claims regarding the meaning of imperative laws.
Erickson seems to be trying to play up his fame, and wants to be seen as a "reasonable conservative" by the likes of the conservative elite. Those who comment on his site even want him to bullet proof from the liberal likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Erickson falsely believes that he will be judged according to the small number of birthers or truthers who comment on his site. This is weakness grounded in the “perception is reality” fallacy. Reality is reality, perception is temporary and the longer a perception lasts the more harmful it can become. This is a recurrent problem of the conservative media. They give up and give in.
They bought into the perception that the Bush administration’s Hurricane Katrina response was akin to immoral. This was a perception created by the liberal media, and it lasted long enough that most conservatives eventually decided to confirm the perception and adopt it as reality, even without newly born facts to persuade them that the Katrina response was indeed botched and careless. The reality of the Katrina response is something different than the perception that the liberal media transmitted, and conservative media should be chastised by their audience for lazily accepting, simply because of the passing of time, the liberal media’s invented reality. Erickson is doing the same thing here with the birthers. The birther’s questions have not been answered, but time has passed, and the perception created by the liberal media has eaten into Erickson and now he is crying uncle. Not only that, but he is now inventing facts himself to defend his actions. Good bye Redstate.com. Where will you be in 5 years?
The comments board at Redstate.com now features the unbridled ridicule, once reserved for Code Pink types and cheerleaders of socialism, directed at anyone who questions the opinions of Erick Erickson, or entertains the possibility that a man who spent multiple years as a child in another nation (Barack Obama) might have been born in another nation and doesn’t meet the requirements of the constitution to serve as president. I don’t believe that it has been proved otherwise. Many of the Redstate.com commenters fear that the presence of “birfers” will cause the site to be, “taken off message”, as if that blog is actually going to lead the conservative movement with its anonymous bloggers and poor user interface. I personally don’t put a lot of effort into studying the matter of Obama’s citizenship or talking about it, but I don’t get the least bit upset if someone else does. The 9/11 conspiracy does upset me, but I’m willing to put up with hearing about it, as long as someone offers a little detail with elements of sanity and absent the appearance of an axe to grind. From what I’ve learned about the Kennedy assassination, I’m more inclined to believe Oswald had accomplices, but I’m not going to spend any extra time investigating it. If someone wants to, good. All three of these national questions, may be better unsolved, at least for now.
However, Erickson acts as if his own personal credibility depends on who views his site and posts comments. The move he has made with this ban is a purge to hide the rubbage, while the new and more elite viewers browse his postings. Another way to increase credibility might be ban those bloggers of Redstate.com who post full articles using aliases such as Haystack. Come out secret identity bloggers, and let us know who you are. Some, such as Allahpundit on HotAir.com have so many frequent postings throughout the day, I don’t see how they could actually have a real job to jeopardize.
Update: Red State continues digging the hole they are stuck in.
Erick Erickson assures readers in his latest post, that this is his last word on the Birfer and Truther issue. To argue in defense of Obama’s official Erickson Seal of Natural Born Citizenship, Erick tries to impress us with his knowledge of 14th Century British law defining natural born citizenship as having been born anywhere in the world by two parents who are citizens of Britain. So, Erickson refers to foreign law to make his case. I hope Erick doesn’t later bemoan Justice Breyer’s support of using foreign law in U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the issue again presents itself. Also, it seems that Erickson personally re-writes the U.S. definition of natural born citizen to read, “anyone born anywhere, who has parents who are U.S. Citizens”. By Erickson’s definition, one could conceivably be born in Iran by a U.S. businessman and his wife, attend Iranian schools and spend years of his life in Iran, only to later move to the U.S. in his 30s, begin a political career and become an Iranian sympathizing President of the United States. That is O.K. by Erickson’s standards because his parents were U.S. Citizens after all.
The question that is not asked by Erickson or his enlightened readers, is “Why does the Constitution require that the President be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen?” Is there a reason for this provision? Also, we simply need to know the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution and/or Supreme Court Case. That is all.
Erickson instead focuses on his ridiculous assumption that those questioning Obama’s citizenship, believe that there was a cover up from the highest places of government since the day of his birth. I challenge him to find someone who believes that. Instead, the question should be asked, “how would Obama’s U.S. Citizenship benefit him and/or his parents at the time of his birth?”, and the other germane question is, “how many years of Obama’s childhood were spent in Indonesia?”
With the world becoming smaller and smaller, this is an issue that is likely to come to life in the future. It raises a question of sovereignty when the qualifications for a U.S. President become so skewed and more and more people like Erickson re-write history and make false claims regarding the meaning of imperative laws.
