1007 East Grand

2012 Iowa Caucus Preview – Who will win the Iowa Caucus?

2012-01-02T08:37:00.009-06:00

With Christmas and the New Year’s celebrations behind us, the nation and world now turn their attention towards the Hawkeye state.

Selzer, the influential (and fairly accurate) pollster just released its final survey for the Des Moines Register. Here’s where the candidates stand at the beginning of the New Year:

If you explore the previous Iowa Poll data from Selzer, you can see the trendlines for each candidate as well.

Before the Straw Poll, I provided an analysis of several of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. As we approach the caucuses, let’s see where each candidate stands in Iowa as the 2012 presidential campaign officially begins.

Michele Bachmann

Unfortunately for Congresswoman Bachmann, it appears that her campaign truly was a flash in the pan. After her big win at the Ames Straw Poll in August, she failed to capture a national or even statewide following. Her biggest contribution to this primary campaign was kicking Tim Pawlenty to the sidelines, much to the glee of Mitt Romney. Most other candidates have had the opportunity to be the “Not-Romney” candidate for a short while, and the well-spoken, lack-of-skeletons-in-his-closet Pawlenty might have been a more conservative choice for those wanting to avoid Governor Romney.

In the end, Congresswoman Bachmann did not catch fire anywhere. While she has tried to be a conservative voice for the Tea Party, she hasn’t had enough money or momentum for the homestretch. Recently, the airwaves have been dominated by Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul, and with her lack of increase in the polls, Michele Bachmann will most likely be disappointed with the results on Tuesday night.

Newt Gingrich

Written off this summer as a non-factor, Speaker Gingrich has been hoping to pull a 2008 McCain-like move, and win the primary nonetheless. However, his poll leads have been fading away this past week or two and the results of the Caucuses do not appear to be promising.

While Gingrich was an excellent debater and many Republican voters admire his irreverent attitude towards the mainstream media, the attacks against him here in Iowa (and around the nation) have certainly taken their toll. Electability is also an issue for the Speaker. Only 13% of Iowans believe that he’s the most electable against President Obama (which is better than many of the other candidates, but rather unimpressive for a national leader in the polls). Furthermore, polls such as this (taken in November) do not help Gingrich’s case, which show him losing the very Republican state of Kansas to President Obama in 2012. His favorability rating is also poor in the bright red state, compared to his main national rival, Mitt Romney.

All of these reasons lead me to believe that Gingrich will be fortunate to bring home the bronze in the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been steadily gaining in the polls here in Iowa primarily because of his economic message, which resonates loudly with many Tea Party voters that desperately wish to shrink the size of Washington D.C. However, Congressman Paul has had a tough week, defending charges of racism in his past. Furthermore, Congressman Paul’s foreign policy views remain outside of mainstream Republican orthodoxy. In general, Iowa Republicans showing up for the caucus are going to admire Ron Paul’s “Cut Spending” message, but they will be unimpressed by his stance on the recently feisty Iran.

In the end, Ron Paul seemingly has a ceiling that he is bumping against right now. If he can shave a few points off Romney, while holding off Rick Santorum, a victory for him might be in the cards. However, his future in the primary is a bit cloudier as he looks toward New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada.

Rick Perry

Governor Perry, much like Governor Pawlenty, looks pretty good on paper. On paper, Governor Perry probably looks better than all the other candidates. However, he has met with significant road bumps on his path to the White House such as campaign staff issues, odd behavior, and his debate gaffes. At this time, Perry just hasn’t found the correct formula to race to the head of the pack.

On the bright side, Perry still has money and a large network of supporters. If you live in Iowa, you’ve probably seen at least one of his ten television advertisements, which have increased in number over the past month. The fundamental problem of his campaign still remains, though. Iowa voters still aren’t connecting with him. A month ago, before his Iowa advertising blitz, Perry was polling 10-15% in Iowa. This week’s polling has shown Perry with 10-15% in Iowa. His massive advertising has not given him the bump that he needs. Many Iowans who I’ve spoken with aren’t buying into Rick Perry because of three reasons. First, he made many Iowa Republicans unhappy by deliberately announcing his candidacy on the same day that the Ames Straw Poll was being held. Second, he started his campaign too late for traditional retail politics (Fred Thompson comes to mind). Finally, many folks still remember his poor debate performances, which concern them in advance of the general election.

Unfortunately for Governor Perry, he is still mired in the low double digits, and it doesn’t look like he can move much in 48 hours.

Mitt Romney

Governor Romney might be the luckiest man in politics today. Since August, whenever a fellow Republican challenged Romney at the head of the polling pack, they plummeted as quickly as they rose. As of right now, that list includes most of the Republican contenders. Despite the fact that Republicans across the nation are rather wary of him, it truly is a fortunate time to be Mitt Romney.

This Iowa Poll has Mitt Romney at the head of the pack, with precious little time for someone else to catch him. Recently, Romney has been highlighting his business experience and his long time marriage to his wife, Ann, in hopes of capturing at least a few social conservatives who don’t believe that Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry are electable.

How effective will he be? He will almost certainly be in the top three, but if he does manage to win the Iowa Caucuses, this nomination battle might be surprisingly short, as Romney is a favorite to win the New Hampshire Primary. No Republican candidate has ever won both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary in the same year (not counting incumbent Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush in 76, 84, 92, and 04).

If Romney can hold on in Iowa, his chances of facing President Obama in November are all but certain.

Rick Santorum

Senator Rick Santorum should be glowing. His hard work in Iowa appears to be paying off and he has increased in the polls.

From the Register
What makes Santorum’s growth spurt particularly striking is his last-second rise: He averaged 10 points after the first two nights of polling, but doubled that during the second two nights. Looking just at the final day of polling, he was just one point down from Romney’s 23 percent on Friday.

Rick Santorum has vaulted towards the lead in the Iowa Poll, and he appears to be in a similar position as Mitt Romney: He’s most likely top three, but especially hoping for first place. The trends from Thursday and Friday seem to be in the former senator’s favor. His television ads and his tiresome trekking throughout the atypical snowless fields of Iowa’s 99 counties have clearly earned him some support.

Will it be enough? The problem for Rick Santorum is not Iowa; rather, it’s what comes next for him. Nearly all of his organizational efforts have been poured into Iowa and he is not ready for a national campaign at this time. Perhaps Republican donors will open their wallets if Rick Santorum wins Iowa, but it seems doubtful at this moment.

Overall

Of course, with so many undecided voters and less than 48 hours until the caucus, things can change dramatically. A poll from PPP taken on Friday and Saturday showed the following results:

The race is still very fluid, and while Rick Santorum certainly has momentum, the deciding factor may wind up being the number of unexcited Iowa Republicans who actually show up to vote this year.

Candidate Guide for the 2011 GOP Iowa Straw Poll in Ames - 2012 Republican Primary

2011-07-28T18:30:00.001-05:00

The Iowa Straw Poll (ISP) is less than a month away and the time to start winnowing the large field of GOP candidates has arrived. History has shown that after each previous Straw Poll, there’s always been at least one candidate who drops out due to poor performance. Thus, the ISP maintains at least some importance in this year-long primary process.

Who are the candidates on the ISP Ballot? Here they are:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Thaddeus McCotter
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

Over the next few days, we’ll be looking first at the candidates that will most likely receive a good amount of support in the Iowa Straw Poll. For example, conventional wisdom suggests that Newt Gingrich, Thaddeus McCotter, and Jon Huntsman will not do very well in the Straw Poll. Because of this, we’ll save posts about them for later.

In this series of posts, we’ll be looking at each candidate in regards to seven different topics

1. Who are they?

We’ll do a quick overview of their past experiences. We’ll also look at where they lie on paper, with the help of the Nate Silver, statistics guru. In February, he created the chart below (which I’ve updated by removing those who are definitely not running). This chart outlines where each candidate lies (insider-outsider, conservative-moderate, with each color representing the candidates’ home regions).

2. Why they could win the primary – Biggest advantages

What gives them the extra edge in the Republican race to face President Obama?

3. Why they could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Every candidate has at least one weakness, either with the Republican electorate or the general population.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

By now, we’ve seen advertisements from nearly all the candidates. In this category we’ll put their best foot forward.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

Ahh…the power of YouTube. In the second decade of this new millennium, a regular American’s first impression of these candidates will be what they find on YouTube or through a Google search. Thus, any video clip, press release, or skeleton in the closet that is problematic can easily sink a candidate in the primary, or even worse, the general election.

Remember that President Obama has already been through extensive “vetting” during his primary against the Clintons and then in the general election as well. For the most part, we shouldn’t expect an “October Surprise” that hurts Obama. We should, however, make sure that a nasty surprise doesn’t sink our candidate…that’s what the primary season is for. Imagine how angry the Democrats would have been if they had nominated John Edwards as their candidate in 2008.

6. How would they fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

I believe that Iowa is going to be a very competitive state in November of 2012. Thus, a candidate should be able to perform well here in a general election. As for Ohio, the Republican candidate must win Ohio to become the next President of the United States. Thus, we’ll estimate how a candidate might perform there as well.

7. Chances that they could win the Presidency

Currently, the prediction markets (such as Intrade) believe that President Obama has roughly a 60% chance of being reelected. However, that number could go either way depending on who the Republicans nominate for the Presidency. Simply stated, some candidates have a better shot at winning against Obama.

We’ll be looking at the following six candidates:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

I am not including Sarah Palin (former governor of Alaska) and Rick Perry (current governor of Texas), because they are not declared candidates at this point. Plus, I’m a little concerned about the following two polls, which has them both losing to Obama in Ohio and Texas.

Ohio, a must win state for the Republicans in 2012

Obama 51 - Palin 35 (16 point lead)
Obama 47 - Perry 35 (12 point lead)

Texas, usually a very reliable state for the Republicans in presidential election:

Obama 46 - Palin 44
Obama 47 - Perry 45

While I am certainly concerned about Ohio, my biggest fears regarding Palin and Perry revolve around Texas. Needless to say, all Texans know who Obama is and who Palin and Perry are. And yet, with that knowledge, this poll has them losing the state’s electoral votes to President Obama. While they are not candidates at this point, we’ll see what transpires over the next month.

Michele Bachmann – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

2011-07-28T16:24:00.001-05:00

Michele Bachmann

1. Who is she?

Congresswoman Bachmann is a member of the House of Representatives, representing the good people of Minnesota. She has served in the House since 2007, for nearly 5 years. Before that, she was a member of the Minnesota state senate for 6 years. She also worked for the I.R.S. in the late 80s and early 90s. During most of the Clinton years, she stayed at home with her children, while taking in 23 foster children during this time.

On the Republican political spectrum, she is very conservative. As a tea-party favorite, she is somewhat of an outsider, despite her 5 years in Washington D.C. She is a strong social conservative, and will most likely be fighting Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul for social conservative and/or tea party votes.

Congresswoman Bachmann will be 56 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why she could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Four things: Passion, powerful rhetoric, widespread tea-party support, and her foster work.

Michele Bachmann can fire up a crowd and she can bring together tea-party supporters and social conservatives, because she is a leader within both groups. Family oriented Republicans will especially be impressed with her work as a foster parent.

3. Why she could lose the primary – Biggest weaknesses

Her record in the House, as many will tell you, is not very storied. From the Register:

Bachmann has authored 46 bills and resolutions since joining the House in 2007, according to a Minneapolis Star Tribune profile. Among the article’s findings: Most of her bills died in committee, and none has become law. Three of her resolutions passed in the House but not in the Senate. One recognized Minnesota’s 150th anniversary, while another honored service to foster children.

This lack of success might not play well with Republican primary voters and/or general election independents who are very displeased with the work, or lack thereof, of Congress. As a rule, Congress is generally more unpopular than even King George III in this country. As a member of Congress, she might receive collateral unpopularity due to her membership in the august body.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

Congresswoman Bachmann probably does not want you to utilize Google or YouTube.

