Tag Archives: republican
In case you haven’t heard, former governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman Jr. has officially dropped out of the Republican primary. That’s not surprising, really, considering that he spent most of the past year in the single digits. What is surprising is that he didn’t bow out on the night of the New Hampshire primary; the guy practically lived there, and he still came in behind Ron Paul.
The other thing that is surprising (and particularly #HeadDesk worthy) is that Huntsman thinks his dropping out will consolidate the vote. That couldn’t be any further from the truth.
Huntsman dropping out does very little, if anything, to affect the dynamics of this race. Right now you have three factions: Romney, Paul, and then this gaggle involving Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum. And the truth is that as long as Paul is in the race, there will probably never be anyone with enough momentum to overcome Romney. Even if you have Santorum and Perry drop out, there is a very real chance that Paul staying in can help Romney get the plurality every time.
So it’s cute that Huntsman wants his endorsement to carry weight, just like it’s cute that McCain wanted his to do so, but Jon dropping out did nothing to change this cluster-truck that we’re dealing with. The only thing it did was to make the Huntsman girls seem a little less relevant. But with today’s news culture, they can probably go to CNN and be three times more compelling as pundits than Meghan McCain has ever been. (click here and here to see some of what the Huntsman girls have become famous for)
Rick Santorum, after a 2nd place showing in Iowa, has been recently hailed as the “conservative alternative to Mitt Romney”. Conservative in what sense though? Conservative because he’s religious and seems to live the model good Christian life? Conservative because he’s a super military hawk? Conservative because he’s socially conservative? The one area he’s not conservative is in the domestic size of government sense. Conservative seems to mean many different things now a days, not all of which limit federal powers, leave people alone, oppose collectivism and spend less money.
While claiming to be a firm supporter of the 10th Amendment, the amendment which Thomas Jefferson said kept the federal government small, Santorum stated, “the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.” Perhaps he supports a different 10th Amendment than the one most actual conservatives hail. In 2005 Santorum wrote a “conservative answer” to Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village, which advocated for more government involvement in people’s lives. It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good plays to most conservatives’ desire and love of family values, but its assertion to take action for the “common good” should give lovers of liberty some pause. The General Welfare Clause of the Constitution is often hailed by liberals as justification for their big government programs. And just like liberals, Santorum advocates for government based solutions in his book including, but not limited to: national service (forced conscription), publicly financed trust funds for children, incentives for community investments, and economic literacy programs for every school in the country. Santorum’s support for federal education isn’t particularly shocking given his vote for President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act”.
In 2006, Rick Santorum showed his true colors while promoting his book on NPR. Santorum told the host, “One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.” Its safe to say that Rick Santorum probably doesn’t think too much of Ayn Rand or her masterpieces: The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.
Now, I’m not one who cares about the earmark issue too much as it is constitutionally permissible and because its the Congress’ duty to allocate funds, but I do admit that it can and often does “corrupt the process”. For those who do care, Santorum was a huge ear-marker in his days in the House and Senate, and not just for his own district. Santorum voted to fund the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere”. Since being out of office, Red State points out that Santorum now opposes earmarks. But as the conservative economic organization The Club for Growth, points out: Santorum is someone who does try to have it both ways, “He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called ’50 Things You Didn’t Know About Rick Santorum.’” I’ll add one thing you should know about Santorum is his support for Bush’s agenda domestic and abroad, including the dreaded and expensive, Medicare Part D.
Perhaps most unpopular here in South Carolina is Rick Santorum’s support of labor unions. Now, one may dismiss it as electoral pragmatism based on his former home state, just like earmarks could be, but given our battle with the NLRB; perhaps we are rightfully now less forgiving. Santorum opposed the National Right to Work Act, voted against NAFTA and some other free trade proposals, and has supported tariffs, such as on steel, to help unions avoid competition. Also in the interest of helping unions avoid competition, Santorum repeatedly voted to protect unions with his continuous support of the Davis-Bacon Act. Speaking of protectionism, Santorum has also supported farm subsidies in the past. Now to give Santorum credit, he doesn’t use the tired expression “level the playing field” which is a noble goal, but also an overused cliché. The reason he clamor for the “leveling of the playing field” economically is because his jobs plan openly favors manufacturing by giving them all sorts of special breaks. I don’t want to come off as unsympathetic to the manufacturing industries’s plight, I am, and do want it to come back, but I don’t want other industries to have to pay the manufacturing’s industries’ “fair share” for them. On a similar, un-capitalistic note, Santorum also voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulation bill, which kills start ups and harms existing businesses.
