Tag Archives: republican

Santorum Ad Tells Us What the “DEAL” with Newt Gingrich is

Bookmark and Share Fresh off of his poor third place showing in Florida, Rick Santorum is trying to take advantage of Newt Gingrich’s big 15% second place loss to Mitt Romney in the Sunshine State by reclaiming the title of “conservative alternative” to Mitt Romney, the big winner in Tuesday’s primary contest [see the ad below this post].

The ad entitled “Deal”, is a very powerful condemnation of Gingrich which catches you off guard with opening arguments that would have you think the ad is comparing Santorum to his three Republican rivals, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It claims that the three politicians in question support legislative policies which are conservative anathema; Cap-and-Trade, amnesty, and the government bailouts. It would be bad enough for Santorum’s Republican rivals to have to wear all three of those issues around their necks, but the surprise comes when it is revealed that three politicians in question are not Romney, Paul, and Gingrich but rather President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Newt Gingrich.

The surprise comparison is twice as debilitating for Gingrich because while you might expect Mitt Romney to be accused of being too liberal, this ad avoids Romney and shockingly puts Newt Gingrich in an entirely differently league, one that puts him directly in the room with iconic liberals Obama and Pelosi.

The ad happens to be one of the most effective of this campaign cycle to date. It is produced well and is quite creative. It also presents Santorum’s case against Newt in a way that avoids being overly outlandish and to the point of being too hard to believe.

Yet while the ad is quite good, it is also indicative of the unfortunate position that Rick Santorum finds himself in. This ad pits him against Newt Gingrich, not frontrunner Mitt Romney, and it signals the fact that Santorum knows he is still competing in a primary within the primary………. the conservative primary within the Republican primary. It demonstrates that Rick Santorum is in a desperate fight to just get in to the race against Mitt Romney.

The good news for Santorum is that it is quite possible that conservatives have not yet ensconced themselves in Newt’s camp and Rick could still possibly win over a majority of them. One most notable conservative to recently go to Santorum’s side is Michele Malkin, a talking head with a considerably large conservative following. But at the same time it is a little late in this race for Santorum to hope his horse places or shows when the only ticket he can cash in on is the one to win.

But hope springs eternal and this ad is has a spin on it that forces me to give Rick Santorum a lot of credit, even though I believe it will help Mitt Romney than it will help Santorum.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under politics

Romney Wins Florida But Newt Makes It Clear That There are “46 More States to Go”

Bookmark and Share As is the norm for Florida, the Sunshine State has again made electoral history. For the first time, the Republican winner of the South Carolina primary, lost the Florida primary. What it means in the long term is uncertain, but what it means in the short term is quite apparent. Nationally, Republicans have no real clear favorite for President yet.

Still, Mitt Romney’s win was significant and he deserve credit for orchestrating it. He spent $17 million to do it, but he did it and in the end, especially with 50 delegates now in his column, that is all that matters. However, while Romney once again becomes the frontrunner for the nomination, you will have to forgive me if do not declare this race over yet.

With little more than 5% of the delegates allocated so far, there is no denying that the race is not over yet, but it was made even more obvious to me after hearing Romney deliver his victory speech, and after Gingrich and Santorum gave their concession speeches.

In his speech, Mitt Romney rose to the occasion and sounded enthusiastic, but humble, and most of all, he sounded presidential. He delivered a speech that allowed people to truly begin to get comfortable with the idea of him being the candidate who can take the fight to President Barack Obama and beat him. He didn’t seal the deal, but his Florida victory speech helped make people more willing to accept the now almost inevitability of his being nominated for president. And now back in the frontrunner position, Romney offered not only a brief glimpse of the potential that exists in his carrying the Republican banner, he even took some steps to put the ugliness of the intraparty battle for the nomination behind him by eloquently making the point that “a competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us.”

But in his facing the fact that he came in second place to Romney with at least 15% less of the vote than Romney, Newt Gingrich offered a speech which oozed of defiance and held a true thirst for not just beating Barack Obama, but for bringing about the type of reforms that Americans want, but as of late, have not often come to see in either Republicans or Democrats. He also provided some of the best reasons for his candidacy to date.

While limiting his negative attacks to calling Romney a Massachusetts moderate, Newt introduced what was seemingly a very heartfelt, personal contract with the American people, a spin on the now famous 1994 Contract With America that he spearheaded and guided through Congress.

