Tue 2 Sep 2008
Now that’s power
The two storms influencing the RNC
MSNBC
That’s all for now, I’ve taken over 700 pictures, I’ll get them up eventually.
Mon 11 Aug 2008
Just when I was getting tired of this ridiculous campaign, the fine folks at barelypolitical.com come up with another video to make things a little less monotonous and a bit more humorous:
It’s a little crude, but it’s still funny.
Sun 3 Aug 2008
On my flight back to Washington, I read a great article in the Wall Street Journal, “A GOP Choice: Tom Coburn or Ted Stevens,” where the WSJ’s John Fund asked a question that has seemed to be the 800-pound gorilla in the room, or at least here in DC.
The first paragraph of Fund’s article get’s right to the point, illustrating the problem that unfortunately hasn’t been taken as seriously as it should have been since the 2006 massacre.
The Republican Party is facing what Ronald Reagan called “a time for choosing.” A real argument is raging over how much it should turn its back on the bad habits that cost it control of Congress in 2006.
One of the biggest problems that I’ve had with the Republican Party over the past few years is the simple fact that when it comes to voting based on true conservative principles, many members of the party will talk a big game, but when it comes time to vote they cave in like a house of cards.
Let’s just recall back to March 13, 2008, where Senator Jim DeMint introduced his “earmark moratorium” to the Senate floor:
While this amendment seemed quite straight forward, and sounds like an easy victory for the GOP to rally together on, it’s interesting to note which Republicans voted against such an important piece of legislation:
Republicans voting against S. Amendment 4347:
It’s crazy to think that there are 26 Republicans who actually voted against this, but those are just facts that had to be faced.
Now, just assume that the party actually came together and rallied behind core issues that didn’t fluctuate from convention to convention, the overall vote would have been much closer to 50 - 50.
The point I’m trying to make by all of this is that the party shouldn’t have to choose between Ted Stevens or Tom Coburn. When it comes to voting on earmarks (wasteful government spending), members of both the House and Senate should all be on the same page - voting nay.
If they can’t come together on even the most fundamental core issues, what’s the point of even having a party?
Some people might disagree with me on this, but I don’t see any value in having “part time Republicans” serving in the Senate. I’d rather the Democrats have a super majority with a small group of principled Republicans bringing reason to the floor each session than deal with some of the the unpredictable RINO’s that we have now.
Tue 22 Jul 2008
CNN.com is reporting that John McCain is expected to meet on Wednesday with Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, in what many believe could be one of the final vetting events before McCain finalizes his choice for running mate.
While I think that Bobby Jindal is a great American, with a great story, I truly believe that if John McCain picked him to be his running mate, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Unlike my posts about why Mitt Romney should be selected as McCain’s running mate, my reasons for coming to this conclusion are much simpler, experience.
The reality is that Bobby Jindal has very little experience in governing. One of the biggest arguments that people have used against Barack Obama is that he doesn’t have the experience needed to be President; however, Barack Obama has much more political experience than Bobby Jindal. Let’s remember, Bobby Jindal has only been Governor of Louisiana for seven months, and when he was in Congress, it was only for one term.
In a campaign where age is going to be an issue, the last thing John McCain needs is people second guessing his pick, simply because they are young and lack experience.
As I’ve said earlier, Mitt Romney (or someone of similar caliber) is exactly what John McCain needs to remain viable in this election.
Tue 15 Jul 2008
There has been a lot of speculation lately about who John McCain should, or is going to pick to run alongside him in his battle for the White House. CNN’s Political Ticker has also been reporting that it appears that McCain might be heading in the direction of Mitt Romney.
It’s no secret to anyone who has read this blog that long before I was a McCain supporter, my top choice, by far, was Mitt Romney. Naturally, there is some bias with me when it comes to this, however to help paint a better picture, here are 5 reasons that I think would give John McCain incentive to selecting Mitt Romney as his running mate.
I’m sure others might have their own reasons, or even opposition to this. Regardless of your point of view, I welcome and urge all comments!
Thu 5 Jun 2008
Very rarely are there instances where I’ll feel compelled to write about the mistakes being made by conservative organizations. Primarily, I tend to only go after political figureheads when they deviate from the original principles of the Republican Party.
However, today there was an email sent out that absolutely appalled and infuriated me. This time it wasn’t something about a partisan hack, but instead was about an employee of the American Conservative Union, Lisa De Pasquale and her efforts to try and shut down a harmless facebook group, CPAC 2009.