When you Google her name, the first results are her House website, Wikipedia, and her campaign page (fairly standard). However, move beyond the news and images, the next five results are titled:

- Michele Bachmann’s Holy War
- 10 of the Craziest Things Michele Bachmann Has Ever Said
- Michele Bachmann Says the Darndest Things (Video)
- Michele Bachmann Exclusive: Pray Away the Gay
- John Wayne to John Adams: Michele Bachmann stands by her misstatements

When you search for Michele Bachmann on YouTube, the first five videos are titled:

- Michele Bachmann Says The Darndest Things
- Fun Facts About Michele Bachmann
- Bachmann Wants McCarthy-Like Witch Hunt For Anti-Americans
- Rep. Michele Bachmann Delivers Tea Party Response to State of the Union ***
- Michele Bachmann's Story of America

Only one of these videos is positive (***). Thus, Michele Bachmann could potentially have a problem introducing and defining herself to the entire American electorate.

6. How would she fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

Michele Bachmann was born in Waterloo, Iowa. Thus, there may be an inherent home state advantage for her. Certainly, there are parts of Iowa that are culturally conservative and she would win big there. However, would she win enough support with Iowa suburbanites who care more about jobs and getting things done? Barack Obama won Iowa by 9 points in 2008. I’m not sure if Bachmann's homefield advantage alone can overcome the President's margin of victory 2008.

As for Ohio, it is likely that she would lose the state. This recent Quinnipiac poll shows her losing Ohio by 13 points, 49 to 36. Unfortunately for the Congresswoman, this does not bode well for her hopes of winning the White House. Without a win in Ohio, a Republican candidate will almost certainly not prevail in 2012.

7. Chances that she could win the Presidency

Due to her likely loss of Ohio and other swing states, it seems unlikely that Michele Bachmann will take the oath of office in 2013. While there certainly is a chance, Congresswoman Bachmann has an uphill climb. Also, never forget how the mainstream media enjoys picking on a prominent, conservative woman. Sarah Palin, anyone?

Tim Pawlenty – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

2011-07-27T18:21:00.003-05:00

Tim Pawlenty

1. Who is he?

Governor Tim Pawlenty was the two-term governor of the great state of Minnesota, serving from 2003 to 2011. Before his time as chief executive, he served ten years in the state house, as majority leader for two terms. Before his political career began, he worked as a lawyer and businessman.

On the Republican political spectrum, Tim Pawlenty is right in the center. While he has been in politics for nearly two decades, he’s not a typical insider because he has never lived in Washington D.C. Tim Pawlenty is not the most conservative candidate in the field (Santorum and Bachmann have that covered), but he governed Minnesota, a fairly blue state, rather conservatively during his time in St. Paul.

Governor Pawlenty will be 51 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why he could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Two things: Executive experience and the big tent

Governor Pawlenty has more executive political experience than anyone else in the Republican field. His record in Minnesota is fairly impressive, especially considering the long line of liberals who preceded him as leaders of his state. As for the big tent, the Republican Party of 2011 consists of several different elements: Tea-Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Hawkish Conservatives, and Business Conservatives. Each candidate has a serious problem in appealing to every portion of the Republican base, except for Tim Pawlenty. His position in the middle of the Republican spectrum could potentially give him the support of each element of the Republican tent, with room for expansion towards swing voters.

3. Why he could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Tim Pawlenty has an issue that other candidates do not have: a shortage of passionate rhetoric. Most other Republicans have passionate rhetoric as one of their key strengths, but Pawlenty is not one of them. Many feel that, even though they like Pawlenty and his strengths, they want to see more “fire in his belly.” Unfortunately for Pawlenty, Republicans feel somewhat bored by Governor Pawlenty. This could harm him in the primary, which typically has voters who are “fired up.”

4. What the candidate wants you to see

The Pawlenty campaign has hired excellent people to do his campaign videos.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

From The Hill:

Pawlenty backed cap-and-trade when he was governor of Minnesota and agreed to participate in the multistate Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.

He also cut a radio ad for the Environmental Defense Fund in 2008 that urged Congress to “get moving” and “cap greenhouse gas pollution now.”

Also, many Republicans (including fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann) have attacked Tim Pawlenty for budget issues that were left behind in Minnesota. His support for cap and trade, which he has apologized for, might be an issue in the primary, while Minnesota budget issues may be a general election issue.

6. How would he fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

Iowa could potentially vote for Pawlenty over Obama; however, for this to happen, Pawlenty would need to win the Iowa Caucuses, gain the trust of Iowa independents who are generally moderate, and then run a seamless campaign against the incumbent President. Both Iowans and Ohioans would probably like a Midwestern chief executive who has dealt with Midwestern issues, but Pawlenty just doesn’t have either the recognition or the support that he needs right now.

7. Chances he they could win the Presidency

Pawlenty might be the best candidate on paper for the GOP with the potential to unite the fractured GOP and bring in swing voters for the primary election; however, his rhetoric would not match up well with President Obama’s. Pawlenty is a mainstream conservative, and if he made it through to the general election, he might have a chance. However, the primary looks to be his biggest challenge at this point. Thus, the odds are slim that President Pawlenty will take the oath of office in January 2013.

Rick Santorum – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

2011-07-26T18:10:00.002-05:00

Rick Santorum

1. Who is he?

Former Senator Rick Santorum was a member of the U.S. Senate from 1995 to 2007, representing the fine folks of Pennsylvania. While there, he was the third ranking Republican as the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. With a Senate career of 12 years, and two terms in the House of Representatives before that, Rick Santorum was in Washington D.C. for 16 years. He left the Senate after his defeat in the election of 2006. Before his time in Congress, he worked as a lawyer in Pittsburgh.

On the Republican political spectrum, he is very conservative. While he was in Washington D.C. for a long time, he is not a big party insider. However, he is a strong social conservative, and will most likely compete with Michele Bachmann for votes in the upcoming Iowa contests.

Senator Santorum will be 54 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why he could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Two things: Passion and social conservative support

Rick Santorum is perhaps the strongest social conservative in the field. He has certainly taken strong pro-life stands while fighting against gay marriage and polygamy and he has the battle scars to prove it. Family oriented Republicans will like his uncompromising rhetoric towards cultural conservatism.

3. Why he could lose - Biggest weaknesses

His election from 2006, by all accounts, was a disaster.

While it was a down year for Republicans, Senator Rick Santorum was absolutely decimated by his opponent, current Senator Bob Casey, Jr. An incumbent senator losing by 17% is nearly unheard of. From Wikipedia:

Casey's margin of victory was the largest ever for a Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in the 2006 elections.

This was Rick Santorum’s last election. It was, suffice it to say, unpleasant. Republican primary voters might not be attracted to this wipeout, as it is the Senator’s most recent electoral memory.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

Here’s a no nonsense attack ad from the Santorum campaign, railing against the first three years of President Obama’s first term.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

Much like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum has a Google problem. We will leave it at that, as it would be inappropriate to venture further down this path.

However, in the era of YouTube and Google, first impressions matter. Rick Santorum’s first impression to many Americans who searched for his name on the internet will be unpleasant. Sorry, Senator.

6. How would he fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

Rick Santorum is coming to the plate with two strikes already against him: his prior loss and his trouble defining himself. While there is no current polling that I could find, I highly doubt that he could win either Iowa or Ohio, which is right next door to his home state of Pennsylvania.

7. Chances that he could win the Presidency

Speaking of Pennsylvania, it is probable that the people of his home state would reject him again in 2012, despite the homefield advantage. Without Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa, a Republican would have a very difficult time winning the Presidency.

Ron Paul – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

2011-07-25T17:59:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul

1. Who is he?

Congressman Ron Paul is a member of the House of Representatives, representing the Gulf Coast of Texas. He served in the House for nearly seven years in the 1970s and 1980s, was elected again in 1996 and has been serving for the past 15 years. Ron Paul is an obstetrician who has been delivering babies for almost a half century and he served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. He has a son, Rand Paul, who is serving his first year in the United States Senate.

On the Republican political spectrum, Ron Paul is somewhat of a moderate. While he certainly holds very conservative positions on economic issues, he is very anti-war, calling for the end to the wars in the Middle East. His isolationism, coupled with his criticism of our monetary system (i.e. the Federal Reserve), makes him perhaps the biggest outsider in the GOP field. He could easily be defined as a libertarian and he even ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party candidate.

Congressman Paul will be 76 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why he could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Three things: Passionate supporters, consistency, and tea-party connections

Many refer to Congressman Paul has the godfather of the tea party movement. Congressman Paul railed against the size and scope of the federal government for decades before the tea party movement began. His consistent libertarianism has generally earned him the respect and donations of many loyal followers. His supporters have an impressive online presence and were generally the most passionate during the Iowa Straw Poll in 2007.

3. Why he could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Ronald Reagan was in his 60s when he was first elected. John McCain was 72 years old on election day in 2008. Age certainly became an issue in the election between McCain and President Obama. Ron Paul will be 76 years old on election day in 2012. Age will be even more of an issue this time around. If a 72 year old had a difficult time with candidate Obama, you can bet that Congressman Paul, in his upper 70s, will have a problem with his portrayal in the media. This constant reminder of his age could likely intimidate primary and general election voters.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

Here’s Congressman Paul’s most recent video, discussing his thoughts on the debt ceiling crisis.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

From The Hill:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn't have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.

While this may be technically consistent from a libertarian philosophy, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the most monumental pieces of legislation to emerge from Congress in the past century (supported by more Republicans than Democrats, by the way) This stance by Congressman Paul highlights some political issues in maintaining a consistent libertarian ideology.

Paul’s son, Rand, faced a similar issue while running for the Senate in Kentucky. From conservative commentator, George Will:

“He (Rand Paul) doesn’t understand that his job is to win a Senate seat, not conduct a seminar on libertarian philosophy.”

“The simple fact is that in 1964, we, as a nation, repealed one widely-exercised right – the right of private property owners to serve on public accommodations whom they want – and replaced it with another right, that is the right of the entire American public to use public accommodations…We were correct to do so.”

This historic piece of legislation states that the local Holiday Inn cannot deny hotel accommodations to a family because of their skin color. Needless to say, this might become a serious issue in either the primary or general election for Congressman Paul.

6. How would he fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

There are some states that lean libertarian in philosophy. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, neither Iowa nor Ohio are among them. Iowa has one of the strongest records for minority civil rights since our statehood began over 165 years ago. Opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (albeit not on racist grounds) will not lead to an easy victory in Iowa or Ohio. Although Paul’s populist economic message might catch fire with moderate swing voters needed to win these two states, it doesn’t seem likely at this point.

7. Chances that he could win the Presidency

Without a win in Iowa or Ohio, the path to the Presidency becomes difficult for Congressman Paul. While he has passionate supporters, the media will most likely hone in on his age and his libertarian ideology, thus giving him an uphill battle for Presidency.

Mitt Romney – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

2011-07-24T17:47:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney

1. Who is he?

The son of a former governor of Michigan, Mitt Romney was the one-term Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He ran for the Republican nomination in 2008, but came in second/third. Prior to his governorship, he was most famous for his impressive work with the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is a former Senate candidate in Massachusetts, defeated in 1994 by the prolific Ted Kennedy. Outside of politics, his main occupation has been businessman, serving as the CEO of Bain & Company.

On the Republican political spectrum, Mitt Romney is fairly moderate. As the Republican governor of the liberal Massachusetts, Romney staked out moderate positions, which he carries with him today. Romney is also an insider, as he has many connections in Washington D.C. and in the business world. His connections and ideology place most other presidential candidates to the right of him on the conservative spectrum.