Newt’s personal contract consists of two parts. The first part is conditional and it requires that the people elect conservatives to Congress. If they do that, Newt promises that before he takes office, he will request that on January 3rd, 2013, the new Congress stays in session and immediately repeals Obamacare, Dodd-Franks, and Sarbanes Oxley, three bills that are being viewed as among the most detrimental legislative initiatives effecting our economy. Gingrich vows that if the American people elect strong conservative majorities to Congress, those three measures can be repealed by Congress and on the day of his inauguration, he will sign the legislation to rid us of those massive government burdens. The problem there is that unless it is veto proof majority, President Obama will have the opportunity to veto it before Gingrich has the opportunity to sign it. So Newt might want to hold back on his request for january 3rd vote on those issues.

The rest of Newt’s personal contract is a promise to promptly enact a series of constitutional executive orders that will consist of immediately abolishing the existence of all White House czars, an immediate order to commence construction of the Keystone Pipeline project, an executive order opening the American embassy in Jerusalem and essentially acknowledging that divided city as Israel’s capital, another executive order which would reinstate the Reagan policy that did not allow federal money to fund any abortions, anywhere in the world, and last but not least, he promised to enact an order that repeals any and all of the anti-religious acts enacted by the Obama Administration in what Newt described as the President’s war on religion.

Newt’s speech was far from a concession speech, but what it did do was offer voters some good reasons for why Newt should not give up. With a room full of supporters waving signs that reminded voters that there are 46 more states which have yet to vote, Newt demonstrated that he still has what it takes to continue contesting this election.

The other speech of note came from third place finisher Senator Rick Santorum.

Even though Santorum placed a very distant third with only 13% of the vote in Florida, his speech actually provided a good rationale for his own continued participation in this race.

Knowing full well that he was not going to have a strong showing in Florida, Santorum elected to make his primary night remarks from Nevada, where he is campaigning in advance of that state’s Caucus which takes place this Saturday.

Taking advantage of the very rarely traveled high road in their primary contest, Santorum exploited the bitter battle between Romney and Gingrich by looking like the adult in the room who had his eye on the real prize…….defeating President Obama.

He stated that he was not going to criticize the personal and public successes achieved by both Gingrich and Romney as they have done to one another. Instead he declared that republicans deserve better, and that he was going to focus on the issues important to the American people. However, Santorum did argue that Newt failed at taking the momentum he had coming out South Carolina and converting it in to establishing himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. According to Santorum, Newt proved to make himself the issue and the American people do not need a President who is the issue, but rather a President who can address the issues and solve the problems surrounding them.

All three speeches were actually quite good and they all provided a solid foundation and legitimate reasons for this nomination contest to remain competitive. The problem is that Santorum and Gingrich will still have to find the resources it takes to convince voters that it really isn’t over. If Newt can finally stick to the themes he struck in his speech in Florida, themes based on his being the anti-establishment candidate and a true conservative leader capable of achieving very real and very bold reforms, he can survive long enough to see another victory, but it may not happen for another month or more and the longer he goes without a victory, the harder it will be for him to achieve one.

Right now, the only thing we can be certain of is that Mitt Romney is the one in the catbird seat tonight. The real problem I see here though is that Romney is still the candidate which for numerous reasons, many Republicans seem to be settling for. Such uninspired support makes it quite possible for someone like Newt to turn things around by actually inspiring people and causing voters say, you know what? I don’t have to settle for Mitt. We can do better.”

Until Mitt Romney is willing to stop playing it safe, and proves that he too can be a bold leader, he will remain vulnerable to being overshadowed by the boldness of Newt Gingrich’s vision and red meat agenda. For Mitt it is now a judgement call and a gamble. Does he continue to play it safe and rely on his giant campaign war chest to suppress the amount of support Gingrich and risk the possibility of Newt turning things around again? Or does he step out of his safety zone and make an attempt to prove that he is more than just a wealthy Republican establishment candidate?

My experience with Romney leads me to believe that he will continue to play it safe with the expectation that Newt will be do just the opposite and a loss it all by taking one too many risks.

On a final note, yes I know that I did not mention Ron Paul and that I did not include his concession speech. And no it is not because I am afraid that if I give him any ink, people will flock to his side and elect him President. The reason I did not include Ron Paul is because he has yet to become a significant factor in this election and because he said absolutely nothing new in his speech following his single digit, last place showing in Florida.

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

Obama’s Corrupt Crony Capitalism Extends Far Beyond Solyndra

Bookmark and Share LightSquared is just the latest example of questionable conduct which tears down the façade of transparency as well as the political and legal integrity of President Obama and his Administration. Evidence from the Pentagon in regards to a new wireless project by LightSquared, a satellite broadband company based in Virginia, has been raising questions about a new crony capitalism crime involving the Administration. This latest scandal comes on the heals of the Solyndra scandal which saw Democrat donors with Obama administration ties, secure a $500 million loan for the solar energy firm right before it went bankrupt. In the case of LightSquared, in order to help that corporate intersts, a firm owned by Democratic donor Philip Falcone, it seems that the Obama Administration asked Air Force General William Shelton to alter testimony that he presented in a classified briefing to members of Congress.

