Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Romney Out for 2016

Mitt Romney has decided not to run for President in the 2016 campaign.

Romney first announced his decision to staff on a conference call and plans to inform his supporters with a press release that included the following statement:

“After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the party the opportunity to become our next nominee”

 

That leaves Jeb Bush as front-runner for the GOP nomination while Scott Walker and Marco Rubio are shoring up formidable campaigns.

Romney’s attempt to enter the race started falling apart recently as major donors indicated that they were looking to Jeb Bush as their favorite to take 2016 by storm.

A Chicago supporter told AP that he had “great respect for Gov. Romney, and I busted my buns for him,” said Craig Duchossois, whose wife contributed $250,000 to a pro-Romney super PAC while he collected tens of thousands more for Romney’s last campaign. “But I have turned the page”

Now, Bush has grabbed former Romney strategist David Kochel, whom many consider the top in his field. With all these headwinds, Romney had little choice but to bow out.

Bob McDonnell Gives Ingratitude a Bad Name

No, that's not Maureen & her daughter. It's the official 1st Lady portrait.

No, that’s not Maureen & her daughter. It’s the official 1st Lady portrait.

The Bob & Maureen McDonnell corruption trial is not proving to be the unmitigated disaster for the McDonnell family that I first assumed. As the trial continues Maureen is looking more and more like her official portrait, currently on display at the Richmond Salvation Army Store.

She can’t do anything about the age difference — the youngster in Maureen’s “First Lady” portrait appears to be graduating from college next fall — but the size differential is rapidly closing. There’s nothing like the Federal Corruption Trial Diet to help remove those unwanted pounds that appear barnacle–like over the years.

A few more weeks in the courthouse and Maureen will be down to her fighting weight, which may come in handy if she’s sentenced to hard time.

The McDonnell saga, which in many ways represents the typical I–won–the–lottery–and–blew–it–all story has been invaluable for those who write. If you’re interested in brushing up on the whole story here are the relevant columns:

Politicians and their lack of will power when it comes to gifts are here.

The McDonnell family’s descent into a life of dependency in the governor’s mansion is here.

And why Bob McDonnell should have resigned as governor is here.

The prosecution has now rested its case and regardless of whether or not McDonnell is guilty, the picture painted of the family is only flattering if you compare them to the Kardashians.

Trial testimony left out the thousands of dollars it cost when the McDonnell kids raided the mansion’s pantry to take food to college. (That was only tax dollars and everyone knows those are free.) Instead the trial focused on what Jonnie R. Williams showered on the governor. There is the $20,000 shopping tab Maureen ran up on her New York City shopping trip that was chaperoned by Williams. His unintentionally funny description of the outing into Women’s Territory warmed the heart of every husband who’s sat bored on a mall bench outside a clothing store as the women shopped and the credit card smoked: “It went on for hours.”

Then there is the brand new set of golf clubs, golf bag with the UVA logo and golf shoes given to Bobby McDonnell who thought the give was “excessive” but not so excessive that he sent it back. In fact he and his father and brother played multiple rounds of golf and charged hundreds of dollars in green fees, caddy fees, food and golf accessory purchases to Williams during 2011 and 2012.

There’s even a rumor they tried to flag down Marine One and invite Obama to join the threesome.

The haul from the Jonnie Williams ATM was so extensive the WaPost designed an excellent graphic that shows whom got what that you can find here. Weddings were profit centers, the family was showered with plane tickets, a trip to Cape Cod, the Final Four (ironic that, because McDonnell’s governor term was the final four years of his political career), Florida, another golf bag, flights on private planes, a watercolor and a turkey dinner (wait, sorry, that was Ken Cuccinelli’s thanksgiving gratuity from Williams). And since the McDonnells were good conservatives they would NEVER stoop to taking an Obamaphone, but they did pocket two Williams’ iPhones.

The mental image one has after reading the list is of the Beverly Hillbillies living it up in their new California mansion, but that’s completely unfair to the Clampetts, because they were using their own money.

Now that the prosecution’s story of Rent–A–Politician has concluded, the defense strategy is two–fold. First Maureen is a maniac who had hot pants for Williams and hid everything from her husband. She was the mastermind behind the plot to trade official support for Williams’ patent medicine product, Anatabloc, in return for Williams making the McDonnells his foster children.

My favorite story involving Maureen is from the WaPost and it concerns her efforts to sell Mitt Romney on the diet supplement during a trip to South Carolina. Now I’ve seen Mitt’s legs and they are about the size of a pipe cleaner, so Maureen’s instincts were good. Mitt could use some bulking up.

Staffers sensing a disaster put a stop to that plan, but they couldn’t intercept Mrs. McDonnell before she cornered Ann Romney on the campaign bus, where Maureen’s pre–trial bulk made it impossible for Mrs. Romney to escape.

Exhibiting her usual tact and concern for the feelings of others, Maureen blurted to Ann that Williams’ Anatablock was so great it could “potentially cure MS.” Ann Romney —who no doubt had a few choice words for the advance staff after the event — has multiple sclerosis, so the sales pitch was vulgar, insensitive and fit Maureen as snugly as one of Williams’ free designer dresses.

Or as McDonnell political advisor Phil Cox said on the stand, “I was horrified. I thought it was a train wreck.”

Bob’s defense is different. He’s not crazy, but he may be the biggest ingrate in Commonwealth history. Big Watch Bob’s story is reciprocation is not a word in his vocabulary. He accepted $120,000.00 in no–doc loans to shore up his failing real estate investments, wore the Rolex, presided over the acceptance of the other thousands of dollars in booty and did absolutely NOTHING in return for Williams.

He just sent all William’s calls to voice mail where they died a lingering death. It would have made more sense for Williams to forget the McDonnells and hire a lobbyist, but come to think of it 120K probably wouldn’t be enough to hire a Hamas spokesman.

As far as strategies go this is a variation of the Viet Nam defense: We destroyed the reputation in order to save it.

And just to make sure there was no doubt as to McDonnell’s ingratitude the WaPost writes, “In the afternoon, defense attorneys presented a parade of former McDonnell cabinet secretaries to testify to all the things McDonnell could have done to assist Williams and his company. In turn, each witness agreed that McDonnell never took those actions.”

In other words don’t loan Bob your lawnmower with the expectation that you can borrow his rake later.

I can see the fun couple’s social life drying up the longer the trial continues. Who wants to host a couple that will never return the favor and might ask you to take them to the mall before they leave?

Ingratitude as a get–out–of–jail strategy can’t be helping fund raising for McDonnell’s legal defense. (Lawyers are something else for which McDonnell doesn’t deign to pay.) If a signature loan for 120K doesn’t warm the cockles of Bob’s heart when he’s facing foreclosure, what is your measly 5K for lawyers going to achieve?

Norquist and Kudlow have finally proven they are strident liberals

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

While Washington has in recent weeks been pondering what to do about illegal aliens, a number of pseudoconservatives have recently(and finally) outed themselves as strident liberals after decades of pretending to be conservatives.

They are: ATR President Grover Norquist, CNBC host Larry Kudlow, and NH Senator Kelly Ayotte.

There was plenty of evidence even before their jump on the amnesty bandwagon that they are not conservatives. This was especially true of Norquist, who has advocated (and continues to advocate) appeasing Islamists, implementing Sharia in the US, deep defense cuts, isolationism, and protecting tax loopholes for Washington lobbyists that contribute significantly to the deficit problem and allow rich liberals like Warren Buffett to pay little to nothing in taxes.

Ayotte, for her part, has advocated killing the crucial MEADS missile defense system and succeeded in cutting the Air Force’s airlifter fleet.

And now, we have both of them advocate for amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants.

They falsely claim that immigration, per se, is good for America, and that illegal aliens should be legalized because, well, everyone in America except the Indians is an immigration or descendant of immigrants. In other words, Republicans should reward lawlessness.

Not only will this reward lawbreaking and make legal immigrants – and those currently waiting for an immigration visa to the US – look like fools, it will also alienate the vast majority of Republican voters, sending the GOP to the dustbin of history.

And worst of all, amnesty will create 12-20 mn new Democratic voters, by putting illegal aliens on a pathway to citizenship within no less than 5 years. If that happens, there will never again be a Republican President or Congressional majority. And you can take that to the bank and cash a check on it.

