Tag Archives: state politics

New Jersey Republican State Chairman Jay Webber Abruptly Resigns

Bookmark and Share   Assemblyman Jay Webber, the Chairman of the New Jersey Republican State Committee, has resigned from his position as Chairman. The announcement was an unexpected one which seems to have partially been the result of a number of small disagreements between Webber and Governor Christie. In addition to the Governor being unsettled by a letter concerning the budget of the upcoming State Reapportionment Commission,  the Assemblyman is said to have also  been frustrated with  a level of secrecy surrounding the operations of Reform Jersey Now, a fundraising entity created by Governor Christie’s closest confidants and was uncomfortable with the lack of assistance provided by the Governor on state G.O.P. fundraising efforts during the summer, when the Governor was traveling across the country to campaign for fellow Republican gubernatorial candidates. 
As for the disagreement over the letter that Webber sent out regarding the Reapportionment Commission budget, earlier  today, Assemblyman Webber released the same letter on his Facebook page, leading some to wonder if  he was reinforcing his position despite the Governors sentiments.

In a statement to the press, Webber called his resignation “bittersweet” and stated that the only reason for his early departure was due to his commitment to the once in a decade redistricting process, a process that redraws the new congressional and state legislative districts through a reapportionment commission of which Webber is the Republican delegation’s Chairman to and his commitment to responsibilities in the Assembly as a member of the Labor and ever important Budget Committees.  The Assemblyman felt that now was the most appropriate time for him to step aside as State G.O.P. Chairman, focus on his other important responsibilitiesm and allow for the next NJGOP Chairman to get a head start in giving the critical pre-2011 election operations the attention that they deserve and require in the months ahead.

Jay Webber is probably one of New Jersey’s greatest political assets. He is an outstanding voice for conservatism, an unusually outstanding one for a state like New Jersey. He is additionally a dedicated and responsible representative of his legislative district. He is one of those rare political leaders who emanates a genuine sincerity of purpose and ability to boot. As such, he has been entrusted with the stewardship of many important tasks and therefore does indeed have much on his plate. So Webber’s claim to focus on such things as the ever important state budget and the critical redistricting that will effect elections for the next decade, is quite palatable. But seeing him resign his post as State Party Chairman is a loss and the Governor’s willingness to let Webber leave the post is a disappointing one.

During his less than two years in the position of Chairman, the NJGOP experienced its first statewide victory in 12 years, regained the 3rd Congressional District seat, won over 52% of the Congressional votes statewide in 2010; gained a State Assembly seat and a net gain of 22 countywide seats, regained control of the Bergen and Monmouth County Freeholder Boards; implemented an historic Victory program in 2009 that made over 2.3 million volunteer phone calls, knocked on over 170,000 doors, and recruited more than 3500 volunteers, raised over $4 million for candidates and party operations; and registered more than 42,000 new Republican voters.

While Chris Christie and the nationwide political trends against Democrats, Webber was surely not solely responsible for all of these successes but he most certainly was instrumental in maximizing our gains and organizing the means to take advantage of positive Republican prospects.

Webber’s replacement is expected to be Saddle River Mayor and Christie confidant, Sam Raia.

For his part Raia issued a statement crediting now former Chairman Webber with great success and vowing to build upon that success and to take back the legislature in this year’s elections.

To do so, Raia will have a lot of work to do. For now, considering the big shoes that he has to fill, he will need the support of Republicans throughout the state and the full cooperation of Governor Christie.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Presidential Seal Falls As Fast As President Obama’s Poll Numbers

Bookmark and Share     You just can’t create better symbolism than this,  but amid a midterm election season that is about see Democrats drop like flies and is seeing faith in President Obama and his policies drop like a ton of bricks, while delivering a speech at the Carnegie Mellon Auditorium in Washington for Fortune magazine’s “Most Powerful Women Summit” , the Great Seal of the President of the United States which adorns every podium that all Presidents speak from, fell off and crashed to the ground in a raucous clatter.  

For his part, President Obama did handle the situation quite well, especially given how there were no words on his teleprompter to dictate to him how to handle the impromptu interruption.  As the Great Seal fell off in mid sentence, President Obama  uttered an “oops” as he leaned over, looked on the ground at the fallen seal and stated, “That’s alright.  All of you know who I am”.  The President then quipped about how although it was alright, he was sure someone on staff was sweating bullets over the mishap.

The incident though brings to mind the often touted Murphy’s Law which describes the 2010 midterms for Democrats perfectly as it claims that anything that can possibly go wrong, does.  

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Confidence In President’s Prosecution Of The War On Terror Unravels

Bookmark and Share    After reversing his decision to have professed 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 co-conspirators, tried in New York because of costs, security concerns and massive disruptions in local commerce and life in the area surrounding the court that the case was suppose to be held in , the Administration finds itself sending a mixed message.

As the Justice Department seeks  a new venue for the trial, they are looking at having the civilian trial of the 9/11 five, tried on a military base.

The thinking is that a military base will be a ore secure location that will discourage any retaliatory terrorist threats from taking place as a result of the highly publicized trial. In addition to the security benefits of having the trial on a military base, it is cheaper than trying to secure a whole city.  It will also be far less disruptive to the communities adjacent to where these civilians trials would take place.  

As the Justice Departments searches for a new venue, using what they learned from attempts to have the civilian trial of the 9/11 terrorists in New York City, the President is now earmarking $200 million dollars to cover the expenses that the trial incur, wherever it is held. In New York City, between the Mayor’s office ands the Police Commissioners office, the total expense for the City was projected to be $1 billion.