Governor Romney will be 65 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why he could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Four things: Money, name recognition, next-in line status, and electability

Mitt Romney raised the most money by far during the 2nd Quarter. Ron Paul raised just over $4.5 million while the bronze went to Tim Pawlenty for raising just under $4 million. Mitt Romney blew everyone away with $18 million raised (except President Obama who raised over $80 million). Also, because he did well in the 2008 primary, he is already well known by the GOP electorate. Furthermore, the Republican party (historically) has tended to elected the guy who is “next in line” for the nomination (i.e. John McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc.). Romney is the current frontrunner for the nomination and this should help him in the primary. Plus, he has the best poll numbers against the President at this time.

3. Why he could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Here’s the biggie: ObamaCare and RomneyCare. While Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he instituted universal health care in his state. Since the health insurance debate last year, President Obama has shrewdly "congratulated" Romney for helping inspire his health care bill that is now law. Most troubling to small government conservatives is the individual mandate, which forces every American to purchase private health insurance, which runs contrary to free-market principles. While Romney was running Massachusetts, he championed this mandate and signed it into law, thus requiring every person in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. Needless to say, this is a rather unpopular part of ObamaCare today, and GOP voters might be disinclined to support Governor Romney because of the mandate that RomneyCare instituted in Massachusetts.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

Governor Romney is focused on President Obama, taking him to task over jobs, or the lack thereof. He is clearly looking forward towards the general election.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

In 2008, the media pounced on Romney, referring to him as a flip-flopper.

From the Washington Post:

1. Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as an abortion opponent.

The above story has position changes on several other items including gun rights and immigration. These position changes certainly hurt him in 2008 among the Republican primary voters and they have not gone away. YouTube has several videos that highlight Mitt Romney’s past positions. As it stands, social conservatives are still wary of his new pro-life credentials.

6. How would he fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

Governor Romney might be able to be competitive in Iowa, as long as he could convince social conservatives in the state to support him. As for Ohio, he is the most competitive compared to the other candidates.

In Ohio, President Obama leads each candidate polled but by different amounts
v. Romney – 4 point lead
v. Rick Perry – 12 point lead
v. Bachmann – 13 point lead
v. Sarah Palin – 16 point lead

Ohio is winnable by Romney, as he is only 4 points behind right now.

7. Chances that he could win the Presidency

As of right now, Mitt Romney has the best chance out of all Republican candidates to win the Presidency in 2012. He is the front runner and Intrade currently gives him a 12.5% chance of entering the White House in January 2013. He has to win the primary first, though.

Herman Cain – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

2011-07-23T17:38:00.003-05:00

Herman Cain

1. Who is he?

Herman Cain is a businessman. While he has worked for many companies, his most notable work was as the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, where he turned the company from unprofitable to profitable. He served on the board of directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City for four years in the 1990s. Before that, he worked with the United States Navy as a ballistics expert.

On the Republican spectrum, Herman Cain is an outsider. In fact, his only rival for true “outsider” status is Ron Paul. Cain has never served in Congress, in a governor’s mansion, or in a state house or state senate. He is a solid conservative, though, who is both socially and fiscally conservative.

Herman Cain will be 66 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why he could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Three things: The ultimate outsider, passion, and business experience

In a year where tea party outsiders are challenging the Republican establishment, Herman Cain remains the only real outsider in this Republican field. In a nation where many Republican voters are extremely fed up with Washington D.C., Cain can stand up and say, more so than any other person, “I am not a career politician.” His speeches are passionate and they draw upon his experience in the business world. These three things could give him an edge, as they did in the Fox News debate in May. Herman Cain was generally viewed as the winner of this debate.

3. Why he could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Herman Cain’s biggest strength is also his biggest weakness. There’s a reason that politicians always win Presidential primaries: politicians are extremely good at campaigning for political positions and the President of the United States is the ultimate political position. Furthermore, running a political campaign is a lot easier if you’ve ran a successful one before. With Cain, this has never happened before.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

His debate with President Clinton in 1993 is rather storied. Many would call this exchange as the beginning of the end of “Hillarycare.”

From Newsweek:
Herman Cain is the president of Godfather's Pizza and president-elect of the National Restaurant Association. An articulate black entrepreneur, Cain transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., last April. Cain asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the "employer mandate." Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen, but Cain persisted. "Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate," he told the president. "In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."

Cain became somewhat of a conservative hero after this exchange.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

The challenge for the atypical presidential candidate (i.e. the non-politician) is foreign policy. It’s incredibly important to understand that the President of the United States is still, for the most part, the leader of the free world. Thus, with so many issues in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East issues encircling US foreign policy, you’d better know your stuff. Similar to Sarah Palin’s damaging Bush Doctrine answer 3 years ago, Herman Cain’s answer to the Palestinian Right of Return serves as evidence that he needs to brush up some more.

Also, his recent comments regarding freedom of religion, or lack thereof, have not placed him in the most positive light. He has since apologized for his remarks regarding Islam.

6. How would he fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

If Herman Cain were to become the nominee, he could most likely go toe to toe with President Obama in a debate. However, the President has shown himself to be an exceptional politician, despite his 2008 campaign which centered around him being “above the fray” and an “atypical” politician. What remains to be seen is whether a straight shooter like Herman Cain will be able to resonate with people in swing states such as Iowa and Ohio.

7. Chances that he could win the Presidency

Politicians usually win the presidency. When they don’t, it’s a war hero that sweeps into office. Herman Cain is neither. Unfortunately for Cain, history has shown that candidates such as him (Steve Forbes anyone?) do not fare well once the voting begins. Thus, his chances of winning the primary and then defeating President Obama are fairly small.

Candidate Guide for the 2011 GOP Iowa Straw Poll in Ames - 2012 Republican Primary

2011-07-22T17:18:00.004-05:00

Final Thoughts

2010-11-01T22:21:00.002-05:00

The election is upon us, and it looks as though the Republicans are going to take over the House of Representatives, but just fall short in the US Senate.

However, the question is, how big is this wave election? We'll probably be able to find out by the Congressional races here in Iowa.

If it's a small wave, Leonard Boswell wins in IA-3.
If it's a big wave, Boswell loses in IA-3.
If it's a huge wave, Boswell loses in IA-3 AND Braley loses in IA-1
If it's a ridiculous tsunami, Boswell, Braley, and Loebsack lose in IA-3, IA-1, and even the most liberal IA-2, producing five Republican Congresspersons from the state of Iowa.

Thus, when you're watching returns tomorrow night, be sure to watch these races. They'll give you an idea of how the Republicans will do nationwide.

Also, from the Wall Street Journal.

It took Democrats in the House of Representatives 40 years to become out-of-touch enough to get thrown out of office in 1994. It took 12 years for the Republicans who replaced them to abandon their principles and be repudiated in 2006. Now it appears that the current Democratic majority has lost voter confidence in only four years.

While I disagree with many of Rep. Baird's stances (D-Washington), he makes some very astute points. Republicans would be wise to understand that voters, especially in a down economy are not going to be very patient. As such, if the GOP does take over part or all of Congress, it will be their responsibility to govern wisely.

If they do not, then it will only take 2 years for the GOP to lose voter confidence. At that point, 2012 will be a disaster, as President Obama will be reelected, the Democrats will control Congress yet again, and Obama will nominate another two Supreme Court justices, tipping the balance of justice in favor of liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Yeah...the stakes are that high. We Republicans are about to receive a gift from voters. Let's not squander it.

Tuesday Afternoon Musings

2010-09-14T17:07:00.007-05:00

It's primary day in the Northeast, and Delaware Republicans have a choice between winning Vice President Biden's Senate seat or losing it. Mike Castle, the moderate Republican running for the seat is not very conservative, and not my favorite politician. However, even a quality conservative candidate would have trouble winning in Delaware (Christine O'Donnell, Castle's inexperienced challenger, is no Marco Rubio), and these political facts cannot be changed.

Thus, I'm thinking that a Mike Castle win tonight will put more Republicans in the Senate, while a Castle loss would mean more Democrats there. I'm not a petty man, but I love the fact that VP Biden's former Senate seat could switch to Republican if Mike Castle wins.

I already adore the fact that liberal lion Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat belongs to Republican Scott Brown.

Furthermore, I'm really excited to see that President Obama's former Senate seat could soon belong to Republican Mark Kirk.

The real question is, are we a party that can accept moderate Northeastern Republicans? If we are not, we should throw out Scott Brown now, and the GOP should avoid spending campaign money in 12 states because the GOP will rarely win up there.

Jay Cost, over at Weekly Standard:

By and large, genuinely conservative candidates are going to have a difficult time getting elected and staying elected in the Northeast.

With the exception of the once-in-a-while Scott Brown type of candidate (and O'Donnell is clearly no Scott Brown!), the GOP can run moderate Republicans in the Northeast, or it can effectively cede the region to the Democrats, who will elect by default some of the most liberal members in the entire United States Congress. Which is it going to be?

Is this really a tough call for conservatives?

Can we have Northeastern Republicans who aren't as conservative as Utah or South Carolina Republicans? YES!

---

Good news from the courts:

A federal judge said Tuesday he is likely to let 20 states proceed with at least a portion of their lawsuit challenging the heart of the Democrats’ health care overhaul.

---

Speaking of the health care law:

In a 46-52 vote, lawmakers killed an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) that would have saved businesses and nonprofit groups from having to report an array of small and medium-sized purchases to the Internal Revenue Service.

Why is this random, stupid IRS small business reporting rule mixed in with the Obamacare law? Easy. Because Obamacare is complex by design. Because Obamacare is designed to take more money from small businesses. Because Obamacare could have been ten pages long, but Democrats felt that ten pages was 200 times too short.

Let it never be said that Democrats always have small businesses' best interests in mind, because this rule, which brings new taxes and ludicrous amounts of paperwork along with it, could have been rejected today. However, the Democratic party (save a handful of conservative Democrats) voted against an amendment to remove this obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill. Thus, my mother-in-law will be hurting. My good friend will be hurting. Several neighbors of mine will be hurting.

All because most Democrats in the United States voted against an amendment to remove an obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill.

For future reference, if you see any serious tax code changes in the next random piece of legislation, let me know. I was wondering if this type of behavior (i.e. changing tax regulations in a random lung cancer awareness month bill) is typical.

Senate Race #5 - California

2010-09-05T22:04:00.001-05:00

For this installment of Senate Race, we turn to California. Incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer is very liberal, and rather unpopular. California has been hit hard by the recession, and as a Democratic member of the Democratic led Congress, Senator Boxer is being hit hard in the polls. It’s actually quite remarkable that this race is even close. In most other states, a Democrat such as Boxer would be well behind in the polls. However, California is one of the most left leaning states in the union.

Why is Senator Boxer struggling so much in a state that gave her 58% of the vote just six years ago?

A little background: California’s Democratic-controlled state government and its Democrat-lite Governor Schwarzenegger (who fiscal and social conservatives would never call a Republican) have created a statewide mess. Its two powerful Democratic senators and a lot of Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen (in the majority in Congress for nearly four years since well BEFORE the recession began) have been helpless to halt the economic disaster of California. California deserves better than Barbara Boxer, and they may be beginning to realize it.

Here’s Boxer criticizing a member of the Armed Forces because he called her “Ma’am”

Boxer is very well-known in California. Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, however, is a fresh face. She is one of only a handful of women who have risen to the level of CEO of a Fortune 500 company. However, what impresses me most about her is her commitment to life. Even in the left-leaning state of California, Fiorina is a pro-life woman who is forthright with her views, even if it costs her a few independent voters. By the end of this post, though, you may feel that Fiorina is much closer to the mainstream of Californians on the issue of abortion than Boxer.

Nonetheless, this race should also be fairly close.

Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer

Polling average, from Pollster.com

BB - 47%
CF - 45%

Percentage chance of a party change
23%

Current status
Leans Democratic Seat

Election night results estimate
Boxer 48.7%
Fiorina 46.9%

Final Thoughts

I have met many folks who are new to Iowa, having left the struggling Golden State. While it is very unfortunate for such a fine state to be in trouble, our state is certainly welcoming of those who are migrating to a more economically friendly Iowa. I do believe that Senator Boxer is not helping the current situation in California, though. While Fiorina has a tough road ahead of her (she’s at a 10:1 cash disadvantage) there is a chance she will pull it off.

On a related note, George Will recently criticized Senator Boxer for her extreme position on abortion. Here's an argument on the Senate floor from several years ago, dealing with when life begins.

In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”

There's only one correct answer to the question that former Senator Santorum asked.

Question: Once a baby leaves his or her mother, does that child have a constitutional right to life?

Answer: Yes.

Anyone who does not answer as I answered above has, at best, serious moral failings...and Barbara Boxer did not answer a simple "Yes" to the question. Does this question really need more than a one word answer? Un...believable.

Senate Race #4 - Washington

2010-09-04T19:57:00.000-05:00

Moving to the West Coast, we look at the beautiful state of Washington. Here we have Senator Patti Murray, who is a very typical blue state Democrat. However, she has an opponent this year who is the competent and well known former gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi. This race should remain fairly close like Wisconsin, despite the Democratic tilt of Washington state.

I have to imagine that if Dino Rossi was running for governor again this year (he has lost the previous two times to current Governor Christine Gregoire, once by only 129 votes) he would wipe the floor with the Governor. However, he is running against a well established and well-funded liberal Democrat, who may be tough to beat.

Patty Murray v. Dino Rossi

Polling average, from Pollster.com

DR - 50%
PM - 48%

Percentage chance of a party change
54%

Current status
Toss Up

Election night results estimate
Rossi 49.1%
Murray 48.9%

Final Thoughts
Washington is a blue state, no doubt. However, Dino Rossi is a mainstream Republican with a positive economic message and a strong electoral wind at his back. This Senate race will be interesting in regards to voter turnout. If Republicans, both conservative and moderate turn out for him, he’ll become a U.S. Senator. However, he is still working on getting the full support of Tea Party Republicans, who are somewhat wary of him. Given the alternative, though, I imagine that they will come around.

Senate Race #3 – Wisconsin

2010-09-03T22:52:00.001-05:00

The next three posts will revolve around three Senate races that the Democrats were probably hoping to keep rather safe this year. These hopes, however, will not become reality.

59 D to 41 R – This is the current partisan breakdown in the Senate.

One year ago, most pundits would have said that the Republicans might gain 4-5 seats in the Senate this cycle. However, it is fascinating to see where we’ve come over the past 12 months. 10 Republican wins and 10 Democratic Senate losses in November are certainly possible. This would give the Republicans a majority in the Senate.

Three major reasons for this potential Republican majority are the Senate races in Washington, Wisconsin, and California. From Politico:

At the start of the year, few observers thought the Senate was up for grabs, in part because it seemed implausible that Washington’s Patty Murray, California’s Barbara Boxer and Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold were in any serious danger.

But with the political environment turning toxic for Democrats and incumbents, Murray drawing perhaps her toughest possible opponent and Boxer and Feingold facing self-funders, the three Class of 1992 veterans are in the fight of their long political lives as the battle for control of the Senate moves from traditional battlegrounds to blue state venues.

We start with our neighbors to the northwest, Wisconsin. They have elected Russ Feingold three times, and he’s trying to make it four. Feingold has always been an interesting Democrat, sometimes bucking the trends. For example, he voted against the Obama/Bush supported $700 billion bank bailout. He was also the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, which passed through the Senate by a 98-1 vote. However, he voted for both Obamacare and the $800 billion stimulus package last year. Overall, he’s pretty loyal to the Democratic platform, and that may cause him trouble this year.

His opponent, businessman Ron Johnson, is well financed and could potentially knock off this 18-year Senator.

Ron Johnson v. Russ Feingold

Polling average, from Pollster.com

RJ - 47%
RF - 46%

Percentage chance of a party change
51%

Current status
Toss Up

Election night results estimate
Johnson 49.3%
Feingold 49.1%

Final Thoughts
Wisconsin is a purple state at heart. With the wind at his back, Ron Johnson could really give Senator Feingold a run for his money. Still, Senator Feingold isn’t hated in Wisconsin, and he gives off that “maverick” vibe that voters like. It may just propel him over the finish line. Here’s hoping it won’t though.

The Home Stretch

2010-09-01T20:46:00.002-05:00

As we enter the month of September, we are just over two months away from the 2010 Midterm Elections. The stakes: Control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I'll start posting more over the next two months as we are entering a time period when non-political folks start looking at races more carefully. As such, if they come to 1007 East Grand, they'll be able to find information about local, statewide, and national issues and elections.

Today, let's look at some information that the fine folks over at Gallup are providing...particularly the "Trust" numbers from 2010 compared to the "Trust" numbers from 2006.

The difference between now and four years ago is pretty stark.

The question is: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE?

These numbers truly explain why so many Democrats are fearing this upcoming election. The Democratic Party has had virtually unlimited control of the federal government for the past two years, and the American people are clearly not happy.

Here's how the trust numbers have turned toward the Republican Party:
- Corruption in Government: 26 points
- The Economy: 27 points
- Terrorism: 29 points
- Immigration: 31 points
- Healthcare (the Democrats key domestic victory): 38 points

This massive swing in trust foreshadows good fortune for the Republican Party in November.

Wednesday Morning Musings

2010-07-21T10:05:00.003-05:00

It really has been an interesting 48 hours, especially when it comes to the issue of racism in America. Shirley Sherrod, the woman who was essentially fired from the Department of Agriculture for telling a story about mistakes she made a quarter century ago, has received an apology from the NAACP. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is reviewing her situation, to see if she she should be rehired, which she should.

Here's a quick rundown of what has occurred the last two days.

-Shirley Sherrod was in the business of helping Southern farmers in 1986.
-According to her, she liked helping black farmers a lot more than white farmers
-However, she begrudgingly helped white farmers who needed assistance.
-The white farmers were very thankful, and they are friends with Sherrod now.
-23 years pass
-Sherrod was appointed by the Obama administration to serve in the Dept. of Agriculture.
-In 2010, she told this story to a local NAACP chapter, telling them that important to AVOID doing what she did, i.e. using racial preferences.
-The media got a hold of the video, and it seemed as though she was using racial preferences TODAY.
-Sherrod was forced to resign.
-And now, Tom Vilsack is reviewing the situation, because it seems she was treated unfairly.

The 24 hour media circus can be exhausting, but as I said yesterday, I believe Shirley Sherrod, and I certainly believe that she does NOT hold racist beliefs today.

-----

The Christian Science Monitor explores the liberal journalist organization known as Journolist. This is the organization I referred to yesterday that may be involved in shaping the media narrative in an inappropriate way. Although many organizations shape the narrative, i.e. the more conservative Fox and the more liberal MSNBC, there is one major difference: most people know that Sean Hannity is conservative and that Keith Olbermann is liberal, while a seemingly unbiased member of Journolist may be more insidious.

-----
Democratic Governors Association (DGA)...really???

Major Dem donors who wrote checks to the Democratic Governors Association funded a below-the-radar campaign that attacked Pres. Obama and other Dem all-stars, all in hopes of knocking off a strong GOP challenger.

If this is true, Democrats effectively wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on attacking Terry Branstad…and Barack Obama…together? Let’s be clear about this. First, it’s a stupid move because I imagine that Democratic candidates around the country would LOVE to have those monies, and second, Terry Branstad is no Barack Obama, which is a very good thing.

-----
From Robert Samuelson at Real Clear Politics

If you want a preview of President Obama's health care "reform," take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a "reform" that became a model for Obama. What's happened since isn't encouraging.

It's an interesting read, and it may foretell the future of the new health care law.

Tuesday Morning Musings

2010-07-20T10:28:00.008-05:00

Musings for the mid-morning coffee break.

-----

Some feel that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin received too much money as a trial lawyer. From the Register:

"Des Moines lawyer Roxanne Conlin has been sued by a national group of plaintiffs lawyers for not sharing with them a portion of the $75 million in fees that she and a Minnesota law firm received in a settlement in Iowa's civil antitrust case against Microsoft."

-----

There's been a lot of talk about the NAACP and racism recently, most notably revolving around the ridiculous charge that most Tea Party members are racist. This is a monumentally inaccurate charge, and I expect more from an organization as historically significant as the NAACP. However, a news story today was especially interesting, and the woman involved was promptly criticized by the NAACP. From Huffington Post:

"Shirley Sherrod, a USDA official in Georgia, has resigned after publicly admitting that race played a factor in her decision to limit how much aid would be given to a white farmer."

The NAACP agrees with her resignation, tendered to Iowa's own Tom Vilsack.

"We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet."

Preferring to help one race over another is unfortunate, and it's certainly good for groups such as the NAACP or the Tea Party to criticize trace elements of racism whenever they can, in the interest of American values of freedom and equality.

Quick update: The white farmers in question have come out in defense of Sherrod, and Sherrod has said that she holds no animosity for those farmers, despite her comments. To be honest, all of these years later, I absolutely believe her, and I'm quite sure that Sherrod is sorry for the unfortunate comments that she made. As for the NAACP, they have retracted their criticism.

Interesting enough, she lays some of the blame on the NAACP because of:

the NAACP's recent resolution calling on the Tea Party movement to repudiate racist elements within it...The controversy has led one Tea Party group to oust another because of a blog posting by the second group's leader.

Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams posted on his blog a faux letter from Jealous to President Abraham Lincoln in which Williams ridicules the organization's use of "colored" in its historic name and uses multiple stereotypes to bolster his point. The National Tea Party Foundation expelled Williams' organization from its coalition as a result.

Sherrod on Tuesday called the NAACP "the reason why this happened. They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that."

-----

On a separate note, I'm glad that the aforementioned Mark Williams was expelled from the Tea Party Coalition. His letter was unhelpful and rather inappropriate.

-----

Apparently several liberal journalists wished to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright during President Obama's presidential campaign.

-----

Finally, the constitutionality of Obamacare is currently being challenged in court. If you read only one New York Times article this year, make sure it's this one. After you finish with it, read this abstract which deals with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Here's a quick version for those who may not have time to read both articles.

1. During the health care debate, the following exchange occurred on ABC:

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

2. This bold statement from Obama makes sense, because President Obama promised not to create any new taxes, especially for the middle and lower class.

3. After the the law was challenged in court, the President's legal team, realizing that the law was most likely unconstitutional using the commerce clause, made the switch, and said that Obamacare is indeed a new tax...most likely an excise tax.

4. It may not matter, because according to Steven Willis and Nakku Chung from the University of Florida, this health care excise tax, for all intents and purposes, in unconstitutional.

5. However, we do know that the President conveniently promised that Obamacare was NOT a tax before it passed, and then stated that it was a tax, only after it was passed into law. It's a classic bait and switch, which of course, is change we can believe in!

Senate Race #2 – South Dakota

2010-07-19T20:12:00.005-05:00

Continuing to look at the 2010 Senate picture, we’ll move on to our neighbors to the northwest, South Dakota.

On January 7th, 2011, Senator John Thune will celebrate his 50th birthday. He will celebrate by beginning his second term as the junior senator from the great state of South Dakota. I make this statement with certainty because of two reasons: First, Senator Thune is very popular in South Dakota. Second, and more importantly, Democrats in South Dakota chose against running an opponent against Thune due to his popularity and his mainstream conservative values that lie squarely in line with the vast majority of South Dakotans.