The testimony was called for after the Pentagon raised concerns that LightSquared was embarking upon a new wireless project which preliminary tests indicated would create a significant disruptions to the military’s use of critical Global Positioning System technology, which among other things, controls missile targeting.

When questioned extensively by members of Congress, General Shelton admitted that the White House pressured him to alter his testimony in order to make it more favorable for the Democrat donor’s company to move ahead with the project, despite how much it could possibly alter the military’s effectiveness. It is further alleged that the original testimony was leaked to LightSquared in advance of its delivery to the congressional panel it was meant for. Such a leak was a total breach of protocol in a process that only included the White House, the Office Management and Budget, and the Department of Defense .

This blatant attempt to influence Shelton’s original testimony and to involve LightSquared in the process in order to produce biased testimony designed to benefit another Democrat donor, is further evidence of the type of corruption that the Obama Administration is consistently engaged in. This time though, its crony capitalism went so far as to tamper with our nation’s defense capabilities. Such recklessness is more than just unforgivable, it is life threatening. But the Obama Administration seems not to have any regard for anything but its own political survival. And their history of politics before policy and campaign contributors before national concerns is extensive.

Who can forget the strange case of the Deep Water Horizon environmental disaster in the Gulf.?

After the President received more campaign donations from Bristish Petroleum than any other candidate in the nation he granted BP’s Deepwater Horizon a waiver that sheltered them from regulatory requirements. The Administration subsequently honored the Deep Water Horizon with a safety award. Now after hundreds of millions of gallons of oil have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government is blaming the operators of the Deep Water Horizon for cutting corners that led to the disaster. Ironically, the Bush Adminstration which was accused of being in the pocket of big oil interests, cited the Deep Water Horizon 6 times for safety violations.

Still though, President Obama likes to wage class warfare and hold oil companies up as greedy enemies of the people, and to claim that the big, bad Republicans are in bed with them. He loves claiming that Republicans are for big business while suggesting that he is not. Yet whose Administration is risking lives, the economy, and the environment for big business in return for big money contributions to his reelection effort?

Until now, President Obama’s Administration has escaped any aggressive scrutiny of its illegal conduct. The Democrat controlled Senate and House that he enjoyed for the first two years of his term, failed to thoroughly investigate any of the many puffs of smoke that indicated the fires of Obama related corruption. President Obama failed to face proper scrutiny in the case of BP. He failed to be properly investigated when his Administration was found to have been offering Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestack a job in turn for not challenging Senator Arlen Specter in a Democratic primary, or even when his Justice Department refused to investigate charges of black on white racism. These are just a few of the examples of corruption that has been ignored by the political establishment but this President has been virtually immune from the law in regards to a long list of other illegal activity. Such as:

  • Seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress.
  • Firing whistle-blower Gerald Walpin for doing his job as the Inspector-General in charge of investigating corruption, waste, and fraud in government programs.
  • Collecting data on fellow Americans who oppose healthcare reform with flag@whitehouse.gov and now, through a new Obama campaign website, again collecting data on fellow Americans who disagree with the Administration
  • Placing the U.S. Census Bureau under the supervision of the White House Chief of Staff, by law the Department of Commerce.
  • His Justice Department’s smuggling of weapons, that the President signed off on funding for.
  • Manipulating jobs by hiring and rehiring Census workers.
  • Creating false districts and assigning stimulus funds to those districts.
  • Violating tax codes by releasing private tax details to the public when attacking Koch Industries.
  • Creating a taxpayer-funded position, Director of Progressive Media & Online Response, to promote Obama’s incumbent candidacy, in violation of the Hatch Act.
  • Obama’s filming of a campaign ad in the White House in violation of FEC laws.

Now as the 2012 election begins to ramp up, any attempts to investigate the President’s questionable acts and his Adminstaration’s conflicts of interest, will be written off as politically motivated, Republican campaign tactics. In all honesty, such investigations would indeed be a distraction from the issues. But Republicans do not need to try and win in 2012 by creating any distractions from the issues. Right now, on the issues of most importance to voters, Republicans win. That is however a fact that the left will ignore when the “Solyndra” hit’s the fan. It is also a fact that should really not play a role in whether or not questionable conduct by the Obama Administration should be investigated. The law is the law and political considerations should not determine the level of scrutiny that legally questionable conduct is given. Not unless unbeknownst to me, there has been a constitutional amendment passed which grants a Commander-in-Chief immunity from such things as the Hatch Act, or tampering with sworn testimony.