Don’t believe me? Let’s do simple math.

Let’s assume, conservatively, that there are 12 mn illegal aliens in the US, and that if legalized, they’ll be voting Republican in George W. Bush numbers (44%).

OK, now the math:

44% * 12 mn = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56% *  12 mn =  6.72 mn new Dem voters:

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

So even under the most optimistic assumptions, if amnesty is passed, the Democrats will gain, on net, 1.44 mn more voters than Republicans – strengthening the Dem majority even further and forever making the GOP a minority party. The two major parties will be the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party and the Ed Markey Democratic Party.

Rand Paul – another pseudoconservative who has jumped on the amnesty bandwagon – falsely claims that Republicans must win California back and that supporting amnesty will help the GOP do so. He falsely claims California is winnable and its citizens want the same thing as other Americans – lower taxes, lower government spending, balanced budgets, etc.

Actually, California is permanently, irrevocably lost to the GOP, and it’s precisely because of uncontrolled immigration – legal and illegal. California is actually a textbook reason why amnesty MUST be defeated at all costs.

Massive immigration, both legal and illegal, but mostly legal, has transformed California from a Republican bastion into such a liberal state that no Republican, moderate or conservative, can get elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

Between 1952 and 1988, California voted Republican in every presidential election except in 1964.

But since 1988, it has become a stridently liberal state where fewer than 30% of voters are Republicans.

What’s worse, the vast majority of Californians WANT Big Government, high taxes, and high government spending. They’ve passed  an anti-business cap-and-tax system and stringest “fuel efficiency” standards. Their state is highly unionized. In 2010, they rejected proposals to suspend cap-and-tax until the unemployment rate drops, and last year, they elected a State Senate Democratic SUPERMAJORITY, allowing the Democrats – who already control the State Assembly and the Governorship – to raise taxes without limits.

As a result, productive citizens and businesses are fleeing the state en masse. The few who remain yet are being taxed to death. Those who remain in California are predominantly welfare moochers, government employees, union thugs, gangsters, and members of extremely leftist organizations.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty becomes law. If it does, the entire country will have the electorate of California. AND THERE WILL BE NO TURNING BACK.

It will actually be worse, because millions of voters will desert the GOP for supporting amnesty and thus rewarding lawbreaking.

The GOP will then be unable to even maintain 41 seats in the US Senate.

Thanks to Republicans’ repeated betrayals of American workers and selling out to K-Street bundlers, the GOP already has enough problems cobbling together an electoral majority.

California and New Mexico are lost forever to the GOP. Colorado, Virginia, and Florida haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Republicans can barely defend Arizona these days. Only Texas remains secure – for now.

If Texas goes, America goes.

Capitulate on illegal immigration, and there goes Texas, the entire Southwest, Florida, Virginia, and there goes the presidency, forever.

And what policies will these illegal aliens – whom the Rubio-McCain-Rand amnesty will turn into 12 mn new Democrat voters – support?

A Big Government and an even bigger welfare state with higher taxes and higher government spending.

Successive polling by the Pew Research Center and other polling organizations shows that Hispanics, by overwhelimng majorities, suport such policies, including a “bigger government with more” over a “smaller government with fewer services”; and that the vast majority of Hispanics trusts the federal gov to “do the right thing” “always” or “almost always”.

No amount of “voter education” will conver these voters to conservatism, because people are unwilling to give up their political beliefs. You can’t convert a Latino-American socialist from Mexico or Argentina to conservatism any more than you can convince an Islamist to give up on jihad or North Korea to give up on Kimilsungism (juche).

Have you ever wondered why most Latin American countries have socialist governments? Because the vast majority of their citizens are socialists. And by importing them to the US, you’re only going to make the US another socialist country. People’s political beliefs don’t change simply because they step onto American soil.

(Similarly, French socialists have, for decades, been importing millions of poorly educated, unskilled, socialist-minded Arab immigrants into France, knowing full well that this will eventually create an unbeatable socialist majority in France. But unlike the US, French rightwingers actually fight fiercely against this scheme; rightwing President Nicolas Sarkozy was particularly tough on immigration, deporting illegals and cutting even legal immigration levels by half.

Who are the real surrender monkeys here: the French or the citizens and politicians of this country?)

For those who still believe socialist Hispanic voters are winnable, I say: Look at the majoritzy of Hispanic families.

They’re headed by single mothers, without a father in the home. Their children are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and receive Pell Grants and student aid.

For food, there are foodstamps.

If mom works, she gets the Earned Income Tax Credit which keeps her below the income tax treshold. If she doesn’t work, she receives 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and other welfare checks.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

In other words, the majority of Hispanic (and black) families are totally dependent on the federal government – from birth to adult life to the grave.

Yes, we all know a few Hispanic families who aren’t dependent on the federal government and who are hard-working, productive, God-fearing, and perhaps even conservative. But they are very few in number. The vast majority of Hispanic families fit the description above.

A typical Hispanic woman far more likely than white women to become pregnant out of wedlock and be a single mother. Her children are far more likely than white children to be fatherless, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, be unemployed, commit crime, and end up in prison.

Why should these people – who depend on the federal government for their livelihoods – vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and to reduce the government programs they depend on and live off, instead of the party that pledges to let them keep what they already get and to give them more?

Especially in today’s world, where the vast majority of voters in all countries are interested only in getting more from others – preferrably for “free” – and forcing others to pay the bill?

“But we must pass amnesty to appeal to Hispanics, or we will never win another election!”, you will say.

That’s nonsense. Republicans don’t need to. Republicans instead need to appeal better to white voters – especially women and Hispanics. And passing amnesty will only infuriate these voters. Especially traditional Republican voters.

As Byron York has shown, using Nate Silver’s highly accurate election result forecasting model, even if Romney were to win 70% of the Hispanic vote last year, he would STILL have lost the presidential election. Even with 70% of the Hispanic vote.

Romney lost because too few white voters supported him – and because blacks, eager to defend Obama turned out in even greater numbers than in 2008, and in even greater numbers than whites did.

Obama’s incumbency and Hurricane Sandy also certainly played a role. Before Sandy, Gallup had Romney ahead of Obama by 5 points; after Sandy hit the East Coast, Romney’s margin dwindled to just 1 point, and eventually, Romney lost the popular vote in addition to the EC vote.

Nate Silver’s model shows that Romney would’ve needed to win 73% of the Hispanic vote – a share that NO ONE in US history has won, not even Barack Obama – to win the 2012 election.

Even Barack Obama has never won 73% of the Hispanic vote: in 2008, he won 67%, and last year, he won 71%. But never 73%. And the notion that any Republican, even an amnesty supporter or a Hispanic like Rubio, can ever win 73% of the Hispanic vote, is ridiculous. Nobody in US history, not even Barack Obama, has achieved this.

But, as Nate Silver’s model shows, had only 4% more of white voters backed Romney, he would’ve won the election.

Last but not least, as one Latina has recently pointed out in the Mediaite, amnesty will utterly fail to win Republicans new Hispanic votes, because Hispanics don’t care about immigration. Their top issues are jobs, the economy, education, and the budget deficit – NOT immigration. And many of them probably don’t want a new influx of cheap illegal alien workers competing with legal Hispanic immigrants for jobs.

A legal Hispanic kitchen maid earning 10 dollars/hour will probably not appreciate new illegal alien workers competing with her for a 5 dollar/hour salary.

Because that is why Republicans are really pushing for amnesty: their K-Street bundlers want to bring in even more, even cheaper, foreign workers to displace American and legal immigrant workers.

Employers love to hire illegal immigrants, as they can pay these people less and also evade all federal and state employment laws.

It’s the business lobby and the two major parties against the American people. Like Timothy Carney points out, it’s K Street against Main Street.

To sum up, Republicans lost last year due to a number of factors, but Hispanic voters were not one of them. They were still only 8% of the electorate. Trying to please Hispanic voters with amnesty will utterly fail; on the contrary, it will create, on net, millions of new Democratic voters who will send the GOP to the graveyard.

If amnesty becomes law, these illegal immigrants will become US citizens and will give the Dems a permanent, unbeatable majority. The entire country will have the electorate of California – and there will be no turning back. And to see how well that works out, just look at California.