If this is conservative, than I sure as hell am not a conservative. Barry Goldwater’s nickname was “Mr. Conservative”. Oh, how the definition has been forgotten over the years. Santorum’s record is abysmal. Liberals would call me a right wing extremist based on my view of government, they would hear the legislation I want and immediately break down and cry. Upon meeting and conversing with a Michele Bachmann campaign staffer, I made him argue for bigger government. Not that I like either of them, for what should be obvious reasons, but there’s no way Romney could’ve been much worse than Santorum. In fact, Santorum even supported an individual mandate. Proof of this may be found in a local Pennsylvania Newspaper which described Santorum and a rival Republican’s healthcare proposal with, “Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.” Because both are big government Republicans, I won’t be voting for them… but if I had to pick between them, I’d chose Romney, hands down. Romney, while not a small government candidate, would do less harm to conservatism because no one views Romney as a conservative. Everyone calls him a moderate, and rightfully so. If Romney further grows government, the conservative brand isn’t on the hook. What I cannot sit by and watch is a big government Republican in Santorum, be called a conservative and grow government just like his fellow “compassionate conservative”, President Bush did. As you can see the term conservative is on the ropes; from Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater’s constitutionally limited government views to Rick Santorum’s family values based big government nanny state. This is a term we really cannot afford to lose. Please don’t help kill the brand and the label.
Mia Love is running for Utah’s 4th Congressional District. She is conservative. This is the type of person we need to be supporting even as we muddle through this tiresome election season. This is the type of person that will change American politics from the inside out. Mia says freedom is “the ability to make decisions and reap the benefits of those decisions or suffer the consequences.” Watch Mia’s video here. If you are a real, thinking person you will be inspired. If you’re not inspired, you’re probably Nancy Pelosi…and you should get that checked out.
crossposted at kiradavis.net
Maybe Megyn Kelly should have remembered to ask him again. Maybe he forgot. Or maybe he’s prepared to run third party, if things don’t go his way. We’ll all know eventually, won’t we?
Boy, has this been an interesting primary. None of these candidates are overly deserving of adoration, but I sure keep running into people who will defend them to the death, even if that “death” is the death of a “friendship”.
Sure you hear tales of “Palinistas” or “Ron Paulbots”, but even Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have developed ardent supporters. You have to understand the situation this often puts me in. I talk about politics. A lot. If I have four people in the room, and each one is very much in support of one of the candidates I just mentioned, any conversation I engage in has potential to p*ss off 3/4 of the people in the room. Now, how can that not be frustrating? …really?
And it’s not just those politicians’ supporters, either. There’s a new crop coming up around Rick Santorum, and there used to be a strong following for Michele Bachmann too, so this whole primary has been….. draining.
I’m not the only one experiencing it, but I am one of the few who are willing to speak on it, so here I am, speaking on it.
We’ve got to man up, people. There’s a movie from ten years ago, called “Training Day” with Denzel Washington. (the movie that scored him his Oscar) In it, there’s a scene where he says, “Do you want to go to jail, or do you want to go home?” It’s a question repeated by another character later in the movie, and both times, it refers to making a tough decision. That line has always stuck with me, and over time, I’ve come up with a variation of my own that I use when I’m discussing unpopular topics with coworkers, family, or friends. “Do you want to win, or do you want to go home?”
In my mind, life (often) does not work out according to plan, and the difference between success and failure comes down to your ability to adapt. If your favorite candidate has made an ass of themselves, you can either put your head in the sand (go home) or you can reassess what your stance is on this candidate and possibly find a new one. (win)
You don’t even have to find a new one, but you certainly can’t be mad at your fellow conservatives for pointing out their flaws. This is an important election, and we can’t just run “anybody” against Obama, no matter how convinced you are that might just work. (it won’t)
So, do you want to win, or do you want to go home?
