ironchapman's blog

Open Thread: Margaret Thatcher on Public Money

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:00:01 +0000

from the diaries by Neil

As we debate just how much our government ought to be spending–and where that money should come from–I think it’s a good idea to reflect on the words of Margaret Thatcher on the subject of “public money” (of course, when is listening to Maggie a bad idea?):

Open thread.

With the NV-02 and NY-09 Elections Done, We Need to Turn Our Attention to OR-01

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:26:38 +0000

From the diaries by Neil

This past Tuesday was a good week for Republicans and conservatives. We sent bona fide conservative Mark Amodei to Congress in Nevada’s 9th District, and wrested from the Democrats a district in the heart of New York City by pushing Bob Turner to victory in New York’s 9th. NV-02 was a Republican leaning district, and we won there in dominating fashion by 21 points. NY-09, meanwhile, was a stunning upset in a district that hasn’t sent a Republican to Congress since Warren Harding was President (a feat which I hope to write more about very soon, time pending).

It feels good, doesn’t it?

However, as tempting as it may be to sit here and rest upon our laurels, there is still work that needs to be done. The special elections for Congress are not yet over. With the ones in NV-01 and NY-09 finished, we must now turn our attention to the special election going on in Oregon’s 1st Congressional District.

The story about this vacancy is one we probably all remember: David Wu, its former occupant known in recent years for erratic behavior, resigned after deciding to become the fifth Asian Tiger or (something like that). With him gone, people are lining up to take his place. At last count, there are eight Democrats and five Republicans seeking the seat. The frontrunners for the Democratic nomination are Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, state Sen. Suzanne Bonamici, and state Rep. Brad Witt. Meanwhile, there is one major Republican seeking the seat, businessman Rob Cornilles, who is the frontrunner on his side mostly because he sought the seat as the party’s candidate back during the 2010 elections. The primary elections will be held on November 8th, 2011, and the special election will be held on January 31, 2012.

A map of Oregon’s 1st District.

Though the two are far from identical, there are many parallels between Oregon’s 1st district and New York’s 9th district. Both of these seats’ occupants, Weiner and Wu, resigned under the cloud of scandal. Additionbally, both of these districts are in the same range as far as median income is concerned–with OR-01 having a small edge $48,464 to $45,426–making both generally middle class and white collar districts. Both districts are predominantly white, albeit OR-01 moreso than NY-09, and both districts are largely urban (or in the case of NY-09, entirely urban). Both districts also lean toward the Democratic Party, with OR-01 at D+5 on the Cook PVI and NY-09 at D+5.

As I hinted at before, the two are not entirely similar. OR-01, for example, doesn’t have the large Jewish population or the historic Italian or Irish populations, either. Instead of deep-rooted historic communities, this is one of the districts that benefitted from the tech boom–both Intel and Techtronix are headqurtered here, for example. This place also seems to be a hotbed for foot and athletic wear, as Adidas, Columbia Sportswear, and Nike are all headquartered here. There also It lacks the kinds of “quirks” embedded in NY-09′s historic communities that made it economically liberal, yet socially conservative. In the past, OR-01 has been known for sending moderate Republicans to Congress. However, starting in the 1970s, it has gone consistently Democratic as the nouveau riche of the day and yuppies began to move into the district and make it the suburban-to-urban place it is from the farmland it used to be. More information on the general character and history of this district can be found over at its page in the National Journal’s Almanac of American Politics.

With all of that basic information out of the way, it’s time to discuss what’s really important in this district: what are Republican’s chances in this district, and how can we win here?

As I said earlier, even if it isn’t a safe Democratic district, Oregon’s 1st district lacks the economically-liberal, socially conservative bent of New York’s 9th. This district is moderate/centrist at best. As the National Journal’s Almanac page for the district points out, this district is prime territory for a New England Republican, as in Scott Brown and Chris Shays types. We shouldn’t expect an Allen West, Jim Jordan, or Steve King to win here, and even if one did, he wouldn’t last too long.

The frontrunner for this race is probably businessman Rob Cornilles of Tualatin, a suburb of Portland. He’s the frontrunner, and the best known name on the Republican side, mainly because he was David Wu’s opponent in 2010 (just like Bob Turner was Weiner’s opponent in 2010, actually). I’m no expert on him or the other Republicans running, but an inspection of his website and its issues page makes it look like he’s up to snuff for us. There’s no outspoken rhetoric here, but his positions on the issues are the typical low-key tone center-right ones that can sell in this district if his campaign is run well enough (think Bob Turner or Scott Brown). He does not appear to have any major scandals or baggage attached to him, but this might be problematic–though I doubt it will ruin him.

You can view Cornilles announcement of his candidacy at his Youtube channel here.

The other Republicans in this race, per the earlier article are:

Lisa Michaels of Beaverton, “a former legislative candidate and GOP activist who has her own cable television access show.”
Delinda Morgan of Gaston, who is a member of International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701.
Jim Greenfield of Tigard, a real estate adviser.
Pavel Goberman of Beaverton, a retiree and fitness expert. (Honestly, this guy is like OR-01′s version of Basil Marceaux, though in Goberman’s defense, he is a Russian immigrant and not a native English speaker).

Of these, Lisa Michaels is the mostly probably “dark horse”. She has the benefit of having a cable television access talk show, so her name is probably familiar to at least some people in her district. Also, given the nature of her profession, she is probably fairly good at communicating her views. Still, Cornilles is the Republican to beat in the race. It’s worthy of note, though, that all of these people, other than Cornilles, are of the serial candidate variety. In case it isn’t obvious already, I’m backing Cornilles in this race, and in all likelihood, he’ll be the nominee regardless.

As far as the kind of campaigning that will have to be done, given the political leanings of the district, it is likely that whichever Republican gets the nomination will do his best to establish himself as an “independent voice” for OR-01. The kind of campaigning done here will resemble what was done in Scott Brown’s campaign or most recent by Bob Turner in New York. The national party may put some money in, but since this seat is predisposed to elect a Democrat, it is likely that such contributions will be minimal, both because of the uphill battle and to help the candidate himself maintain an image of independence. The candidate will probably get some Tea Party support, but expect the candidate to trumpet the endorsement of whichever local officials and newspapers get behind him especially loudly to emphasize the fact that he has local support (such as this press release on Cornilles’ website).

The task we face in Oregon’s 1st Congressional District is a formidable one, to say the least, but as past results in places like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have demonstrated, it is definitely not out of reach. The dissatisfaction with Obama can run deeper than mere party lines. We can win this if we work hard, run a good campaign, and get the word out about our guy. This is the next congressional special elections battle we need to fight

So, stop by Rob Cornilles website and give some money if you can. If you don’t like Cornilles, feel free to give money to the candidate of your choice and to make his or her case to us.

Muslim protestors in London will “will make as much noise as possible” during 9/11 moment of silence

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:32:14 +0000

I was going through my e-mail Inbox yesterday when I came upon this from Beliefnet:

Demonstrators from London’s “Muslims Against Crusades,” whose website shows a graphic of a plane heading towards New York’s World Trade Center, say they “will make as much noise as possible during the planned mark of respect for the dead.”

Their disruption at the U.S. Embassy of London’s observation of the September 11 attacks is, they say, ”to show that the U.S. has lost the war on terror,” said spokesman Anjem Choudary.

[...]

He said: “We will be holding a big demonstration and it’s going to begin at the time the first plane hit the building – when everybody is holding their minute’s silence.

“We will be very noisy during that time. It will be to expose the crimes of the American government over the past ten years and showing how they have failed.

“They have lost the war against terror. All of their concepts of freedom and democracy have been run roughshod over and been replaced with extraordinary rendition and policies which mean people don’t have rights any more.”