What Obama’s “Bulworth” Comment Shows About Us

bulworthtaylor

bulworthtaylor
Almost forgotten within the whirlwind of last week’s columns and news stories covering the Obama Administration’s scandals was a piece from The New York Times discussing the “onset of woes” he’s had to deal with. Various aides told The Times on, and off, the record how the President is doing all he can to make sure his second term agenda gets accomplished. They also mentioned how Obama is frustrated and “exasperated “with Washington, something which isn’t new to anyone who’s watched one of his news conferences.

The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

 

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

 

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

 

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

 

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

 

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

 

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

 

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

 

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

 

 

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

 

 

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

 

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.


 

Chechnya – Republic in turmoil

Caucasus02

Caucasus02
Chechnya has been a republic in turmoil since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Terror attacks in Russia have often been perpetrated by Chechens, and the region has been considered a hot bed for terrorism. However, this has not been widely reported or talked about in the U.S., and for good reason. Traditionally, Chechnya has been considered a taboo topic for U.S. administrations – a concession that has been granted to Russia by Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton. However, while Obama has not mentioned Chechnya publicly, his administration has not been silent on that region. Two Chechens were listed on the Magnitsky List – a list named for a whistle-blower in Russia that died in custody. [More information on the Magnitsky case here, and here.]

As far as motives to attack the U.S., there is at least one theory about why Chechen separatists might consider that a viable option. Since a terrorist attack in 2004 at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia where over 380 were killed, Russia and the U.S. have a common enemy – Islamic terrorists. Some Chechens were involved in that attack.

But Chechnya primarily remains in opposition with Russia – a battle that has been waged for at least 200 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin is not known for having a “soft touch” with anyone that disagrees with him, and the Chechens are no exception. Anna Politkovskaya – a journalist in Moscow – built a reputation for being critical of Putin for human rights violations in Chechnya. She was murdered on October 7, 2006. Trials (and re-trials) against her accused killers should be starting soon. That likely doesn’t change the opinion of some Russians and Chechens alike that have thought Russian leaders aren’t displeased with the fact that Politkovskaya was killed.

As for terrorism rooted in the Chechnya region, apparently the violence has increased in the past year. The entire North Caucasus region is affected by these activities, the most recent in Ingushetia. Whether or not this unrest has spilled over to U.S. soil remains to be seen. However, it does place a statement made by Mitt Romney during the presidential campaign in perspective.

Why Romney REALLY lost, and how to win in the future

There is a dangerous myth circulating around the Net that Mitt Romney lost because he was not “conservative enough”, that millions of Republican voters supposedly stayed home on Election Day, and that the way to win future elections is to nominate “the most conservative candidate”. Any GOP problems with women, youngsters, and minorities are being explained away by claiming that “better communication of conservative principles” will solve everything.

But all of these claims are wrong. In this article, I will show you why Mitt Romney really lost the election, and how Republicans can win future elections.

As to the first issue: while many factors contributed to Romney’s loss, there are three that truly cost him the election:

1)      He was running against an incumbent president who also happened to be the media’s darling and faced no serious primary challenger. Incumbent presidents usually win reelection; they lose only if they face serious primary or third-party challengers or if a total disaster befalls the nation. Ann Coulter has nicely summed up the five rare cases that this has happened in the last 124 (!) years

  • In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt fought a bloody primary against President Taft, and after losing the primary, mounted a third-party challenge against him, thus costing Republicans the election and delivering the White House to Woodrow Wilson.
  • In 1932, Hoover faced serious primary challengers such as former President Coolidge, and the nation was 3 years into the Great Depression.
  • In 1976, President Ford couldn’t defeat Ronald Reagan in the primaries, barely defeated him by a squeaker on the convention floor, and narrowly lost against Jimmy Carter just 2 years after Watergate, 1 year after America’s defeat in Vietnam, and into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
  • In 1980, Jimmy Carter was badly bloodied and battered by Ted Kennedy (who ran as “the true liberal”) in the primaries, losing primaries in states such as California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, and faced a third-party opponent, John Anderson, who siphoned votes away from him knowing full well he was helping Reagan.
  • In 1992, President Bush, after breaking his “no new taxes” pledge, faced a formidable primary challenger, Pat Buchanan, and a third party opponent, Ross Perot, who won 19% of the popular vote and siphoned enough votes away from him to deliver the White House to Bill Clinton. (Republicans take note: disunited parties don’t succeed.)

2)      Romney had to expend a lot of time and resources defeating unserious primary challengers, all of whom eventually succumbed, none of whom had any business running for President – solely because the GOP base thought that Obama’s extremism and temporary troubles left them free to follow their hearts instead of their brains.

3)      Like other Republicans, and the GOP as a whole, Romney was very unpopular with Hispanics (whom he lost 27-71), young people, and the ladies (whom he lost 44-55).

That last point is also the key to understanding what Republicans need to do to win in future elections. Let’s look at who voted for or against Romney.

Despite the myth that millions of conservatives stayed home, Romney got the votes of 82% of conservatives and 1 million more votes overall than John McCain in 2008 – four years earlier. Romney won easily among reliably conservative voters: seniors, members of the military, veterans,  regular churchgoers, protestants, born-again Christians, and so forth. (Catholics were almost evenly split, 50-48 in Obama’s favor, and among them, likelihood to vote Republican also correlates with how frequent they go to church.) Geographically, Romney won all of the South – except the moderate states of Florida and Virginia – quite easily, and he retook Indiana and North Carolina. He won the middle class and wealthy voters, married men and women, as well as those with high school, “some college education”, or a college degree.

The voters who really rejected Romney were the demographics that have traditionally held all Republicans – not just Romney – in low regard: blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, and young people; poor people; unmarried people; high school dropouts and postgraduate degree holders; and people between 30 and 39 years of age.

These demographics have never been friendly towards Republicans (except in 2004, when Bush made a partially successful effort to woo them), so the problem is much larger than Romney. It’s the entire GOP’s problem.

The problem for Republicans is that these demographic groups are the ones that are growing in size, while traditional Republican demographics – seniors, whites, regular churchgoers – are declining. Thus, unless the GOP makes a serious and successful outreach to those demographics which aren’t currently friendly to the GOP, it will become a permanent minority party.

Some claim that conservatism is enough to win again. It’s not. Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1980, but in that year, the electorate was almost 90% white. In 2012, it was just 72% white and is on course to become “majority minority” by the 2040s.

Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote last year – more than Ronald Reagan in 1980 (56%). The problem is that this just isn’t enough any longer. Republicans thus must reach out to minorities, youngsters, and the ladies. The sooner, the better.

So how to win future elections? How to reach out to those groups?

Republicans need to face up to the unpleasant fact that – as so many have already observed – their extremist stance on immigration completely disqualifies them with Hispanics (and with most Americans of all races), and that this cost Republicans Colorado, Nevada, and Florida. True, immigration was not the absolutely #1 issue for Hispanics (the economy was), but it was nonetheless a very important issue for them, and it weighed heavily in their voting decisions.

Polling shows that the vast majority of Hispanics (and Americans in general), including a sizeable minority of Republicans, supports legalization of illegal immigrants. Yet, most Republicans not only reject it, they talk about immigration in terms that are very offensive to Hispanics (even Hispanic US citizens), such as “illegal alien” and “self-deportation”.

Republicans should also nominate a Hispanic candidate for President or Vice President, preferrably Marco Rubio, who also happens to be a solid Tea Party conservative with a 100% lifetime score from the American Conservative Union.

Republicans also need to make peace with the ladies and with young voters, the majority of whom are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and seldom go to church. That means at least modulating the GOP’s stance on social issues, especially gay marriage which the majority of Americans now supports. It also means denying Republican nominations for all offices to the likes of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Paul Broun, and Steve King.

But, as with immigration, the problem isn’t just Republicans’ extremist stance on these issues – it’s also the way they express it. Todd Akin’s and Richard Mourdock’s comments like “awww, if you get pregnant from rape, don’t worry, because pregnancy from rape is a gift from God!” are just the tip of the iceberg.

Most women, most youngsters, and most Americans in general are pro-gay-marriage and pro-choice, and Republicans will need to at least soften their stance and explain how can they support Limited Government on fiscal issues but Big Government on social issues. Another way to solve this problem is to devolve these divisive issues to state governments (federalism). After all, they’re just a few among the million of issues reserved by the 10th Amendment to state governments.