If you want to win, then you need to be honest about the flaws your candidate has. You also have to be willing to put your support behind another candidate, if the one you’ve been in favor of turns out to not be viable. Remember, the definition of “winning” is for Obama to be unemployed come 2013, not necessarily for “your guy” to get the nomination.
If you want to go home, then block people on Twitter who make fun of your candidate, unfriend people on Facebook who disagree with you, and be an all-around passive aggressive person. This is a free country, and you have the right to do these things, but don’t be surprised, if Barack Obama is still your president when the dust settles on the ground.
For what it’s worth, I’m not the arbiter of who is and who is not “viable” in this election. I’m not here to decide that for you. What I am doing, however, is saying that we cannot be crybabies and throw hissy fits when someone pokes fun at our candidate or provides evidence of their failings. We need to elect the best candidate, and that’s going to require some vetting. (and at times it might be unpleasant)
If we’re willing to be honest with ourselves and work with each other, we have a really good shot at winning… and for Obama to go home.
I came across a Rick Perry ad today that stopped me in my tracks, and not for any of the good reasons. At first glance, it seems like it might be another good TV spot for the candidate from Texas. It starts off with optimistic music and Perry looking like a seasoned man from America’s heartland. He’s standing by a quiet river, and he begins with a proclamation that he’s “not ashamed to admit that he’s a Christian”. So far so good… Then his next statement kind of derails things. Take a look…
Look… I know that this statement will speak to the hearts of many Americans, but Perry really shouldn’t have added the line about “gays serving openly in the military”. I think he had a good ad on his hands without the addition of that statement. And to be honest with you, I’m not at all sorry for him for any heat this might bring upon his campaign.
This is a year where Republicans have an honest chance to unseat the current president, and that’s saying a lot, considering how dire the GOP’s hand was in 2008. Commercials like this do nothing to bolster those chances, however, and I’m ashamed of Perry for putting this line in there.
Now, I know that Perry has been gaining support on this website, and that I’ll draw the ire of many of our readers for pointing this out, but if you WANT Perry to be the next president of the United States, ads like this do not help. Whether it is fair or not, Republicans are known for being “against the gays”. How does this ad help to change that perception? It doesn’t. It only “reaffirms” what many have suspected about Republicans all along.
Also… it was a good ad without that line. Perry looked good, he sounded good, the production values were solid, and his message was fine. Adding the line about gays serving openly in the military did nothing to improve or embellish it. It was foolish, and it was the opposite of helpful.
This isn’t the first time that Perry has disappointed me, nor is it the first time that he’s “stepped in it”, but after enough occurrences, these things start to look like nails in his coffin.
Part two of Rick Perry’s interview on Jay Leno this week.
Click here to see part one.
Part one of Rick Perry’s interview on Jay Leno this week.
Click here for part two.
Informal poll…. Let us know if you’re even familiar with the song these girls are spoofing in the comments below.
This is an open letter to those in America who still support, and will vote for, Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2012. It is also for those who will blindly support Republicans because they aren’t Democrats. Please take time to read through this and really think about what I say. Don’t read this through the eyes of politics or party line rhetoric, read this as an American citizen.
I remember a Republican president and a Republican controlled Congress giving us the Patriot Act for our “protection”. They also gave us the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security has given us the TSA. Have you been on an airplane lately? To fly these days you have to be either photographed virtually nude or felt up by a guard who fondles people for a living. Now stay with me here, think about this. While they are busy strip searching an 89 year old, wheel chair bound, diaper wearing, woman in an airport, they are allowing millions of people to just walk across our southern border.
There is even less security on the Canadian border and Muslim terrorists have easy access to Canada. So the TSA keeps you safe on an airplane while they allow these same people, terrorists that now can’t get on an airplane, access to your homes, your churches, your shopping malls, your children’s schools. Think about this for a minute before you continue. Terrorists don’t need airplanes any longer. Our government is so focused on air travel that a terrorist can’t get on a plane with a box cutter, but they can walk across the Mexican border like they are out for a Sunday stroll in the park. And what do terrorists bring with them on these strolls? I bet it isn’t bundles of marijuana. Both parties speak of “fearing” a nuclear attack with a suitcase bomb but neither party is willing to close the main source of access for that attack they “fear”. How safe does this information leave you feeling?