Of course the President will defend his Administration by try to claim such things as being among the most transparent executive branches in history because of new procedures he enacted that releases the White House visitors logs and meeting with lobbyists to the public. But the loopholes in this policy are big enough to fit an undetected army of liberal interest groups though.

First of all, these logs are not made public until four month’s time has passed.

Then there are also reports of Administration officials scheduling meetings in the White House Conference Center which is conveniently not covered by the Worker and Visitors Entrance System (WAVES System) that collects the data for these logs. Furthermore, the White House‘s attempt to achieve “transparency“ through the WAVES System does not include records of meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops and restaurants near the White House. All of this essentially circumvents sincere disclosure laws and policies.

For those reasons, Congress should look into the passage of new lobbying disclosure regulations that have real teeth and are capable of exposing government influence of Congress and the White House in real-time.

In the meantime, President Obama is getting away with murder and while the G.O.P. does not need to take President Obama down via a scandal, they also have a responsibility to not cover-up the White House cover-ups.

Bookmark and Share

5 Comments

Filed under politics

CD-9 New York Special Election: Udpdated Results

Bookmark and ShareHere you wil find updated election results for the CD-9 special election in New York. Updates will be provided at least every 10 minutes

 Based on the districts that are reporting in and projections that indicate there is not of enough of a vote to come in from the remaining districts White House 2012 and Politics 24/7 is calling this race for Republican Bob Turner

U.S. House – District 9 – Special General

442 of 512 Precincts Reporting – 86% 

 

Bob Turner                          —   GOP                32,212  — 53%

David Weprin                     —   Dem              27,460    — 46%

Christopher Hoeppner    — SWP                     277        –  0

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

New York’s 9th Congressional District Special Election Tells Us Much Going in to 2012

Bookmark and Share   Today, some of the last waves of the 2010 midterm elections are about to sweep ashore the American political landscape. And much like the original tidal wave of victory that the G.O.P. rode to some of the largest gains of congressional seats in history, this last wave is expected to bring surprises with yet another Republican gain.

In Nevada voters in the second district will be filling the vacancy created by Joe Heller’s appointment to the U.S. Senate following Senator John Ensign’s May resignation. In that special election Republican Mark Amodei looks to be a slam dunk in what was once considered a tight race for Republicans to retain the seat, but is now considered an impossibility for Democrats to pick up.

But the real story of the day is shaping up to be the special election in New York’s 9th congressional district. There, residents of a district which is comprised of portions of Brooklyn and Queens will be electing a successor to disgraced liberal Anthony Weiner who resigned after lying about sending sexually explicit photo’s of himself over the internet. The district has been held by Democrats for nearly a century and it has not even been considered competitive at any point in the last forty years.

Yet while Republicans have not exactly had great success in special elections to fill vacant congressional seats in New York state, NY-9 seems ready to make up for that.

Over the past two years, special congressional elections that the G.O.P. should have won with relative ease, were lost to Democrats due to poorly managed campaigns and a series of assorted Party related political anomalies and blunders. In May, New York’s Upstate 26th Congressional District should have gone Republican but instead was won by Democrat, Kathy Hochul.

In 2009, Republicans lost another Upstate New York congressional seat that they should have retained.

After nominating a disastrous candidate in liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava and seeing a strong Conservative Party candidate take to the field, Democrat Bill Owen won a seat that had been in Republicans for over 100 years.

But today’s special in NY-9 is a case that is quite different. This election is being fought not in the Republican friendly upper portion of the vast Empire State, it is being fought in the Democrat stronghold of two of New York City boroughs.

The ninth spans sections of Brooklyn and Queens and is a middle and lower middle class, blue collar district heavily comprised of Jewish and Italian-American voters as well as union members. It is a district that is ideally suited for liberal candidates, like the man who previously held the seat……Anthony Weiner. Yet despite its Democrat friendly makeup, NY-9 is in the midst of casting what can only be described as a protest vote that is about to elect businessman Bob Turner over long serving liberal Assemblyman David Weprin.

While Turner’s victory is not a sure thing, polls and the prevailing winds indicate that he is a likely winner.

According to the most recent Public Policy Polling survey the race stands as follows:

  • Bob Turner (R) 47%
  • David Weprin (D) 41%
  • Christopher Hoeppner (S) 4%
  • Undecided 7%

But the story here is not merely that a Republican is about to take a seat away from Democrats that hasn’t been in G.O.P. since the 1920’s, but rather that traditional Democrat constituencies are showing their dissatisfaction with President Obama and are sending a protest vote. That story is explained by a deeper look at the most recent PPP poll of the 9th district. Republican Bob Turner has the support of as much as 29% of the Democrat vote, while Democrat David Weprin has only a 58% share. Right there you can see that things are out of whack. Democrats in New York City typically back their Party nominee in numbers approaching 80% or more.