Those reforms will, like any bold reforms, be vehemently opposed by the fringe of the party. But they must be carried out if the GOP is to survive, let alone to win elections.

If they are implemented, Republicans can win back more than enough states to win 270 EC votes and create a new, durable Republican majority, which will consist of voters from all walks of life and of all races, religions, and social groups who support low taxes, low spending, limited Constitutional government, and a strong national defense, even though they will disagree on social issues.

If Republicans make peace with Hispanics, women, and youngsters, they can and should target the following states: Florida (29), OH (18), VA (13), CO (9), and possibly even PA (20). This, even without PA, will give them 275 EC votes in addition to the 206 votes won by Romney last year.

In Treatment

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.04.42 AM

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.04.42 AM

Yes, Republicans are in treatment after their catastrophic loss last November.  We kept our majority in the House due to gerrymandering, and we lost two seats in the Senate.  Romney’s loss was bad, but our inability to gain seats in the Senate was ignominious.  Democrats were tasked with defending twenty-three senate seats, and twelve of those races had eminently beatable incumbents.  However, due to some of our party members’ obsession with rape and pregnancy, we’re short two seats when the next congress convenes.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the conservative movement is on defense.  For the past quarter century, it’s been the opposite.  I dare say that progressives have gotten inside the conservative psyche with ruthless efficiency.  Furthermore, we have an operational deficit.  Democrats are eons ahead of Republicans concerning targeting future voters.  The era of Karl Rove is over, and an heir apparent is absent.  President Obama outspent Mitt Romney ten to one on social media in his re-election effort.  The other side gets it – and they look cool doing it.  Obama’s team is the best out there.  It’s the meanest, toughest, and most vicious collection of political minds we’ve ever faced – and we lost.  There’s not way Eric Fehrnstrom, or anyone on Romney’s team, would’ve been able to counter their skills.  So, where do we go from here?

Abby Livingston at Roll Call wrote on December 10 that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced a new initiative to tackle the issues where Republicans are lacking.  It’s called the Growth and Opportunity Project.

There will be five chairmen of the effort. They are:

  • Henry Barbour, a national committeeman from Mississippi
  • Sally Bradshaw, a veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics
  • Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary
  • Zori Fonalledas, a national committeewoman from Puerto Rico
  • Glenn McCall, a national committeeman from South Carolina

The objective of the group, according to a release, is “reviewing past practices and also making critical recommendations for the future” in eight areas:

  • campaign mechanics and ground game
  • messaging
  • fundraising
  • demographic partners and allies
  • third-party groups
  • campaign finance issues
  • presidential primaries
  • lessons learned from Democratic campaign tactics

Politico first reported the news and also noted that a similar self-examination is occurring with the Republican super PAC American Crossroads. And last week, CQ Roll Call reported that a similar postmortem occurred with regards to Republican digital efforts in 2012.

Yes, we all should remember the infamous Project ORCA, which was an unmitigated disaster. For example, GOTV operations were virtually paralyzed in Colorado.  The price for centralizing a decentralized campaign tactic was leaving 30,000 Romney volunteers unable to conduct strike listing, make phone calls to remind Republican voters, and turn them out in general.  Never. Again.

However, even conservative grassroots organizations, like Americans for Prosperity, have to lick their wounds.  They spent close to $120 million on this election cycle, which ended with conservative influence decreased in Washington.  Concerning the loss, I asked Stephanie Fontenot, AFP’s New Media Manager, if the organization had any plans to release more ads to put pressure on Republicans to not raise taxes during the volatile fiscal cliff negotiations.  She said “as for ads – we’re doing a lot of our reach organically, really concentrating on getting our followers and activists to push this out and put on the pressure online. Twitter gives us a unique way to get our message out in a more direct way to each member and his/her staff.”

One area that Republicans  – and conservatives  – desperately need to improve on is Hispanic outreach. We cannot continue to lose the Latino vote by a margin of 75%-23% again.  Additionally, Romney lost the Cuban vote in Florida, which paints an even bleaker picture when a once reliable bloc of voters switches sides.  To put things into perspective, Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004.

Fontenot said that “our [the conservative] message of economic freedom affects all Americans and we seek to reach Americans as a whole. We do recognize the need to craft that  message so that everyone is able to receive it. We are currently working on op-ed’s that will be published in English and in Spanish. Our AFP-Florida state chapter sends most of their press releases in more than one language.”  I couldn’t agree more.  However, the next step is actually putting some boots on the ground to touch voters in those communities.  Hispanics have a lot that is malleable with the Republican Party. It’s time we capitalize on that with a renewed fervor.

While AFP is looking to target Latinos and use social media to articulate conservatism to the masses, it all falls on how the establishment will take this new era.  Will they continue their efforts to moderate the party?  Will they finally decide that growing a backbone is essential in this fights?  I’m not sure.  The Republican Party’s sixty minutes aren’t up yet.

Sarah Palin in 2016 Presidential Race is no laughing matter

Sarah Palin - Public

With Sarah Palin America should be ready for a true conservative voice in the White House

The presidential campaign of 2016 was launched as soon as the last light dimmed on the stage after Mitt Romney gave his concession speech, in losing his presidential bid to Barack Obama. With the new battle now warming up amongst the GOP hierarchy there are many Republican leaders who want to point the party leftward, away from Ronald Reagan and his heir apparent Sarah Palin.

That is correct. There is no stuttering here. Sarah Palin may appear to liberals, leftwing pundits as well as GOP Washington leaders as yesterday’s news. Yet Mitt Romney’s loss was not due to conservative steel in his campaign. What is clear is that nearly two million conservatives did not embrace Romney’s attempt to skedaddle to the middle road by running away from conservative positions and values. They simply stayed home.

Consider the results of Palin’s steadfast 2012 primary season effort as she crisscrossed the nation campaigning on behalf of conservative congressional, senatorial officials. The results of Palin’s efforts are notable, beginning with backing Texas U.S. Senator-elect Ted Cruz. Combine that with eight congressional candidates being elected to congress out of 14, due to Palin’s endorsement.

Now examine Romney’s results. In a general election where Republicans were expected to be more competitive in U.S. Senate races. Republicans actually lost two U.S. Senate seats. There are many who have engaged in a lot of finger pointing in order to place blame for the loss. But the buck does stop at the top with Mitt Romney.

To refresh everyone’s memory, it was Romney and his Boston campaign brain-trust, who said to Palin back in July, “Thanks but no thanks.” They denied her a prime time speaking role before the GOP National Convention and the nation. Mitt was bound and determined to place both Palin and the Tea Party organization supporters on the sidelines and go it alone to seek more moderate political pastures.

Romney may have listened to comedians like Bill Maher and political pundits like Chris Matthew who found no end in skewering the non-candidate Palin during the campaign year. There is a lesson in Romney’s loss that reminds conservatives that Ronald Reagan was the 1976 version of Sarah Palin. He too had his many detractors as well as liberal and Republican pundits who scoffed at Reagan’s notion of a new conservative under current building in America.

Ronald Reagan was held at arm’s length by Washington GOP insiders and derided in liberal circles as a joke. Many in the mainstream media poked fun of his film character that played opposite a Chimpanzee in the 1951 “Bedtime for Bonzo” movie. While the democrats and the Washington insider pundits laughed, Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter with nearly 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent in the 1980 presidential election.

Now no one is laughing, including President Barack Obama, who saddles up to Reagan-like comparisons when he’s feeling a little light in the accomplishment department.

It is far more important for Americans who are earnestly concerned about the direction of the nation and its drift away from conservative values. They want to support a true bona fide conservative leader like Reagan.

Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan understands that presidential elections are won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields. Conservative leadership is nourished in the farmlands of Iowa, Indiana and Illinois and in the kitchens of homes in Nevada and Colorado. Presidential elections are solidified with the commitment of Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan and Tea Party patriot all over this nation!

It is the power and strength of conservative ideals that when fully embraced will see a repeat of the 2010 elections, where the Tea Party grass roots movement resulted in Republicans gaining 63 congressional seats. Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi loss the Speaker’s gavel to Sarah Palin’s tireless effort to create a new conservative history which is still being made in America.

The keys to the White House Oval Office do not lie in the hands of the political power elite in Washington. They instead belong squarely in the firm grasp of Americans in the Heartland. There, with conservative families in states all over this nation the fate of America will be determined.