For those of you who don’t remember, Anjem Choudary is that nutcase of a cleric who made the rounds in the US media earlier this year around the time of Hosni Mubarak’s ouster arguing for Shariah-law in America. Here’s an excellent example of Mr. Choudary in action:

I’m tempted to call Choudary a “tool”, but he knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s one of the ones pulling the puppet strings. Of course, this piece of detritus is not alone. He’s in charge of a group called “Muslims Against Crusades”, which is one of the two groups, along with the tellingly named “Sharia 4 America”, behind these embassy protests For those of you with strong skins, you can watch the Muslims Against Crusades folk in their own words from their Youtube channel:

Now, these scum think they’ve got a list of grievances to air against us, but I’m not particularly inclined to listen because IT WAS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO KILLED ALMOST 3000 OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN ON 9/11/2001 IN COLD BLOOD AND PROBABLY WOULD HAVE KILLED MORE IF WE HAD GIVEN THEM THE CHANCE. I don’t think any other reason needs to be given, but I will note that doing such horrific things will not be beneficial to you if you really wanted to get your point across. Perusing their websites (and you can do that on your own, as I won’t be linking to them), it’s clear that they aren’t the ones who can be compromised with. Their words and actions suggest that there is no compromise between them and us. It’s either Sharia and Islamic domination or nothing for them (indeed, check out this Youtube video from Sharia 4 America), and that is something that should be met with zero tolerance from any Western society, particularly one such as ours that avows a belief in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we are up against, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 as much as we were back in 2001. We should take to heart the same kind of philosophy Winston Churchill espoused in his “Finest Hour” speech:

The Scandal-Ridden Tenure of Nancy Pelosi as Democratic House Leader: A Primer

Sun, 12 Jun 2011 19:20:10 +0000

As you have hopefully heard by now, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) officially called for Anthony Weiner’s resignation today. Per CNN:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for Weiner to step down in separate statements earlier Saturday.

Weiner’s decision to seek treatment and take a leave was not enough to satisfy Pelosi, who wants him to step down, a Pelosi aide told CNN.

“Congressman Weiner has the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents and the recognition that he needs help. I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a member of Congress,” Pelosi said earlier.

Now, while we’re all thinking “FINALLY!” to ourselves, I want to point out something ABC’s Jake Tapper tweeted earlier yesterday that really caught my eye. However, I can’t say that it honestly surprised me:

BUT it is true that this is the first time @NancyPelosi has called for a House Democrat to resign.

Like I said, I can’t say this honestly surprised me. The Democratic Party does have a habit of circling the wagons around their own when one of them is involved, or appears to be involved in, (usually the former) a scandal. Still, though, that’s quite a lot of scandals, and most of them never got anywhere near the amount of media coverage they would have gotten had these members had an “R” next to their name. In fact, had Pelosi been a Republican, I’m certain there would be widespread calls across the media, her own party, and the American people for her to step down (for that matter, she probably would have been defeated for reelection), but no, she’s still there as the top ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives.

So, to refresh our memories, I have compiled a list of scandals that have occurred within her party under her leadership. Though it’s probably fairer to her than she deserves, I have limited this list to scandals occurring or continuing solely during her term as Democratic House Leader, meaning no Barney Frank prostitution ring or Dan Rostenkowski. Furthermore, this list is limited to House members only during that period, meaning no Chris Dodd. I’m also not including Anthony Weiner because his case is fresh in our memory. I cannot claim that this list is authoritative–these are Democrats we’re talking about after all, meaning there’s always more scandals waiting to be uncovered. However, I did the best I can, so let’s take a look:

Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA): The Chairman of the all Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus (Republicans have their own group) from 2007-2008 apparently drove some of the funds from the caucus’ BOLDPAC, an organization that is supposed to help elect Hispanic officials at all levels, to fund his children’s, Joe Jr. and Jeremy, election campaigns. Joe Jr. was seeking a seat in the California State Senate, and Jeremy was seeking the State Assembly seat Joe Jr. was giving up to go after said Senate seat. After fellow California Representative Loretta Sanchez, as well as a few other CHC members, tried to confront him on it, he allegedly did the classy thing…and called her a whore. His leadership was so bad that Loretta, her sister Linda, and three other members left the caucus.

Representative Baca is still in office, but he is no longer the Chairman of the Congressonal Hispanic Caucus. New York Representative Nydia Velazquez took over that role in 2008.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Like I said earlier, I will not include his prostitution scandal from the 1980s (though, in my opinion, that should have been enough to get him to resign regardless). What he gets a mention here for has to do with his involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and his oversight of them. Despite the last few years proving him wrong, he famously said, ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis…The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Then, there was his famous “dice roll” quote. In September of 2003, he told Congress: “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing.”

Furthermore, it has also come to light that he has received a total of $42,350 from the companies in campaign contributions between the years of 1998-2008 (Source: OpenSecrets). Finally, he lobbied the two companies to get them to hire one of his lovers, one Herb Moses:

Representative Barney Frank, who for more than two decades has been a member of the House committee charged with oversight of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, acknowledged yesterday that he recommended his live-in companion for a job at one of the housing agencies in the early 1990s at the same time Congress was writing legislation to improve oversight of the agency. (Source: Boston Globe)

Now, Barney Frank has insisted that this did not present a conflict of interest. However, it is worthy to note, as this Fox News story points out:

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

[...]

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Now, in fairness, the contributions stretch back into the 1990s and even 1980s, and his lover was only at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until 1998. However, it is worth pointing out that never once did he consider these things a conflict of interest as he took over the Chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee–which is the committee that regulates these companies–in 2007, or even the status of Ranking Member before then (or since January of this year).

Right now, he’s still the Democrats’ Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee. Despite a great campaign during the 2010 midterms by Sean Bielat, Frank was reelected with 54% of the vote (Bielat received 43%).

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA): Mrs. Harman held a conversation with members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee where she promised to lobby the Bush administration for lighter treatment on two Israeli-lobbyists who were suspected of spying, among other things. According to the New York Times:

One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage, current and former government officials say.

[...]

The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israellobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor — the media mogul Haim Saban — would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms.

Recount Gives Prosser a Lead in Wisconsin…For Now (With Updates)

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:36:16 +0000

From the diaries by Erick

UPDATE 7: Barring Democratic shenanigans (and they are still possible) I think it’s safe to say Prosser has won. This means that, as others have said, conservatives have been able to match a supposedly hyper-motivated Left blow-for-blow in a typically blue-leaning state with a strong history of progressivism and support for labor. It’s almost certain that there will be a recount, though. Justice Prosser needs your help. Head over to his website and donate to his recount fund if you can.

——–

I’m sure most of you remember that, according to the official results of the initial count, JoAnne Kloppenburg led the incumbent David Prosser 740,090 to 739,886, or by 204 votes. Obviously with results this close, a recount was in order.

Fortunately, things seem to be looking up for Prosser as the re-canvassing has brought more votes in for him. Many more. Hit the jump for more info.

Per the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, some more Prosser votes started to trickle in from Winnebago county, netting him 244 more votes, which translates into a 40 vote lead statewide:

Winnebago County’s numbers say Prosser received 20,701 votes to Kloppenburg’s 18,887. The AP has 19,991 for Prosser to Kloppenburg’s 18,421.

The new numbers would give Prosser 244 more votes, or a 40-vote lead statewide.

An editor at the AP said the news service became aware of the discrepancy in the past hour. The AP last checked figures with Winnebago County at 10:14 a.m. Wednesday, according to the AP. The county adjusted its figures at 2:27 p.m.

The latest numbers for Winnebago County are not official.

The good news by no means ends there, though. The bombshell development that could seal this for Prosser came in the form of 7000+ votes for him that weren’t counted in Waukesha County (a Prosser stronghold) thanks to a computer error. National Review has more info:

After Tuesday night’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election, a computer error in heavily Republican Waukesha County failed to send election results for the entire City of Brookfield to the Associated Press. The error, revealed today, would give incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Prosser a net 7,381 votes against his challenger, attorney Joanne Kloppenburg.

[...]

Prior to the election, Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus was heavily criticized for her decision to keep the county results on an antiquated personal computer, rather than upgrade to a new data system being utilized statewide. Nickolaus cited security concerns for keeping the data herself — yet when she reported the data, it did not include the City of Brookfield, whose residents cast nearly 14,000 votes.

“Waukesha County officials have announced a press conference for 5:30 CST.” [Ed.- That's right now]

Things are still developing, but Randy Melchert has a great rundown of the developments in the re-canvassing at his blog. The Journal-Sentinel also has a write-up on the developments in Waukesha.

What do you think guys? Perhaps there’s some hope for us after all. Wisconsin Republicans have shown they have backbone, so I hope they fight this to the end. For now, though, things look good for us, it seems.

And yes, sometimes close recounts DO go our way. Renee Ellmers of NC-2 can tell you a little something about that.

UPDATE: See the presser here at Fox News.

