In essence, he said that Paul and Cain both spoke directly and clearly on where they stood and how they believed, whereas Perry spoke in generalities, thus allowing voters to fill in the blanks the way they wanted and then believe that Perry was just like them.

Whether his comments on Perry, Paul and Cain were accurate, I don’t know or care.  However, his other observation struck a chord and we (as Conservatives) need to pay attention.

In 2000 we helped elect GWB and 2004 gave him a second term.  We thought he was one of us: a Fiscal, Social and National security adherent.

We got 1.5 out of 3.  He was a strong military leader, a strong Christian believer who was pro-life and pro-marriage.

He was also a big-government spending Republican who believed that tax payer money needed to be spent and government programs needed to be created/expanded in the name of doing good vs. restraining and shrinking the role of government in our lives.

Coupled with a compliant GOP-led Congress, who was happy to spend the money as long as they could fund their pet projects, He and they (with the tacit permission of ‘We’ the voters) lost the opportunity to reverse the direction of this nation and helped lead us to where we are today.

It took us 6 years to really wake to what he was and was not and by then it was too late to really make a difference in spite of the warnings of those who knew him best.

Enter Obama.  He spoke in soaring, exciting rhetoric and drew masses to his campaign and won against a weaker candidate.  However, he really won by being everyone’s dream candidate.  None who I spoke to could define exactly what he would do, but they all felt he would do what was important to them personally.  They all ignored his past and his record of doing very little that could be described as making decisions.

The good news?  It has only taken 2.5 years for voters and even the Left to realize he’s not who they thought he was.  Thankfully, Obama has accomplished very little – instead focusing on doing whatever it takes to keep him in office and avoiding real decisions.

In both cases, Bush and Obama, the voters transferred onto the candidate the traits they wanted to see, making him the person they thought would actually do what they wanted done, vs. knowing who he actually was and what his record indicated he would do.

Why bring this up?

 
We are in the selection process of choosing the next GOP candidate.  Whoever we elect has a strong chance of winning (as measured in current sentiment and polling) so it is imperative we select the candidate best suited to leading this country back to its roots.

We need to guard against making the various candidates into our own image.

Perry, Romney, Bachmann and the rest – we need to examine what they have done, how they have done it and compare that to what they have said in the past and what they say in the present.

We cannot afford to elect another President and believe them to be doing Conservative work and let them go on auto-pilot as we did with Bush.  Nor can we afford to elect a President who will spend his/her time fighting the base that elected them (as we would have with McCain).  Nor can we afford to elect a President who will not work and instead triangulates to preserve his/her legacy and avoids responsibility.

I don’t know who the right candidate is.  All I know is we cannot afford the wrong one.  We are hanging on the edge and it may be too late for us as a nation.  Regardless, we cannot start this next race with the wrong horse.

That’s my take on his attack on Michelle Bachmann:

I actually agree with much of his criticism in terms of her experience and I value his executive experience.  However, instead of attacking #2 Bachmann, he should be aggressively attacking #1 Romney and our current disaster-in-training: Obama.

This nation needs a rock-solid, no-apologies, take-no-prisoners, Conservative leader as POTUS.

If Pawlenty is a genuine Conservative, he is ideologically much closer to  Bachman than Romney.  He should be working to push the debate against Romney’s moderate streak, RomneyCare and Obama.

Priority #1 should be working to undermine Romney’s title of presumptive frontrunner – the longer Romney can hold that title, the more likely he is to win the nomination.

Then, after de-throning Romney, he and Bachman (or whoever is left standing) can then battle it out for #1 with the end product a nominee who is still more Conservative than Romney.

Instead, Pawlenty is working to undermine a fellow Conservative, which absolutely diminishes him in my eyes as a candidate and makes me think he’s now positioning for the role of VP.

I suppose one could say he is ‘strategerizing’ his way into the #2 ranking so as to better take out Romney, but I don’t see it that way.  I see it as a desperation measure to still be seen as relevant.

Unfortunately for Pawlenty, he now comes across as a wimp who didn’t have the face-to-face courage to follow through on his initial attack on Romney but has now (finally) mustered just enough courage to pick on a girl.

Score: Pawlenty 0, “The Girl” 1.

Adios Tim – you just lost my Primary vote.

“Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., called out for his fellow lawmakers and all Americans to do “the Lord’s work” as a solution to fixing the debt ceiling.”

<snip>

“These are not political questions,” Rangel asserted. “These are moral questions.”