In 1980 America no longer wanted to be trapped in what President Carter called a “crisis of confidence” in his now famous July 1979 “Malaise Speech,” Instead, Reagan determined that America wanted to be freed up from government. He firmly gripped the reins away from moderation and liberalism. He grabbed the American microphone and said, “I paid for this microphone.”

America’s conservatives know full well that Sarah Palin also knows how to use a microphone. Much like, Reagan, Palin is committed to let millions across the nation speak through it in 2016!

( Click – Let me know what you think )

The Fiscal Cliff Swindle And the Future of A Republic

So, now that Obama has been re-elected it seems the entire Republican Party Establishment, including the talking heads, are showing their real agenda and their lack of honor once again.  How many members of Congress have now reneged on their pledge to not raise taxes?  Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Rep. Peter King have been prominent among those of the GOP (Globalist Oligarchy Party) to join Speaker John Boehner and his chief henchman Eric Cantor in running up the white flag.  At the same time they are sneering at the very people who have supported them based on their promises to cut spending and lower taxes on everyone, thereby avoiding the “Fiscal Cliff” in the first place. 

I have screamed at the top of my lungs about who and what the Republican Establishment stands for and what their true intentions entail.  George H. W. Bush turned on We the People and reneged on his promises of “no new taxes”.  Then George W. Bush, the “compassionate conservative”, broke every promise he made to get elected and then re-elected. “Four more years to complete the program” is not a new tactic by the Obama Crime Syndicate.  Karl “Marx” Rove used the very same tactic as effectively as did David Axelrod.

Republicans have marched leftward, along with Democrats, in creating the “fiscal cliff” they promised to prevent if we voted for them in 2010.  Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Ok, has the answer but Republican Party leaders ignore him.  Coburn, DeMint, and Rand Paul are as despised and hated by the Party insiders as are We the People.  We are told they have to give in on every promise they made in those past elections to save the nation.  The political parties and their propaganda outlets once again tell us that the solution to our fiscal and moral dilemmas are more of the same policies both parties have followed for the past 25 years , the policies that got us here.  

For the last two years Republicans have done nothing but whine about “we only have control of one-half of one-third of government” while they reneged on every promise they made to get elected in 2010.  And what did they do when they had total control of the government in the past?  The “Patriot” Act, TSA, “No Child Left Behind” and the rest of the niceties Bush left us are still with us, supported by the same Republicans who always promise to cut the size of government to get elected and then promptly expand the government footprint in our lives.  How long will it take for enough people to demand they do what they promised us they would do?  Oh, wait, didn’t we do this once before?  The TEA Party comprised 67% of We the People who swept Republicans into office in record numbers nationally, statewide, and locally in 2010.  Three million less voted for Republicans in 2012 than did in 2008.  Something like eight million less voted for Democrats.  That is a sad commentary on the satisfaction and confidence producing citizens have in their government.

And as to the Democrats, what did they have to say about 67% of We the People and our opinions as to how our nation should be managed?  They called us racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, Nazi terrorists.  In the last two years I have not seen Democrats moderate their views of We the People, and the Republicans who dismissed us in 2010 are now blaming us for the mess our country is in.  I said in 2009 that if Boehner and McConnell were in charge of the Republican Party nothing would change for the better.  I wish I had been wrong but I based my opinions on their past records and the way they minced words to avoid taking a stand without an escape clause.

I am with Herman Cain on his call for a third political party.  We don’t have much time to take our nation back, and with “representation” like this it won’t happen.  We the People need Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Lloyd Marcus, Sen. Jim DeMint, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Louis Gohmert, Rep. Michele Bachman, Tim Cox of GOOOH, Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works, and others to band together and lead a conservative movement that will truly represent the 67% that make up the TEA Party.  If these leaders join forces officially to create a political party I believe the conservatives in this nation will show the same vigor we saw in 2009. 

The reason Romney lost, like McCain in 2008, is that they don’t represent the 67% who are trying very hard to support the Republican Party.  Boehner, McConnell, Graham, McCain, Chambliss, King, and many others are not now and never will be conservative.  If Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, and their ilk are conservative I am ten feet tall.  The TEA Party majority made a huge difference in the 2010 mid-term elections but found our voices ignored once the election was over.  Politicians and media talking heads who are allegedly on the side of We the People now call us radicals for standing on The Constitution of the United States of America.   Hmmm, haven’t I seen this movie before?

If the right people will band together for the good of the nation they will find support among the citizens.  The 67% aren’t dead, they are frustrated by liars who make promises to get elected and immediately turn on them like they are the enemy.  If those I mentioned can show they truly have the best interests of the citizens as their priority they can be a force in 2014, if our Republic can survive that long.  We need people of honor and character who have the courage to back up their words with action.  We don’t need any more of what the Republican Party Establishment is doing now, nor do we need the increase in pandering to the moochers and looters being offered by them for the future. I believe it is fruitless to try to change the Republican Party.  They have gone the way of the Democrat Party.  Republicans seem to be intent on competing with the Democrat Party for the votes of those with their hands out, and disparage those who make this nation thrive.  Keeping poor people poor and dependent on government seems to be the plan of both political parties.

If the results of the 2010 election, the actions of Republicans since, and the results of the 2012 elections are not enough to show everyone where Conservatives stand in the eyes of the Republican Party Establishment I don’t know what will accomplish that.  The left turns of this nation have to stop and 67% of We the People are looking for leadership, someone to truly represent our views and our standards.  We need a group of patriots who will step up, band together, and offer conservatives a political party that we can believe in.  I firmly believe they will draw strong support from registered voters of both political parties.  There are a lot of disenfranchised Democrats in America who aren’t being represented any better by their party.  We may not have enough time to save our Republic but we certainly aren’t going to save it continuing on the path we are on now.  A third political party has become our only option to reverse course and save a nation for future generations.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

November 28, 2012

 

Repeat After Me: We Didn’t Lose Because of Social Issues

Screen Shot 2012-11-13 at 3.01.33 AM

I admit that I really haven’t become much of a social conservative until about the last eighteen months.  I mostly took libertarian position on issues like gay marriage and abortion – some of which I still maintain.  However, being an adoptee and seeing the utter rot inherent on the political left, especially when it comes to abortion – I found my libertarian ‘pro-choice’ position untenable.  Yes, I still think government regulation of the market inhibits its full potential, thereby making it a perverse action on behalf of the state.  It’s immoral for government to curb systems that lead to greater economic freedom and liberty for its citizenry.  Yet, I was also disturbed with government being in the home – and regulating social behavior amongst consenting adults.

Then, the 2012 election happened. The Democrats decided to manufacture a false narrative called the ‘War on Women,’ a consensus concerning taxpayer-funded abortion was in the works, and a thirty-yeard old liberal activist named Sandra Fluke burst onto the scene demanding free birth control.  Unsurprisingly, all of this coalesced into an orgy of depravity called the Democratic National Convention, which should have been more appropriately called Abortion Fest.  Even ABC News’ Cokie Roberts was unnerved by the abortion-centric rhetoric exhibited by liberals during the DNC.

Every decent American should, since the Democratic Party platform endorsed taxpayer-funded abortion.  However, that wasn’t an extreme position.  Republicans protecting life, even in the cases of rape and incest, was apparently the extreme position, despite the fact that such circumstances are responsible for less than 1% of all abortions.  If anything, albeit in a grotesque way, that encapsulates the “safe, legal, and rare” characterization Democrats have used to describe abortion.  A phrase that wasn’t included in their party platform in2012, although it’s been used in prior elections.

Nevertheless, after hearing Rebecca Kiessling‘s story – she was conceived during a rape – and the litany of botched abortions performed by Planned Parenthood, I’ve shifted more towards the pro-life camp.  As an adoptee from South Korea, I have no backstory concerning my conception.  I could be a product of rape.  I just don’t know.  Regardless, every life deserves a chance.  My birth mother surely exuded this virtue.  She gave me up for a better life here in the United States.