UPDATE 2: Journal-Sentinel has feed of what’s going down in Waukesha here. (HT: techsan’s comment).

UPDATE 3: For a laugh, check out Michael Moore’s twitter feed. It’s what a Liberal head explosion-in-progress looks like.

Also, to help defeat allegations of election fraud, a Democratic poll watcher has called the previously uncounted votes legit, per the Daily Caller:

Democratic canvass watcher Ramona Kitzinger was also at the press conference.

“We went over everything & made sure the numbers jibed up and they did,” Kitzinger said. “We’re satisfied that it’s correct.”

Of course, I will say that Democrats do know what election fraud looks like. *cough*Minnesota 2008 Senate Race*cough*2004 Washington Gubernatorial Race*cough*.

UPDATE 4: Computer I’m at won’t let me upload media to RedState, but this picture seems particularly relevant. (HT: National Review)

UPDATE 5: John Nolte’s right: “This wasn’t FOUND ballots. A count wasn’t recorded. No way in hell that’s fraud.”

Also Liberal numbers guy Nate Silver (of FiveThirtyEight) says the ballots check out in his opinion. See here, here, and here.

UPDATE 6: Prosser has been quoted by the Journal-Sentinel as saying:

I’m encouraged by the various reports form the county canvasses….Our confidence is high, and we will continue to monitor with optimism, and believe that the positive results will hold. We’ve always maintained faith in the voters and trust the election officials involved in the canvassing will reaffirm the lead we’ve taken.

Also, here’s another great pic for us to savor. Derek Hunter’s caption: “Check out the bottom of the screen while Hardball panel discusses how Scott Walker’s guy lost to Kloppenburg.” Poor Chrissy Matthews and company.

GA-12: Trouble Brewing for Barrow

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:20:31 +0000

I divide my time between Georgia’s 13th district and its 12th district, depending on whether I’m at home or in college. Unfortunately, I’m represented by Democrats, David Scott and John Barrow, respectively, in both districts. Since I’m registered to vote in the 12th district, I’ve been doing what I can to help the Republicans oust Barrow.

Courtesy of NationalAtlas.gov.

Barrow’s Progressive Predicament
Search the list of congressmen who voted against the Obamacare bill and you’ll find Barrow’s name. You see, John Barrow likes to play the moderate card. He has to in order to keep getting elected from a district that is, on the whole, fairly conservative, especially outside of Savannah and Augusta. Unfortunately, he also has his Left-wing base to appease, too. However, as of late, he’s been neglecting the latter in favor of the former, and in the process, he’s forgotten that the first thing any politician must do is to secure their base. The independents and moderates can sway and go either way, but you’d hope that someone is a lock to vote for you, especially if they are predisposed to support you anyways.

The fact that Barrow voted against the Obamacare bill doesn’t sit too well with the Liberals in this district. It’s brought some backlash from the Liberals in the district. The black community of Savannah, for one, isn’t too pleased:

Resentment is seething among black political leaders against Democratic U.S. Rep. John Barrow after his vote against a major health care bill.

The measure, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s agenda, passed the House narrowly Sunday; Obama signed it into law Tuesday.

At least two black state lawmakers who backed the Savannah congressman in 2008 – or were neutral – now favor Regina Thomas, his July 20 primary election foe.

And Savannah Mayor Pro Tem Edna Jackson, long a key Barrow ally, says she won’t be in the primary. She wouldn’t elaborate, but had sought his vote for the health bill.

Other black leaders accused him of abandoning his black constituents.

“He has no respect for the people of color who are the majority of people who voted for him,” said the Rev. Bennie Mitchell Jr., pastor of Connor’s Temple Baptist Church. “There is no way I can support him.”

Chatham County Democratic chairman Tony Center said Barrow is in “a lot of trouble” because of his vote.

“I think it has brought his whole voting record to the forefront,” Center said.

[...]

More than 60 percent of the people who will vote in the Democratic primary in his 12th Congressional District are expected to be black.

State Rep. Bob Bryant, D-Garden City, who backed Barrow two years ago, has endorsed Thomas. So has state Rep. Mickey Stephens, D-Savannah, who didn’t take sides when Thomas, who is black, ran – and lost – against Barrow in 2008.

Meanwhile, state Rep. Craig Gordon, D-Savannah – also neutral in 2008 – said he’s now less likely to support Barrow.

The legislators – who represent parts of the 12th District – and Mitchell were among those who tried during a Saturday conference call persuade Barrow to reconsider his vote.

“His mind was made up and he wasn’t willing to listen,” said Bryant, who said he’ll vote for a Republican – or not at all – if Thomas loses. At least four people are seeking the GOP nomination.

“(Barrow) really ticked me off,” said Stephens. “I have people in my district call me every day. They don’t have health insurance. They’re hurting.”

It’s not just the black leaders in his own district, however, that are mad at him. The Congressional Black Caucus’ feathers have been ruffled by his vote as well. The article makes mention of one member of the caucus in particular:

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., told Washington, D.C.-based Roll Call she won’t stump for Barrow in the 12th as she has in the past.

“Members who represent large numbers of African-Americans,” Brown said, “should be sensitive to the people they represent. Health care is the new civil rights.”

Winning the black community’s vote is a huge part of winning any election for house in the district, and it’s particularly important for the Democratic primary. As the article noted, around 60% of those expected to vote in the party’s primary are black. You make them mad, which is what Barrow appears to have done. and you are probably not going to win. The loss of Savannah’s Mayor Pro Tem Edna Jackson is particularly big, as she has been one of Barrow’s biggest allies, particularly in the black community, in the district.

So, what the black community’s “leaders” and other Liberals in this district are now trying to do is support a primary challenger by the name of Regina Thomas. She’s attempted to primary Barrow in the past, but these have been nothing more than quixotic, “I am a Liberal hear me squeak,” campaigns. However, she may be getting some real attention now, and she’s not the only one. The Congressional Quarterly, which has apparently caught on to the trouble brewing down here, has a nice piece up about Barrow’s many possible challengers, saying:

Barrow is already facing former state Sen. Regina Thomas in a rematch of the 2008 primary that Barrow eventually won in a cakewalk after Obama’s endorsement. But in recent days, there has been increased speculation about a possible primary bid by state Sen. Lester Jackson, who replaced Thomas in the state Senate in 2008 after serving a decade in the state House.

Along with his work in the state legislature, Jackson, who is black, is a dentist and a Democratic national committeeman. Jackson was a champion of the health care bill in his home state and worked to rally support for the legislation. On the day before the vote, he helped put together a conference call of elected officials and faith leaders, spending an hour on the phone with Barrow lobbying him to vote for the bill. For his efforts over the course of the debate, Jackson was invited to the White House on Tuesday to witness the president sign the legislation that Barrow voted against.

Under one scenario, Jackson’s entry into the primary would allow Thomas — who was never a strong fundraiser during her 2008 run and had less than $5,000 on hand at the end of 2009 — to drop out of the congressional contest and run for her old state Senate seat. That would allow Jackson to consolidate the support of black voters, who are expected to make up nearly two-thirds of the Democratic primary electorate in the 12th district this summer.

If Jackson doesn’t run, another possible primary challenger being floated by Georgia insiders this week is state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. Thurmond, who is black, doesn’t live in the district and is currently running for re-election to his statewide office. But Georgia Democrats say he’s a candidate with the name recognition and statewide connections to step into the race and give Barrow a serious challenge.

Right now, in my humble opinion, the biggest threats to Barrow in the Democratic primary are Thomas and Jackson. I’m aware that nothing may come of these challengers, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that they are gaining momentum. Whether these challengers succeed or not, it’s certain that the next few months won’t be fun for John Barrow. These challengers will force him to spend money defending himself to his base, which is something a politician, at least a smart one, shouldn’t have to do. If it gets serious enough, he could end up using much of his money in the primary, leaving him less equipped to defend himself from a Republican challenger. And on the off chance one of these more Liberal Democratic challengers should win, it is very likely that they will get beaten handily in the general election. A Democrat has to at least pretend to be moderate to be elected here, and it is doubtful that any one of these challengers will be able to successfully pull this off, especially without angering their own base.