The new budget appropriation for the prosecution of the 9/11 terrorists and the search and rationale for changing the venue of the trial to a military base, brings rise to the question of why did the Administration decide against the prescribed military tribunal that the five 9/11 enemy combatants were originally suppose tried in.

The entire episode has led many to question just how seriously the President takes the War on Terror. Many believe that President Obama’s desire to prosecute those who have pledged themselves to a jihad, a holy war, against the United States, as average citizens.

In an attempt to force the President’s hand,make it imposssible to try the 9/11 terrorists in a military court, Republicans are now proposing legislation that would prohibit tfrom funding the prosecution of any 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court.  That measure is being proposed later this week by Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Similar legislation has already been proposed by New York Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island.

King’s legislation would prohibit federal funds for the trials of any detainees who have or are held at Guantanamo Bay.

Both bills are meant to force the Justice Department to try either the 9/11 terroists in  a military tribunal. 

Although I applaud the intentions of these lawmakers, we all know that these “republican” bills will not see the light of day in this liberal controlled regime, despite their sudden, I suggest quite tongue-in-cheekily, desire for “bi-partisanship”. Additionally, before Republicans even get the chance to have Democrats oppose the bill on the record, Democrats will have the ability to say that Republicans tried to cut off the funds that would allow us to prosecute terrorists.  Politics is very tangled web that is weaved by very twisted people.

In the meantime, one Mayor is begging for the trial to be held in his town,.

The Mayor of Newburgh, New York,  Nicholas Valentine wants his financially strapped city to host the trial in their newly refurbished federal court house.

Newburgh is a poor city. On top of that, they still have not come up with all the cash to pay for their newly refurbished courthouse. So Mayor Valentine says that he knows some town is going to benefit from a community assistance package that will inevitably come with the trial, so why not let it be his town?  Hence the President’s $200 million earmark for the trial. Valentine also says that the trial will bring in tourism dollars. So at least the Mayor of one sleepy and depressed town sees the 9/11 trial as something to be exploited for lots of money and in this case, a way to pay off the refurbishment of the court house which he didn’t have them money for in the first place.  Leaders of the county that Newburgh is diagree with the Mayor though.  They are not so keen on the type of so-called tourism that terrorists will bring.

All things considered, President Obama botched this up in every way possible. It began when he promised to close Guantanamo Bay, a promise he still has not been able to fulfill. He botched it up even more when he decided to give foreign terrorist and enemy combatants the rights of American citizens and try them in civilian courts, where war crimes should not be tried.

Which brings us back to the question of how serious does the President really take the War on Terror?

Sometimes he sounds strongly committed to aggressively prosecuting that war. But his decisions do not match his rhetoric. This is a point driven home by Senator Susan Collins (Rhino-R, ME).  A liberal at heart, even Senator Collins sees that the President’s hands are not wrapped very tightly around the anti-terrorism effort. In the Republican weekly radio address, she oddly, but strongly articulated that point. (see clip below)

I for one stated that the decision to try the five captured and professed terrorists behind 9/11 that we have in custody as civilians was wrong. I also have repeatedly stated that the decision to not prosecute them in a military tribunal will come back to bite the President in the rear end, come election time, which is right about when this trial should be concluding.

As each day passes my expectations are being confirmed.

The unraveling of the people’s confidence in the President’s ability to effectively wage war against terrorists and protect Americans from fundamental Islamic extremists, hell bent on killing Americans, has begun.

Hopefully the terrorists will not be able to take advantage of the vulnerabilities that the President’s lack of leadership has left us open to.

Bookmark and Share


Filed under politics

So Once Again, “You Lie” Applies To The President’s Speech

Bookmark and Share    Congressman Joe Wilson promised not interrupt the President during his State Of The Union Address so that he could tell him he lies but now that his speech is over, we are disappointed in having to tell you, that,………….the  President LIED! 

In his attempt to backtrack on  his first year in office, President Obama said;

“To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

“That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.”

 As was the case with many things spoken last night, on this issue the President was once again talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

Take for example the Deputy Defense Secretary, William Lynn.   Deputy Secretary Lynn was a lobbyist for Ratheon, one of the nation’s largets defense contractors.   Now I am not objecting to the Deputy’s abilities, knowledge  or value in his position.  For me, the fact tht he held a job which dealt with aspects of what he is now the Deputy Secretary of , indicates that he is experiencd.  In this case with military hardware.  

However; I am not the one standing before you trying to create other people for you to be angry at and blame, in this case lobbyists, and denying that one of those enemies you should be angry at is part of my Cabinet.

Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Ratheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.

 But the problem is worse than just Deputy Secretary Lynn’s lobbyist history.  Thanks to the people at Red State, the following list of other lobbyists turned members of the Administration was compiled:

  • Eric Holder, Attorney General, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm .
  • Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
  • William Corr, Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
  • David Hayes, Deputy Interior Secretary, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
  • Mark Patterson, Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
  • Ron Klain, Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
  • Mona Sutphen, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
  • Melody Barnes, Domestic Policy Council Director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
  • Cecilia Munoz, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
  • Patrick Gaspard, White House Political Affairs Director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
  • Michael Strautmanis, Chief of Staff to the President’s Assistant for Intergovernmental Relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Perhaps Presient Obama is not aware of everyone in  his Administration.  Maybe that is why he so convincingly stated that none of the above type of people were affiliatd with his Administration.  If that’s the case, then we have a problem.  A big problem.  If the President doesn’t know the backgtrounds of those in his Administration, how confident could would be about those National Security background checks or future chcks on that TSA “No Fly List”.

For adll we know, Osama bin Laden is in the White House secretarial pool and the alert members of the White House haven’t even notced that women in the pink polka dress with a long grey beard and turbn on her head.

Either way there is a problem.