However, this brings us to the heart of the matter. Should we boot social conservatives from the movement and the Republican Party?  The answer is NO!  Yes, what Mourdock and Akin said imploded their senate campaigns, but Denny Rehberg failed to unseat Democratic incumbent  Sen. Jon Tester in Montana.  Rick Berg failed to secure his senate bid in North Dakota.  George Allen lost in Virginia.  Tom Smith got smoked in Pennsylvania.  Connie Mack won’t be going into the upper chamber representing Florida.  Are social issues responsible for all of these failed senate bids?  No. By the way, Mourdock lost to a pro-life Democrat.

Now, while Mourdock and Akin win the creepy award for 2012 ( no one likes 60+ year old men talking about rape), everyone seems to blame the people who vote reliably Republican and listen to liberals on how to reform the party.  An interesting op-ed piece was published in The Wall Street Journal on Nov.11 by Sarah Westwood, who is a rising sophomore at George Washington University.

The article articulately details the grievances that the more liberal wing of young Republicans have with the ‘Old Guard.’  Westwood states that Republicans need to do a better job reaching out to younger voters, which is true, but we also need to reach out to Hispanics and single women as well.

As a member of this all-important demographic [young voters], I know that neither I nor (almost) anybody else coming of age today supports the Republican social agenda. That’s the way the country is moving—so just deal with it. Modernize and prioritize.

Though it may be painful, though it may be costly at the polls in the short run, Republicans don’t have a future unless they break up with the religious right and the gay-bashing, Bible-thumping fringe that gives the party such a bad rap with every young voter. By fighting to legally ban abortion, the party undercuts the potential to paint itself as a rebel against the governmental-control machine.

Embracing a more liberal social agenda doesn’t require anyone to abandon her own personal values; it’s possible to keep faith and the party too. But the evangelical set essentially hijacked the Republican Party in the 1970s; now we need to take it back. Thawing the icy attitude of our most vocal, radical voices—including the raucous right (a la Limbaugh)—could let a fatally fractured party put the pieces together again.

The GOP won’t survive if it doesn’t start courting young voters. Simple math dictates that the Republican Party can wrest power away from the left only if it builds an army of fresh young members into its base. Democrats are the ones doing that now.

It seems Westwood wants to liberalize the party, return it to the Rockefeller/Thomas Dewey days, and ensure electoral disaster.  Conservatives gladly put an end to their reign after the Goldwater insurgency in 1964.  No, Goldwater didn’t lose – it just took sixteen years to count all the votes.  Nevertheless, who said we were fractured?  Our party was firmly behind Romney.  The problem was Romney’s ground game ( Project ORCA) failed miserably to maximize turnout in key states.  Yes, our coalition needs to expand to remain competitive, but it rests with smart messaging, not moderation.

And concerning purging Limbaugh – you must be insane if you think marginalizing any conservative in the media is a smart move.  If anything, we need more conservatives fighting the liberal media on a daily basis.  Westwood is right that Republicans need to change tactics and maximize outreach to expand out base of support, but moderation and becoming more liberal isn’t what’s going to bring us success at the polls.  Concerning the ‘old guard,’ Westwood is right that some folks need to go.  Karl Rove is on my list.  However, we must also factor into account that youth turnout probably won’t be as high in 2016 when Obama isn’t on the ballot.

Conservatives, like myself, take pride in staying ‘stop!’ in the face of changing times.  We say ‘not so fast’ to liberals – asking them about the efficiency within these government programs, especially if they come with a high price tag.  Coupled with inquiries about a bill’s constitutional basis and long term effects – it’s this form of inquisition that has usually been effective in demolishing liberal programs for decades.  We take pride, and idolize the Madisonian principles of limited government that was the original bedrock for our fledgeling republic.  And they’re the principles we need to resurrect after this egregious expansion of the state under the Obama administration.  This, coupled with aggressive prioritization of winning Latinos, is where we need to start.

We need to admit that in 2012 we were outplayed, outsmarted, and outmaneuvered.  But kicking out social conservatives would make the Republican Party even smaller, according to Erick Erickson. Furthermore:

Mitt Romney won about a quarter of the hispanic vote and a tenth of the black vote.

Those numbers may not sound like much, but in close elections they matter.

A sizable portion of those black and hispanic voters voted GOP despite disagreeing with the GOP on fiscal issues. But they are strongly social conservative and could not vote for the party of killing kids and gay marriage. So they voted GOP.

You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.

Next, you’ll also see a reduction of probably half the existing GOP base. You won’t make that up with Democrats who suddenly think that because their uterus is safe they can now vote Republican. Most of those people don’t like fiscal conservatism either — often though claiming that they do.

If you really need to think through this, consider Mitt Romney. He is perhaps the shiftiest person to ever run for President of the United States. He shifted his position on virtually every position except Romneycare. Of all the politicians to ever run for office, he’d be the one most likely to come out and, after the Republican convention, decide he’d changed his mind. He’d be okay with abortion and okay with gay marriage.

Had he done that, he’d have even less votes.

Erickson noted, “the problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine.”  That’s simply not true.
In one last point against liberalizing the party, this is the second time in a row that Republicans have nominated a moderate candidate, who was handily beaten in the general election. Full stop.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

 

Romney’s Presidential Hopes Dashed By Less Than 500,000 Votes

Screen Shot 2012-11-12 at 11.56.09 PM

Ouch! From Richard Nixon to Al Gore, candidates who have suffered defeats in close presidential elections, either in the Electoral College or popular vote, probably have felt the feelings of disappointment, shock, and frustration that Mitt Romney is experiencing right now. While President Obama secured re-election with a majority of the popular vote and an Electoral College landslide, analysis done by Jim Geraghty at National Review and Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart detialed some numbers in key states to show just how close Mitt Romney was from becoming the 45th President of the United States.

Geraghty wrote yesterday that:

…according to the results this morning on the New York Times’ results map:

Florida: 73,858

Ohio: 103,481

Virginia: 115,910

Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

Obama’s margin in some other key states:

Nevada: 66,379

Iowa: 88,501

New Hampshire: 40,659

Similarly, Leahy over at Breitbart crunched these numbers.

Despite losing the popular vote 51% to 48%–not a landslide for Obama by any means, but on the other hand not the “neck and neck” outcome many predicted–Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.

The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.

Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s  327,870.

Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes  by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney’s 4,162,174.

Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779

Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s  1,789,618.

Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.

Overall, voter turnout was down, from 131 million in 2008 to 122 million in 2012. Obama won 7.6 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, and Romney won 1.3 million fewer than McCain in 2008.

Romney improved his vote total’s over McCain’s by the slightest amount in three of these four states, but in Ohio, he actually had 81,000 fewer votes than McCain in 2008.

Could things have been different if ORCA actually swam – you bet!  However, it didn’t.  All I will say is that it would have been a lot closer than the result produced last Tuesday night. Furthermore, it shows how the axiom “if it isn’t broken, why fix it” should be re-applied to Republican campaigns – and how we should never again centralize the local operation of getting out the vote, especially when HQ was located in the far reaches of Boston, Massachusetts.
For decades, presidential campaigns were successful setting up infrastructures in each respective state, and in each respective voter precinct conducting strike lists to increase turnout.  Volunteers would give their lists to the local HQ who would attempt to contact the voters who haven’t shown up.  It’s worked – and we shouldn’t mess with it, even though the preparation beforehand is cumbersome.  We tried it the digital way, and look what we got.
Originally posted on The Young Cons.

Why the Tea Party is the Target of Post-Election Blame Game

Peggy Noonan Attacks Tea Party – calls them angry

Do you ever feel as if standing up for your U.S. Constitutional rights has allowed the liberals and the blame game mainstream media to paint a red target on your back as a Tea Party supporter? Well, it appears that since the election the reengineering of the election results are giving GOP moderates as well as alphabet soup network pundits’ greater incentive to bury the Tea Party movement in another shallow grave.

One of those pundits is former President Reagan Speechwriter, Peggy Noonan who stated on CBS Face the Nation, Sunday November 11th that , “The tea party style of rage is not one that wins over converts and makes people lean towards them and say, ‘I want to listen to you.’ I think a friendly persuasion has to begin now from the Republican Party to people of the United States.”

Exactly what type of converts is Noonan referring to? Is she asking that Tea Party supporters moderate their positions so that U.S. Constitutional principles become warmed over mush? Does Noonan and other moderates want Tea Party supporters to sacrifice deeply held foundational values on the Obama alter of socialist expediency? This is absolutely and categorically not going to happen.