First, a little history. In 2004, John Thune was in the midst of a very competitive election against Tom Daschle, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate. At the end of very tough campaign against perhaps the most powerful Democrat in the United States, Thune was victorious by less than 5,000 votes. After six years of solid, mainstream conservatism in the Senate, he is up for reelection this year.

However, this reelection campaign has important implications for the future of the Republican Party. John Thune is considered a potential Presidential candidate by many insiders. As such, if he has the opportunity to help other Republicans around the country with their reelection campaigns, he may gain friendships, support, and potential future endorsements.

Thus, if Senator Thune is indeed thinking of running for the Presidency, he can thank the Democratic Party of South Dakota for giving him a great 50th birthday present…a 2nd term in the Senate and a possible springboard to the Presidency.

Thune v. No Democrat

Polling average, not from Pollster.com, because they do not have a chart

JT – 70%+
ND – 0%

Percentage chance of a party change
0%

Current status
Safe Republican Seat

Election night results estimate
Thune 80%+
Democrat 0%

Final Thoughts
I really like John Thune, and I think he would make a great addition to the 2012 primary race for President.

T.N.L.V.

2010-07-15T20:16:00.004-05:00

A Thursday Night Lighthearted Video

Now I know that politicians say silly things sometimes, but as a history teacher, I find this video especially unfortunate.

The following is U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, saying some very interesting things about the great nations of Vietnam, both North and South...in 2010. Clearly, Representative Jackson-Lee needs to fire her speechwriter or brush up on American history, because this speech is pretty rough.

Senate Race #1 - Iowa

2010-07-13T10:16:00.013-05:00

Currently, there are 41 Republicans in the Senate. Had Scott Brown not won the special election to replace liberal lion Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, there would only be 40 Republican held seats, which would not be able to overcome a successful Democratic cloture vote (which essentially halts a filibuster). The health care bill was only passed because of clever use of Senate rules, which allowed for the first vote to occur before Scott Brown was elected. After that, the use of reconciliation precluded any filibuster from occurring, and we received what has become known as “Obamacare.”

To avoid any future worries of unfortunate legislation, Republicans across the country should be doing what they can to increase the number of seats held by Republicans, particularly conservative ones.

Of course, we start by looking at our own state of Iowa. The Republican in the race, Chuck Grassley has been Iowa's senior senator for many years now, and frankly, he's a most excellent representative of the people. An Iowa farmer at heart, Chuck is more conservative than the average Iowa voter (although Tom Harkin is WAY more liberal than the average Iowa voter), which makes Grassley even more valuable, because conventional wisdom would expect a Republican to be less conservative from a swing state such as Iowa.

Chuck Grassley serves Iowa in several important ways. He serves on the powerful Senate Judiciary committee, as well as the influential Senate Agriculture committee. Furthermore, he is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and he is the 10th most senior member of the upper house. His amount of power and influence is very important for Iowans to have in Washington D.C.

Senator Grassley is an avid campaigner, who usually succeeds at visiting all 99 counties of Iowa every year, meeting with and listening to Iowans all across the state. He is consistently the most popular politician in Iowa, surpassing junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama in polls that measure approval ratings.

Senator Grassley's history of exceptional service to the state of Iowa, coupled with his general approval by the people of Iowa make him a tough foe this November, even for the most knowledgeable, likable, and well-funded Democratic candidate.

Fortunately for Grassley, Democrats in Iowa did not choose a candidate with all three of those qualities. In the June primary, Roxanne Conlin was nominated to oppose Grassley in November. While Conlin is definitely well-funded and she seems knowledgeable, her likability (in other words, her personality) is lacking. While this is only anecdotal evidence, many Democrats who I have spoken with are not fond of Conlin as a person. They feel as though she is bristling, abrasive, and that she lacks a certain kind of warmth that voters like. In contrast, Chuck Grassley is a man who has met with tens of thousands of Iowans over the years, and they have continued to reelect him with over 66% of the vote in EVERY reelection campaign. Do Iowans like Grassley? The answer is clear...yes.

However, in the end, likability can only get you so many votes. You gotta be competent, and you gotta have money, and Grassley has both intelligence and a massive war chest of over five million dollars.

National Democrats would love to make this race competitive, but at this point, this race still leans towards Senator Grassley. While Conlin will make this race more competitive than any other reelection campaign for Grassley, she will most likely fall short. Chuck Grassley, the most popular politician in Iowa, is simply too well-liked to overcome. Iowans want to keep him where he is, which is the right move.

Grassley v. Conlin

Polling average, from Pollster.com

CG - 54%
RC - 37%

Percentage chance of a party change
10%

Current status
Safe Republican Seat

Election night results estimate
Grassley 54%
Conlin 45%

Final Thoughts

Roxianne Conlin's mug shot certainly shares some similarities with Dustin Hoffman from Tootsie.

The United States Senate

2010-07-12T23:24:00.004-05:00

Over the next few weeks, I'll be putting up some posts that highlight some of the important Senate races around the country. The United States Senate, as the upper house of a bicameral legislature generally holds a little more power than the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, in the Senate, each individual member holds a fairly large amount of power, whether it be through the use of the hold or the filibuster.

Thus, each and every Senate race is very important this year, because we as a nation will be determining what men and women will be given a six year term in Washington.

The future of Congress will be decided in November. After election night in November, we may find the GOP in control of the House of Representatives. While I think there's about a 25% chance of a Republican takeover of the lower house, I still think that Nancy Pelosi will be holding the gavel in January. However, her ridiculously huge majority will be all but lost, and there will have to be serious compromise in the House.

In the Senate, it is nearly impossible for the Republicans to take control of 51 seats for a pure majority. However, the makeup of the Senate in January of 2011 will surely determine how President Obama's final two years in office will go. Thus, we'll be looking at critical Senate races around the nation so we can find out exactly where we stand this summer.

NRA May Endorse Harry Reid (D-NV)

2010-07-06T15:30:00.006-05:00

From The Week

The National Rifle Association, a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights, tends to be politically aligned with conservatives and the GOP. But the group is reportedly "leaning towards" endorsing Senate majority leader Harry Reid — a pro-gun rights Democrat — in his reelection bid against GOP opponent Sharron Angle, and many conservatives are accusing it of selling out. The NRA has already endorsed Ted Strickland, Ohio's Democratic governor, and convinced House Democrats to exempt it from some campaign finance reporting requirements.

Why would the NRA do this?

The NRA is just playing defense: "One reason we're open to Reid", admits Chris Cox, chief NRA lobbyist, "is that his most likely successors as Democratic leader — Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York — are the two most rabidly anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment senators in Washington."

How can the National Rifle Association consider backing Harry Reid? In Iowa, the NRA has given Mike Gronstal $500 worth of financial backing. It is concerning that the NRA can willfully back a candidate in the party that does everything to take away gun rights. 2010 is the year to reclaim Congress from the Democrats and their disastrous ideas.

We'll see how this plays out over the next few months. 1007 East Grand will also be looking at the Nevada Senate race in the coming weeks.

GOP Convention on Saturday!

2010-06-22T19:57:00.001-05:00

This Saturday, the Republican Party will be holding their state convention in downtown Des Moines. While there will be speeches by officeholders and candidates and discussion of the party platform, one major event of interest will be the nomination of Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Governor.

Now, Iowans will know who the former Governor has selected before the convention on Saturday, but the question still remains: Who will it be?

As a lowly blogger for the Dallas County Republicans, I’m fairly confident that my thoughts and opinions have little to no bearing on Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Gov. However, I do have a few ideas as to who would make a good candidate in 2010.

So, here is my open letter to the former governor.

Dear Governor Branstad.

I’m told that you’re really excited to choose someone to be the next Lt. Governor of the great state of Iowa. I have a few ideas.

First, please choose someone younger. I think that you would like to live at Terrace Hill for at least the next 8 years, at which point, you can have a younger Lt. Governor that can carry the executive torch of Iowa. Furthermore, having a younger candidate will help the GOP reach out to younger voters, which needs to occur.

Second, choose someone with a personality, who has been fully vetted. Skeletons and unfortunate encounters with the media can quickly sour the public’s perception of a running mate, but having a strong, intelligent, and amiable personality will only help reinforce you and your personality. Terry…people really like you, so make sure you choose someone who you know Iowans will like.

Finally, please choose someone to your political right. There are tens of thousands of Iowans who are fired up and ready to vote for conservatives. During the primary campaign, Bob Vander Plaats levied charges at you, basically saying that you are not conservative enough. While I think those charges are somewhat unfair, I think that we’re going to be seeing a serious conservative resurgence in November. Why not choose a person who can help reinforce your conservative message?

I hope you take my suggestions to heart and I’ll see you at the convention. Best wishes!

Sincerely

ghbraves

We have a Commander-in-Chief

2010-06-22T15:26:00.003-05:00

Today, news has been swirling around General Stanley McChrystal, the prominent military official directing the war in Afghanistan. As it turns out, there is a profile of McChrystal within the pages of this month’s Rolling Stone magazine. However, the profile reveals that that the general made several unflattering comments about the Obama administration.

From CNN

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which the general and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general has also fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone magazine.

How does President Obama feel about this? Also, from CNN.

President Barack Obama was "angry" after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's controversial remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," Gibbs said.

This much is clear: General McChrystal made a mistake in allowing Rolling Stone magazine (you know, that magazine devoted primarily to music) to have access to conversations that painted President Obama’s team as inexperienced (at best). At the very least, General McChrystal is guilty of poor judgment, taking action akin to slamming your boss on Facebook, which has actually gotten gotten several Iowans fired in recent times.

However, at worst, it brings back memories of the dispute between President Harry Truman and the very popular General Douglas MacArthur in the early 1950s.

In 1950, Harry Truman and “Mac” had very different ideas about the future of the Korean war, and General MacArthur publicly questioned his superior, the President, in Time Magazine. In the end, Truman fired the general, and would eventually have the lowest approval rating of any president in United States history. Recent years have vindicated Truman, and he is considered to be one of the top 10 Presidents in American history.

The point is, it's not uncommon for generals to disagree with their President. However, it is uncommon for generals to disagree with their President in a very public way, which is what General McChrystal did by criticizing the President's administration, and even Vice President Biden.

So, what does this mean for the man who, according to many, has done very impressive work for U.S. efforts in the Middle East? Chances are he’ll resign, ending a long, notable career on a sour note. However, President Obama may channel Harry Truman, and fire the general tomorrow, although this is doubtful. I would guess that the former will occur in the coming days.

One thing is clear, as much as we may disagree with the policies of President Obama, he certainly has every right to fire Gen. McChrystal. We have a civilian commander-in-chief for a reason, and if I were President Obama, I would be “angry” with the general too.

Today is Primary Day in Iowa

2010-06-08T16:41:00.001-05:00

Just a friendly reminder: Go out and vote. Polls are open until 9pm.

A Wednesday Musing

2010-06-02T22:18:00.004-05:00

Just imagine if George W. Bush was President right now.

Do you think he would be:

a) criticized more than President Obama (for the oil spill)
b) criticized less than President Obama (for the oil spill)
c) criticized the same as President Obama (for the oil spill)
d) criticized ridiculously more than President Obama (for the oil spill)

If you guessed b, I question your intelligence. If you guessed c, I think that's naively sweet. If you guessed a, I believe that you are an optimist. Which leaves those who answered question d, who are correct.

The Importance of Voter Enthusiasm

2010-05-26T12:12:00.001-05:00

This is good news for the GOP...the most recent CNN enthusiasm poll

If you notice, the enthusiasm is definitely on the side of the Republicans. 54% of Republicans in this poll are AT LEAST very enthusiastic for the November mid-term elections. However, according to CNN, only 32% of Democrats in this poll are pumped to vote this November. This equates to a 22% “enthusiasm gap" (or EG) in favor of the Republicans.