Here is the text of the email:
Hey guys,
You won’t believe this facebook message I got from a “Lisa De Pasquele”! You can read it and my response below.
Thanks for being a part of the group.
-Beau
———-
Hi Beau,The chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation has decided to pursue legal action with Facebook to get your CPAC 2009 group removed. Just wanted to let you know because I don’t know if they automatically disable groups during when legal complaints are brought.
Lisa
———-Subj: Threat to sue over our Facebook group name
An Open Letter to “Lisa De Pasquale”
Dear Lisa,
I just received your message on Facebook. Needless to say, I am a tad shocked you or (so you say) the chairman of the ACU, David Keene, are threatening legal action over the fact that I started an unofficial Facebook named, “CPAC 2009.”
The group was created by a dedicated small government conservative (myself) and frequent attendee of past CPACs. My only intention was in providing an unofficial source for information and news for the ‘09 gathering.
It is with a genuine sense of concern that I ask whether you threatened the same against unofficial CPAC 2008, 2007, and 2006 groups? Perhaps the reason you are threatening me is because this group has had more members than yours for several months now.
I don’t know.
But what I do know is that I find it doubtful that ACU members and donors would be pleased that you and Mr. Keene are so quick to spend their well-meaning contributions on what would be an expensive DC lawyer for such a sue-happy endeavor.
Speaking of frivolity, your demands do illustrate a much larger point.
What are you doing when you are not threatening legal actions against fellow conservatives?
Certainly not spending that time in trying to get a real conservative as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Perhaps if you had done more of that then there would be less of a chance we would be stuck with a nominee who led the Amnesty for Illegal Aliens effort on the floor of the United States Senate.
Lastly, you told me months ago (yes, you didn’t have anything more important to do back then either) that the ACU (American Conservative Union) does not even own the name “CPAC 2009.” Nor had they in previous years. So, I don’t think you are legally entitled to be the only user of the name either.
But alas, I do not have the time to continue to endure the yapping about the name of the group from an incessant whiner such as yourself. So, I will close it down.
You are Welcome,
Beau CorrellCC: 619 members
To sum it up, Lisa De Pasquale, an official representative of the American Conservative Union emailed Beau Correll, informing him that the American Conservative Union Foundation was going to pursue legal action over a Facebook group.
Beau, a Virginia Prosecutor, makes some great points in his response, especially in stating that the ACU should be using their donors money for more important battles.
Of course, the last thing you want to do is rile up dedicated conservatives who know how to use the internet. Very quickly this story made its way around the country and within an hour or two, Lisa De Pasquale had posted the following statement on the ACU’s CPAC 2009 Facebook group:
The complaint to Facebook (not LEGAL ACTION) was to remove the group because of confusion it might cause. As you might not know, CPAC is run by a 501c3 (non-profit) organization. The videos posted are political in nature and would constitute IRS violations of our non-profit status.
It looks like the creator of this group has finally added a disclaimer about the group, which is what we asked for in the first place. We have no problem with CPAC groups. As you can see, there are dozens of different CPAC groups.
Well she’s definitely changed her story. Here is her message to Beau again:
Hi Beau,
The chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation has decided to pursue legal action with Facebook to get your CPAC 2009 group removed. Just wanted to let you know because I don’t know if they automatically disable groups during when legal complaints are brought.
Lisa
However, trying to cover-up a lie that was sent to the masses wasn’t her only mistake.
In her latest statement she mentioned that CPAC is run by the American Conservative Union Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3), nonprofit educational organization, and the fact that Beau’s group had “political” videos on it, could jeopardize their tax status, implying that they can’t be affiliated with any political organizations, pursuant to IRS code.
What’s interesting is that in Beau’s group, he has classified it as “Just for Fun - Fan Clubs,” which is exactly what it is. However, the now “official” CPAC 2009 Facebook group, which is managed by Lisa, an employee of the American Conservative Union Foundation, is classified as “Organizations - Political Organizations,” I think that creates more problems than anything that Beau is doing.
Maybe they too should add a disclaimer to clarify (note: as of 6:30pm on 6/5/08, there is no disclaimer).
The fact of the matter is that Lisa got caught up in a scare tactic that has blown up in her face. Even if there would have been serious legal action brought against Beau’s group, the Facebook terms of service only prohibit such situations when applied to Facebook Pages. From the Terms of Service:
Facebook Pages are special profiles used solely for commercial, political, or charitable purposes. You may not set up a Facebook Page on behalf of another individual or entity unless you are authorized to do so.