If the President and the extensive staff that prepares his State of the Union Address don’t know who is in the  Administration and Cabinet than they are inept and undeserving of their jobs.  If this was known, the as Joe Wilson once pointed out…………….the President is a liar.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

President Uses State of the Union To Talk Out Of Both Sides of His Mouth

Bookmark and Share     On an occasion such as the State of The Union, there exists a certain suspense that electrifies the air for those who appreciate and understand the power of the presidency. It stems from knowing that a true leader and the ability of powerful articulation can turn things around with the utterance of a just a few words. If a President ever needed to draw on such leadership and powerful articulation, Barack Obama did.

After being undeniably thumped by an electorate unhappy with his priorities and failings, President Obama needed to set a new tone, distract us away from the old one and try to create a new positive, hopeful, agenda. To a degree, a significant portion of the population will fall for the rhetorical pros that the President offered and believe that he really did learn a lesson and drop his aggressive socialist agenda.  But in the coming months, it looks like the President’s deeds will betray his words.

President Obama’s address was carefully targeted.  For instance, in many ways, the President tried to appeal to his most vocal critics regarding an issue that many are quite critical of Democrats overr………………taxes.   Despite claims that Bush tax cuts need to expire because they hurt, President Obama took great credit for offering a Christmas tree of tax cuts. He even touted the merits of trickle-down economics when he stated that his tax cuts “gave Americans more buying power”. What President Obama failed to mention was that his seemingly long list of supposed tax cuts in the past and the ones he is proposing in the future are so meager that their benefits are hardly felt.

President Obama’s newfound faith in tax cuts was merely one of many 180 degree turns that his rhetoric took from the reality of his policies.

He spoke of bi-partisanship.

On this he may have learned lesson, because his words about his future conduct, sharply contrasted his past actions. He promised monthly meetings with the Republican leadership. He endorsed a bipartisan fiscal commission and he even appealed to Republicans and urged them to be bipartisan. Yet, this is the same man who refused to allow Republicans to sit down at the table with him and Democrat leaders as they tried to hammer out their version of healthcare reform. Where was President Obama’s yearning for bipartisanship then?

What a difference an election makes.

The election of Republican Scott Brown destroys the unbridled control of liberals and now, when the President will need to deal with Republicans, he wants bipartisanship. He should get it but he should also practice it as he preaches it.

Our Commander-In-Chief once again spoke of transparency.  He demanded that earmarks be posted on a website so that all can see them before they get voted on. I support the concept, so long as it does not call for an entire new federal department to run and as long as it does not distort the numbers as was the case with Recovery.gov, which was suppose to show where all the stimulus money was going and what is was producing.  That site created fictitious congressional districts and fake jobs.  But what about this push for transparency? Was it practiced by the President when he refused to allow C-Span into his meetings with Democrats involving healthcare reform? 

And what about earmarks?

They did not bother the President in any of the 124 bills that he signed into law during his first year in office.  I failed to hear him protest the hundreds of millions earmarked for Arkansas’  Blanche Lincloln, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu or North Dakota’s Ben Nelson when they were given earmarks in return for their support of healthcare reform.

President Obama also seemingly reversed his position on energy too.

Suddenly he endorses the construction of nuclear power facilities and the drilling of domestic oil. He opposed such measures in the past,  so what accounts for the sudden reversal? The truth is, it is not a reversal at all. As with all that the President said he wants to forge ahead with, subtle caveats were offered, In this case, he would move on nuclear and domestic oil energy independence but only if  his Cap-and Trade scheme is passed in Senate. Hence the new use of the both climateand energy together in one bill.  The White House intends to link support of his Cap-and-Trade environmental scheme to energy and stand in the way of one without the other.  Is that compromise?  What the President failed to mention was that Cap-and-Trade would amount to the greatest transfer of wealth in history and tax everything from the air we breathe to the flatulence of each farm animal that a farmer owns.

Indeed President Obama sounded hopeful and at times he even sounded conservative. But the truth is that the Obama soundtrack is as about as out of sync sync with his actual goals as a poorly made karate flick or Japanese monster movie dubbed over in English.

In general the President’s first State of the Union had a rightfully optimistic tone. He is right when he stated ” I have never been more hopeful about America than I am tonight because of our strength” .   The phrase was remiscent of First Lady Michelle Obama’s claim to have never been more proud of America than she was when he husband was winnin g Democrat presidential primaries. 

But in this case the President was right to be hopeful because of our strength but what he does not yet understand is that that strength comes from the American people, not their government.

In the Republican response to the President , Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell effectively pointed this out when spoke of the need for a proper limited government at every level and reminded us that top down leadership is not working and that the government closest to the people is the best government.

Governor McDonnell reminded us that Cap-and-Trade does not create jobs and lower taxes. Yet while the President spent much time talking about job creation and a prosperous people, his liberal Cap-and-Trade proposals would hurt job growth and make energy more unaffordable.

In short, the President used the State of the Union to restore a badly damaged image and establish some sense of confidence as he moves ahead. But his words contradicted his actions and his policy initiatives contradicted his Party’s direction. In the end, his State of the Union address actually created more questions than it answered and sparked more doubt than confidence. So I suspect that as next 10 months leading up to the midterm elections unfolds, despite his stated dislike for what he called “the perpetual campaign”, President Obama will be campaigning quite hard to save his party’s losses and as such he will continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Mayor Hopes President Changes His Mind Regarding 9/11 Terrorists

Bookmark and Share    As expected New York City’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has changed his mind about trying the enemy combatants who were behind the 9/11 attacks in a New York City civilian court.