When it comes to Republicans,Bob Turner is receiving 83% of the Republican vote and a mere 10% support Weprin.

But some of the most startling and important stats come from the districts heavy Jewish population and those voters who consider themselves to be independent.

Those results are as follows:

Among Jewish Voters

  • Bob Turner (R) 56%
  • David Weprin (D) 39%
  • Christopher Hoeppner (S) 2%
  • Undecided 4%

Among Independents

  • Bob Turner (R) 58%
  • David Weprin (D) 26%
  • Christopher Hoeppner (S) 7%
  • Undecided 10%

But perhaps the biggest story of all here is that this election is really not between Turner and Weprin at all. As it turns out the vote is between two sentiments,………………. are you happy with the way things are going a dn our President’s leadership, or are you dissatisfied by President Obama and his liberal policies?

The answer to that question is that voters are pissed at the President. And Democrat politicos know it. That is one reason why President Obama’s name is hardly mentioned by the Democrat candidates campaign but it is often brought by Republicans who are labeling Weprin as a rubberstamp for Obama’s failed policies. The reasons for that are made quite clear with the following additional Public Policy Polling data from the same poll that shows Turner ahead of Weprin.

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

  • Approve 31%
  • Disapprove 56%

Among Men

  • Approve 27%
  • Disapprove 63%

Among Women

  • Approve 35%
  • Disapprove 49%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Approve 26%
  • Disapprove 62%

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s leadership on Israel?

  • Approve 30%
  • Disapprove 54%

Among Democrats

  • Approve 42%
  • Disapprove 40%

Among Republicans

  • Approve 13%
  • Disapprove 78%

Among Independents

  • Approve 13%
  • Disapprove 66%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Approve 22%
  • Disapprove 68%

How important was the issue of Israel in deciding who to vote for Congress: very important, somewhat important, or not all that important?

  • Very important 37%
  • Somewhat important 32%
  • Not all that important 29%
  • Among Jewish Voters
  • Very important 58%
  • Somewhat important 30%
  • Not all that important 11%

To make matters worse, in 2008 President Obama won the 9th C.D. with 55% of the vote to John McCain’s 44% but when asked about the 2012 presidential election, President Obama is obviously in trouble.

2012 Presidential Election

  • Mitt Romney 46%
  • Barack Obama 42%
  • Barack Obama 44%
  • Rick Perry 43%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Mitt Romney 52%
  • Barack Obama 38%
  • Rick Perry 47%
  • Barack Obama 43%

The voters of New York’s 9th Congressional District have not suddenly changed ideologies and gone from believing that government doesn’t do enough to believing that it does too much. They remain largely supportive of Democrat policies but the sentiment among voters here is that President Obama isn’t working and his policies are failing us. As such, they are taking their frustrations out on David Weprin. That is just one of the reasons why Democrats have not brought President Obama into this district. Apparently, they have learned from the 2010 special election to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate. In that race President Obama was brought in to energize the base and motivate independent Massachusetts voters to turn out and vote for liberal Martha Coakley. As it turned out, they instead stayed home while the rest of angry electorate came out to support Republican Scott Brown and reject Barack Obama.

Now as we head into the 2012 election, NY-9 is showing us that if anything, that sentiment which swept Scott Brown into office has not changed and may have in fact built even more momentum.

Republican Bob Turner can still lose this race. Special elections usually come down to the Get Out the Vote operation and in that area, Weprin and Democrats have that aspect of the election wrapped up. With quite robust Democrat organization abilities as compared to the meager Republican organization in new York City, combined with the assistance of organized efforts by unions, the Weprin campaign can out organize the Turner campaign. But at the same time anger is a strong motivational tool and the voters of the 9thare angry at President Obama. That could make it so that there are very few voters for Democrat GOTV efforts to make sure go to the polls.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Chris Christie Tells Jersey Visitors and Residents to Go to …….. the Beach

Bookmark and Share   In the lead up to Hurricane Irene’s strike on New Jersey, Governor Christie had been on top of things and was not allowing New Jerseyans to take the storm or its potential for granted.  In doing so, he spoke a number of frank truisms, or as I call them, Christieisms………………..brutally honest and blunt statements of fact that respond to the stupidity of the masses and the mass media.  One of his most potent lines came during a Friday afternoon briefing of state efforts to prepare for the storm and get citizens out of harms way.