This is important (and good) for several reasons.

First, those more enthusiastic to vote will obviously be those that will go to the polls.

Second, this EG demonstrates that many Republicans who may have supported President Obama in 2008 are probably having buyers remorse. There’s always the chance that an Obama-supporting Republican might be really excited to vote for Democrats in the midterms to keep the President’s agenda running strong, but I would not bet on it.

Third, the enthusiasm gap will be very advantageous in the summer and fall leading up to the election. More excited voters are not only more excited to vote, but they are more excited to organize, donate time and money, and spread the conservative gospel.

Augmented excitement from the party base is what parties strive for, and a significant lead in the EG is a good place to start in an election year.

To compare, let's look at the enthusiasm gap in 2008, perhaps the worst electoral year for Republicans in recent memory. About 5 months before that election, the enthusiasm gap as polled by CNN was a bit different.

In this poll, a whopping 63% of Democrats were excited to vote, while only 37% of Republicans were excited to vote (in a Presidential election, mind you). That equates to a 26% EG, that turned into a 17% EG by election day, which turned into a 7% victory for President Obama over Senator McCain.

What will this current 22% EG lead to in November? Who knows? But one thing is clear: The Republicans have the wind at their backs, and they should press their advantage in the coming months.

News from the border

2010-05-24T23:04:00.002-05:00

Good news for those who want a secure border

President Barack Obama will deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico, an administration official told CNN on Tuesday.

I personally think this is a very smart move for the President. This past week saw his Attorney General, Eric Holder, look rather foolish on national television by: 1) threatening a lawsuit against the Arizona law, and 2) admitting he hasn't actually read the bill (less than 20 pages long). This prompted Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona to create the following video, which is, admittedly, very strange...but telling.

The President certainly does not want to be seen as weak. Both Republicans and Democrats can easily agree that security on the border is not only lacking, but the border itself is rather dangerous, considering the increase in violence over the past year.

By sending more than 1000 troops to help with border security, the President has not only made a smart political decision, he's made a smart security decision.

Race for Attorney General

2010-05-19T22:11:00.002-05:00

The presumptive Republican candidate for Attorney General of Iowa, Brenna Findley, has had a very impressive fundraising haul in 2010, thus far. She has raised almost $125,000 in the first five months of 2010, a sum that exceeds the amount raised by the Democratic incumbent, Tom Miller. Miller raised less than $16,000, but still has over $100,000 cash on hand.

Here's the deal. Tom Miller has been Attorney General longer than I’ve been alive. With that in mind, perhaps Mr. Miller should consider retirement. As should Robert Byrd.

But I digress.

I’ve met Brenna Findley and heard her speak. She is a no-nonsense conservative who has the ability to connect with the conservative base, while also discussing common sense solutions that all Iowans should want. Many on the left will most likely frame her as an extreme small government conservative. However, with the size, scope, debt, and control of the federal government growing to epic proportions, I think that the next couple of years will see more and more American citizens turning towards smaller government ideas that protect individual freedoms and liberties.

As for Findley, she’ll be fighting for those ideals as the future Attorney General of Iowa.

By the way, if anything is "extreme" right now, it is certainly not a small government conservative. Rather, it’s the ridiculous budget of the federal government.

A Euro Trip

2010-05-16T23:32:00.003-05:00

I love visiting Europe. The continent has a rich past that any history buff such as myself would enjoy. Having visited France, Britain, Italy, Spain, and Monaco, I have seen quite a bit of the western portion of the continent, and I am quite fond of it.

However, Europe has been struggling financially, especially over the last few weeks. Last summer, when I went to Europe, 1 American dollar could purchase roughly .68 Euros. Today, 1 American dollar buys nearly .82 Euros.

In this chart, notice how much the dollar has improved against the Euro over the last five months.

Because of financial strife in Greece and overarching issues relating to the common currency of the EU, the Euro, it has certainly been a controversial and fiscally painful economic downturn in 2010.

"Europe's bailout plan for Greece may have calmed market fears about the future of the euro, but there is still uncertainty about the long-term outlook for the struggling currency.

While the euro zone isn't likely to ditch the 11-year old common currency anytime soon, many believe that the bailout hasn't solved the underlying problem of imbalances between European nations. And critics of the common currency used by 329 million people across 16 nations argue that the euro is a major cause of those imbalances."

I think there are several things that we can derive from this European crisis, but I want to focus on two today.

First, I believe that there are several powerful figures who would love to create a North American Union consisting of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. I would hope that this major currency problem in Europe would make those folks feel otherwise. While I commend Europe for working around numerous economic hurdles in creating the Euro, these present struggles seemingly indicate that all of the kinks haven’t truly been worked out.

Recently, French President Sarkozy indicated that France is at least considering drastic measures such as dropping the Euro (although I think this is highly unlikely). I certainly am not going to say that the Euro has been a disaster, but its struggles should illuminate the fact that a North American Union would be the wrong way to go.

Second, I believe that high levels of spending in Europe are partially responsible for this crisis. While many people of Europe seem to enjoy the high levels of government spending, it has not only created issues for the currency, but it has hampered long term growth of nations’ economies.

Glancing at the graph above, it is evident that over the last 45 years, the countries whose governments have spent ridiculous amounts of money have grown very little on an average annual basis. While the chart is simplistic, and only uses “average” annual growth, the point is clear. When a government choose to tax and spend insane amounts of money, economic expansion is severely hindered.

Once this crisis is over, I would hope that European nations (particularly Greece) can make better decisions with their money. While we’re on the topic, I hope that this nation can make better decisions with its money too.

Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis

2010-05-12T22:22:00.003-05:00

A hero from Dallas County

Lance Corporal Joshua Davis, 19, a 2009 Perry High School graduate, was killed while fighting in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.

U.S. military forces want to wrest control of the Helmand from Taliban insurgents there and disrupt the opium production, which funds terrorist activities.

A hero, Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis, will be missed. Men and women who give their lives by honorably serving in the United States military should be praised for their ultimate sacrifice.

At this time, Afghanistan remains a hotbed for terrorist activities, yet U.S. troops continue to valiantly fight for freedom in the Central Asian nation. Joshua Davis, a son of Perry, Iowa, was one of many brave Americans who are fighting the Taliban there.

Here are just a few things that people close to Davis said about him:

"The thing that was cool about him was that he had no quit in him."

"He was just one of those kids that wanted to get out there and get fighting."

"Josh always gave 100 percent...He gave his best effort."

"He was very humble."

Please keep Josh's family and friends in your thoughts and prayers. The death of Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis is tragic. He deserves to be remembered and honored for his dedication and brave service to the United States of America.

Tuesday Night Musings

2010-05-11T18:19:00.005-05:00

**No one could have expected this:

President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.

I would act surprised, but I would have to assume that even Democrats probably realized that this would occur...the cost of this health care deal is going to skyrocket.

---
**Elena Kagan is President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court

We don't know a lot about Elena Kagan. She'll most likely be a reliable liberal vote on the court, much like John Paul Stevens was. I'll have more on her later.

---
**The United Kingdom has a new Prime Minister

Gordon Brown, current Prime Minister, and his Labour Party have fallen out of favor with the British electorate. Because of this, Brown has stepped down and Queen Elizabeth II has invited the new Prime Minister, Conservative David Cameron, to form a government. Before everyone here gets excited about the new "conservative" leader in Britain, keep in mind that a Conservative in England is a bit to the left of a conservative in the United States.

---
**A recent poll on the new immigration law in Arizona. Of particular note are questions 33 and 34, shown below.

A large majority of Americans (including a majority of Democrats) want to see how this law works before the Obama administration puts a halt to enforcement of existing federal law.

While there are, no doubt, concerns about this new Arizona law, it appears that most Americans have a "wait and see" attitude.

If local police begin racial profiling (which is prohibited under this law) then we will have a serious problem. Perhaps I'm a bit optimistic, but I don't believe we're going to see a lot of this, simply because Arizona has placed itself under the microscope, and the implementation of this law is going to scrutinized very carefully. Time will tell.

Is this Democratic Leader frightened?

2010-05-09T19:23:00.001-05:00

Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, might be losing it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lashed out at Republicans as the “anti-immigrant party” in an interview aired Sunday on Univision.

“I'm frustrated; I'm upset just like the people you referred to,” he said, of the lack of meaningful movement on immigration. “We are begging Republicans to join with us. This is an issue that demands our attention and doesn't demand the negativity, so irrational what is going on.”

Clearly, a Democratic strategy for this election cycle will be flinging accusations of racism towards the Republican Party.

Along the lines of my lesson last week, here's a new lesson. If you are against illegal immigration, then you are not anti-immigrant. To understand this statement more clearly, I'll say it in a different way: If you are for legal immigration, you are not anti-immigrant.

As I've discussed before, most Republicans I talk to simply feel that legal immigration is the proper (and again, legal) way to gain entry into the United States of America.

Personally, I think Senator Reid is trying to demonize the GOP, in order to gain favor with some voters back at home. Why would he do this? I think the numbers and chart below speak volumes.

With anemic numbers like these, Senator Reid is probably doing everything possible to gain some traction in this race. Eventually, he will gain at least some traction for several reasons.

1. Harry Reid has a lot of money.
2. Incumbancy is powerful, even in an anti-incumbant year, and Harry Reid's a fighter.
3. Sue Lowden, his potential opponent is saying some interesting things that are getting her into trouble.
4. The likely Republican nominee at this point, Danny Tarkanian, doesn't seem to be an outstanding candidate, thusfar. I've included his polling data against Reid, because I'm not sure Lowden's going to make it out of the primary.

It doesn't mean he's the favorite by any means, but it will be a close race in Nevada; a nail-biter to the finish for one of the most powerful leaders in the Democratic Party. Hopefully, Senator Reid will stop insinuating racism in his interviews though...especially during interviews that are meant to do one thing: pander.

Congress Makes a Move

2010-05-05T23:17:00.002-05:00

This is a good move:

“Most members of Congress next year will receive $174,000 in 2011 under legislation awaiting President Barack Obama's signature, the same amount they're getting this year.

Under the law that governs congressional pay, senators and representatives were due to get an automatic cost of living increase on January 1 , probably an extra $1,600 or 0.9 percent, unless they voted beforehand to turn it down.

Last week, they did just that. The Senate rejected the increase in a voice vote, and the House of Representatives concurred, 402 to 15.”

In the land of the Potomac, sometimes the voice of the people is drowned out by the language of Washington. Unfortunately, it can produce an echo chamber where Representatives and Senators have little clue as to what’s happening around the country.

Well, the situation around the country isn’t terribly good. Americans are struggling with the recession that still has unemployment hovering near 10%. Economic growth is not what it should be, government spending is out of control, inflation is up, and the citizenry is clamoring for some real leadership in Washington D.C. It’s why a large anti-incumbency wave is going sweep through Congress six months from now. And since the Democrats have been in the majority for more than three years, they may be the recipients of heavy losses in both the House and Senate.

People aren't idiots. They realize when change turns out to be a bad thing. In November, I wrote a post comparing 1995-1997, when the Republicans took over the Congress, to 2007-2009, when the Democrats took over the Congress.

Here’s what I wrote back then.

"January 1995 - Republicans take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 6.2%
November of 1997, nearly 3 years later, the Republicans are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment is down to 4.3%

January 2007 - Democrats take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 5%
November 2009, nearly 3 years later, the Democrats are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment has doubled to over 10%."

Now, to be fair, unemployment has lowered itself to just above 9% over the last six months. However, it doesn’t take an economics major, or a 4th grader to understand that there's a serious difference in the results produced by these two time periods. The Democrats are in trouble, Congress is unpopular, and it’s obvious why.