Do you know what Homeland Security has “prevented” in the last few years? I know of two much bally-hoed “attacks” prevented by the federal government in recent years. Both were thwarted by alert FBI agents, who just happened to have recruited the bomber, supplied all of the information and access necessary to carry out the attack, AND supplied a dummy bomb to the would-be terrorist. This link is to a story about the Dallas incident. This has happened under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, no partisanship here. The government arrests these poor morons and trot the “terrorist” out like they have “saved” us. And the “Times Square Bomber”, a legitimate attempt, was thwarted by alert citizens not government officials.
Let’s go back a bit farther now and talk about jobs with all of the unemployed rank and file union workers who paid dues to the union, dues that got funneled back to the Democrat Party. Your jobs were shipped overseas primarily under Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled Congresses. Bill Clinton and a Democrat Congress raised corporate taxes, and gave us NAFTA and GATT; free trade agreements that made it cheaper to build items in Mexico, China, India, and who knows where else. The labor is cheaper, taxes are lower, and they can ship products back here without paying import taxes.
Republicans were all too happy to jump on board with this also. Your elected government and union officials are at fault for this, not the employer. Union hierarchy are living just fine while you sit on unemployment and scratch day to day in the hope you can hold onto the house you bought while times were good. Check into the financial status of James Hoffa and the other top union leaders. How are they doing? Are they living on unemployment? I would be curious to know if they actually pay taxes on their income or if they are exempt, as are Timothy Geithner and Charles Rangel. Who benefitted from the housing bubble and its ultimate bust? Don’t take my word for it; go look at how all of this has affected you and then look at who did what. These people, in either party, are not doing you any favors.
Bill Clinton made a bid for your 401/IRA retirement accounts and barely lost that one because there were enough Republicans opposing it. He wanted to “nationalize”, that means seize, your retirement account and lump it in with Social Security to help those who have less than you do. You work and save for 40 years so the government can give those savings to people too lazy to work, people unwilling to work, and illegal aliens. That little surprise has boiled up again. It’s not on the radar yet but is there just the same. Obama is hatching Phase 2 of this little plot against your future, kind of like Obamacare is Phase 2 of Hillarycare.
Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins came up with the brilliant idea of giving the president complete control of the internet through “kill switch” legislation. Iran and China already have this in place. How is that working out for their citizens? Here we have a “moderate” Democrat, disguised as an Independent, and a “moderate” (RINO) Republican openly plotting to give the president, any president, the right to take away internet access whenever he wants to do so. Drop that in with the mix with “net neutrality”, which is their fall back position from complete control, and you have the makings of tyranny. Democrats are openly supporting the “occupy Wall Street” bunch and some are calling for the suspension of elections, and even the suspension of the Constitution, to solve this mess we are in.
Do you really understand what that means? Do you really understand what these people are calling for? Do you see how the Republican leadership in Congress is dealing with this? Go look at the last 10 years in Venezuela. Look at how Hugo Chavez gained a dictatorship. Look and compare. Don’t take my word for it, go look it up and see for yourself.
Lobbyists, many of whom are former members of Congress or various administrations, are paid big bucks to get legislation passed that is beneficial to their clients. They buy influence with politicians of both parties. For you parents out there, do you punish your child for doing wrong or do you punish the one who put them up to it? One problem with our nation is that we have grown to make excuses for our child and blame others who were also involved. “The ‘instigator’ is at fault not my baby”, or “it isn’t MY senator, MY Congressman, it is the ‘evil corporations’. “ No, it isn’t the “instigator’s” fault; your kid didn’t have to throw the rock he was handed through the window. No, it isn’t the “evil corporation” and your member of Congress could always refuse the bribe money. Now we find out that Congress is immune to insider trading laws. Martha Stewart sat in prison, Nancy Pelosi sits as minority leader of the House of Representatives. How nice!!!!!
Those who are on some form of government assistance are also in danger. What the government gives it can take away. Look at what they have done since the 9/11 attacks. We are finding ever increasing control by one government agency or the other. Senate bill S. 679 (Thomas Congressional Library), introduced in March 2011, will give the president, any president, the right to appoint anyone he wishes to any post he wishes. It takes away any Congressional approval and gives carte blanche rights to the president. The “czars” will be even more omnipotent than they are now. No Congressional oversight, no voice of the people allowed. This is a violation of their oath to the Constitution, and to We the People. Go to the link, read the article, and share it with your family, friends, and Congress Critters. A “bi-partisan” Senate has passed S. 679 and sent it to the House of Representatives.