<snip>

Rangel continues to ask, “what would Jesus do?”

***

Really?

Like most Liberals who claim the a la carte religious mantel, he focuses on the social charity aspects of the Christian heart, while ignoring the injunction ‘go and sin no more’.

He would have the nation fall on its collective pocketbook in the name of the poor and the sick – a guilt trip.

Its the equivelent of the guy on the corner with his cardboard sign reading “Homeless, hungry need work and food”.

He wants your guilt to address his plight – a plight that has solutions available  should he wish to address the root causes that brought him to the corner.

Sure you sit there knowing he might truly be in need, but you can never tell.

You know in your heart any money given will go to drugs, booze or in the worst case, gas in his car that takes the fraudster back to his comfortable abode on the other side of town.

Regardless, you also know that any money given will only enable the continued behavior vs. solving the problem.

Yes, Jesus directed us to take care of the poor and sick.

The left eagerly seize these encouragements as permission to steal the wealth of others “for the poor”.

However, Jesus also came to make it clear that the sin-debt was real, that the debt had to be paid for and that forgiveness was contingent on both a penitent heart (proven by a genuine change of behavior).

The issue of moral debt was so serious, Jesus was willing – Jesus had to, in fact – make the ultimate sacrifice to pay that debt.

How appropriate that the topic is debt and Rangel brings up Jesus.  I suspect the irony is lost on the man.

Charlie Rangel is the hypocritical Pharisee whom Jesus condemned.

What would Jesus do Mr. Rangel?  Well, were he a politician, he would sacrifice his (political) life to ensure the debt was paid.

Thanks for asking, you viper.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57537.html

As Politico says “his open attack on Obama from the man who was once the next president of the United States makes it safe for others to follow.”  [italics added- they just can't let go can they?]

This can only hurt Obama’s chances….so why would a good lefty do this (beyond the fact they don’t have an 11th commandment)?

Is there even a slight chance he will primary Obama?

Al…please run against Obama.  The potential entertainment factor of Gore vs. Obama in the primaries is impossible to calculate.

Imagine the lawyers!

Imagine the recounts!

Imagine the betting pools on who can save (or create) the most contested chads or who can raise the most dead voters!

America needs the morale boost that only something like this could bring.

C’mon Al..you can do it! You deserve a second term.

I don’t care about your polling.  I don’t care if you want to be re-elected.  I don’t care if you are defeated and have to rejoin the civilian world.

All I care about is that you fight the fight.  Work your a** off to decrease the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government. Help restore our freedom. That is why we put you in office.

Stand up and say what needs to be said.  Tell the truth to America.  Tell us we need to grow up. Tell us we need to rely less on government assistance.  The more we hear it the deeper it will sink in.   Call out the socialists and panderers and shame them in public for conspiring to steal our wealth and freedom.

Use all the tools in your parliamentary toolbag and the power of your office to kill bad legislation.  If necessary, buck your legislative GOP peers/leaders who will compromise with the enemy to flush this great nation down the drain.

Call them out in public, even if it earns you their enmity and criticism.  They are wrong for being weak and corrupted by self interest.

Although I don’t care if you lose your office, I will fight for you with money and time if you stand up and fight for us.

I don’t care if you are re-elected, because your willingness to stand with courage is the only thing that matters.  Courage begets courage from others.  Move the flag forward and, if you fall, another will step forward, pick it up from your hands and carry another few steps until we win.

Your principled stand will inspire not only your peers, but generations of conservative politicians who will follow behind you and fight on principle to do what is right rather than what is expedient.

We elected you to fight the fight and lead and make a difference.  Not tomorrow, not next election.  Now. Today.

Go out and lead.

We did not speak and boarded the aircraft, yet I recall there being something distinctive about the man.  Not quite a sense of someone I knew, but something different.  He was carrying a simple plastic shopping bag, such as you might get at a book store and was dressed neatly, but simply, in slacks and Navy blazer.  Just another businessman traveling on a Sunday.

I remember thinking he had probably played football earlier in life and then thought nothing else of him, except when I passed him as he wedged his frame into a coach seat in row 8 or 10.  I had an exit row seat, which is still too small for me and I remember thinking ‘that guy is going to be uncomfortable as tall as he is – good thing it’s a short flight’.

After docking in Houston (when everyone rushes to stand up – so they can wait another 10 minutes before debarking) the lady in front of him turned around and started tossing a dozen different questions at this man.  I didn’t catch her questions, only the opening of her first question : “Senator Shelby…” and it hit me why he stood out – I had seen his face before, just not in person.