So, Congress decides to NOT give itself its pay raise this year, a popular move that should be commended. However, it would truly commendable if Congress gave itself a pay cut, like so many other Americans have received during this economic downturn.

An Iowa Election Poll

2010-05-03T23:28:00.003-05:00

Here’s the latest polling from Rasmussen:

2010 Senate
53% Grassley (R), 40% Conlin (D)

2010 Governor
53% Branstad (R), 38% Culver (D)
45% Vander Plaats (R), 41% Culver (D)
43% Culver (D), 41% Roberts (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Chuck Grassley: 63 / 34 (+29)
Terry Branstad: 59 / 38 (+21)
Bob Vander Plaats: 44 / 35 (+9)

Rod Roberts: 31 / 27 (+4)
Roxanne Conlin: 44 / 40 (+4)
Chet Culver: 44 / 53 (-9)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 51 (-3)
Gov. Culver: 43 / 56 (-13)

After looking at these numbers, one thing is for sure: Governor Chet Culver is going to have a very tough November unless these numbers turn around. Anytime an incumbent is hovering around a 40% approval rating, he’s usually toast. 50% is usually the safe mark, where an incumbent can at least have a fighting chance at reelection.

It looks as though Vander Plaats would defeat Culver in a close election. A Roberts nomination would probably produce a nail biter on election night. A Brandstad nomination would be an easy victory for the former governor.

However, the primary for the GOP is still a month away. Will the Republican electorate demand a social conservative in BVP or will they be willing to accept a social moderate/conservative in Terry Branstad? Or will they want the soft-spoken Roberts to run against the Governor? Time will tell.

As for the Senate race, the race is getting closer. Although Chuck Grassley is the most popular politician in the state, besting the Hawkeye state’s junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama, he is only up 13 points on prolific fundraiser and likely Democratic nominee Roxanne Conlin. Conlin should be pleased with this poll, putting her within striking distance of being within striking distance. However, she should not be pleased with the favorability ratings. At this point, most Iowans seemingly know who she is, and have an opinion towards her. This is no good for Ms. Conlin. At this point in the campaign, a much more enviable position is that of Rod Roberts. Only a small majority of Iowans have an opinion of the gubernatorial candidate.

If Conlin had those kinds of numbers, she would have more room to grow and make up those 13 points against Iowa’s senior senator. However, it’s going to be tough for her to do that.

Some good news for Conlin? At least she’s not Governor Culver.

Quick Sunday Facts

2010-05-02T16:45:00.003-05:00

Let's remind everyone of two indisputable facts once again:

1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.

2. If you believe that another race, immigrant or not, illegal or not, is inferior to your race, you are a racist. Period.

I hope you enjoy this lovely Sunday.

A Controversial Immigration Bill Pt. 2

2010-05-01T20:33:00.005-05:00

The law which passed last week in Arizona has certainly incited protests against the state. Latino organizations are fiercely protesting this law, and they certainly have the right too, and I understand why they are protesting. As I said in a previous post, many Latino organizations undoubtedly feel that Arizona police will stop Hispanic residents of the state for no reason whatsoever, and “demand to see their papers.”

Hearing these criticisms, Governor Jan Brewer and the state legislature made a few changes to the law.

Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. But one of the changes -- which had been adopted by state lawmakers Thursday night -- says police could stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.

An officer could only ask about an immigrant's legal status, for example, while investigating that person for speeding, loitering or some other offense.

The facts are these:

Before the change: Police can stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion.” Critics believe that this statement could be liberally interpreted, stretched to the limit, and civil liberties could potentially be violated. President Obama had this to say, while visiting Ottumwa.

"You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed," Obama said. "That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go."

Notice that President Obama, former constitutional law professor, never said that the bill was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Arizona state government decided to alter their law.

After the change: Police CANNOT stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion” only. There must be an offense committed. Therefore, the President’s story about an ice cream desiring family now, by law, cannot happen…unless mom is speeding on the way to Coldstone. Furthermore:

University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin told CNN that the changes to the bill are significant, insofar as they help remove a "huge disincentive for victims and witnesses to cooperate with the police."

Under the original version of the law, he said, police officers would have been obligated to arrest a suspected illegal immigrant who approached them after being victimized. That would not be the case under the revised law.

I would hope that these changes would be welcomed, because most folks should realize that these alterations are more realistic, and less “Nazi-like,” right?

"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle."

Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.

Sorry, Governor Brewer…you just can’t win. It seems as though you heard a lot of criticism, listened to it, and then made the changes that you felt were necessary to improve the bill. Mr. Pochoda, if you believe that police will be intentionally looking for people to break the law, looking for any excuse to pull over a Latino family on the way to get ice cream, then you must not have very much respect for the police.

I think we can only conclude one thing: The goal of many on the left is to have a situation where if you are visiting this country illegally, you shouldn't be mandated to carry or show identification. When I visit other countries, I always have one of two things on my person: My passport, or a copy of my passport. This makes sense. If the French police were to ever stop me, I would have to show them my documentation. This is how the world works. I simply cannot fathom why visitors in Arizona shouldn't be forced to carry or show their documentation when they are stopped for speeding. I have to.

Again, I think the only logical conclusion is that Mr. Pochoda and the ACLU truly believe that if you are an illegal immigrant, you should never be forced to show your documentation to authorities. My only question to the Arizona ACLU and other organizations is, why not?

This is Unhelpful

2010-04-29T16:50:00.005-05:00

In these incredibly partisan times, it's important to realize that we're still playing a political game, and we shouldn't risk or threaten the lives of public officials.

Take this quote from a Democratic union representative in New Jersey:

"Dear Lord … this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. … I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

While the union representative apologized and said it was only a joke, it's very unhelpful to speak with such nonchalance about the Republican Chief Executive of New Jersey. Unfortunately, there's even a Facebook group based on the comment.

Furthermore, this is not helping.

Follow the link, and you'll realize that there's another Facebook group that issues the same prayer, but with President Obama as the punchline. Regardless of whether it's a joke or not, it's certainly not a good idea to speak with such nonchalance about the Chief Executive of the United States.

Bottom line: Despite these trying times in a political world filled with rancor, we can do better than this. We should do better than this.

A Controversial Immigration Bill

2010-04-28T17:08:00.003-05:00

A heated political discussion this week has revolved around a piece of legislation recently signed into law by Arizona governor Jan Brewer.

In essence, Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times, and allows police to ask to view said papers.

Thus far, folks on the left side of the spectrum have called this law unfair, unjust, racist, and even Nazi-like. Now, the old American political adage states that the first person to compare their opposition to Nazis is losing the fight. Well, it’s been just a few days since the law was passed, and with the Nazi shout-outs ringing through the land, it appears as though we’ve already arrived at that point.

Here’s what one supporter thinks about the controversial law.

Lee Earle, a self-identified “Tea Party facilitator” in Arizona, ground zero of the immigration debate, wants you to know that he supports immigration. He considers it the lifeblood of American society and the backbone of our economy – if it’s done legally.

“We want immigration. We need immigration! All we want is for people to sign the guestbook at the door,” said Earle, a Phoenix resident.

I’m sure there are many who would call Lee a racist or a Nazi. However, this doesn’t appear to be true, and it doesn’t help the conversation about 21st century immigration in the U.S.

To be honest, when the Nazi Name Calling (NNC) begins, I usually leave the room. How can we have a productive conversation with this occurring? Let’s debate the substance of the bill. I know many Democrats would love to give illegal immigrants immediate citizenship. I happen to disagree with this unjust idea for many reasons, most notably because it shows utter contempt for those who waited in line, spent thousands of dollars, filled out tons of paperwork, to gain permanent residence, and eventually citizenship in the United States.

However, until the Hitler references stop, we’ll never be able to have a reasonable conversation about immigration. I realize that the subject of race is sensitive, however, we all need to have the tête-à-tête without bringing racism into the mix.

Here are two final, indisputable facts.

1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.
2. If you believe that minorities, immigrant or not, illegal or not, are inferior to Caucasians, you are a racist. Period.

However, it seems as though many would LOVE to make this first indisputable fact…well, disputable. But it's not.

Personal note: I will be honest. I am a little frightened of this “show your papers” situation. I was pulled over my police a while back, and the officer asked me for my papers. Fortunately, I had my papers (even my registration!) with me, because I’m not an idiot. Frankly, I was rather scared and for just a moment, it truly felt like Nazi Germany. But then I realized that I shouldn’t have rolled through that stop sign.

Regarding Unemployment

2010-04-27T17:36:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, I mentioned how President Obama’s economic narrative is struggling, due to the nature of the American economy. Quite frankly, both the economy and the President's narrative stink.

From the Associated Press

But the unemployment rate - it may be the most recognizable economic indicator - has held steady at 9.7 percent for the past three months, and 15 million Americans remain out of work. By the White House's own estimates, as well as those of many independent economists, that rate isn't expected to fluctuate more than a few tenths of a percent through the end of 2010.

The reality is that James Carville was correct: It’s the economy, stupid. And this fundamental truth worries Democrats across this country, as they currently maintain complete control of the federal government.

In George H.W. Bush’s only term in office, he experienced soaring popularity due to the incredibly successful Persian Gulf War. He oversaw the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the divisive 20th century. He oversaw the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the fall of communism, and the end of the Cold War, an eighty-year old conflict. Very few Presidents oversee such grand successes in foreign policy, with the exception of the vomiting incident , which certainly traumatized the Prime Minister of Japan.

Despite his successes abroad, Bush was not able to win reelection. When the recession began during the lead-up to the election of 1992, things began to unravel for the President. Governor Bill Clinton was able to capitalize on the economic struggles of the nation, becoming the 42nd President of the United States.

As for 2010, President Obama is not presently in danger, as he is not up for reelection. Furthermore, his approval rating is hanging around 48-49% (a very generous number considering the current unemployment rate). He still maintains a good amount of personal popularity (not approval, mind you).

It's his Democratic Party that in trouble, though. 2010 looks to be a tough year for Democrats in swing districts around the country.

Now, normally, a sitting President would be able to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to create a winning narrative for his party. However, we can now see that the wishful story that the President wishes to create will probably not magically emerge in the next 150 days. Instead, pesky “facts” about the stimulus coupled with an unemployment rate hovering over 9.5% will most likely make the President’s economic policies seem ineffective.

However, if the President is only concerned with his own political situation, he has another 2.5 years for economic recovery. In fact, the economic situation in 2011 and 2012 will determine whether or not Barack Obama will live in the White House for four or eight years. I tend to be an optimist, so I’m hoping for a much lower unemployment rate in 2013, and a new President as well.

How's That Stimulus Doing?

2010-04-26T11:15:00.003-05:00

A few months back, I wrote about how the White House “graded” the $787,000,000,000.00 stimulus package that passed through Congress with almost no Republican support. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration gave itself an “A” on its legislation.

However, Americans in 2010 are rather skeptical (as they should be), so it’s important to look to groups outside of government to determine how well the government is doing...in this case, how the stimulus package is doing.

From CNN Money

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this piece of legislation completely turned around the economy, and prevented a second Great Depression. After all, it makes a great narrative.

President Obama, full of hope, came into office to undo all of the excesses of the Bush Administration, and undo the economic strife that didn’t exist until Democrats controlled the Congress for one year.

Taking decisive action, he created the stimulus plan, to jump start the American economy and prevent the unemployment rate from rising about 8%. Although the unemployment rate, mainly due to President Bush’s failed leadership, is hovering around 10%, the Obama administration is pleased to give itself top grades when it comes to dealing with the troubled economy.

While this is a lovely narrative created by the White House, it’s not necessarily true. And the NABE study demonstrates that perhaps the President's beloved Recovery Act, (which has actually cost over $800 billion) has not been as effective as the President’s economic team would have you believe.