Residents in the area of where the trial will be held have been demonstrating against the move. They have made it clear that the disruption caused by the enormous security measures and fear of retaliation in the area, will make life for local New Yorkers miserable. Merchants have also offered their protestations to the trial of foreign terrorist being held in their backyard. They claim that the massive security operation will create unbearable congestion and disruption that will disrupt and in some cases, shut down local commerce. Streets will be closed and stores, stores will be empty and small business owners will suffer yet again because of terrorism.

After detailed assessments of what the cost New York will be forced to cover because of the President’s decision to not try the 9/11 Five in a military court . Mayor Bloomberg out the price tag at a minimum of $1 billion dollars.

Between the heavy price tag and the chorus of cries from the New Yorkers who will be most affected by the President’s decision, the Mayor concluded that he hopes Attorney General Holder and President Obama “change their mind”. But Bloomberg is not concerned with the unseemliness of trying foreign, enemy combatants in a civilian court. His concern is the cost. And it is not an unreasonable for a City going through tough economic times. Bloomberg suggests that decision makers move the trial from the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Court house to a military base or possibly even West Point. He adds that such a location might be inconvenient for jurors to get to, but the traffic in New York City will be so tied up in knots because of the trial that getting the downtown Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Court will also be inconvenient.

Although Bloomberg’s wish that the powers that be conduct the civilian trial on a military installation is only based on financial concerns, others are concerned with the elevated threat that the trial will attract. Many also wonder how enemy combatants who have not been read their Miranda rights can actually be tried in a court with the standards for a proper trial has not been met. Without having their rights read to them when they were captured on fields of battle, there exists a strong case for having charges dropped .

If the President does not reverse his decision and change not just the location of the terrorist trial but the its jurisdiction from a civilian to a military court, than not only will there be an unnecessary severe inconvenience to New Yorkers along with a an unnecessary disruption to commerce but there will be an unnecessarily heightened risk to New Yorkers in addition to a ton of loopholes that could allow these terrorists to walk if the rules of a civilian court are applied to foreign enemies of the state who are captured by non-civilian American forces on the field of battle.

I have stated before that the timing of this civilian trial for enemy combatants that should be tried in a military tribunal will be a major factor in President Obama’s reelection loss in 2012. But that is the least of our concerns, just ask New Yorkers and mayor Bloomberg.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Republicans To Offer Strong Response To The President’s Rhetoric

Bookmark and Share     As suggested in Politics 24/7’s State of the G.O.P. Address, the Republican Party must….
  • Put new blood forward and present new ideas. Let voters know that old guard Republicans are on their way out.
  •  A step in that direction is coming tonight, when Republicans put freshman Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell center stage as he delivers the Republican response to the Prsident’s State of the Union Address.Unlike Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who lastg year received sour reviews for his response to the President, Governor McDonnell is articulate, energetic, and convincing.  He is a perfect model for the new generation of Republicans.

    In his Republican retort to the President, the Governor will highlight the fact that it is about time President Obama focus on  the economy and jobs but what he still doesn’t get is that voters do not want government expanded in an attempt to grow the economy and create jobs.  That is  an unsustainable growth that will only make matters worse.

    Bob McDonnell’s address promises to be a statement that will effectively counter what will undoubtedly be a strong speech by President Obama.  McDonnell will successfully create doubt about the President’s committment to fiscal conservatism and his too little, too late “limited” domestic spending freeze.

    Bookmark and Share

    Leave a comment

    Filed under politics

    The State of The Republican Party

    Bookmark and Share   The state of the Republican Party is questionable but promising.

    After a slew of victories at the end of ‘09, including the gain of County Executives, council seats, and  Republican Governors in New Jersey and Virginia, combined with the pick up of a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts at the beginning of 2010, the G.O.P. is alive and well. But the successes seen recently have largely come not because voters perceive the Republican Party to be superior. Much of our success was due more to the perception that the Democrat Party is inferior.

    Since President Obama took office one year ago, Americans have seen him increase the national debt by $1.693 trillion, try to tax the air that we breathe with a Cap-and-Trade measure, attempt to have government takeover healthcare, initiate hundred of billions of dollars in spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs, break promises for missile defense systems, dither on his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, try to close down Guantanamo Bay, force foreign terrorists to be tried in civilian courts rather than military tribunal and bow down to foreign leaders.

    Along the way Americans also got to see President Obama call police officers stupid, expand the size of government, appoint an endless array of unelected and unaccountable czars, participate in 28 fundraisers for Democrats that raised almost $28 million for political coffers, campaign for Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, screw up security measures in the Transportation Security Authority, take more trips to foreign nations in his first year in office than any other U.S. President and we have listened to him apologize for America on foreign soil.

    As for the rest of his Party, Americans watched Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pass legislation under the cover of darkness and Democrat Senators and Congressman vote on legislation they never read. We also watched a process that was suppose to be bi-partisan and transparent, turn into one of the most partisan and clandestine operating governments in American history, seen pork barrel spending increase and lawmakers take hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to vote for healthcare reforms that most Americans do not want.

    Nothing embodied all that infuriated us more than the Democrat led attempt to have government takeover healthcare. That process contained examples of all of the above. It also hangs above Democrats like a sword of Damocles and represents the precise wrong direction Americans see our nation going in.

    The result of all this liberal leadership has been an increase in unemployment as well as spending and our debt, lawmakers who are seemingly irresponsive to the wishes of the people and believe they are above the law, and a nation that has more doubt about our nation’s future than confidence in its future.

     So it should come as no surprise that voters are angry.

    That anger has been to the detriment of Democrats, while Republicans were the beneficiaries of it. republicans are not the ones in control of government. They are the ones that Democrats have, up to now, chose to shut out. So it is only natural for voters to give credit where credit is due…….right in the laps of liberals.