The Sunday network talk shows are beside themselves with more than usual self serving glee to bury this genuine grass roots movement of millions of Americans as quickly as they can. The problem is clear, The Tea Party has not retreated since the 2009 continuous assault from mainstream media vicious mistruths. The goal was to label the patriot citizens as extreme, rabid racists who were only interested in destroying the failed tax and spend deficit policies that cooperative republican moderates and liberal democrats have forged for several decades.

Well, guess what, one of the most important color blind leaders to come out of the 20th century probably described the Tea Party movement best. Rev. Martin Luther King taught the nation to stand up against unjust systems. Rev. King stressed: “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent. “

The Tea Party movement did not bend its back or kneel to the constant and sometimes withering assaults from self serving civil rights leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but it stunned the nation 2010, with the results of a survey from one of its own: the New York Times.

The New York Times it surveyed Tea Party supporters between April 10th – 12th of 2010, and miracles of miracles occurred. It was not made up of pitch fork carrying, knuckle dragging, and semi-literate Neanderthals as they had been viciously portrayed. Instead, according to the study Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public. The survey also concluded that the Tea Party supporters were not in opposition to Obama because of race. Instead, the surveyed supporters opposed his political ideology and cared deeply about their own “economic well-being.”

When the mainstream media could not demonize Tea Party supporters and candidates as the Neanderthal stereotypes they had tried for more than a year to portray them as, they attempted to delegitimize its national supporters like former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. The attacker in chief was Chris Matthews of MSNBC and his cohort at ABC News George Stephanopoulos. This continued until the democrats and Obama’s liberal socialist policies were manhandled in the 2010 midterm elections.

The massive Tea Party shift resulted in Republicans gaining 63 congressional seats, and booting out then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Were the Tea Party candidates and their supporters too extreme? Or was it the democrats and Obama who were out of step with America?

Consider this for a moment. Were the Tea Party supporters and the movement extreme when their grass roots determination its determination caused the largest shift of any midterm congressional election since 1938? The result left GOP moderates and liberals as well as Obama with a determination to steer the selection of a Tea Party presidential candidate who they could not beat to a moderate to center establishment candidate who they could demonize. Of course the rest is recent history.

Yet, with the defeat of Mitt Romney, the election of 2012 has still resulted in the Tea Party and its conservatives holding onto the people’s house: The House of Representatives. True Obama, has been reelected through despicable campaign tactics and White House cover ups that border on scandalous tactics, but the Tea Party did not fold.

So is the behavior of a president who lowers his already suspect principles to an even lower level to remain in office the fault of the Tea Party, which helped to hold the House of Representatives? Of course not. If anything, the conservative values of smaller government, less debt, erasing the deficit and protecting life needed to be emphasized more!

Going forward, into 2013 and the 2014 mid-term elections the one benefit, if one could call it that is removed from the Obama arsenal. Obama and liberals cannot blame Bush any longer. Now Obama has to man up and every dime more of deficit spending, every dollar more of trillion dollar debt he owns. He is must answer to every cover up and possibly face impeachment hearings in the House.

The blame game now clearly stops squarely at Obama’s desk in the Oval Office, or at least until he is impeached or convicted.

The Tea Party is not a fictional aberration that will wither on the vine of history because of an election loss by a presidential candidate. Listen again to the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. “

America, this nation matters and must forever remain strong because its patriots refuse to remain silent.

( Click – Let me know what you think)

How Immigration Ruined The Californian Republican Party

Screen Shot 2012-11-12 at 1.26.20 AM

As we on the Right continue to ponder how we got handily beaten by a president with a dismal record, one of the areas that are salient in our rebuilding efforts rests with Hispanic voters.  About fifty thousand latinos turn eighteen every month, making this a key demographic Republicans must become competitive if we to survive as a political force.  Losing Latinos to Democratic candidates 73%-24% spells certain doom for the party.  This doesn’t mean we sell out on our principles.  Supporting full amnesty is a fool’s errand.  However, we may have to accept certain provisions on future immigration proposals. Provisions that create pathways to citizenship by creating benchmarks for immigrants who have served in the military, achieved a certain level of education, and don’t have criminal records seems like a good starting point concerning our outreach with Latinos.

Sen. Marco Rubio’s alternative Dream Act is another area where Republicans can debate whether it is sufficiently conservative, or in dire need of revision.  Regardless, if we continue with our perceived anti-immigrant ways, we are destined to become a nationalized version of the Republican Party of California, which was destroyed when Prop. 187 was passed in 1994.

The bill, detailed by Nancy H. Martis of the California Journal back in 1994, goes as follows:

Proposition 187 bans illegal immigrants from public social
services, non emergency health care and public education. Various state and
local agencies would be required to report anyone suspected of being an
illegal immigrant to the state attorney general and U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). The attorney general would be required to
maintain records and transmit reports to INS. Manufacturing, distributing or
selling false citizenship or residence documents illegal under existing
state law would become a felony. The proposal’s fiscal impact would be
felt three ways, the legislative analyst estimates. State and local
governments would realize savings from denying certain benefits and services
to persons who cannot document their citizenship or legal immigration status,
and this could amount to $200 million annually, based on INS estimates.
However, the state, local governments and schools would incur significant
costs to verify citizenship or immigration status of students, parents,
persons seeking health care services or social services, and persons who are
arrested. This could total tens of millions of dollars annually, with
first year costs considerably higher, potentially in excess of $100 million.
Finally, there would be a potential loss of federal funds up to $15
billion annually in federal money for education health and welfare programs
due to conflicts with federal requirements.

It was introduced by Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy and endorsed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson – which made it a key issue during his ’94 re-election bid.  While the bill passed, it had an overwhelming negative effect on the electorate.  First, it was the death knell for Republicans concerning statewide elections.  We never became competitive again, until Governor Schwarzenegger won his gubernatorial/recall bid in 2003.  The bill was declared unconstitutional, and killed with legal action.  The election of 1988 is still the last contest where California went Republican.  An ignominious footnote since the GOP was able to carry the state in 1960, ’68, ’72, ’76, ’80, and ’84.

The effects of Prop. 187 are still felt today – with the complete collapse of the two-party system in the state.

As Michael R. Blood of AP reported on Nov. 10:

Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They gained even more ground in Tuesday’s elections, picking up at least three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two other tight races — in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-educated physician who mobilized a district’s growing swath of Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.

The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both, chambers in the Legislature.

 […]
Republican voter registration has dipped so low — less than 30 percent — that the party’s future state candidates will be hobbled from the start.

Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney’s defeat will inevitably examine whyPresident Barack Obama rolled up more than 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for the president by 27 percentage points.

There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican state in presidential contests.

A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns. The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example, voter surveys show they’ve overwhelmingly favored Democratic presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place across the nation.

Another sign of the times:

 Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population, while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic, according to the census.

[…]

Romney “implemented a winning election strategy for 1980,” University of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement issued by the school. “If you look at the demographics and voting proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today.”

Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.

California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that time. You’d have to go back to that year to find a Republican presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.

Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the vote counting continues.

[…]

Still, Democrats believe they have the state’s demographics on their side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse population.

More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area — tomorrow’s voters — 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.

We shall see how California Democrats exert their new power.  If you’re a mentally competent person, I wouldn’t suggest taking a bet that the economic situation will improve.

While Heather MacDonald wrote in National Review that  while “a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration,” Califronia proves that such perceived anti-immingrant measures can lead to disastrous results.

Then again, she did touch upon our image problem with Latinos:

Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

Yes, we have work to do.  The fact that entitlement reform will be part of our outreach strategy makes me more optimistic we can win them over, or at least enough to win an election.  Republican immigration policy needs to be smart and comprehensive.  We can start by not passing anymore legislation that takes states off the table in national elections.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

Are conservatives too far right for American presidential elections

Mitt Romney did not lose because conservatives are not too far right to win presidential elections

Do you truly believe that conservatives in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia or any other state in America were just too, too far to the right for Mitt Romney or any Republican to win? The notion is incredibly meritless on its face. The facts are quite simple. Obama saw a drop of nine million plus voters from his 2008 vote totals for president. 1.6 million less blacks voted for him than did in 2008 as well.

The true fact is that Romney received nearly 2 million less votes from conservatives than Senator John McCain did in 2008. The truth appears to be that more conservatives have to be brought to the election table and for the right reasons.