I just saw an article a couple of days ago that says we owe more than we can produce to pay off the national debt. Both parties have done this. We are on a fast boat to dictatorship and many are either blind to it or in denial. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is easy to see if you will take the time to look behind the campaign rhetoric, the partisan political fighting, and the posturing. Go find the true intent of what is being done; behind the scenes, out of the public eye and by both political parties.
There are more of us in this sinking ship of state than you might think. I am not being politically partisan here, I am being an American. When government takes over the ultra-rich will still be ultra-rich. Why do you think they give so much money to politicians? They are buying the future favor you and I can’t afford. Go check out the financial status of those who have been in Congress a while. See if they have “shared the sacrifice” or if they have become wealthy. Don’t take my word for it, go take a close look at how you are being manipulated into slavery.
There are movements out there who are fighting this, help them. The TEA Party is a grassroots group of citizens working to take their country back for the People. Tim Cox of GOOH is recruiting citizens to become citizen legislators to represent We the People, become a candidate if you can, if not help financially or work on a local campaign. John Dummett is running for the Republican nomination for president. He is a common man that stands for the Constitution and the People, and he needs our help. He won’t get any help from the party machine or the media.
Take a look at your “class” in life. Take an honest look at your life, your income, the taxes you pay and your overall prognosis for the future. Now look at history. Who suffered in the French Revolution? Lots of rich people lost their heads but where did their wealth go? Did the peasants come out wealthy or did they suffer even more poverty? Go back and take a look at the Russian Revolution in 1917 and see how the poor came out on that one. Study the aftermath of World War I and the poverty that ensued in Germany. Look at how Adolph Hitler got control of Germany and how he went about his evil task. It didn’t start in 1939 with the invasion of Poland and Hitler didn’t do it by himself. He had a willing parliament, complicit media, and a desperate populace. Take a stroll through history, look the information up and find the truth. Then look at what your government has done here, just in the last 10 years. Go look at the last 10 years in the history of Venezuela. See how Hugo Chavez has taken complete control of that nation.
I am a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather, a veteran, and a patriot. I have seen my freedom and the opportunities for my grandchildren seep away one at a time until a nation that was once crowded with opportunity and freedom has become a very lonely place. If you look at history you can see where we are now and where we are headed.
If you are not willing to learn from history you will repeat it. Many who are trying to stop this slide to tyranny will suffer the same fate as those who can’t or won’t see it for what it is. Once our freedom is totally gone it will take generations to get it back, if that can even be done. Don’t wait until it is too late to get involved; help win the battle for freedom we now face.
Look at how both parties and individual members of Congress have affected your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren. Don’t just listen to their words. Look at how they voted and bills they co-sponsored. Gain a true understanding of world history, understand what is happening and learn what you can do about it. We don’t have to travel this road any longer. We the People have the power to once again have a voice in our nation but we have to speak up. We have to know what we are talking about factually, not with partisan political eyes (rose colored, maybe?) for or against either party. When government has control of everything we are no longer free.
The following link goes to an article I wrote that has a lot in common with this one. In it I go more into the foibles of blindly voting for a political party.
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.
November 24, 2011
This is the segment from last night’s debate that’s going to get the blogosphere fired up.
What do you guys think? Is this the Rick Perry Texas Dream Act all over again? Does Newt Have a point? Is this going to hurt him in the polls? What are your thoughts? Let us know on Facebook and in the comments below.
In the continual march of “inevitability”, Mitt Romney picks up another big name endorsement. Sometime today, Senator John Thune (R-SD) is expected to announce his support of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. The following excerpt is from DesMoinesRegister.com.
“Mitt Romney has shown throughout his life in the private sector, as leader of the Olympics, as governor, and in this campaign that he will not back down from difficult challenges. His plans to revitalize the private sector and restore our country’s fiscal health are drawn from his 25 year career as a conservative businessman.” -Sen John Thune
Is Mitt the “inevitable” candidate? Or do these endorsements, ultimately, amount to nothing? Let us know what you think in the comments below.