    But as we move ahead, the G.O.P. must not rebuild its majority simply because they aren’t Democrats. Such a rise to power would ultimately be short lived.

    In the existing political atmosphere, the opportunities that exists for the Republican Party are golden. People are not pleased with the direction liberals are taking them in. Nationwide, Tea Party organizations have demonstrated loudly and are organizing rapidly. Their goal is to get government off their back. They do not want the government making their healthcare decisions and determining when and where they can receive it. They do not want government in the business of business. They do not want G.M. to stand for Government Motors. They don’t want their children’s futures sold out from under them with endless spending or with pieces of overreaching legislation that are over 2,000 pages long and have not been read but are passed because a majority of lawmakers took bribes for their reelection bids.

    These Tea Party patriots are not pro-Republican. They hold the G.O.P. accountable for going along with Democrats and for not reducing debt under George Bush. They are not fans of the G.O.P. . For them, simply being not as bad as liberals does not make Republicans deserving of praise and support.

     And they’re right.

    That is why we must reinvent our commitment to the principles of our Party and the founding principles of our nation.

    As a Party we must bring forth a concrete foundation to run on. A foundation that addresses all that has voters up in arms. We must also not fear that commitment sounding “too strong”. No matter how Republicans address our nation’s problems, liberals will call the G.O.P. “extreme”. But we must remember that our purpose is not to sound like Democrats or to please liberals. Our purpose is to solve problems and be true to the most sacred American document in existence………………the American Constitution.

    Americans of every stripe and party affiliation have become acutely aware of the unconstitutional legislative conduct that our process has been advancing. Many Americans are aware of the federal governments overreaching and excesses. They see how states rights are trampled. They are also aware of how our government seems to reward mediocrity and punish success. So now is the time for the Republican Party to come before the nation with a pledge. It is a pledge to recommit ourselves to the Constitution. This pledge must outline several areas of focus in which all candidates will commit to and collectively fight for, as a Party and as individual legislators.


    The Pledge of Commitment

    We, the people, commit ourselves to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity,…… — Equal JusticeFreedom of SpeechLimited Government PowerPrivate Property RightsReligious Tolerance and — Respect for women, life and the Rule of Law.

    We are committed to a legislative process that does not propose or pass any legislative agenda or initiative that is of questionable constitutional integrity or inequitable, overreaching or excessive.

    For these reasons, we dedicate ourselves and our Party to reigning in the excesses of federal spending and unjust control. As such we are committed to the following 10 initiatives and goals.

    • All proposed bills, amendments and spending measures must contain the section of the Constitution that provides the constitutional basis for its consideration and passage.
    • The 2.8% Congressional pay raise that the Democrat led Congress passed in 2009 will be repealed and Congress will then subsequently reduce their salaries by an additional 15%.
    • Link the salaries of federal legislators to the economy they manipulate.
    • Institute a four year federal hiring freeze on all non-essential emergency managemnet security, defense and medical related operations .
    • Reduce the federal payroll by eliminating non-essential, emergency management, security, defense and medical positions through attrition.
    • Obliterate the existing arcane, oppressive loophole ridden, unfair tax code and adopt a one-rate, Flat Tax Reform Act that does not ask any one American to pay a greater percentage than any other American. One rate for one America.
    • Dismantle the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Education and Housing and Urban Development.
    • Make healthcare and health insurance more accessible and more affordable by reducing the healthcare bureaucracy and improving the existing free market based healthcare system, expanding portability and adopting tort reforms.
    • Make no apologies for our defense of freedom and prosecute enemy combatants in military tribunals, not civilian courts.
    • Secure our borders and repair our broken immigration and immigration enforcement laws.

    With these legislative goals, we hereby commit ourselves to restoring constitutional integrity to the federal government and seek to be more responsible stewards of the offices the people elect us to.


    This Pledge of Commitment is a reform minded agenda that curbs the excesses of government, respects states rights and personal freedoms and demonstrates our desire to have a government that lives within its means and allows the people the means to achieve personal prosperity.

    It is time that we accept the fact that the founding principles of yesterday were responsible for our nations strength in the past and are key to our nation’s and Party’s success in the future.

    As the next year unfolds, with primaries and political debates, the next leaders of our Party will emerge. Currently, we are in transition. With many highly competitive Republican primaries taking place, slowly the new guard is replacing the old guard and the next generation of conservative leaders will slowly but surely emerge.

    Until that time, with no leading figure, with no one face to represent us, it is important that all Republicans take this Pledge of Commitment. Without one great messenger to represent us, it is imperative that we act on the 10 goals outlined, together as one. Unity in our pledge is imperative to our ability to distinguish ourselves from Democrats as we move forward.

    We are now just months away from the 2010 midterm elections. Currently, we have the chance for big gains. But these gains will only be realized if we stand for something and be more than naysayers. Our Pledge of Commitment represents very specific measures that indicate a new and clear direction for our nation. With this new direction, if we are united, the ripples that were set in motion by the perfect storm that swept a Republican into the United States Senate from Massachusetts, can be turned into waves that can sweep Republicans into office from New York to California.

    As it stands now, of the 37 senate contests being held this November, 19 are occupied by Republicans and 18 by Democrats. If the G.O.P. can get on message and demonstrate how and why we are different from Democrats and why voters should have faith in us, our Party is on track to keeping all 19 Republican seats in our column.   At the same time, we are on track to take 7 seats away from Democrats……Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.

    If strong opponents emerge in Washington State and New York, Democrat Patty Murray’s seat could be in jeopardy as well as Kirsten Gillibrand’s seat in New York.  That would be 9 seats, for a total of 50. That’s  not enough to break a tie with Vice President Joe Biden as the President of the Senate, but add to that former Democrat but now current Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who has recently stated his possible willingness to become a Republican, and that would bring us to 51 Republican seats and control.