The Republican Challengers
For the record, I am not on any campaign’s payroll nor am I affiliated with any of them.
*—*—*
EDIT:Lawton Sack, the Bulloch County GOP Vice-chair, has left a comment on this piece that you may also find informative. Check it out here.
*—*—*
While schadenfreude at Barrow’s primary predicament with progressives is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, let’s not forget that there are Republican challengers in the district, too. It’s an uphill battle, as district is Democratic leaning. However, it is doable, especially in a year like this and if we can get the word out.

There are something like five candidates runnign for the Republican Party’s nomination in the district. Of these candidates, Jeanne Seaver (Facebook) and Carl Smith (Facebook). I’ve had the pleasure of meeting both several times through both the Georgia Southern College Republicans and the Bulloch County GOP.

Jeanne Seaver is a former businesswoman who has also had some work as a community activist. She is also the mother of three children. As a business woman, she has experience working int he legal and aviation sectors. She also believes that her experience in business managment with developing health insurance benefits will give her great insight on the healthcare debate going on in Washington. Her biggest work as an activist has been in the area of child advocacy. She’s been the Vice-chair of Savannah’s CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) program, which “recruits and trains volunteers from everyday walks of life to provide individual advocacy for innocent children who might otherwise become ‘lost’ in the system,” according to its website. She is also a co-founder of the Youth Yoga Initiative, which, as her website puts it, “teaches at risk youth in the school system to deal with stress and pressures while building a positive self image.” Finally, her website also makes mention of the fact that she is a founder of the National Right of Communities Association (NROCA). This organization “is dedicated to the education of all Americans in regard to our country’s founding documents, our constitutional rights, grassroots involvement as well as promoting honesty in government.”

Truthfully, either of these candiates will make a fine representative of Georgia’s 12th district, and either of these candidates will be a great improvement over John Barrow. However, the candidate that has most impressed me through our meetings is Carl Smith. He’s a 3rd generation firefighter, and he has spent the last 16 years as the fire chief of Thunderbolt, Georgia, a Savannah suburb. In this capacity, he has been called to help out with numerous disasters, both natural and manmade, including Hurricane Hugo, the South Georgia Wildfires, Hurricane Katrina, and the sugar refinery explosion in Port Wentworth. During his service with the firefighters, he was elected President of three different firefighters’ unions, the Savannah Firefighters Association, the Chatham County Fire Chiefs Association, and the Georgia Association of Fire Chiefs. In 2007, he was also selected to be the President of the Southeastern Association of Fire Chiefs, which is an affiliate of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. He has also twice been elected to the Thunderbolt town council, once in 1997 and once in 2005. His website highlights the main achievements of his time as councilman as reducing property taxes, cleaning up the town’s budget practices and audit reports, and enhancing the response capabilities of the police and fire departments.

However, what has impressed me about Carl Smith just as much as his resume is his plan, not just for his possible time in Washington, but also for the Republican party. Whenever I have met with him or seen him speak to any group, he is always quick to refer to what he calls “Carl’s Common Cents,” his pledge for what he will do as a Congressman from the 12th district. According to the cards he gives out, these “Common Cents” consist of the following:

Restore individual liberties and defend our state’s rights.

Protect the 2nd amendment.

End the current borrow, tax, print, and spend policies.

Fight for balanced budget legislation.

Reduce the size, control, and cost of our Federal Government.

Eliminate earmarks.

Support immediate tax payer relief and fight to reform our tax code.

Promote real energy independence and halt our dependency on foreign oil.

Support term limits.

As for his ideas for the Republican party, he believes that we have to continue and extend our outreach efforts to minorities and the rank and file of unions. He frequently attends union and minority events and gatherings where he is normally the only Republican to show up. He does this because, from his own experiences as a firefighter and as the head of a firefighters’ union, he has seen that the rank-and-file union workers are often very conservative, and they are often open to voting for a Republican if they believe he or she understands their situation. The same goes for the black community. Despite what the self-appointed “leaders” of it might say, most blacks are conservative on many issues, particularly social ones. Carl believes that we need to explain just how the Republican party is the political party that is more inline with their ideals. He both cases, he believes that we shouldn’t compromise our points of view to get votes, but instead, he believes we should explain why conservatism can work for them.

I also have word that, should Regina Thomas or any other primary challenger not be successful against John Barrow, many of the black leaders backing these challengers will endorse and perhaps campaign for Carl Smith. They are just that angry with Barrow. While this may not cause record balck turnout for the Republican in the district, they can at least persuade the “rank-and-file” blacks not to vote for Barrow, whetehr that means staying home, voting for Smith, or voting third party.

Conclusion

Let’s not deceive ourselves, the battle in GA-12 is going to be an uphill fight. Despite the primary challenger(s), Barrow still holds the inside track to both the Democratic primary and the general election. He’s beatable, and he was almost beaten for reelection back in 2006, which was a banner year if any for the Democratic party. To beat him, the Republican candidates need our support. After speaking with both of them, I have come to believe that Carl Smith is the candidate with the conservative principles and leadership that this district and the House of Representatives needs at this moment. Drop by and give him some support. He desperately needs it.

Who knows? Perhaps we will be able to win this. It’s possible, if only we are willing to lend our support.

Dan Benishek for Congress in MI-1

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:42:27 +0000

As the hours have passed today, it has become clear that Bart Stupak intends to sell his soul to Obamacare . As the leader of the pro-life Democrats in Congress, he held the fate of healthcare reform (and I used that word in the loosest possible sense) in his hands. Unfortunately, but probably unsurprisingly, he has chosen poorly, and he has sold America out to this horrid bill.

We must make him pay, and fortunately, there is a way to do so.

Meet Dan Benishek . He Stupak’s Republican challenger in Michigan’s first district. For those of you with a Twitter, you can follow him @Benishek .

He doesn’t have a contributions site yet, but until he does, you can send your donation to:

Benishek for Congress
802 Pentoga Trail
Crystal Falls, MI 49920

I’d like to close this by paraphrasing a famous quote by former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that I think applies to Stupak’s situation:

You had an option, sir. You could have said, ‘I am not going to do it. This is wrong for America, and I am not going to ask Americans to pay the price.’ You had an option, sir — to say ‘no’ — and you chose to say ‘yes’ to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Democratic Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Americans.

Bart Stupak had an option, and he sold us out. Let’s show him the consequences of his choice.

Obama and Bush: A Simple Comparison of Pictures

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:52:44 +0000

H/T to this tweet by Ben Domenech for alerting me to it.

A while back I did a post on the “Beer Summit” highlighting Obama’s lack of concern for those around him. The picture from Ben Domenech’s tweet reminded me of that. Take a look at it:

The man comforting the child is Harold Ford, a man who unsuccessfully sought Bill Frist’s old Senate seat in Tennessee back in 2006 (he lost to Bob Corker, for the record), and he’s trying to primary Hillary Clinton’s replacement in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Obama, meanwhile, is minding his own business in the background looking off into the distance somewhere seemingly unaware of what’s happening in front of him.

Looking at that picture, I couldn’t help but think about how President Bush might have reacted in this situation, and how different the two men are.

So, then, how would Bush have reacted? There is ample evidence from which to judge. Perhaps most notable is this one image:

Says the Cincinnati Enquirer:

In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager’s head close to his heart.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president’s hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

“This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11.”

Bush stopped and turned back.

“He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man,” Faulkner said. “He looked right at her and said, ‘How are you doing?’ He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest.”

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

“I could hear her say, ‘I’m OK,’ ” he said. “That’s more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, ‘I can see you have a father who loves you very much.’ ”

“And I said, ‘I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.’ It was a special moment.”

Ron Boat has this picture posted on his Facebook and had this to say as the caption:

From Ron Boat: In contrast to our current insensitive, politically opportunistic pres, people i know who know Bushs 41 & 43 say the family is truly caring and concerned. Even the Friday of Ft. Hood, Pres and Mrs Bush secretly went to the hospital to see the wounded and INSISTED that the press not know or tell anyone. Only the week after did the word leak out they went to show their concern. What a difference a year makes. I needed to add this: From Valerie Geibel-Wells “I am from the area (this was at a rally in Lebanon, OH) and know this family. Her mother was lost in 9.11 and was a wonderful humanitarian. They never found her remains and the girl was devastated – this was honest compassion from the leader of the free world who as he walked by her someone yelled to him “she lost her mother in the Trade Centers… See More” and he stopped and turned around and came back and hugged this girl for what seemed an eternity – something we don’t get now. He is true to America and never put us down.” Thanks Valerie. (Thanks for posting this Ron!)