At one point during the briefing,  the Governor mentioned that before his press conference, he was not thrilled to see on TV, hundreds of people on the beach at Asbury Park, a municipality that had ordered a voluntary evacuation.  The Governor then suggested that these people were acting stupidly and bellowed “Get the hell of the beach…..you’ve maximized your tan, get in your cars and get out of these areas”

Now as New Jersey recovers from what turned out to be a powerful tropical storm that still wreaked havoc throughout state, most of the coastal beaches are ready to host this Labor Day weekend’s vacationers and visitors who want to have the Summer’s last hurrah.  So today Governor Christie’s Twitter feed featured this tweet………

“Get the hell back on the beach! Are you planning on going #dts this labor day weekend? #jerseyshore

Governor Christie still has his hands full with state efforts to recover from Irene.  Inland as well as coastal properties still have a great deal of clean up and repair to contend with, but the Governor knows that this last official weekend of Summer is critical to New Jersey’s economy and the hundreds of thousands of coastal businesses that rely upon season profits to get through the entire year.  As such, his creative spin on his previous warning to get off the beach before Hurricane Irene, is an amusing and welcome way to get people back there for the traditional end of Summer profit push in the state’s endless number of beach based communities.

 
Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Hey Maxine Waters….Hell is empty and all the devils are here!

Bookmark and Share   So earlier today, I called the office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters. A very polite woman answered the phone and I said;

“Hi my name is Anthony Del Pellegrino and I just wanted to tell Congresswoman Waters that she can go straight to hell and as she said, I intend to help her get there.”

The Waters aide then said to me Alright, thank you” to which I replied “No, thank you”.

I would have much rather spared the woman who took the call, the unpleasantness of a such a call, but since I am unable to speak to Maxine Waters directly, that was the best I could do.

I am not exactly sure how one goes about helping one “to get to hell”, but apparently Rep. Waters does. After all she is the responsible legislator who vowed to help the TEA Party to go to hell. So I guess she will understand my message to her better than anyone else.

In my opinion, hell for Maxine Waters would be treating her with the same respect that she respects those who disagree with her. Hell for Maxine Waters would be holding her accountable for her actions and her words. Hell for Maxine Waters would be forcing her to live under the restraints of the policies of dependency that her legislative record and ideological conviction institutes on others. For Maxine Waters, hell would be having to live in the same atmosphere of hatred, ugly discourse, dramatic distortions, and sheer intolerance that she is responsible for bringing to the national debate.

If Mrs. Waters wants to participate in that much touted “compromise” that Democrats pleaded for during the debt ceiling debate, she is doing little to let  those who represent the cause of the Americans who she is damning to hell, that she intends to promote compromise. In fact her language and her official position force those who disagree with her to dig in even harder.

Hopefully the leader of our nation and the leader of Mrs Water’s Party, President Barack Obama, will denounce Mrs. Waters and her remarks. But somehow I doubt the President will denounce the hatred his Party spews. For some reason I doubt the President will hold those who share his ideological beliefs to the same standard he holds those who disagree with him.

Maxine Waters is a loser. She has proven that time and time and again. Let us hope that our President does not act like a loser too and ignore the hate filled remarks of his liberal colleague.

In the meantime, it is incumbent on all those who do stand against the type of politics Mrs. Waters represents and join me in calling her office to let her know that she too “can go straight to hell”, and as she said, you “intend to help her get there.”

Call or write Mrs. Waters at either her L.A. district office or her Washington, D.C. office:

Los Angeles
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
10124 S. Broadway, Suite 1
Los Angeles, CA 90003
Phone: (323) 757-8900
Fax: (323) 757-9506

Washington, DC
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2201
Fax: (202) 225-7854

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

The Political Maturation of Chris Christie

Bookmark and Share  Recently socialist political news analyst Jonathon Alter declared that Chris Christie was preparing for a run for President.  This revelation was based on sources which told him that Christie began using focus groups to prepare for the run.  As it turned out the reliably unreliable Jonathon was, as usual, wrong.  Alter is a personality from MSNBC, or which I commonly refer to it as, the Mostly Slanted News Bias Corporation.  So it is not surprising that he would get yet another political scoop wrong.  However, at the same time, it is easy to assume that Christie might run.

Even after months of denying a run for President and going so far as to say that the only thing he could do to really convince people he was not running was to commit suicide, the prospect of his presidential candidacy is still not out of the question.  Christie’s name still sits at the top of the list of names of those who people would like to run and he has continuously been courted by business groups and political leaders from across the nation.  The most recent pitch was made by a mix of business leaders from Iowa, the state that holds the first presidential nominating contest. 

Saying that one will not run for President, even adamantly saying so, does not mean they won’t run.  Texas Governor Rick Perry swore that he had no interest in running and was not considering it until last month when he changed his mind.  But with Chris Christie it is probably true that he is not running.  Not now or ever.  But he is keeping his options open and recent subtle moves to moderate his image….his image, not his positions…….have proven that.