What struck me was here was one of the most politically powerful persons in this country – flying coach (and not even in an exit row).

Several minutes later I was on the transfer platform to catch the rail to another terminal and Senator Shelby walked up and stood next to me.  I told him I had overheard a bit of their conversation and understood he was one of our Senators.  He said he was and introduced himself, shook my hand and asked my name.

We chatted a bit and l learned he was on his way to Louisiana because of the oil spill.  I remarked that I was intending to write his office after seeing him on the flight.  I was impressed to find him traveling more or less incognito – just a regular person flying coach.   His response was something along the lines of ‘Well, I represent and serve the people’.  The implication was simply that he’s one of us and flying coach is what you do when you serve the people.

I wished him well and I did write that letter.  It is good to know we have a few leaders who ‘get it’ when it comes to the role they fill.  Quite a perceptual contrast to so many others – on both sides- in the Congressional Leadership.

Senator Shelby – Thank you.  By your example, you help restore some of my confidence in those who represent us in Washington.

“I am puzzled by intelligent people who stand by and allow their country to be taken over and run by extreme radical types,” Payne said. “I’m still somewhat puzzled by that. And I am fully aware that it could happen and has almost happened in this country. You know, I lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s, when it was getting dangerously close to that sort of thing.”

Yes, this quote is only tangentially tied to my headline , the thrust of the article is another interesting topic altogether

Yes, he was talking about the German people allowing the Nazi’s into power and the holocaust and tying this into the McCarthy era and so on.

Yes, he’s a Democrat and not referring (or even considering) the current administration.

The Irony?

He’s Obama’s Great Uncle:

Obama’s Uncle: He’s Using Buchenwald for Political Purpose

I like to think of this as a geriatric twist on the old adage: “From the mouth of babes…”

This year we have the privilege of shaping our government through the exercise of our right to vote.

We respect the separation of church and state. Both have their rightful autonomy as they pursue their distinct functions. The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls and the Kingdom of God. The mission of the state is to pursue the common good by establishing just laws.

There is a separation of church and state.(ed:see my note below) BUT THERE CAN BE NO SEPARATION OF LAW AND MORALITY; there can be no separation of law and truth, or of law and justice. All human beings are required ethically to pursue Good and to avoid Evil.

The Catholic Church does not seek to impose her religion on anyone. We do not wish to pass civil laws that require praying the Rosary or eating fish on Fridays.

But Catholics have just as many rights as anyone else, and no fewer rights than anyone else, to be guided by our values. If something is true on Sunday, it does not cease to be true on Monday.

We propose those values though reason, logic and philosophy, so that people of any faith or of no faith can discover the wisdom and truth of those values. They do not have to accept our doctrine to accept the validity of our reasoning.

Secular Humanists have been clever to propose to our culture a “Heads I win – Tails you lose” argument. They claim that the separation of church and state means a separation of God and State, or of God and citizenship. That is a false argument!

men and Women of faith built this country. Now atheists seek to take it away or least silence people of faith.

Do not leave your faith outside the voting booth. Truth is truth. People of faith have much to contribute to our nation, as they always have. From its founding, its civil way over slavery and the pursuit of Civil Rights, people of faith have led the way.

Attached is a brief booklet prepared by the bishops of the USA. Please consider it carefully before voting. More information can be found at their website: www.faithfulcitizenship.org

For the record, our Pastor does not tell us how to vote. He does, however, make very clear that we are responsible for our votes and for making choices in accordance with Christian moral values.

For those who are fallen away Catholics, or of other denominations which still bear animosity towards Catholics, let me say that the Church is in transition. As the population of Liberal priests of the last 40 years shuffle on into retirement and final respose, more and more Bishops/Pastors are taking a hard stance on good/evil and encouraging parishioners to become active in conservative social causes.

For example, we have the (several) recent public corrections of leading Catholic Politicians by their Bishops and then just this Friday, ArchBishop Chaput of Denver (speaking as a private citizen) called Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years and also “To suggest – as some Catholics do – that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘real’ pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse,”

Its a long time coming, but the Catholic Church is beginning to wake back up.

Churches are becoming places where members are still uplifted, sure, but also challenged and, when appropriate, rebuked for both their overt behaviors and also their lack of action. Parishioners are being encouraged to directly seek guidance in scripture during the week and not just on Sunday as well as in prayer.