Looking at these pictures, with the one of Sgt. Crowley I discussed earlier, and comparing them, I can only come to the conclusion that he just doesn’t care.

It’s not a conclusion I want to make about the leader of the free world, but it’s what I see when I look at these pictures.

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

EDIT: I’d like to point out that even Bill Clinton, Obama’s most recent Democratic predecessor didn’t have such a tin ear. He wouldn’t have been so uncaring, and he certainly wouldn’t have let such a moment slip past him. After all, remember he feels your pain.

So, let it sink in…

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks.

A Possible 52 Senate Seats for Republicans in 2010?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:06:47 +0000

As this piece by the American Thinker points out, it’s entirely possible that the Republicans could have 52 votes in the Senate come 2010. That’s a gain of 11 seats, added on to the 41 we now have since Brown won.

Good quote:

Moreover, [Dan] Coats’s decision to run this year [for Evan Bayh's seat] is an example of the great vulnerability that Democrats face if 2010 continues to look like a strong Republican year. A few months ago, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas were both considered pretty safe placeholders for Democrats in the midterm election. The number of possible gains by Republicans was very small. In fact, after November 2008, net gains by Democrats in the Senate in 2010 were considered possible. Today, it is a sure bet that North Dakota Governor John Hoeven will become a conservative Republican senator, replacing the liberal Democrat Dorgan. It is just about as sure that Senator Lincoln in Arkansas, who won reelection easily six years ago, will lose to a conservative Republican.

Republican candidates are running ahead of the Democrats in Colorado, Nevada, Delaware, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. If those poll numbers hold up, a Coats victory over Bayh would give Republicans 49 seats in the Senate. Coats, like Hoeven in North Dakota, represents a very strong candidate against a leftist Democrat in a blue state. Congressman Michael Castle in Delaware is a RINO, but not a leftist. He also represents the best Republican candidate in Delaware, and polls which had shown Castle beating Biden’s son will almost certainly show Castle well ahead in the wake of Biden’s decision not to seek his father’s old Senate seat.

If Republicans can persuade the most electable candidates to run in other states, the problems for Democrats could quickly mushroom into an enormous political headache. Polls show former Governor George Pataki running ahead of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, where the Democratic Party is increasingly dysfunctional. Pundits see former Governor Tommy Thompson as a very strong challenger to Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Patty Murray in Washington seems safe, according to Rasmussen, but if the former Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi runs against her, he beats Murray by two points. That is a recurring theme in the 2010 Senate election cycle: Republicans are very competitive if the top tier of candidates can be recruited. Those three candidates could give Republicans 52 Senate seats.

Very obviously, this is an optimistic assessment, but it isn’t an unreasonable one. It is very much within the realm of possibility. And, the fact that such an assessment can be made reasonably ought to prove just how bad things have gotten for the Democrats after their banner year in 2008. It hasn’t even taken two years for the Democrats to waste the goodwill and political capital given to them by the American people.

Now, I don’t believe at this moment that we’ll gain 11 seats–Perhaps I’m a little too cautious in my predictions. I believe we could see Republicans pick up 6 maybe 7 seats at this point, but as I’ve already said, it really says something about how fast the public’s opinion has soured on Democrats. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are too busy trying to cater to the far Left while not appearing to be so to do anything effectively centrist like they prefer to advertise themselves as. The public has seen this abandonment of centrism or at least the appearance of such and reacted accordingly. Furthermore, those who favor incremental change are shocked at how fast Obama’s agenda is being pushed through, and those who favor radical change are dissatisfied with how slowly he is trying to change things and how little progress his initiatives have had.

Put it to you this way: it took George W. Bush, “the Chimp”, six years to face losses in either house of Congress. It has The way things are going, it will have taken Barack Obama, “The One”, two. I realize this is common for Presidents in their first midterm, but if we are to believe the hype, Obama is anything but “common”.

As the article also notes, these successes could carry over into the House and into state governments:

What about the House of Representatives? Republicans will gain a lot of seats, very probably enough to gain a majority. Even if Republican gains fall short, though, Nancy Pelosi will be playing with a very weak hand. More importantly, if 2010 is a good year for Republicans generally, then the GOP ought to make major gains in governorships (all polls show that now) and Republicans, who held up very well in 2008 in state legislative elections, will probably come out of the 2010 elections with a majority of state legislative chambers and seats. Special legislative elections are strongly indicating that already, as I noted last October, often by stunning margins of victory.

What would it mean if Republicans have a majority of power in state governments? It would mean that the redistricting process following reapportionment would help elect more Republicans to the House. Reapportionment is already going to move House seats from red states to blue states. Add a redistricting process mainly controlled by Republicans, and an automatic increase of a dozen or so House seats to Republicans is easily conceivable. House Democrats in 2012, faced with new districts and probable minority status for several election cycles, might leave Congress in droves.

I cannot imagine that the Senate would gain seats and the House would not. The Senate, in fact, almost always, if not all the time, follows the direction the House goes, so if we gain seats in the Senate, it should be a foregone conclusion that we gain some in the House as well. And, while I am not sure how this usually translates into state level elections, I should think the successes of McDonnell in Virginia, Christie in New Jersey, and even Brown in Massachusetts would indicate that gains will also be made in these elections as well.

To put it simply, things are looking good for Republicans, and I couldn’t be happier. We may not necessarily be looking at another 1994, but things are certainly setting themselves up that way.

This post was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

Scott Brown Backpedaling Already?

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:01:18 +0000

I have been wanting to write a couple of posts congratulating Scott Brown for his victory, but I think I’ll put them on hold for now until my concerns explained here are allayed.

I must admit, as a committed conservative, I have my problems with supporting most New England Republicans (there are some Republicans, mainly in New Hampshire, who are exceptions to this, but not many). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine’s two senators, highlight why I am hesitant to support most New England Republicans. Usually, I end up supporting the Republican in a New England race because a) they less Liberal than their Democratic opponents and b) they are usually the best said state or district can offer.

Scott Brown is another example of my hesitance. I knew before I became a supporter that he was pro-choice and that he had several other conservative heresies. I reconciled myself with these facts because I knew that Massachusetts likely didn’t have anyone better to offer. However, what really made me a fan of his was what he campaigned on. He called for fiscal restraint nda strong stance in the War on Terror (particularly his quote, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.“). However, my personal favorite moment was he said that he would be the 41st vote to block and defeat the current healthcare legislation.

And when election day rolled around and the time can for his victory speech, I listened to his victory speech with great interest. I wanted to see what this man who I had come to like increasingly more with each passing day before the special election. Listening to his victory speech, I was very impressed that a man like this could win in Massachusetts. I told my friends on Twitter:

Scott Brown sounds like the kind of moderate I can support. His actions in DC will tell if he IS one I can support.

And in subsequent tweets (for example, this one), I noted that he sounded like Rudy Giuliani, who is one of the few moderates I have little problem supporting, and that this was a good tone for him to take.

Well, I’m sad to say that it’s only been a couple of days since that speech, and I’m already disappointed in him. Observe his remarks here:

Note especially this quote:

I voted for health care here….we’re past campaign mode and it’s important for everyone to get some form of healthcare. So to offer a basic plan for everyone I think is important….there are some very good things in the national health care plan that is being proposed

I know it is nothing new for a politician to go back on his word, but I was surprised that Brown has done so this quickly. To be fair, he has yet to back up these words with actions, but I can’t help but feel a little betrayed already. When we heard him say he would be the “41st vote”, we assumed it would be to kill this horrible Obamacare bill, not to bring it back to the negotiating table to put some lipstick on the pig.

Furthermore, as the Washington Post notes, he has also said:

But in governance mode, behind a lectern labeled “Scott Brown US Senate,” the Republican already was wrestling with the tensions inherent in the issues awaiting him in Washington. Exhibit A was the health-reform bill that Brown said to his mind was not really the central issue in his campaign.

“I’ve obviously tried to do some self-reflection and analyzing this as to why I’m standing before you today,” he said. “And really, the number one thing I’ve heard is that people are tired of the business as usual.