As exhibited in the clip below, Chris Christie has been hit the point where he is politically maturing. 

His recent definition of leadership demonstrates that political maturity and it is both ingenious from a strategic political perspective as well as a managerial perspective.  In the clip, you will see how Christie justifies his often hard stances and blunt talk.  It a justification that directly appeals to Independent voters, a New Jersey voting bloc that no Republican can win elected office without substantial support from.

Christie’s remarks in the clip below are the type of thing that Independent voters on the national level would appreciate and the type of statement that could even ease the tension of those who may disagree with Christie by making them believe that at least he means what he says and says what he means.  That type of respect really does cross Party lines and it is also not often seen in politics.

And Christie knows this.  That is why he promoted the clip below in his own twitter when he tweeted the following:

“[VIDEO] I think people in this state like leaders regardless of their party. Leading is not a political strategy:”
 
Chris Christie is most likely not running for President, but there is absolutely no reason why he couldn’t and between his actions, his image and statements like the one below, maybe one day he actually should run.  As for now though, I know that we could use him in New Jersey, so hopefully he will  not give the idea any serious consideration until after he has completed his second consecutive term as Governor.Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Paying Tribute To the Man Who Sold Reaganomics To Ronald Reagan

Jack F. KempBookmark and Share    Today marks the thirtieth anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s signing of the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut Act of 1981. The bill’s official legislative name was the Economic Recovery Tax Act. The legislation was authored by Jack Kemp in conjunction with Senator William Roth. Both men were co-sponsors of the legislation but Jack Kemp was the main architect and  the man  credited  for  “selling Reaganomics to Ronald Reagan.”    Then Congressman Jack Kemp, had introduced the Economic Recovery Tax Act in the House, several times before  the 1981 legislative session, but Democrat Congressional leaders and a Democrat President failed to move on it.

But once Reagan became President, he took the initiative to act on it and successfully pushed The Kemp-Roth bill through Congress. Were it not for Reagan, the economy-saving legislative initiative may never have passed, but were it not for Jack Kemp, it may never have existed in a way that was quite as strong and definitive as it wound up being.

The Kemp-Roth Tax Cut amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and was responsible for encouraging the economic growth through:

  • The reduction of individual tax rates;
  • By expensing depreciable property; and
  • Creating incentives for savings and other small businesses.

The main features of the Act were responsible for:

  • Reducing the tax rates by 25% over three years;
  • Accelerating depreciation deductions;
  • Indexing of individual income tax parameters;
  • Excluding income of two earner married couple by 10 %;
  • Reducing windfall profit taxes; and
  • And expanding provisions for employees stock ownership plans.

Once enacted, the days of malaise that existed under the old tax code during the Carter years, turned into the days of rejuvenation. It took a while to actually turn the economy around but it didn’t take as long as many predicted and once the economy did turn the corner, it took off.

Jack Kemp is no longer with us , but if he was I am sure he would repeat the following words that he once spoke:

“Every time in this century we’ve lowered the tax rates across the board, on employment, on saving, investment and risk-taking in this economy, revenues went up, not down.”

And he would be right.

We need more leaders like Jack Kemp today, but until one is found, we have the Kemp legacy to help guide us, and hopefully we will soon have leaders who will see that light that Jack Kemp, William Roth, and Ronald Reagan once shed upon us with their faith in less government, less spending, less taxation, and more freedom.

Today however, on this thirtieth anniversary of the signing in to law of the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), I ask that you pay homage to Jack Kemp by visiting a Facebook page that has been dedicated to him, his life, his work and his legacy. Please visit the Jack F. Kemp Facebook page and press the “like” button. Show your appreciation for him, his leadership and his belief in people more than government, and the free market than the government bureaucracy

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Who Sits on the Deficit Reduction Committee Will Determine Who Has Won the Debt Ceiling Debate

Bookmark and Share    The pending multifaceted, two staged deal on raising the debt ceiling has received mixed reaction. Those on the left despise the fact that the deal does not include any immediate tax increases, or as they have been defined in this debate, revue increases. Those on the right despise the deal because it does not contain any significant reforms on entitlements and does no go far enough in proposing cuts. Then there are those who have no partisan political allegiances. These are for the most part, the average independent, middle of the road voter. These individuals understand that the proposal’s almost $3 trillion in deficit reduction over a ten year period is really only a drop in the bucket that does little to put a dent into our long term debt and is still not enough to maintain the United States’ AAA credit rating.

While the deal is not yet a done deal, despite conservative angst with the proposal and liberal disgust for the bill, it is more than likely going to pass in the Senate. So ultimately, look for passage of the bill.