Had they created a Facebook page first and then Beau tried to copy that, they might have had a case for it to be shut down. However, Beau wasn’t trying to scam them, his group isn’t spamming people and if anything, he is only helping the conservative movement.
As of 6:45pm on 6/5/2008, there isn’t a Facebook Page for CPAC 2009, or the American Conservative Union.
To many, this might not seem like a big deal. However, if you’re a conservative who believes that we need more like-minded people brought into the online world, or “joining the conversation” as a well known consultant says, you can see how this throws up huge roadblocks.
The American Conservative Union is suppose to serve as the umbrella organization for the conservative movement, not the Gestapo. Furthermore, they’re suppose to be for less government in our lives, not finding frivolous claims to bring it in more. It’s hard enough to convince conservative activists to take action online now, but when you throw in threats of legal action over such minor things, you basically set us back months in terms of catching up with the left.
I truly believe that this series of events isn’t representative of the American Conservative Union, however I think it shows how careful employees need to be when trying to use scare tactics on the internet.
Update: Beau’s group is no more. I guess there is no room for little guys.
Mon 5 May 2008
For most up-to-date post: click here
Thu 1 May 2008
As the summer draws near and the Democratic Primaries slowly wind down, campaign season is going to quickly roll into overdrive.
Soon enough, your mailbox is going to be flooded with fundraising pieces, your phone will be ringing off the hook with robo-calls and you’ll probably have a new series of commercials taunting you as you watch your favorite TV shows, all from candidates you can’t stand.
Yes, the season nerds like me love more than any other quickly approaching.
However, as this “full swing” campaign time draws near, I’ve been noticing that there are many people questioning whether or not the GOP will have enough muscle to successfully challenge the Democrats this fall.
Today’s questioning comes from the Cafferty File Blog, where Jack Cafferty points to new research showing that amongst people under 30, Democrats are going to have a much larger advantage over Republicans than they did in 2004. Citing Pew Research Data, Cafferty asks why the GOP can’t attract more young voters:
The Pew research Center did a survey of young people between October of last year and March of this year. What they found was that the current generation of young voters who came of age during the George W. Bush years is giving the Democrats a wide advantage in party identification.
58% of voters under the age of 30 surveyed during that time identified or leaned toward the democratic party-compared with just 33% who identified or leaned toward the Republican party. In fact, the Democratic party’s current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign — from 11 points then to 25 points now.
Should this be a cause of concern for Republicans? Sure, especially with the article being released today showing President Bush’s approval ratings as the lowest of any President ever. But it shouldn’t appear to be the end of the world.
The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of time for the GOP to brand itself in such a way that it has some appeal to younger voters.
I would argue that the GOP is currently doing many things that would be appealing to young people, however there has been very little marketing in terms of reaching beyond those who are identified and registered Republicans.
Without this marketing and outreach, the GOP carries the stereotype of being a party of old, rich, white men.
When you look at the issues that are really going to effect those who are under the age of 30, the biggest issue seems to be the most silent.
It’s not Iraq, its not Darfur, it’s Social Security.
I know that this was an issue that President Bush campaigned hard on in 2004, but courtesy of the Congress, he couldn’t get much done with it in 2005.
I also know that this was an issue that some would argue wasted a lot of ‘political capital’ for the administration, but I truly believe that if the GOP can bring this issue back, market it well and show young people why they need to demand change on this, we will win more young voters. We just need to be more creative.
As it stands now, neither of the Democrats will support any form of comprehensive Social Security reform, so it isn’t going to be hard to make a distinction, showing who is really looking to protect their future.
Another way that the GOP can attract more young voters is by returning to the roots of the early Republican Party, where decision and platforms were made on ideas, not polling trends and electability studies.
If the GOP can show themselves as the true party for limited government and personal responsibility, I don’t see any reason that they wouldn’t be able to attract some of the undecided voters, but more importantly tap into some of the Ron Paul base, which still seems to be strong.
Even something as simple as looking at issues from a different angle (like stopping bills that would make renters pay for the mistakes of some homeowners) will help people realize that the GOP isn’t what the stereotype suggests, and that we can actually create positive change both domestically and abroad.
There are a lot of things that the GOP can and will do to attract young voters to support the Republican candidates in November.
It’s going to take a lot of work, money and creativity, but these steps aren’t taken, the outcome of the November elections can be predicted now: we’ll lose.
Tue 29 Apr 2008
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.
Tue 22 Apr 2008
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