This is both right and wrong. He is right in that, even in Massachusetts, the people are tired of business as usual (in fact, fighting the “business as usual” atmosphere of DC seems to be a great campaign slogan no matter where it’s used). However, where he is very, very, wrong is in his view of the importance the healthcare reform bill played in the campaign. It is symbolic of the “business as usual” atmosphere in Washington, and it is the greatest example of this atmosphere out there today. It was the disgust with this bill that drove his campaign to victory because it is the very symbol for today of that “business as usual” atmosphere. Whether he likes it–or is willing to admit it–or not, the disapproval of the Obamacare bill is what has made him Massachusetts’ Senator-elect for Ted Kennedy’s seat.

Scott Brown, if you are as astute a politician as you appear to be, and you’d have to be one to run a successful statewide campaign in Massachusetts, you should know this by now. If you don’t, then shame on you. Mr. Brown, you should understand it is the fact that politicians so often abandon the promises they made on the campaign trail that is prime factor in the public’s distrust of Washington in particular and politicians at any level in general. You surely must understand this, and if you don’t, I suggest you learn this before 2012 and the regular election for your seat rolls around.

If he is a Lincoln Chafee in a Rudy Giuliani disguise, then I have a sneaking suspicion that he understood that tapping into the public’s hatred of the healthcare bill was the only way to really secure him a victory. To be fair, he has yet to back up his words, any of them, whether campaign ones or the ones heard yesterday, with any actions on the Senate floor, but I hope he understands that this is not exactly the best way to endear yourself to the Republican base or to follow through with what you said in your campaign speeches.

My verdict now is to wait and watch him, but we have all the more reason to beware of him. That bitter taste in our mouths has just appeared. For now, Ted Kennedy’s spinning just got a little slower.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

Trivia: How Epic was Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Miracle?

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:17:35 +0000

Leaving aside for the moment what this means to the agenda of Obama and the Democrats, I just want to point out just how groundbreaking Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1953, a Kennedy will not be the elected holder of this seat (Benjamin A. Smith II and Paul Kirk have both held this seat during this time, but they were appointed to it). Furthermore, for the first time since 1947, Massachusetts will not have a Kennedy as an elected member of its Congressional delegation (the two gaps where the state was Kennedy-less between 1947 and now, but those instances were those of the aforementioned appointed Senators).

For the first time since 1966, when Edward Brooke (coincidentally the first black senator of the modern era) was elected to what is now John Kerry’s seat, the Republican party has won an open Senate seat in Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1972, when Edward Brooke was reelected, the Republican party has won a Senate election in the state of Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1979, when Brooke lost his reelection bid to Paul Tsongas, Massachusetts will have a Republican Senator.

For the first time since 1997, Massachusetts will have a Republican member of its Congressional Delegation. His election also shatters what was heretofore the largest single-party delegation to the United States Congress.

Scott Brown’s election marks the first time since 2002 that Massachusetts has voted Republican on a statewide level. The last Republican statewide winners? The Romney/Healey ticket.

In a state that Obama won 62% to 36% in 2008, a Republican won a little over a year later 52% to 47%.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

Dear Pat Robertson, You’re Not Helping

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:20:27 +0000

According to the atheists and secularists out there, almost all of who happen to be Liberals, the conservatives of today are religious fanatics following a quasi-medieval theology. In their eyes, we “Christianists” are as much a threat to society as the radical Muslims are (in fact, to some the “Christianists” are an even greater threat).

This is why people like Rev. Pat Robertson do us no service when they say things like this:

Nevermind, of course, that the pact he speaks of is an urban legend that is just that, a legend.

Peter Wehner at the National Review gives as good a rebuttal as could be given, speaking for the rest of us Christians on the right:

There is another important issue involved here, which is a warped and confused theology Robertson has employed before. For example, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that on 9/11 God lifted the “curtain” and allowed the enemies of America to give us “probably what we deserve”; and in 1998 he warned after Orlando city officials voted to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during an annual Gay Day event at Disney World, “I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. . . . [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs, it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.”

Pat Robertson’s argument is as neat and clean as a mathematical equation: God grants blessings and curses on nations and people based on their allegiance and obedience to Him. If things are going well, you’re living right; if things are going badly, you’re living wrong. And it is Robertson himself who can divine the hierarchy of sins that most trouble God.

But this view simply does not correspond with any serious understanding of Christianity. After all, the most important symbol in Christianity is the Cross, which represents suffering, agony, and death. When Jesus spoke to Ananias, who was instrumental in the conversion of the Apostle Paul, Ananias was told, “I will show [Paul] how much he must suffer for my name.” Christ Himself warned His disciples that they would suffer for His sake; most of them were martyred for their faith. The Apostle Peter speaks about the suffering that Christians will endure for doing good. And in the book of Romans we read that we are to rejoice in our suffering because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance produces character; and character produces hope. On and on it goes.

[...]

What the Christian faith teaches us is that even in suffering there can be redemption; that this world, for all of its joys and sorrows, is not our home; and that at the end of our pilgrimage, beyond the sufferings of this world, there are streams of mercy, never ceasing. This may not be the gospel according to Robertson; it is, though, the story of faith according to Jesus.

In addition to the lengthy portion I have quoted here, the rest of his work is well worth a read.

As Wehner points out in another part of his post, Robertson has probably lost most of his importance to much of the conservative movement, but his status as a former leader is something that can and has been milked by many Liberals each and every time he opens his trap to make a similar pronouncement. To them, these utterances are but a few examples of how warped the so-called “religious right” really is. After all, there was a time when he was quite important–a presidential candidate, even!–so this is only playing into their hands showing how crazy we supposedly are.

If your purpose is to advance Christendom, or even conservative principles, Rev. Robertson, proclamations like this are not helping you or the rest of us at all.

When it comes to Robertson, I can’t help but think of what Oliver Cromwell said: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!“. For this conservative and Christian, it applies just as much to Pat Robertson.

Acta est fabula.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

Sen. Nelson (D-NE) was for the Healthcare Bill before he was against it…

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:08:27 +0000

…And he was against it before that.

Some of you may remember I wrote a post a while back on my blog thanking Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska for stalling the Obamacare bill for no other reason than I wished to see the bill fail. Evidently Nelson must have seen my post or something, because soon after had I written the post, it seems, he goes and falls into line with the 59 other Senate Democrats with a sweetheart deal that even Nebraska’s governor didn’t want. Now, he’s pulling a John Kerry and flip-flopping on it:

Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.

[...]

“I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” he said.

[...]

“I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move,” he said.

He seems to be channelling Joe Lieberman while he’s at it with his claim to be concerned about the economy, but you can’t have it both ways, Ben. You are the reason it passed. You should have thought of this BEFORE you sold your soul to Harry Reid and voted for this atrocity.

And also, I don’t think this does much for your new found fiscally conservative position on the bill:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) urged colleagues to either expand a deal he struck for Nebraska to all 50 states, or allow states to opt out of increased payments to Medicaid mandated under health reform legislation.

[...]

“I’ve been in serious discussions with Senate leaders and others to secure changes in the bill to treat all states equally,” Nelson said in a statement. “At the end of the day, whatever Nebraska gets will apply to all states.”

“My intent has been and remains absolutely clear,” he added. “Every state should be, and will be, treated the same.”

Now, it is fair that every state should be treated the same, but the sweetheart deal you got would drain the federal government’s money anyways. Why have it in the first place if you are suddenly so concerned with the state of our nations finances?

Senator Nelson, it appears that you are doing nothing but backtracking on an unpopular deal here. Like many politicians, you are trying to have it both ways. I can only hope the people of Nebraska realize just how badly you have sold them out.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

David Brooks bemoans his Irrelevance

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:09:29 +0000

The New York Times is best enjoyed with a fine wine I hear, because one has to be drunk to get any enjoyment from reading the old fishwrapper. The Times must have caught on to this, as it has apparently decided to supply us with some. Unfortunately, someone at the esteemed Old Grey Lady mixed up the homonyms along the way and gave us a whine instead. Today’s whine comes courtesy of supposed conservative David Brooks, you know, the guy NewsHour with Jim Lehrer calls when it needs a “conservative” to slap around. And while wine is suitable for those over the age of 21, Brooks’ drivel is suitable for no one.

Apparently, he has decided to give some sort of praise to the Tea Party movement, yet he apparently cannot do so without whining about how his own class, that of the intellectuals, has lost influence. Observe:

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

Brooksie-baby if this is your form of praise for us Tea Partiers, I think we can live without it.