    Another race that could come into play is California.

    51 or 52 seats are unlikely though.

    New York is becoming increasingly in play as Harold Ford, Jr. starts beating Giilibrand up,  but is not there yet.  republican susan molinari needs to enter the race.   Washington is probably out of reach, the California race is currently static, and Joe Lieberman won‘t switch until he  absolutely sure that  whatever move he makes assures him of being in hichever Party maintains majority status.

    But a lock on picking up seven seats from Democrats is becoming very real. That would reduce liberal’s influence significantly and bring the balance of power much closer with 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans.

    In the House, things are even more unstable for Democrats.

    With 256 seats held by Democrats and 178 by Republicans (Democrat Rep. Robert Wexler’s Florida seat is vacant but sure to stay in Democrat hands) the G.O.P is looking like it will pick up a minimum of 27 seats which would bring a more balanced 205 Republicans to 230 Democrats. If all the stars were aligned in our favor and we successfully nationalized our campaigns, I see another 13 seats that could be in play. Remarkably, that would change the make up of the House and produce 218 Republican seats to 217 Democrat seats.

    Taking control of either branch of Congress is not likely but it is possible. Whether that is achieved or not will depend on how strongly we unite as a Party and convince voters that we are devoted to our Pledge of Commitment. If we can convince voters of our sincere desires to take a more equitable, honest, transparent, and constitutional approach to governance, than even if we don’t take majority control of Congress, we will have made significant gains and put a stop to the partisan dictatorship that is currently reigning supreme in Washington, D.C. .

    In addition to a strong, united campaign based on our Pledge of Commitment, strategic and logistical influences will be essential.

    As we move ahead our Party must

    • Unite and get better organized, especially in the area of networking
    • Hammer home our anti-establishment, anti government sentiment and undying commitment to freedom and prosperity.
    • Add an emotional component to every issue.
    • Create new funding channels, including large numbers of small financial donations.
    • Use technology to organize activists, increase transparency, register voters, and change minds
    • Invite ideas from the public and develop a way to identify, develop and publicize the best ones.
    • Turn talk radio listeners into donors and activists and provide them with constructive and productive ways to help local candidates and national causes.
    • Tap into anti-government constituencies ( i.e.: Libertarians and Tea Partiers)
    • Poke fun at the Administrations promised “change” and their calls for transparency in government. Mock the “hope” the President was to bring.
    • Day and night, night and day, reinforce Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the faces and leaders of the Liberal Party.
    • Exploit all Democrat weaknesses.
    • Develop clear messages and have policy makers become message makers.
    • Create media markets and operating systems to inspire, generate and direct activism.
    • Work closely with all grassroots organizations.
    • Relentlessly exploit the weaknesses of key Democrat leaders.
    • Put new blood forward and present new ideas. Let voters know that old guard Republicans are on their way out.

    The task at hand is daunting.

    It took us years to find ourselves in minority status and it will take some time to get back to majority status. But Democrats are helping to measure the amount of time our journey takes in months rather than years.

    The one thing in Democrats favor is the timing in which voter anger has been realized.

    In 1994, when Republicans took control of both branches of Congress for the first time in four decades, the anti-incumbent sentiments were not fully understood until after the mid-term, when Democrat heads rolled. President Obama however, has the fortune of learning about voter dissatisfaction, almost a year before his mid-term elections.

    The fact that the President has gone a full week without having a single major speech about healthcare indicates that he finally understands that people are not happy with his agenda and the way things are going. Further evidence of this new found understanding is his sudden attempts to sound fiscally responsible by trying to enforce a very limited spending freeze. On that, liberals are annoyed by the number of pet projects that would be killed by that move and conservatives are screaming about how too little and too late the President’s concerns with spending are. It’s like a fat man claiming to be on a diet because he drank a can of Slim Fast after a six course, 20,000 calorie meal.

    But President Obama will surely begin to shift his focus. Since the voters spoke in Massachusetts he has begun to relentlessly attack any and all unpopular institutions, such as banks. It will be our job to remind voters why he has suddenly changed his agenda and what he changes it from while he still holds on to the hope of passing a massive government takeover of healthcare and some of the greatest transfers of power and wealth in the history of mankind. We must remind voters that President Obama and loyal liberal Democrats promised to “fundamentally change America” and then we must demonstrate that those fundamental changes were to the application of the U.S. Constitution which made us the greatest nation in the world………at least until he tried to make his fundamental changes.

    Clearly the state of the Republican Party is promising. Many Republican leaders have learned from their past mistakes. Many who did not, are being flushed out through the primary process while others are retiring. Democrats are imploding and voters are open to viable alternatives. So the future is promising. What is questionable though is our ability to convincingly become that viable alternative and our willingness to roll up our sleeves and do what needs to be done to take advantage of the promising future that lies ahead.

    Bookmark and Share


    Filed under politics

    A Perfect Political Storm Is Brewing In New York

    Bookmark and Share    A perfect storm is a unique combination of circumstances that allow two or more weather fronts to meet and mix with a moisture rich air mass. The perfect timing and combination often produce storms of unprecedented power and devastation. Although the term is often reserved for meteorological references, it can also be applied to events unrelated to weather. For instance, the recent events that allowed a Republican to be elected to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts is a prime example of a metaphorical use of the phrase “perfect storm”. A unique set of circumstances that brought voter dissatisfaction, and a perceived liberal arrogance together with a good Republican candidate and a bad Democrat candidate, made for a perfect storm that emaciated the filibuster-proof majority that Democrats held over the nation.