Erickson seems to be trying to play up his fame, and wants to be seen as a "reasonable conservative" by the likes of the conservative elite. Those who comment on his site even want him to bullet proof from the liberal likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Erickson falsely believes that he will be judged according to the small number of birthers or truthers who comment on his site. This is weakness grounded in the “perception is reality” fallacy. Reality is reality, perception is temporary and the longer a perception lasts the more harmful it can become. This is a recurrent problem of the conservative media. They give up and give in.
They bought into the perception that the Bush administration’s Hurricane Katrina response was akin to immoral. This was a perception created by the liberal media, and it lasted long enough that most conservatives eventually decided to confirm the perception and adopt it as reality, even without newly born facts to persuade them that the Katrina response was indeed botched and careless. The reality of the Katrina response is something different than the perception that the liberal media transmitted, and conservative media should be chastised by their audience for lazily accepting, simply because of the passing of time, the liberal media’s invented reality. Erickson is doing the same thing here with the birthers. The birther’s questions have not been answered, but time has passed, and the perception created by the liberal media has eaten into Erickson and now he is crying uncle. Not only that, but he is now inventing facts himself to defend his actions. Good bye Redstate.com. Where will you be in 5 years?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Nothing is Over Until We Decide it Is!
I've been waiting to hear about town hall meetings and protests as Congressmen are back in the territories of their constituents, but apparently, most folk think that the health care bill is a.) already passed, or b.) is so inevitable it is not worth lifting a finger over. It's a shame that some bloggers (i.e. Allahpundit) are in default defeatist mode, convinced it's over. Votes still need to take place.
Quinn Hillyer from American Spectator writes a rallying piece for Republican Congressmen that holds so true.
See my article from earlier this week, trying to rally the troops as well.
Quinn Hillyer from American Spectator writes a rallying piece for Republican Congressmen that holds so true.
See my article from earlier this week, trying to rally the troops as well.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Got Ezra!
The American Spectator is forced to rebut the juvenile sentence constructions of recent college grad and Washington Post's red carpet walking, Ezra Klein. I think the guy just uses those word refrigerator magnets to construct his columns. For his new column he must have opened up that new calculator he got for graduation, because he's spoutin' of math and frighteningly underestimating how much the government would be spending on health care if the new bill passes. If the govt. spends as much as he said, we might all get a tournaquet and aspirin each year, but that'll be about it.
I'm sorry, but why do we keep listening to 24 year old Ezra Klein. His writing gives away his age, I hadn't even heard of him until last month when he came up with some ingenious idea of killing the fillibuster (gee, I never heard that one before). Why conservative blogs quote him, and why the Washington Post would give someone with 24 years of life experience a blog and a pay check is beyond me.
I'm sorry, I mean I'm 34, so I'm not so old that I need up to date guidance from someone The Economist magazine named one of the "minds of the moment", (yeah, a moment, kind of like 15 minutes of fame) and at age 16, I could have wrote and thought something as compelling about a politician as this quote he wrote about Joe Lieberman ; "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score".
I must be getting old, because the political and worldly wisdom from these recent college grads just ain't gonna grab my attention. I'm just sick of reading his stupid name "Ezra" over and over again. That's how it goes sometimes; somebody's name simply annoys you, and then you read the critique of this overpaid "journalists" blog, and you "Learn That Life Is One Crushing Defeat After Another Until You Just Wish Flanders Was Dead."
I'm sorry, but why do we keep listening to 24 year old Ezra Klein. His writing gives away his age, I hadn't even heard of him until last month when he came up with some ingenious idea of killing the fillibuster (gee, I never heard that one before). Why conservative blogs quote him, and why the Washington Post would give someone with 24 years of life experience a blog and a pay check is beyond me.
I'm sorry, I mean I'm 34, so I'm not so old that I need up to date guidance from someone The Economist magazine named one of the "minds of the moment", (yeah, a moment, kind of like 15 minutes of fame) and at age 16, I could have wrote and thought something as compelling about a politician as this quote he wrote about Joe Lieberman ; "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score".
I must be getting old, because the political and worldly wisdom from these recent college grads just ain't gonna grab my attention. I'm just sick of reading his stupid name "Ezra" over and over again. That's how it goes sometimes; somebody's name simply annoys you, and then you read the critique of this overpaid "journalists" blog, and you "Learn That Life Is One Crushing Defeat After Another Until You Just Wish Flanders Was Dead."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)