First, the reason the public has rejected these ideas the educated classes have proposed is because they don’t work. They may seem like nice ideas in the utopias that exist in the minds of those ivory towered navel pickers, but they don’t translate well into the real world, you know, the place where the rest of us live?

Second, if the public has spurned the intellectual class, it is because the intellectual class has spurned us. You see, to them, we are the great unwashed. They are the brahmins, and we are the shudras, the “untouchables”, if you will. They dare not associate with us lest for fear of becoming that which they apparently dread most: a commoner. They reject common sense solutions because there just has to be a better, more intellectual way, and as I said before, while their ideas may sound nice to them, chances are, what fits their ever-so prized philosophy just isn’t going to work out here in the real world.

Finally, I can’t help but think that, as I suggested in the title, Brooks is bemoaning his own irrelevance. He should remember, though, that if he is losing influence among conservatives (if he had any to begin with) it is because he has rejected them, not the other way around. How many times has he gone against what conservatives want? How many times has he said that conservatives should abandon their limited government principles? Remember, too, that he supported Barack Obama and is still apparently under his thrall. These two facts alone ought to be enough to qualify him as a persona non grata to conservatives if he wasn’t already, and to most of them it was but two more reasons in a very large stack not to listen to him.

In short, if David Brooks is irrelevant, it is because he has made himself so. He, and, for that matter, most of the rest of the intellectual class, has dug the hole he finds himself in.

This blog was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!

On Parker Griffith’s Party Switch

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:35:18 +0000

Since my day effectively begins around noon when I wake up (I love being off from school for Christmas), I woke up yesterday to the news that Rep. Parker Griffith, who represents Alabama’s 5th district (around Huntsville), decided to switch parties. This in and of itself is not unusual. After all, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) did the same thing earlier this year, several current and recent members of the House and Senate have done the same. What struck me as both odd and telling about his decision was that he was a Democrat switching to the minority party. What made this especially odd was the fact that his switch was inconsequential to the current balance of power in the House, which now stands at 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. I’ll explain after the fold.

First, there is the optimisitic way. Parker Griffith, was after all, a conservative Democrat. He’s voted against Cap and Trade and the economic stimulus, and he’s voted with the Republicans on numerous other issues. He’s also called Pelosi “divisive” back in August, and he’s said that he’ll never vote for her as Speaker again. The Politico reports he said at a press conference today:

[H]e can no longer align himself “with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy and drives us further and further into debt.”

“Unfortunately there are those in the Democratic Leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive new spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for our healthcare system,” Griffith said in a statement. “I have always considered myself to be an independent voice and I have tried to be that voice in Congress – but after watching this agenda firsthand I now believe that the differences in the two parties could not be more clear and that for me to be true to my core beliefs and values I must align myself with the Republican party and speak out clearly on these issues.”

There’s little reason for him to switch parties, politically speaking, so there’s a good chance that he may have genuinely believed the Republicans best represented his views. Jumping to the Republicans makes him a freshman representative from the minority party in Congress. This diminishes any influence he may have had, and it will surely mean he is among the most insignificant members of the body. He also will lose his committee assignments in the process, which further damages his influence.

He very well could have had the same sort of experiences in Congress with his party that brought Zell Miller over to the Republican Caucus while he was a Senator from Georgia (though Miller remained a Democrat by name). He describes his experiences in his book A National Party No More:

What I saw gradually drew back the curtain on Washington’s political stage and over time my awe [with being there] turned to shock, the Capitol’s own version of shock and awe. I began to refer to the Tuesday meetings as the “TUMS-days” lunches as the ideology moved further and further to the left and the oratory was turned up to a decibel level that got so shrill for my old ears that I needed Tylenol to go along with my antacid….I began to think that the caucus, or at least the speakers who held forth at the lunches, sees the entire nation through the partisan prism of liberal states like California, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts and believes that what is good Democratic politics there just has to be good Democratic politics from sea to shining sea. (pg. 64)

The story of Miller’s progressive disaffection with his party could be told through the titles of the chapters of his book alone: “Born a Democrat–Married a Democrat,” “Elected a Democrat,” “Governed as a Democrat,” and finally, “But NOT This Kind of Democrat.” It could be very likely that the conservative Democrat Griffith could be having the same experiences as Zell Miller did, judging by his remarks at his press conference.

The other way of looking at this is a more negative way. After all, the conservative nature of his district (it went for McCain in 2008 and Bush in 2004) would mean he would have an uphill battle for reelection as a Democrat in next year’s election, especially if the current political trends continue. He may see the party switch as bettering his reelection chances. Furthermore, though Griffith bucked his party on numerous issues, he still voted with Pelosi 80% of the time, mostly on procedural motions and the like. Finally, though I don’t endorse this notion just yet, an especially Machiavellian perspective could lead one to believe he is a plant by Pelosi to ruin the GOP’s plans, spy on them, and cause dischord within the House Republican Caucus. Though this may be a little extreme on the surface, I would not necessarily put it beyond Pelosi to try such a thing.

The best way, I believe, for conservatives and Republicans to approach this is to watch him for a little while to see if his actions as a newly-minted GOP member match his words from the press conference today. We must make sure he will be a good Republican before we truly accept him as one of our own. I’m not against welcoming him to the party. In fact, I’m all for it. I just want to make sure his reasons for switching are sincere and his convictions are genuine. To do otherwise would be naive and stupid.

Make no mistake, this is a huge blow to Barack Obama and the Democrats upon the Hill (provided this isn’t some Machiavellian gamble by Pelosi). His switch helps prove just how far to the Left the party has gone and how out of touch his old party is with the average American. Representative Griffith, if you can back your words up with actions and your reasons are sincere, then I welcome you to the Republican party. It’s great to gain an ally.

This post was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Drop by if you like it!

Some Thoughts on Copenhagen and Climate Change

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:54:56 +0000

I’ve been reading up on the Copenhagen Conference lately and been listening to what the radio hosts have to say about it lately, and I came up with a few disturbing thoughts on these subjects that I’d like to share with you.

First of all, I’m sure we all know that many 2nd world and 3rd world countries have already walked away from the table, with China and India being among the most prominent ones to walk away. If any thing this should tell us one thing: any climate change agreement like Copenhagen will destroy economic prosperity. These countries are like marginal sellers or consumers in economics. They are the first ones to go when economic restrictions like those talked of at Copenhagen are on the table. While many of these countries may be unreliable allies to the US, they are generally reliable predictors of these sorts of things, especially a country as Machiavellian as China. Unlike the US with its do-gooders and would-be do-gooders at the helm, these countries will act in their own self interest. If an agreement will destroy their economy, they are gone (though, to be fair, the people at Copenhagen have coaxed some of the poor countries back).

The second thought I want to share with you covers much of the same subject matter as the first one. Since most of the countries negotiating this Copenhagen agreement are the developed countries, is it just me, or does this seem like like it is merely the elites trying to dictate what the world can and cannot have? It’s typical Leftism. We are to be subject to what a certain elite wants us to do, and if we don’t like it, tough.

I also want to point out that, regardless of whether climate change is real or not, the people meeting in Copenhagen are approaching the problem, if there even is one, from the wrong angle. The solution they will pound out there will inevitably involve more government controls over the economy and emissions. If these negotiators possessed even a modicum of introspection or honesty about oneself, they would realize that governments never manage these things properly, and the European countries, the vast majority of whom find themselves crippled by welfare states with those that aren’t have just emerged from the Iron Curtain, should especially be wary of this. The proper approach, if they truly wanted to reduce emissions, they would understand that the easiest approach would be through the freemarket. The fact that the U.S. is already almost halfway to the goals of the Kyoto Protocol despite being neither a signatory to it nor using government regulation should make this fact self-evident. Then again, since when have these abilities, or an ability to learn from history, been Liberal fortes?

The final thing I want point out concerns the Climategate scandal and how it affects the Copenhagen talks. If these people were honest with themselves, the info in the e-mails should be enough to grind these talks to a halt and render them irrelevant. Instead, unsurprisingly, they continue. Tony Blair, who while right in the War on Terror is as mistaken here as most other Liberals, even said:

“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity…Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”

(The link inserted was my doing).

According to the Right Honorable Mr. Blair, we are, essentially, to press forward with these talks, despite the science behind global warming and climate change being uncertain. These words should be damning to the entire AGW movement. Tony Blair, whether inadvertently or not, has just pointed out that the climate change is not about the science. It is about emotion. It is about doing it because it “feels right”. It is about doing because anthropogenic global warming may be happening. The “it”‘s I mention are, of course, measures that would do untold damage to economies all across the world if implemented. These comments, and the numerous others like it, reveal the truth about the AGW movement: it is a religion, it is not scientific.