Note (from above): I disagree with this statement and recently wrote on actions to end this artificial division here: Ending the Separation of Church and State

Without going through all the “it aint over ’til it’s over” pap, let me just say: Keep your chin up and read this: The Left’s Big Blunder all the way through to the end. It is long and detailed but very educational. Read it twice to really grasp what Zombietime is saying. No, it doesn’t mean McCain will win or that we will keep or increase our seats in Congress.

However, what it does mean is that we need to take polling results with extra salt and then buckle up and get back to work. This election is not over by a long shot. If we want to moan and weep, let’s hold that for the day after the election. Okay?

For the record, I’m with GameCock. I think McCain will win and further think the Congress will be about the same as it is today. I reserve the right to believe this and not quit until shown otherwise.

For those who can’t take the time to read it all, here’s a summary and key quotes:

1. The Media tells us that “facts and events in and of themselves are no longer important; what’s important is how everyone reacts to them” and “the media’s representation of most people’s purported thoughts is supposed to influence everyone else’s thoughts.”

2. The media is assumed by all (and relied upon by the left) to be advocates for Obama/Dem candidates and to spin reality in their favor; hence their rush to comment/twist/spin everything that happens, even in the face of substantial, objective evidence to the contrary.

3. The left believes that continued reporting of one-sided data, skewed polls (even post-debate online insta polls, overwhelmed by multiple voting-stuffing lefties), will shape public perception and demoralize potential opposition voters and keep them home on election day.

4. The left believes, based on psychological studies done in the past, that people’s desire to conform will lead them to go with the crowd in order to avoid conflict/embarrassment, even if doing so conflicts with their inner moral compass.

5. The author contends that the Polling process itself, even when objectively administered and controlled, may well be skewed leftward by 5% or more due to unconscious psychological forces that neither the Poll questioner nor responder can control.

6. The author contends that enough poll respondents conform to the questioner’s expectations and desires to skew final results. They conform for a variety of reasons, but avoiding criticism and conflict is a key element. However, when allowed to vote in the voting booth, with no witness to the contrary, they become non-conformist and vote their conscience.

7. The more non-conformists surrounding an individual, the more likely he/she was to vote their conscience rather than go with the crowd. If even one person in a group goes against the group-think, others are overwhelmingly more likely to also dissent and go their own way.

There’s much, much, more and I’ve not done it justice by any means. Go read it and then get active.

However, the last point (#7) above is perhaps the most important of all. It means that everyone who reads this and believes Obama and the left are a bad choice for the country: you need to speak up and let your fellow citizens know they are not alone.

The following needs to happen in the swing states and key precincts of other states.

• Write up your opinions in a personal missive and distribute them door to door

• Start/Keep writing letters to the editors of local papers.

• Express your opinions in public gatherings in simple, non-confrontational ways

• Get a bunch of yard signs and put them out. Even if they get stolen/vandalized whatever, keep putting out new ones and keep the faith for the benefit of your undecided or fearful neighbors.

• Do whatever you can to let normal people know they are not alone out there.

• Keep giving $, but the other steps above are even more important in my book.

Best wishes,

Tom

Ban on Political Endorsements Targeted

This is significant in that the Alliance Defense Fund(ADF – think of them as the ‘Anti-ACLU’) believes that current law is unconstitutional and in that they are willing to provoke a Court Battle over it.

Firstly, ADF does not take on a case unless they feel they are absolutely in the right. If they feel the current law is unconstitutional, then it almost certainly is.

Second, they would not take on the case unless they felt they could win, or use the case to successfully establish precedent leading to a future win.

Many of you here are surely experts on the Church/State separation issue, so I will not even try to fully document it except for this brief (admittedly amateur) summary:

Prior to 1954 churches were tax exempt, independent from government control and fully free to express political opinion in the course of sermons and ministry. Most importantly, perhaps, they able to instruct and direct their congregations in the morality of their respective voting decisions.

Liberal politicians saw this unrestricted power as an impediment to their expansionist socialist agenda and worked to restrict this power. The leader in this effort was Senator Lyndon Johnson.

In 1954, LBJ was facing tremendous opposition from two non-profit anti-communist groups that were fighting against his Liberal socialist agenda. Johnson retaliated by having restrictions on non-profits (including churches) included in IRS code. The changes prohibited non-profits from engaging in political activities (such as endorsements), lest they lose their non-profit status and be subject to taxation and penalties.