    That same type of perfect storm is brewing in the political atmosphere of New York State. It takes a vulnerable liberal incumbent, an aggressive former Tennessee Congressman and a former Republican Congresswoman and puts them together to create a scenario that, if all the timing is right, could make for a scenario that recreates in New York, the same type of political Nor’ Easter that we saw in Massachusetts.

    After being picked to fill Hillary Clinton’s vacated senate seat by New York’s unpopular Governor David Paterson, Kirsten Gillibrand is seen as one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Ironically her vulnerabilities are more exposed among fellow Democrats than  it is with the loyal Republican opposition.

    Initially, Gillibrand is most vulnerable to fellow Democrats who want to be the next U.S. Senator from New York.

    Gillibrand remains largely unknown as a Senator. So far she has failed to become the champion of any issue and being picked by an unpopular Governor is not helping her. That is why everyone who is anyone looked at challenging her for the Democrat nomination.

    Congressman Steve Israel was looking at launching his candidacy. So were several other state figures. But at the behest of President Obama, they all bowed out. The White House does not want to lose what is currently  a safe seat because of a bloody primary battle. This was especially the case when it looked like the most popular Republican in the state, Rudy Giuliani might be the G.O.P. nominee against Gillibrand. But Giuliani declined to run, again. That essentially left the road to winning the general election clear for Gillibrand……..so long as she was not dragged through the mud in a primary.

    The White House did a good job at discouraging competition. Most New York Democrats heeded the President’s  advice and dropped any challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand. All except for one……former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford.

    Ford is actually using his disobedience with the White House to his advantage. After getting much attention regarding his possible challenge to Senator Gillibrand, President Obama went very public in trying to deter Ford from actually running. But as Ford embarks on his” listening tour” of the state, he is taking that very public presidential demand and telling people that he will be an independent leader who will not take orders from anyone, including his fellow Democrat, President Obama.

    Ford has billed his listening tour as a tool to help him to decide on whether or not he will run. But while shaking hands at a diner in Tappan, New York, he introduced himself by saying “I’m Harold Ford and I’m running for the U.S. Senate”. This Freudian slip was repeated quite a few times and each time, after he let the cat out of the bag, he quickly corrected himself and stated, “I’m thinking about running for the U.S. Senate”.

    So it looks like Ford is actually going for it. He is just going through the motions at the moment and using the suspense to get a great deal of free publicity and exposure.

    I did not think Ford would actually go through with a primary challenge to Gillibrand. Despite her low name I.D. and less than stellar approval ratings, Gillibrand’s negative ratings are among the lowest of any Democrat in the state and in just one year’s time, she has built quite a large war chest. With over $7 million raised since last February, she has raised more than any other senators with the exceptoion  of Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid and her New York colleague, the state’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer.

    Given her support from the President along with her potential for getting her numbers up and her hefty fundraising abilities, I did not think Harold Ford would go for it. Especially given the fact that he will be labeled as a carpetbagger.

    But Ford is extraordinarily power hungry. That is why he is no longer a Congressman from Tennessee. He gave that seat up when he chose to try to move up the political ladder by running for the U.S. Senate in that state.        He lost.

    The decision to run for that senate seat came shortly after Ford tried to became the Democrat leader of the House of Representatives.

    He ran against Nancy Pelosi.         He lost that too.

    So now, with his Tennessee political fortunes exhausted, he moved to New York where he became a consultant for Merrill Lynch. That Wall Street name will be something that won’t help him if he does run. But I believe Harold understands that he could overcome that negative by going with the anti-incumbency sentiments and existing anger with the establishment. President Obama’s public attempt to discourage Harold Ford from running simply adds to this strategy. That is why Ford just might be able to get a lot of traction by claiming that he will not take orders from anyone.

    If President Obama’s approval ratings continue to drop, and fails to even inspire Democrats, as was the case in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia, Ford’s opposing the President’s wishes will be to his advantage.

    It is a gamble, but Harold Ford, Jr. is banking on distancing himself from President Obama and while he makes a run  from the President and to the left of the political spectrum, he will hype up the fact that Kirsten Gillibrand is the President’s senator but he will be the people’s senator. The scenario is interesting and very plausible. But essential to it working will be Ford’s fundraising ability.

    Winning the Democrat nomination for statewide office in New York is currently viewed as the real fight, because with Rudy out, there is little chance of a Republican winning. Unless of course the Democrat primary between Ford and Gillibrand leaves the winner bloody. If that happens, whether the nominee be Gillibrand or Ford, one Republican might be able to turn things around.

    Former Governor George Pataki is considering a run. Against Gillibrand, he could possibly pull it off, but if his opponent were to be the independent minded Harold Ford,  Pataki’s chances are diminished greatly. But Pataki is not the potential game changer. That person is former Congresswoman Susan Molinari.

    Susan is the daughter of long serving, popular, former Republican New York Congressman Guy Molinari. When Guy did not get a position in President George H. W. Bush’s administration, he retired from Congress. Back then President Bush told Guy that he could not afford losing him in the House. Leaving was Guy’s way of saying “screw you”. So off he went. Guy then went on to become Borough President of Staten Island, the most Republican of New York City’s five counties. Replacing Guy in Congress was his daughter, City Councilwoman Susan Molinari.

    For the longest time, Susan was the only Republican in the New York City Council and as such was already fairly well known. But after serving in Congress she soon became a darling of the Party.

    Moderate in her politics, Susan played up her pro-choice stance with liberals and women while simultaneously playing up her defense and fiscal policies with conservatives. Both had an appreciation of her. But in 1997 after marrying Buffalo, New York’s former Congressman, Bill Paxon, Susan decided not to run for a urth term in Congress.