I think about these things and it seems painfully obvious to me just how big of a sham climate change and global warming are. They are merely more excuses for the government to control our lives. They tell us it is irresponsible to ignore the catastrophic effects of global warming, yet they go about pursuing so-called solutions to the problem in the most irresponsible manners. Science and common sense are disregarded. The only thing that matters to them is what meshes with their ideology. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Acta est fabula.

NOTE: This entry is cross posted from my new blog Jake Speaks.

Dear Erick: Thanks for the Morning Briefing

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:45:31 +0000

This diary arose out of a conversation I had with Erick on Twitter. Erick tweeted about the RedState Morning Briefing, and I decided to thank him for doing it. While that wasn’t the end of the discussion, I’d like to carry my remarks a bit further on a medium more suited to long discussions.

Unlike most people my age, I’m a bit of a new and political junkie. Since I have to deal with attending your typically Liberal college campus (yes, they’re Liberal even here in the South), I like to make sure that I am well equipped to combat the latest Liberal lies and talking points. Now, I rarely ever have time to peruse my favorite conservative news sites and blogs (of which RedState is my favorite) be tween when I wake up and when I go to class in the mornings, so I have to look for the major events and headlines. Thankfully, RedState’s Morning Briefing provides just such a news feed to fit what I need.

I’ve been getting the Morning Briefing since not long after it was started, and I love reading it on RedState every morning. It succinctly sums up all I need to know about what’s going in politics, and it provides this information in one convenient place. Now that you’ve moved it to a special daily e-mail newsletter at Redstatemb.com, I’ve signed up for that, too. Even beyond it’s initial use as an update for the previous days news and stories, I have found it serves as a nice “Index” of sorts for the days stories that I can refer back to when needed. By clinking on the links in the briefing, I can go to original post here on RedState.

Erick, I realize it takes a lot of work just to run this site, and I realize that you could just as easily be doing other things with your life than providing us with the Morning Briefing. However, you still put the time in to bring it to us every morning during the week, and I just wanted to thank you for doing that. It is a fine service that helps me confront and defeat what the Liberal lies and indoctrination from the teachers and students here at my university.

So, if you can’t tell by now, go ahead and subscribe to the RedState Morning Briefing if you haven’t. Don’t let all of Erick and the other contributors’ hard work go to waste! I promise you won’t regret it.

I gave the link earlier in this post, but here it is again for those of you interested: http://www.redstatemb.com/.

Sickening: The Empire State Building to be Lit up Red and Yellow to Celebrate Communist China’s Founding

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:27:10 +0000

If any of you happen to be in New York CIty today, for whatever reason, take a stroll over to the Empire State Building. If you don’t have a chance to be in the city, pay attention to the news if you can. You may notice something…different about its lighting scheme. It’s not always red and yellow, is it?

No, it isn’t.

The reason it happens to be red and yellow is that, for some reason, officials in New York City have decided to celebrate the founding of Communist China.

I was shocked when I read about this, but sadly, I am not making this up:

New York’s iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.

The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.

This should make no sense to Americans. Why on Earth are we celebrating the founding of Communist China. The ideas at the core of Communist China’s founding are diametrically opposed to the ideas at the core of America’s founding. Remember, of course, that these are the same people who continue their oppressive rule over Tibet; who cracked down on the Tiananmen Square protests all those years ago; continue to oppress various religions (including Chinese Christians); censor the press, speech, the internet, etc.; refuse to recognize the democratic Taiwan; and so on.

Why on Earth are we celebrating this?

It would be interesting to see how many times the building has been bathed in the colors of countries whose ideas and philosophy happen to be more in line with ours. Israel, for example.

I must echo the people over at the Minority Report and request that you conact the representatives of the Empire State Building. You can do so by calling (212) 736-3100, or by using the contact form on the building’s website here.

Sen. Baucus: Never mind the Republicans! Here’s our Healthcare Bill!

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:43:11 +0000

Some of you may remember a few days back how Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) had said that he was willing to introduce a bipartisan healthcare bill to Senate, but if he couldn’t assemble such a coalition he was willing to go it alone with just the Democrats.

Well, guess what? He did:

Sen. Max Baucus’ decision to release his long-awaited health care overhaul bill with no Republicans on board dims the chances for a bipartisan compromise on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

The Senate Finance Committee chairman insisted Tuesday that he’ll keep negotiating with the three Republicans and two fellow Democrats who’ve been in closed-door talks with him for months on the bill he was to reveal Wednesday. Baucus, D-Mont., said he hopes that by the time the committee votes on the bill, as early as next week, Republicans will be there.

But for now, despite numerous gestures to Republicans, Baucus has fallen short in his quest to assemble a coalition of senators from both parties behind his proposal. Obama also hoped for bipartisan support behind plans for reshaping the nation’s $2.5 trillion health care system to hold down costs and cover the uninsured.

In true Democratic fashion, Senator Baucus has essentially given his Republican colleagues the middle finger and decided to go ahead without their input. It is now official, this IS the Democrats’ healthcare plan. This is their debacle. Without any Republican support, they are the ones responsible for it.

But, going back to the excerpt I quoted, let me just point out how big of a pile of crap Sen. Baucus’ assertion that Republicans have not offered their point of view is. There have been, contrary to Sen. Baucus and the Obama administration’s assertions, numerous attempts from the Republicans to get their ideas into the legislation. In fact, between both the House and the Senate, Republicans have offered up 800 amendments and other pieces of legislation to get their point of view incorporated into the healthcare reform debate. The problem? All of them, yes, all 800 of them, have been shot down:

“The thing that’s killing me is that those very members on the Republican side have over the course of the last five months offered some 800 amendments and individual pieces of legislation to the — to the president and to (House Speaker) Nancy (Pelosi) and Harry Reid, to say, ‘Hey, this is our contribution.’ Every last piece has been rejected,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

On Wednesday night, Obama told a nationally televised audience watching his speech to a joint session of Congress that he will listen to a “serious set of proposals” on health care.

Well, Mr. Obama, and you, too, Sen. Baucus, there are several serious proposals that have been offered up, the only trouble is you haven’t listened to them, despite your assertions. In fact, you have done everything you can to shut opposing plans and points of view out of the debate, despite your paeans to bipartisanship.

What we Republicans and conservatives can hope for now is that a) no Republicans defect to the other side when the final Democrats-only bill is offered up for a vote and b) the Democrats continue to destroy themselves through their infighting, which has been well demonstrated here, over this bill.

We must make sure that they own this bill now.

Another Liberal Smear in the Making: Joe Wilson took Caffeine Pills

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:45:57 +0000

The Liberal media has sunk to ridiculous levels this time in an attempt to smear Rep. Joe Wilson, of “YOU LIE!” fame. The shocking bombshell? He took some caffeine pills a few years ago. Yes, apparently this worthy controversy these days. As The Hill reports:

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who shouted “you lie!” at President Obama during his Wednesday night address to Congress, admitted to regularly consuming caffeine pills in 2007.

It is unclear if Wilson still takes NoDoz, a brand of pill that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine a pop. By comparison, a seven ounce cup of drip coffee contains 115 to 175 milligrams of caffeine.

For those of you unable to handle the Liberal BS, might I refer you to the Jawa Report‘s or Newsbusters‘ accounts instead?

Really? Is this how far we’ve sunk? I can only say “Big deal!” in response to this. I’m a college student. Does the MSM understand how much caffeine I ingest on a daily basis? I drink so much Coke (the legal kind, mind you) and related products as to make the amount of caffeine in NoDoz pale in comparison.

As Newsbusters pointed out, I was almost certain that this article was from the Onion as opposed to a relatively respected source like the Hill. Is the Liberal Media so desperate to create a scandal around this new conservative hero that this is what passes for controversy? Desperate indeed. Normally, it’s things like a marital affair or some sort of ethical problem that gets the scandal label. Evidently Rep. Wilson doesn’t have any of this, so this will have to do. At least the substance Joe Wilson was taking is legal, unlike the substances various and sundry Democrats have been caught taking (including our own President).

If you support Joe Wilson, let him know.