This change has had staggering ramifications and almost completely removed the Church from the political arena. You could make a reasonable case that the progression of every social ill proceeds from this change in the law. The chilling effect on the church has been enormous.

For example: The recent admonishment of Nancy Pelosi by Bishops and Cardinals is remarkable primarily for how infrequent something like this actually occurs today. I guarantee all the rebukes were legally screened to ensure they could not be construed as political.

Today, the bolder churches dance around political issues and might venture to say: “Under our Christian beliefs, having an abortion is a sin and enabling an abortion is a sin. You have a responsibility to take this into account when you make your voting decisions. Please research the issue and choose prayerfully who you will support”.

However, in the early 50s, a pastor was free to say “Mrs. Pelosi votes for abortion. This position is inconsistent with Christian theology and places her on the wrong side of God’s law and into grave sin. If you vote for her, you are also committing grave sin and placing yourself against God and His law. You should not vote for Mrs. Pelosi.”

I’ve been a supporter of ADF for a very long time. You can do the research if you choose, but they have been diligently training a cadre of Conservative/Christian Attorneys to fight religious free speech restrictions, freedom to worship, parental rights cases.

They have been remarkably effective in doing this and provide a significant (and growing) check to the ACLU and other anti-Christian forces. They do tremendous good for our Conservative causes. Visit their site and look at the long record of successes both at the Supreme Court and in multiple lower courts.

Once the election is over – please make a decision to financially support their work. (OK, end of shameless plug.) Our beliefs (both conservative and Christian) are based on good law. The ACLU and other forces have been successful in the past based on bad law and a general lack of opposition.

The tide is turning.

As a Texas voter, I agree.

I think she’s a good (not great) Senator and may/may not be an improvement in the Governor’s mansion over Rick Perry, but her selection as VP will hurt the McCain campaign:

1. She is Pro-choice. That will deflate the buzz in the social conservative ranks. We (many, not all) are lining up behind McCain knowing that America needs him to win as an Obama victory will be disastrous to social conservative goals. Choosing KBH as VP will make the choice between the two camps much less distinct for Social Conservative.

2. We need a solid win in November to quash the ‘stolen election’ meme. If you see a squeaker I’m predicting riots in urban America. This election campaign is increasingly looking like a solid McCain win over the incredible lightness of the empty (Communist leaning, Terrorist supporting) suit. KBH on the ticket will move this back towards a very close win or possible loss.

3. She’s been my Senator and has been competent, but not reliable on Conservative issues. Unlike Cornyn, I constantly get the impression that she votes on the Right side of issues reluctantly and only after sampling the air for direction and even then has to be nudged to take action. She is not a take charge leader in my book. Should McCain win – even after 2 terms – Hillary will shred KBH in any future campaign.

4. I argued in a comment a few days ago Did I just step into “Bizarro” RedStatethat “slipping into” identity politics and choosing a woman -for this win only- would be ok, but only if the woman in question was prepared to run the ship. Sorry, I don’t see Kay as ready to lead this country.

Bzzzzzt. Next Contestant Please!

This is certainly true for the MSM; caught in the throes of a leg tingling big “O”, they can barely stop their panting long enough to remind the public that we are all going to die –soon- from man caused global warming.

It is useful to remember that regardless of the election outcome, both candidates have signed on to the premise that the Earth is warming rapidly, we are to blame and something must quickly be done.

The media distraction from the Greatest Crises of our Time (can I trademark that?) shows plainly as the public has quickly shifted from fear and loathing to, at the least, a measured indifference.

From National Journal:

• 47% (down 5% since last April) of Americans consider global warming an important issue to them personally.
• 80% still think the planet is warming (down 4% since last year).
• Only 25% (down 8% since last year) think global warming the biggest environmental challenge facing the world.

Key Quote: “but despite the overwhelming consensus that global warming is indeed occurring, doubt over the science behind the issue is still lingers strongly in people’s minds.” (bias emphasis mine)

• 30% of respondents said they trust what scientists have to say about the environment “completely” or “a lot,”
• 39% saying they trust them “a moderate amount”
• 30% saying they do not trust them.

This is Good News for deniers and for citizens who still wish to steer the debate back towards good science and away from hyperbole and fear mongering on the part of the environmental left. It tells me that most citizens are not yet ready to drink the Kool Aid without at least asking what else is in the cup.

Now if we could just get Senator McCain on board with this line of thinking – after he swears into office, of course. We have an election to win first.