Already there are apologists in the republican establishment who are straining their neck to receive the nod of approval from mainstream media pundits and the alphabet soup networks. Their goal is to toss conservatives under the bus.

Liberal pundits like MSNBC Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton are crowing over the thug-in-chief behavior of Obama and his Chicago campaign street crew. They believe it is permissible to attack, demean and destroy republicans and Tea Party candidates because, after all those Republicans and those Tea Party people are “not decent, and are racist!”

Instead, these pathetic pundits were very desperate to showcase on as many network broadcasts as humanly possible the bowing and scraping of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. They could not wait to display for the nation Christie’s love fest adoration for Obama over a Hurricane Sandy photo-op. This is the picture that liberals want conservatives to change into.

If that were to happen in some alternative universe, the reality still will remain the same. The liberals and mainstream media will still demonize Republican and Tea Party candidates, but they will repeatedly kick their butt with a smile. Meanwhile in New Jersey, hundreds of thousands of people still are cold, without food, housing or power. Where is Obama’s promise of a15 minute phone call response for those who are suffering in worse than Hurricane Katrina conditions?

Ahhh yes. Phones must not work in the White House. Conservatives should be good little boys and girls and take a long walk off a short pier just like Governor Christie did in selling out his state for a disingenuous smile from Obama. The commander of stealth also threw in a Bruce Springsteen phone call for Christie too. 30 pieces of silver would have gotten him a lot more.

The reality is as plain as the U.S. Constitution and the rationale for why its framers did not compromise their principles to the British. Sure, it is always easier to kneel on bended knee and give into the whims of the oppressor. It may seem easier to look the other way and believe that your home can be invaded , but as long as it is alright and they knock first, then it is OK, some may try to rationalize.

That type of delusional belief system guarantees that the United States will cease to be a nation that raises its citizens to believe in fighting for the right to protect their homes against enemies both foreign and domestic. By giving away the nation’s values and conservative principles so that the tyranny of a school yard bully can set the law of the playground of America is repugnant. It does not make the liberal bully president’s behavior any more legitimate because the mainstream media acting as the principal of the school and the liberal classmates agree to support the bully’s offensive behavior

You see, America is at a crossroads. The nation’s conservatives are not too far right in order to win elections. The 2010 congressional elections where the Tea Party thrashed the liberals and soundly rejected the president’s socialist agenda is a case in point.

The charge that conservatives and undecided American voters have to contend with is to determine what type of America your children will inherit. The other question is, what are you willing to fight for?

Will you take the attitude that it is better to wait and see what happens, when you already know that this president and his co-conspirators in the mainstream media are slowly stripping away your rights. Will you wait and see how much of your religious beliefs should be taken, or your right to a job? Will you call yourself too conservative because you agree that your child or your neighbor can be denied a job or college acceptance because they were not born as part of a “protected class” or were not an illegal alien?

Are you too conservative and far to the right because biblical principles which this nation is founded upon are just too difficult to fight for? The U.S. Constitution is more than just a document and the biblical teachings upon which this nation is founded is more than an interesting collection of words

2 Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

These constitutional and biblical principles are worth standing firm upon, even when the liberal bullies on the left reside in the offices of the media elite or the Oval office. Be proud that you want to elect representatives who have the will and faith to stand against the demagoguery of a community organizer from Chicago who brought his socialist training and beliefs to the presidency.

Obama’s reelection does not give him or his followers the privilege or the license to search out and destroy the American dream for its citizens because they seek freedom over liberal servitude. You are on the right for justice and recognize that elections do have consequences if lies are accepted as truth.

Elections do not determine the character of the president; it is principles and values which will not stand down against liberalism even if it elects leaders who destroy conservative values with impunity. Instead stand up aside your neighbor and then add one more, then add another. Stand up and do not let an election based on manipulation and lies and riddled with hidden truths fill you with dismay, depression or defeat.

The conservative movement, the Tea Party movement, the faith movement, the right to life movement has only begun to fight. The House of Representatives is the peoples’ house, and conservatives and Tea Party elected leaders are in firm control. Build upon that. Send them not only a message that they must not submit to the narrative of defeat. Instead show them by your organizing efforts that, help is on the way.

Conservatives are not too far right for American elections. America must be brought back home to its founding heredity so that future elections will be in a country that has reemerged with stronger roots. It will not be a nation that is buried in a valueless shallow grave of liberals’ morals.

In the end, if moderating conservative beliefs and faith, means one has to embrace the new Obama philosophy of hate and revenge, then walk away. Be proud to continue the battle for the honor and integrity of conservative values for “Love of country which continues to be one nation under God

 ( Let me know what you think  – click )

The Aftermath of the Obama Re-Election Zombie Apocalypse

Crossposted from The American Millennium Online.

Well fellow conservatives and libertarians, it seems that with the re-election of The One, Barack H. Obama, the Zombie Apocalypse we all dreaded is here. First the O zombies flooded the polls to get the free stuff, next they’ll be knocking on your doors and trying to eat your brains.

It looks like Romney’s candid admission to supporters that was taped by an Obama goon and put up on the Internet was a fair assessment of the facts. The country is at a place now where there are more takers than makers and the takers want their stuff now. Move over Greece, we are on our way to the National Bread and Free Stuff Bankruptcy line.

The difference between the U.S. and Greece is that people like Greece. They’ve got those cool ruins and stuff and Greece is a great vacation spot. People don’t like America too much anymore. That’s why when Obama tries to bail out America; nobody will come to our rescue the way they did Greece. The nation is at the tipping point and now that Obama is reinstalled, it will be harder than ever to remove the hard-core progressive left.

Difficult, but not impossible. Romney wasn’t a bad campaigner; he actually did very well, capturing half of the popular vote and a good portion of the Electoral College. It wasn’t a blow out for Obama. The Obama campaign wasn’t a great campaign, what with the wilting President at the debates and the Human Gaffe Machine Joe Biden, it wasn’t all that impressive. What we need to over come this barrier is a great conservative, like Ronald Reagan, not a so so conservative like Romney. We need charisma and poise to overcome the cult of personality of the progressive left. And we have to abandon the national media as a tool, (literally the media are a bunch of tools) of the left. We have to create our own media, through the blogs and talk radio.

Thankfully enough Americans showed up to the polls to at least increase the lead in the House of Representatives. But with a majority in the Senate and with the Executive Branch, the President doesn’t need a mandate or the support of congress. He has shown his willingness to rule by executive order and auto-pen. (That auto-pen is great, it allows Barack to go golfing all day and lets Valerie Jarrett make all the decisions by proxy.)

I’m pretty disappointed with my own state of Minnesota. We have a democratic governor and both houses went to the dogs, uh dems. (I have to get out of this state!) We are already taxed enough and now I’m sure Governor Dayton and his cronies will go to town, hiking up taxes and spending like mad. Ugh.

As more and more states like Minnesota and California spend like gamblers at a casino and eventually go broke, citizens will vote with their feet and move to the red states like I plan to to get out from under the thumb of the Zombie campaign. Progressives won’t understand why those states are doing better while their states and cities fall into oblivion. They’ll do everything they can to try to prevent people from leaving and their failed programs and cities will fall into decay. Too bad lefty loons. You get what you vote for.

In the meantime, watch out for progressive plans to take away our freedom: fairness doctrine to control the Internet and talk radio is a great example. They will try to shut us down. We mustn’t let them.  Gun control will innevitably follow, so buy your guns and ammo today.

As bad as it will be in the next few years, I predict it will not be as bad as it was in the Revolution. Those patriots crossed frozen rivers without shoes in mid winter to do battle with the Hessians, AND THEY WON! It will be dark for a while, but the dawn will come and Patriotic Americans will need to do the heavy lifting to make sure they are ready when that day will come. God will give us the leader we need eventually. For now we have to accept that we live in exile amongst the Babylonians. It sucks. But morning is coming. Grab your guns, go to church with your friends, start a blog, be happy and not bitter.

In the meantime, a 12-guage shot gun is still the best home defense against a Zombie home invasion. See you at the gun store or out in the blogosphere. We aren’t finished yet.

#war!

ps, watch this funny video from Glove and Boots on the best way to deal with zombies, and have a good laugh.

Also, here is a cute column about zombies, by Stephanie.

« Older Entries