That brings up another debate. One that is totally based on political perceptions and asks who won this deficit ceiling debate?

Seeing as how the bill raises our debt ceiling and does not reduce our debt significantly enough, there are no winners. At least not immediately. In fact the lack of immediate results makes us all losers here. But at the same time, it is clear that Republicans have settled on a deal that moves things in their direction. Democrats received none of the tax increases they wanted, they received none of the spending increases they wanted, and they were forced to accept some bitter pills. Some of these pills include the Republicans desire to get Democrats on record with a future vote on a balanced budget amendment and immediate spending caps. Another Republican victory in the proposal that is hard for the left to swallow is the automatic wholesale cut of up to $1.2 trillion that will occur if several terms of this bill are not met by the time Congress goes on their Thanksgiving recess in October.

So it would seem that Republicans have advanced their conservative agenda far more than liberals advanced their socialist agenda. Still, the need to reduce the deficit significantly enough to insure that our debt does not continue to exceed our GDP, has not been achieved.

Solving that problem will require deficit reduction actions that more than double the nearly $3 trillion proposed over the next decade. And that will have to be done in the not so distant future.

In the meantime, while Republicans did not have to compromise as much as Democrats were forced to, they are not yet winners in the debate. That will only be determined in October when the newly created Select Committee on Deficit Reduction proposes the $1.2 trillion in cuts and expense saving reforms that the bill demands. From the Republican perspective, the danger here is that this super committee is not limited to spending cuts and entitlement reforms. It could end up proposing tax increases (revenues). The committee could also shirk its responsibility to significantly reform entitlements, something that will be quite hard to pass the Senate anyway.

Given the flexibility that the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction has, the only way the G.O.P. will have proven that they were successful in this recent deficit ceiling debate will come from what the Select Committee on deficit Reduction comes up with.

The committee is to be comprised of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, presumable chosen by the legislative leaders of the perspective political Parties. Boehner and McConnell for Republicans, and President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for the Democrats.

The Party leaders will initially consider the usual cast of characters as candidates for this committee. People like Tom Kean, Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson, Lee Hamilton, Judd Gregg, and other seemingly, now non-partisan, elder statesmen. Now while there may not necessarily be anything wrong with the usual cast of candidates for typical D.C., bureaucratic committees, the crisis we are in is not typical. Our debt crisis is so severe that for the first time in history, military experts warn that it has become a national security crisis. Furthermore; President Obama’s leadership has awakened the nation to just how distinct the political ideologies that divide our nation are. People have come to question what kind of nation America will be. Will we be the type of nation with a government that controls more and more of our lives with greater control, or do we want less spending, less government, and more freedom. Including economic freedom.

The ideological differences have become so divergent, that it is incumbent on the G.O.P. to make sure that the 6 members they choose for the deficit reduction commission are true conservatives who believe in limited government. Any one of those who doesn’t hold true to that belief, can easily defect and give the balance of power to the 6 liberals that Democrats will appoint to that committee.

So who should the G.O.P. appoint to the committee?

The first choice should be House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Ryan is a must. He is a deficit hawk who is reasonable but passionate. He understands the need for entitlement reform, supports a balanced budget amendment, is brave enough to stand against the tide of popular opinion and not looking for anything more than getting the job done.

Another appointment should be Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

Daniels has been there and done that when it comes to the budget, deficits, and spending. As Governor, his state has been one of the most economically stable states in the nation and he brings to the table some first hand experience with the excellent built-in, economic structural aspects of the budget process that Indiana has and that the United States would be wise to adopt.

Former Tennessee Fred Thompson is another excellent choice.

Thompson has proven to have a wealth of understanding for our existing problems and a unique down-to-earth and often blunt approach to the problem that can be refreshing.

Other good choices would be individuals who do not come from the often self-contained alternative reality that is Washington, D.C. People who are students of sound economic policy and people who have operated with and successfully crafted budgets that created jobs. The type of people who come from the real world……the private sector. People like Jack Welch, the most studied CEO of the 20th century, who had a successful 41- year career with the General Electric Company, one of the nation’s most preeminent names in the free market. Lawrence Kudlow is another refreshing suggestion. The CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, an economic research firm was a chief economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, back when Bear Sterns ran things right, he improper workings of the Federal Reserve Bank regarding open market operations and bank supervision. Kudlow is also the host of The Kudlow Report on CNBC.

With the exception of Paul Ryan, there are probably others who would make even better members than those suggested above. These are the type of people who should have a seat at the table that represents the conservative, free market, economic principles which can get us back on track. Without conservative voices who will stand firm on these values, Democrats will wind up being the real winners of this most contentious recent debt ceiling debate.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics