DCRepublican.com

There is no doubt that we are embarking on what could be one of the most contentious elections that most people living today have ever seen.

Already, attack ads are flying from both sides, and from campaigns to 527 organizations, each entity has started going after the various flaws and slip-ups of their opponents.

Today, CNN is reporting that the Republican National Committee is fighting to have ads released by the Democratic National Convention pulled off of the air, because they are ‘misleading.’

I’m sure next week the DNC will have a slew of ads that they want taken off of the air, and this is just going to be an ongoing cycle of bickering from both of the national organizations.

While I believe that the RNC is right for going after these ads that are in fact misleading, there have been some bigger problems that I’ve been noticing that I think need to be addressed before the RNC and the McCain campaign spend their resources on these inevitable things.

Once Mitt Romney suspended his campaign, I immediately contacted the McCain Headquarters to sign up to volunteer, since the campaign office is located in Arlington, VA, only a few miles from my home.

It would seem safe to assume that the national headquarters for the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States would be a place that is booming with activity, opening their doors early and closing late, making sure they make contact with all time-zones, and after that get the necessary campaign collateral put together.

Having worked on a variety of House, Senate and local campaigns, the campaign headquarters is usually the one spot where you could assume that they always needed help from volunteers. It’s usually a common mantra amongst campaign managers to tell their volunteers that if they find themselves with some free time, to come by the campaign office.

Even if there isn’t work planned, they’ll find something for them to do.

These are things that I thought were universal in the campaign world; however I’ve noticed that when it comes to trying to build a strong volunteer base at the national headquarters, the McCain campaign is doing it all wrong.

I truly believe that if they don’t fix their current program and launch a more flexible volunteer program ASAP, they simply won’t have the manpower they need to run a national campaign come November.

Currently, this is how the McCain volunteer outreach seems to work: when they need you, they’ll send you an email. However, instead of creating a variety of flexible opportunities, this is what McCain campaign sends potential volunteers when asking for help:

“If this is the first time you are getting this, and you are able to come in and help, please RSVP to do so – PLEASE DO NOT JUST SHOW UP.”

To anyone who has been to the McCain office will know that this place is massive, so its not as if they are worries about losing space. But, for some reason they don’t seem to want to open their doors on a full time basis.

While that bothers me, I guess I can understand why they would want people to RSVP first. But what is even more troubling is this:

“Volunteers are welcome between 10 and 7 during the week days and 12 and 4 on Saturday.”

Honestly, what person who works in DC is even home by 7pm? There is no reason why they shouldn’t have their offices open later, especially if they are just looking for help on simple things, like putting signs together, doing mailings, packets, etc.

Washington, DC, without a doubt is home to some of the best campaigners and college campuses in the country, and even though most of these people are employed outside of politics, they are still die-hards who are willing to help if given the opportunity.

Just out of curiosity, I called the Hillary Clinton headquarters which is also located in Arlington, seeing how they operated their volunteer program in their national office. When I called, I was asked what times I was available, what I was interested in doing and where I lived.

Very quickly was I provided with a variety of opportunities to help the campaign, and yes, their hours went beyond 7pm.

Now, I have absolutely no intention of volunteering at the Hillary Clinton HQ, but their willingness to accommodate to volunteers should be noted.

The DNC is doing a great job getting people mobilized. I’ve seen them on the streets of DC and Arlington, and I’ve also seen the same for the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Sadly, I’ve seen nothing from the RNC and/or McCain camp.

If the RNC and McCain campaign doesn’t start rolling out their mobilization efforts soon, I’m afraid that many volunteers are going to be turned off from helping, simply because they see the massive army that the left has amassed.

Recruiting volunteers is probably the easiest part of a campaign, however, if you don’t engage them immediately, the odds of them helping out when you really need them are quite slim.

Celebrity McCain supporters make their way to DC

I’m not normally one to get caught up in pop culture, but when Heidi Montag, feux-celebrity from MTV’s “The Hills” stated that she was supporting John McCain for President, I couldn’t help but keep an eye on this story.

As anyone in DC knows, a few days ago was the White House Correspondents dinner, which usually has a variety of celebrities representing various causes and/or political agendas.

This year was no different, Pamela Anderson was there promoting animal rights, as a guest of PETA and Jenny McCarthy was there promoting a march that she was organizing in June.

Then of course there are your random musicians, like the Jonas Brothers, who usually are just invited by their labels or agents to get some good PR.

But this year just got weirder when Heidi Montag and her weird boyfriend Spencer Pratt showed up as guests of Fortune Magazines editor, Andy Serwer. While Heidi and Spencer are definitely an odd couple, finding out that there is a connection between those two and Fortune Magazine is even more baffling.

Anyway, here are some shots of them being tourists in DC. If you live in DC, you probably find these pictures just as obnoxious as I do, but some of you might find it interesting.

Despite Heidi Montag’s support for Senator McCain, I somehow doubt she made any effort to swing by the Headquarters to make some phone calls.

(Images via celebrity-gossip.net)

Click here for more DC pictures

Today President Bush gave an address from the Rose Garden at the White House where he held nothing back in expressing his frustration with the current Congress and their inability to work issues out, instead just resulting in using political tactics to block key programs.

Particularly, President Bush used this criticism to address the financial crisis facing the United States (courtesy of CNN.com):

“I repeatedly submitted proposal to help address the problems. Time after time, Congress chose to block them,” he said.

Bush called on Congress to send him sensible and effective bills to keep the country moving forward before taking questions from reporters.

I really hope this isn’t President Bush’s way of saying that he would hope for more bailouts of corporations and individuals who are facing financial troubles.

It was after all, President Bush who pushed hard for Congress to agree on a stimulus package, which in the opinion of many conservatives was an extremely wasteful idea that will probably have little impact on the economy.

However, in the same press conference, President Bush also went after Congress for even considering passing the Farm Bill, which has become even heavier in farm subsidies, increasing the burden on the American taxpayer.

Finally, President Bush made the effort to try and set the tone for Congress as his Presidency winds down:

Bush asked Congress to focus on four areas: energy, food prices, mortgage payments and student loans. The president urged Congress to pass legislation that would lead to more affordable and reliable energy at home.

While I give President Bush credit for calling out Congress, these directives sound almost exactly like the pitch the Democrats were giving the American people when they cleaned up shop in the 2006 elections.

Calling out Congress is extremely important when the country is in financial turmoil, but I think it’s also extremely important that when the President speaks, that he has more substance and addresses the real problems that are at hand.

Instead of telling Congress to address these issues, President Bush should have told Congress what specific things he would like to see, what he would be open to signing, and what things he isn’t going to cave in on.

This is his last term and he has absolutely nothing to lose.

I would argue that this is probably one of the few opportunities where the Republicans didn’t have to cave into the pressures of the Democrats, in fear of losing political points.

Before President Bush leaves office, I’d love for him to tell Congress that he will only support packages that are based on substance and real need for ALL Americans, not just small populations, or special interests. While it wont be the most popular action in his presidency, it will set a tone that Republicans can and will stand up to frivolous spending, and actually try and use fiscal restraint to try and get this countries economy back on track.

Bailouts, subsidies and pork-projects aren’t going to fix the economy, however prudence and cutbacks will put us on the right course.

Not once did I ever imagine there being evidence to actually support the claim that barracks being built for foreign armies, funded by the American taxpayer are actually in better shape than some of the barracks our troops have to stay in here in the United States.

However, CNN.com released a story today that not only brought forward accusations of poor conditions in barracks, but actually presented video and images to back up those claims.

Check out this video sent to CNN by the father of soldier who returned from Afghanistan:

Now, I know that this is the military, where “roughing it” is often an assumed way of life, but you cant help but wonder why the military wouldn’t want to ensure that these troops returning (many who will be deployed again) would have comfortable accommodations to help them bring their minds back from battle, or at least ease the stress they have endured on the battlefield.

But, I think there is some light at the end of this tunnel. Instead of taking the all-to-common “no comment,” the Army released a statement:

“The conditions depicted in Mr. Frawley’s video are appalling and unacceptable, and we are addressing the concerns he expressed,” said Maj. Tom Earnhardt, spokesman for the 82nd Airborne, in a written statement.

I don’t think our troops are expecting the Ritz-Carlton when they come back from battle (though they deserve it), but it shouldn’t be difficult to provide them with simple amenities that are less-primitive than the near third-world countries they are returning from.

I know a lot of the blame can fall on the contractors who were requested to fix this, and I would hope that after this story broke those contractors were fired immediately, and new guys brought in.

I honestly thought that this whole Spitzer/Hooker/Girls Gone Wild thing was something that would only last a few days, fading away with Ashley Dupree getting a spread in Playboy or something.

Throughout all of the many twists and turns this story had, at no point did I ever imagine that Ashley Dupree would actually have her legal team file a lawsuit against Joe Francis’ Girls Gone Wild empire.

The hooker is suing for $10million, claiming that that she was illegally exploited on the Girls Gone Wild website following “hooker-gate.”

Is this high-priced hooker actually claiming that she was exploited by the actions of Girls Gone Wild? Is that even possible? I’m pretty sure when you agree to do Girls Gone Wild, should expect that exploitation is naturally going to be the next step.

She’s not claiming that she was exploited when she agreed to do the videos, nor when she got naked and did a variety of things on camera. No, instead she’s more concerned with how Girls Gone Wild portrayed her in marketing materials on their website.

To be honest, I have no clue how this is going to turn out, but I really hope that Joe Francis’ legal team fights this one (though I know they are busy). When you agree to do Girls Gone Wild, there should be an understanding of what is going to happen. This isn’t something that is unexpected, and I’m sure for many Girls Gone Wild participants, it’s probably one of the reasons that agree to do it.

I think Joe Francis sums this up best in his interview with CNN.com:

Francis said Monday he and his company “have nothing to worry about.”

“But I think it’s ironic that she charged Gov. Spitzer $2,000 for sex and she wants to charge me 10 million for taking some naked pictures of her,” Francis told CNN. “I feel like I’m getting a raw deal.”

Touché Mr. Francis.

Of all of the new online social networking technologies that have been developed in the last three years, the one that I have been the most apprehensive towards trying is Twitter.

For those who aren’t familiar with Twitter, or its concept, it’s basically a short-form blog that allows you to keep your friends, network, etc updated with what you’re doing with a just few words; the updates are comparable to the size of a text message.

Twitter is popular amongst bloggers because it allows them to share short messages with their friends and readers from their cell phones, giving them the ability to sometimes break a story as its happening.

However, it hasn’t been something that has really had all that much appeal to me. But, as I saw on CNN today, it might just be the tool to help you out of a tight spot, assuming you have the right network:

James Karl Buck helped free himself from an Egyptian jail with a one-word blog post from his cell phone.

Buck, a graduate student from the University of California-Berkeley, was in Mahalla, Egypt, covering an anti-government protest when he and his translator Mohammed Maree were arrested April 10.On his way to the police station, Buck took out his cell phone and sent a message to his friends and contacts using the micro-blogging site Twitter.
The message only had one word. “Arrested.

Within seconds, colleagues in the United States and his blogger-friends in Egypt — the same ones who had taught him the tool only a week earlier — were alerted he was being held.

While it’s kind of a cool story, I don’t think that anyone should expect to be able to do that when in custody of policy in the United States.

Twitting in cuffs… maybe it’ll be a new trend.

I read an interesting op-ed today in the Washington Times titled “Child Rapist” by Horace Cooper, a Senior Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union.

The op-ed essentially went over a case that was recently heard before the Supreme Court, Kennedy v. Louisiana, and asked:

who should decide the punishment for a crime, the legislature or the courts? In particular, when determining what crimes merit the death penalty, should state governments have a say or should this power be left to judges?

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the State of Louisiana was being challenged by Patrick Kennedy, a man who was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. It’s important to note that before he was sentenced, a plea deal was on the table that would have removed the possibility of execution.

Kennedy declined the plea bargain and went to trial. He was found guilty and was sentenced to death.

After Kennedy’s sentence, his legal team used the Eighth Amendment as a backbone for their appeal. They argued that sentencing someone to death for something that didn’t result in the death of the other party was in fact cruel and unusual punishment.

While his legal team saw it that way, Kate Bartholomew, a New Orleans prosecutor saw things from a different perspective, arguing in a CNN.com article:

A lot of people think there should not be the death penalty [in this case] because the child survives…In my opinion the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide.”

The Supreme Court had already ruled on a similar case in 1977, Coker v. Georgia, where they argued that the death penalty an excessive punishment for someone convicted of rape.

Even though the Court ruled that the death penalty wasn’t an appropriate form of punishment for rapists, in 1995 the Louisiana Legislature passed a law that would allow executions for those convicted of raping a child under the age of 12.

Knowing the previous ruling of the Court, the State of Louisiana argued that Coker v. Georgia only applied to adults, since it was only those circumstances that the Court considered.

This is something that the Court is going to have to consider in their final decision for a variety of reasons.

Cooper correctly points out:

Tragically there are many voices in the criminal-law community who argue that these types of crimes — due to their very nature — perpetuate when the victims end up engaging in similar behavior.

Considering that very point could create a tough decision making process for the court.

However, I think it is those complexities that highlight what Horace Cooper is trying to get at – these should be decisions that the States should be responsible for making, not the courts.

While I may have differing opinions in terms of what should constitute the death penalty, I completely agree with Cooper’s argument.

Members of the legislature are elected to represent the best interests of the people in their districts (or in this case, parishes). It’s their job to make the laws that they feel are appropriate for certain actions, based on what their constituency would want.

Making these determinations shouldn’t be the role of the higher courts. Their sole purpose should be to enforce the enacted laws, not try and create new ones, or new precedent based on one case.

Cooper concludes:

Upholding Kennedy’s sentence is clearly of first primacy, but the Roberts Court should go further. It should overturn Coker and thereby clearly return to state governments the power to determine what punishment fits the crime.

Absolutely!

Even though I don’t necessarily think that the death penalty is the best sentence (I’m more of an eye-for-an-eye guy, so he’ll get what he deserves in prison) that should be a decision each state makes, not a small group of ideological judges.

If the Court can successfully reject this case and over-turn Coker, I think we’ll be one step closer to having our government operate in the vision of our founding fathers.

I commend the American Civil Rights Union for speaking up about this case and clearly laying out what is really at stake here. If the court chooses to side with Patrick Kennedy and uphold the Coker decision, a wide window will be open for groups like the ACLU (which clearly opposes the letter of the law) and other organizations to challenge the laws that were made by the legislatures, that were elected by the people.

If our elected officials don’t even have authority in terms of making laws based on the concerns and wishes of the vast majority, can we still call this a democracy? Sure, we elect them, but if their decisions mean nothing, what good are they?

I’ve made many posts here regarding my opposition to an alarming trend that I’ve seen growing rampantly here in Washington, a trend that all Americans will pay for, but only a few will reap the benefits of - government bailouts.

While the unorthodox treatment that Bear Stearns got from the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago was enough to cause short-term chaos in financial markets across the globe, the more troubling bailout, without a doubt, is one aimed at the mortgage markets.

Anyone who has received some sort of formal education understands that you shouldn’t borrow more money than you can afford, and more importantly shouldn’t sign a contract where you aren’t 100% confident of the specified terms and/or rates.

Even so, the government has felt the need to take responsibility for the actions of these irresponsible borrowers, and seems to think that using taxpayer money to stabilize these loans is going to be the best approach to preventing more long-term economic turmoil.

While I haven’t seen seen one good bailout proposal, I’m pleased to see that there are concerned citizens who are rallying against this showing of fiscal irresponsibility by both a select group consumers and the government.

What’s even more pleasing is that many of these people who are rallying against these bailouts aren’t usual suspects.

The impressive part of this movement isn’t the families with the 2.5 kids, white picket fence in the suburbs, etc, who have made smart financial decisions and are usually the first to rally against foolish government intervention. Sure, many of them are on board with opposing these bailouts, as they should be, but the really impressive thing is the number of renters who are following what is happening and realizing that they are getting screwed more than any other group of people.

A few weeks ago, FreedomWorks launched a site called AngryRenter.com, with the goal of bringing attention to how renters are being affected by these ridiculous bailouts.

Keep in mind that renters, for a variety of reasons, have chosen not to buy homes. For many, they are waiting for the market to get better, for others they are waiting until they have more money and for some, they just don’t want to deal with the responsibility.

(here is a great video by Peter Suderman summing things up)

Regardless of their rationale, is their any argument that can justify sticking the burden of covering these bad mortgages on people who don’t even have them? There is absolutely no argument for that.

Of course, the early results of AngryRenter.com clearly show that this is now an issue that has upset many, and if Congress wants to prevent their less than stellar approval rating from reaching new depths, they might want to pay attention.

In only a few weeks, AngryRenter.com has already gathered nearly 12,000 signers to their petition, and I don’t see any reason why that number wont grow exponentially in the near future.

I urge everyone to check out the site, sign the petition and even forward it on to your friends.

It’s tough to get Congress to pay attention to even the biggest issues sometimes, but when you present them with tens of thousands of names, they usually wake up… at least the good ones do.

I know I’ve said on many occasions that the government is notorious for wasting money; however you would think that when it came to something as simple as the concept of a fence, they would be able to get it right eventually.

I guess those of us that made that assumption have been proven wrong.

After a showing of unwavering pressure from border states over the past five years, the United States government found itself in a position where it finally had to make it look like it was doing something to secure our borders, while not upsetting certain groups of people.

What’s the easiest way for the government to make it look like it is doing something? Spend a lot of money on things that don’t work.

Instead of taking the most cost effective approach to patching the many holes in our borders, the Department of Homeland Security gave Boeing $20 million to build a tower that would alert border agents when someone was illegally crossing the border.