    Now she is thinking about coming out of retirement.

    Her father has said that after no star candidate emerged to challenge Gillibrand, “All of a sudden I think, the best candidate in the entire country is my daughter”.

    I know Susan, and I can tell you right now that she is not “the best candidate in the entire country”, but she could be one of the best positioned Republican candidates in New York to take a U.S. Senate seat away from Democrats.

    If a bloody Gillibrand is the inevitable nominee, Susan will help to split the women’s vote, especially suburban soccer Moms. If Ford is the badly bruised winner of the primary, he will have severely depleted his campaign war chest and he will have also gone through a campaign that will surely have labeled him an outsider. Put up against native New Yorker, Susan Molinari, who can easily raise a substantial campaign fund, Tennessee Ford will find himself having a tough time beating her. Molinari will, again, get a substantial number of votes from women, she will hold down Democrat numbers coming out of New York City and she will be able to go toe to toe with Ford on who is more independent. In addition to all that, Harry will also have a tough time reconciling the more liberal  Harold Ford of New York’s 2010  senate race, with the more conservative Harold Ford who ran in 2006 for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee.  Many of his positions hav changed.  Gay marriage is just one example.  Among the more conservative Tennessee electorate, Harry was opposed to same sex marriage.  Now, among more liberal New Yorkers, he is for same sex marriage.  Which Ford would New Yorkers really be getting? 

    Kirsten Gillibrand will have all this amunition too but here’s where another part of this perfect storm comes into play.

    Governor Paterson is African-American.  He is going to be challenged for the gubernatorial  nomination by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, an Itsalian-American.  This situation is going to have an effect on a Gillibrand-Ford race. 

    Paterson is currently expected to lose to Cuomo, but one thing is for sure. Race will play a role and  African-American New Yorker’s will be coming out for Governor Paterson.   

    While at the polls,  a great many of them are likely to cast their senate primary vote for Harold Ford, Jr., who is also African-American.  So no matter how much Gillibrand may attack Ford for flip-flopping, Ford can count on attratcing many black voters away from Gillibrand.

     As a Republican, I for one do hope that Ford runs. By making a strong bid for the Democrat nomination, he will do much more good for the G.O.P. than he will for Democrats and if he wins that nomination, he will make it pretty easy for Susan Molinari to walk right up the middle and into the senate chambers of Washington, D.C..

    Now all Republicans have to do is make sure that Susan Molinari becomes their nominee. If she does, New York might pull off a Massachusetts-like surprise that will add to the already substantial gains in Congress that Republicans are heading towards. But one without the other will not work. If Republicans don’t properly seed the storm clouds, their electoral drought will be long lasting.

    Bookmark and Share


    Filed under politics

    Pelosi “There Are Not Enough Votes” To Pass Senate Version Of Healthcare

    Bookmark and Share    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has just announced that she does not have the votes to pass the senate version of the healthcare bill.

    That declaration is not a total surprise.

    The senate version of government run healthcare did not go as far as the House version did. It also contained language on a myriad of specifics, such as abortion, which never would have garnered enough support to win a simple majority to pass.

    After the historic special election of Republican Scott Brown on Tuesday, and the loss of Democrat’s supermajority that it caused, one of the only possible ways for the behemoth Obama government run healthcare legislative initiative to see the light of day would have been for the House to pass the Senate version of healthcare reform in its exact, current form. That would have allowed the bill to go directly to the President’s desk and be signed into law before Senator-Elect Scott Brown could effectively stall all efforts on any other version of government run healthcare.

    Given the astounding election results in Massachusetts, which was in large part due to voter anger at the partisan, duplicitous and covert way that Democrats are leading, for Democrats to have rammed the existing bill through in such a way would have only further diminished Democrats in the eyes of voters.

    The mere fact that Nancy Pelosi announced that there are not enough votes to pass the Senate version of government run healthcare indicates that as unlikely as it was, Democrats were considering the last ditch effort to salvage their controversial, bribe ridden, government takeover of healthcare in America. The fact that Speaker Pelosi sees the writing on the wall and won’t even try a desperate attempt to override the will of the people is all a result of the undeniable message that was sent by generally liberal Massachusetts voters electing Republican Scott Brown to the senate seat that was held by the Kennedy family for nearly five decades.

    In another sign of the clear message that has been sent by this first shot in a political revolution, came from the White House.

    It is clear that President Obama has backed off of his healthcare power grab and decidedly continued to focus his attacks on the banking industry.

    After inventing a new tax that would be applied to only those banks that his administration hand picks , President Obama has now declared new regulations aimed at limiting the risks that banks could take on trades. That is not exactly inappropriate. Depending on how such limits are applied and what those limits are, general rules regarding trade risks for banks are not innappropriate.

    Ironically, it was Democrat regulations that helped lead to the bursting of the housing industry which led to the near complete collapse the economy.

    Democrats, under President B.J. Clinton, forced banks to enter into high risk loans and mortgages through the Clinton era homeownership initiative.

    Designed to better enable minorities and low income Americans to own their own, banks were forced to backed loans with unqualified, high risk clients. After many years, when the piper could not be paid, the housing bubble burst, mortgages began to be defaulted on in unprecedented numbers and banks began to stop lending. This dried up the worldwide flow of money.

    So the President’s focus on this issue is admirable. Exactly how Democrats will try correct a problem that their policies helped create is another. How his new regulations will play out and if they will be the proper kind of regulations is another matter. But, one thing is for sure. Democrats and President Obama have gotten the message that voters sent on Tuesday and their push for an unwanted government takeover of healthcare is comatose and listed in critical condition.

    Bookmark and Share

    Leave a comment

    Filed under politics