CNN.com is reporting that this was another wasted sum of money by the government:

TUCSON, Arizona (AP) — The government is scrapping a $20 million prototype of its highly touted “virtual fence” on the Arizona-Mexico border because the system is failing to adequately alert border patrol agents to illegal crossings, officials said.The move comes just two months after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced his approval of the fence built by The Boeing Co. The fence consists of nine electronic surveillance towers along a 28-mile section of border southwest of Tucson.

Boeing is to replace the so-called Project 28 prototype with a series of towers equipped with communications systems, cameras and radar capability, officials said.

Wouldn’t the later proposal from Boeing have been a better solution anyway?

Furthermore, how much fencing do you think that $20 million could buy?

If we just looked at solutions that have worked for other countries, like Israel, we would see that for $20 million, we could develop the start of what could be one very secure border.

Check out this image:

This layout definitely looks much more effective than anything I’ve seen the United States try and  build on our border.

What’s even more impressive is the cost.

For this fence, it only cost Israel $2 million per kilometer. That sounds like a lot, but just imagine how much money the United States spends each year ignoring this problem.

The U.S. government knows that they could be doing a much better job of securing our borders, and they know exactly how well things have worked in Israel.

Even with the knowledge they have on how they could solve this problem, they just throw in enough money to make it look like they are really trying.

Temporarily it will please both sides, but eventually people will see what is really happening and bring back the pressure.

Since today is Earth Day, I figured that I would take this opportunity to make a post that is political in nature, but also addresses a bigger challenge that the United States is facing.

Obviously there is enormous support behind the movement that is striving to eradicate global warming and I give them a lot of credit. They have done a great job mobilizing and I have no doubt that their reach is now into the millions.

I’m not going to try and argue against global warming. I’m not a scientist nor will I try to pretend that I am.

But what I will continually argue against is the use of government mandates to try and address global warming and the other ecological problems we’re facing.

Even those mandates that have been praised by many on the Left (like those relating to Ethanol), have only later been proven to be more harmful to the environment than the products they were aiming to replace.

Furthermore, CNN.com is even reporting that this energy-by-corn-ogasm has also created problems for world food prices:

Those battling global warming by promoting biofuels may unintentionally be adding to skyrocketing world food prices, creating what one expert calls “a silent tsunami” in developing nations.

The rising prices are “threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger,” Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations’ World Food Program, said on the agency’s Web site Tuesday.

The article continues:

Producing fuel from plant crops is supposed to be greener than drilling for oil, and biofuels generally burn cleaner, too. But the global biofuels industry now stands accused of a list of side effects that are said to be damaging lives, especially of the world’s poorest people.

The drive for more biofuels means more investment is going into those crops, meaning less land and less investment going in for food crops, causing a massive conflict and resulting in rising prices, which is having a huge negative impact, especially on developing countries,” said Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

Is this really a trend that we want to see continue?

As it stands now, the United States has used corn as the save-all-product, when in reality it is something that is just over-subsidized and keeps better, healthier and cheaper products from coming into the United States in higher quantities. Furthermore, it drives up the prices of things like sugar – courtesy of some unfair government regulations.

I think the track record for government mandates on all of these energy and eco-projects have shown to be complete failures that have wasted tons of money and left the environment worse than it was originally.

The answer to me seems simple: government mandates simply don’t work.

I’m sure I’ve just upset a lot of environmentalists out there, but I truly believe that choice could be the best solution for making the environment better – not the government.

Just look at the environmental movement that is sweeping across the country today.

These people aren’t motivated by government mandates, but instead are motivated by knowing that they can do something that will help make the world a better place, and for some there is also the added benefit of knowing that they can save some money.

If there were no mandates in the next 10 years, would the environmentalist progression slow down? I don’t think so.

This movement is growing on its own, so why should the government get in the way of that?

With fuel prices soaring, I’ve even seen many far-right conservatives purchase hybrid vehicles, simply because they are more economical.

Furthermore, I don’t see any reason why any homes built in the future won’t be made to be as energy efficient as possible.

Even those who think that global warming is a complete myth and nothing should be done, will still buy into the efficiency argument, simply because it is more economical.

I think that all of this will lead to a mentality shift amongst the next generation, who will also see the advantages of being Earth conscious, and be able to make these decisions on their own.

CNN.com has a few pages showing how people can “go green,” without having the government telling them how to do it. I urge everyone to check these out and consider some of the options.

Even I, DC Republican, have started to adapt some of these “green ideas” into my world.

I don’t do it because I’m a raging environmentalist, but because I see no harm in making the world a cleaner, greener place, while saving myself some money at the same time.
Link 1

Link 2