The Supreme Court and Senator Harkin

2010-04-23T14:47:00.007-05:00

Tom Harkin (D-IA)

“I think we need to push someone who would be on the liberal side, on the progressive side, just as Roberts and Alito are on that side,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who were both confirmed in George W. Bush’s administration. “Why do conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get liberals? What the hell is that all about?”

What is that all about, Senator Harkin?

His idea is simple. Republican presidents never have their conservative nominees filibustered, Democratic presidents always have their liberal nominees filibustered.

His statement is absolutely true, unless you wish to use facts and history to support your claim.

In a very well written article that cleverly uses both facts and historical truths, David Frum states that when it come to judicial nominations, the Democrats are the party of no.

Here's Frum's thesis:

When you look at the last 5 presidents, only two have had a perfect record of Supreme court nominations, with little controversy. They are Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Here are the first choices of Presidents Clinton and Obama

Sonia Sotomayor - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Stephen Breyer - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.

Here are the first choices of Presidents Reagan, HW Bush, and W Bush.

Harriet Miers - Withdraws after heavy criticism over her credentials/experience. Replaced by Samuel Alito. Unsuccessful filibuster...with then Senator Obama joining in.
John Roberts - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation
Clarence Thomas - Perhaps the most heated confirmation ever. Barely approved.
David Souter - Stealth liberal justice. Smooth confirmation.
Robert Bork - Harsh contempt for this man. Utter rejection by Senate Democrats.

When you look at history, there is a double standard...but the complete opposite of what Senator Harkin would have you believe. Democrats are free to filibuster conservative nominees, while Republicans are more respectful of liberal nominees.

That major difference can be seen in 1987 and 1993. Robert Bork was very conservative...no doubt about that. However, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former counsel for the very liberal ACLU, was very liberal...no doubt about that. However, the way that the Republicans treated Ginsburg was ridiculously more respectful than the way the Democrats treated Bork.

So...how should the GOP treat President Obama's next nominee, Senator Harkin? With class, dignity, and respect? or should she be treated the way that Democrats have treated GOP nominees in the past?

I imagine she will be treated with much respect, much like Sonia Sotomayor was. You stay classy, GOP.

The President's Golfing Trips

2010-04-19T12:39:00.007-05:00

From the Washington Times

A massive volcanic plume covering most of Europe forced President Obama to cancel a Sunday trip to Poland to attend the funeral of the nation's president. But the last-minute change left an opening in his schedule, so the president headed to the links for a round of golf instead.

On a cool but sun-drenched Sunday, the president and three golfing companions went to Andrews Air Force Base to play 18 holes. It is the 32nd time Mr. Obama has played golf since taking office Jan. 20, 2009, according to CBS Radio's Mark Knoller.
...
Mr. Obama has played golf far more often than former President George W. Bush. In his eight years in office, Mr. Bush played just 24 times. His last time as president was Oct. 13, 2003.

He said in 2008 that he gave up golf "in solidarity" with the families of soldiers who were dying in Iraq.
...
Since Mr. Obama took office, 397 soldiers have died in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Another 151 have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

President Obama: Perhaps you should golf everyday and continue to call the Tea Party Movement the "true threat" to the United States.

And Democrats continue to say that former President Bush was the uncaring, insensitive person. Life must be nice being a Democrat: No matter what you do, you continually state that you "Care More" and "Look out for working Americans." Unfortunately, many working Americans have lost their jobs, and are still looking for work.

A Big Weekend

2010-03-19T21:13:00.002-05:00

Shouldn't a bill that is "the most important in a generation" be easier to get through Congress?

Take Medicare:

The bill went through more than five hundred amendments before being passed by majority vote in both the House (307-116) and Senate (70-24).

Note that this monstrous program was not passed 216-215 in the House, and 51-49 in the Senate. The Medicare bill in 1965 was clearly popular among a majority, no, a super-majority of Congressmen and Senators at the time.

Right now, Nancy Pelosi is scratching and clawing with all of her might to get to the magic number of 216 to pass this bill in the House. Even then, she's using methods that are not exactly what we learned in Civics class.

Shouldn't that tell us something about the quality of this bill?

If you haven't, please call Congressman Latham and let him know how you feel about this health care vote.

Revisionist Health Care History

2010-03-04T14:34:00.003-06:00

This is wrong.

Pelosi voiced confidence that Democrats will prevail over what she said was Republican obstructionism and win passage of landmark legislation that Obama will sign into law.

"What has happened in the last year, in the past year, in the United States Senate is a total obstruction by the Republican senators," Pelosi said.

Do not let Nancy Pelosi rewrite history. She claims Republican obstructionism. It is a lie. Listen to her again.

"What has happened in the last year, in the past year, in the United States Senate is a total obstruction by the Republican senators," Pelosi said.

I'm terribly sorry, Speaker Pelosi, but you are not telling the truth. Here's what you should have said:

"What has happened in the last year, in the past year, in the United States Senate has nothing to do with the Republican Party. You might ask, 'How is this possible? Democrats are always railing about obstructionist Republicans!'

Well...it is possible, because my party has been able to do whatever it wants in the Senate because the GOP did not even have 41 senators to stop cloture votes. My blaming of Republicans for "obstructing" the last year is bull. Politically, we Democrats could do whatever we wanted, because the GOP literally could not stop us from doing...whatever we wanted."

Nancy, (since members of Congress are on a first name basis, thank you President Obama) the next time you speak to the press, give them the above quote. It will make you seem more intelligent, more honest, and it will give the American people an even better indicator of how most of the past year with absolute Democratic control went.

Not very well.

Lessons in Quality Governance

2010-03-02T19:35:00.005-06:00

From Jake Tapper, ABC:

The plan to pass the bill includes having the House of Representatives pass the Democratic Senate health care reform legislation as well as a second bill containing various “fixes.”

Here's an update on Health Care Reform in Congress, brought to you by the Democratic Party.

Step 1: Have ridiculous control over the federal government (The White House, Senate, House)
Step 2: Create a bad bill in the House
Step 3: Argue for a while
Step 4: Create a bad bill in the Senate
Step 5: Argue for a while
Step 6: Anger the American public by pretending they're not intelligent enough to understand.
Step 7: Tread water for a couple months

Finally, Step 8: Pass a bad bill (that you KNOW is bad), knowing full well that you'll have to pass another bill that fixes the first. Is it any wonder that people think Washington is broken?

I should head over to Home Depot, buy a refrigerator that doesn't cool, tell my wife that I finally bought a fridge, brag to my friends about my awesome new appliance, wait a little bit, and then go back to Home Depot a few weeks later to buy the necessary part to fix my fridge. I hook it up, and it finally cools, but it has no door.

Whether you're buying a broken appliance or creating broken legislation...it's a bad plan for moving forward.

Do I need to mention that during the last year, the Democrats could do whatever they wanted in Congress without fearing Republican opposition?

A Concerning Executive Order

2009-12-30T09:21:00.002-06:00

I'm sure most conservatives (and hopefully most Americans) would agree that the United States Constitution and American Sovereignty are two of the greatest gifts that we have as Americans.

The Constitution affords more rights and protections than any other document in history. The entire document, which includes the 210 year old The Bill of Rights, is rightfully cherished in this country.

American Sovereignty allows Americans to enjoy these rights in peace, without worrying about the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, China, the International Criminal Court, Interpol, and the International Court of Justice, who, for the most part, have little jurisdiction in the United States of America.

There are some who say that we should be bound under the rules, regulations, and laws of several international organizations, however, I would disagree with these folks.

And here's why:

These organizations do not have to respect all the laws of the United States of America. They are not subject to our representative government. They do not answer directly to the American people. I, as an American citizen, have no means to hold them accountable. Most importantly, they are NOT subject to the United States Constitution.

As such, I disagree with any attempt to put the American government or its citizenry under the realm of control of any entity that does not fall under the jurisdiction of our most important document: The United States Constitution.

Therefore, I am concerned about this:

President Obama issued an executive order. Didn't hear about it? It was done quietly. I give the administration credit that it is actually on the White House website, but I ponder: Why isn't the administration shouting this new executive order from the rooftops? After all, if it's good for the American people, then you should share with us WHY it's good for the American people.

Here's an analysis of what the executive order means:

Admittedly, my area of expertise does not lie in International Law, but one thing seems certain. At the beginning of this month, American citizens could use the Freedom of Information Act to determine what Interpol is up to, similar to an American citizen using the FOIA to determine what the FBI is up to. However, after this executive order, Interpol is now immune from FOIA requests, which should be disconcerting to all Americans, both conservative AND liberal, who value transparency and openness in government and law enforcement.

Perhaps President Obama should explain to us why this executive order was necessary.

Blizzard Musings

2009-12-09T11:48:00.004-06:00

While we are in the midst of the worst blizzard in recent memory, I thought I might throw out some links for a day filled with snow and billowing wind.

1. Chet Culver's not doing so well. The Iowa poll in late November placed him at a significant disadvantage for the gubernatorial election in eleven months. Here's a few highlights:

- Culver has been governor for the past three years, but only 34% of Iowans think the state is headed in the right direction.
- Culver would lose to Terry Branstad 57% to 33% (24 points...yikes)
- Culver would lose to Bob VanderPlaats 45% to 37% (8 points...more modest)
- Although Culver would defeat Chris Rants and Christian Fong by 7-8 points, it's most likely due to lack of name recognition for Rants and Fong.
- Chet Culver's approval rating is only 40%.

These numbers are not a recipe for victory for the incumbent.

On the Republican side, we'll see who actually faces Culver in the general election. Fong has already dropped out, but he might receive the nod for Lt. Governor if Branstad wins the primary. Fong is pro-life, and I highly doubt Branstad would choose a pro-abortion running mate again.

2. The U.S. has racked up more debt for the first two fiscal months of 2010, then ever before. So much for blaming the debt on George W. Bush and the Republicans. This debt baby fully belongs to the Democrats now...although, as I discussed earlier, the Democrats have been in charge of the budget since the 2006 mid-term elections, so really, any fiscal crisis lies squarely in their hands (admittedly with help from President Bush)

3. Speaking of the stimulus, recent headlines have revolved around several wasteful stimulus spending projects, most notably the nearly $1 million spent for monitoring ant behavior. Also, the firm of one of Hillary Clinton's top advisers received $6 million from the stimulus monies, which brings questions of conflicts of interest. Is it any wonder that most Americans don't trust Washington D.C.?

4. On a lighter note, President Obama has been immortalized with his first statue in Indonesia.

I do support the idea that a child can do anything he puts his mind to. I do not support Barack Obama as Jesus Christ.

Stay warm, folks.

Saturday Morning Musings

2009-11-28T08:42:00.006-06:00

**Fred Barnes has an interesting article on why Obama, who ran on changing Washington, isn't actually changing Washington.
---
**President Obama is getting ready to announce a troop surge in Afghanistan. However, he's going to have to convince his anti-war base that it's the appropriate decision. The key line from this article:

“It was an excellent campaign line for Obama to say, ‘We took our eye off Afghanistan and fought the wrong war in Iraq,’” said Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department South Asia specialist now affiliated with the Middle East Institute. “The implications of what he was saying I don’t think registered on people…..They didn’t see it.”

“I don’t think there was a consciousness in the electorate that, if we elect Obama, we’re sending 50,000 troops to Afghanistan,” said Kurt Volker of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “It wasn’t hidden, but it wasn’t evident to voters who were focused on other issues."

It's a good read. Certainly, the President is in a tough spot, considering his rhetoric during the primary against Hillary and the general election against McCain. We'll see what he says on Tuesday night to placate his anti-war base.
---
**As for the economy, the markets were shaken yesterday by Dubai's announcement that it could not continue to make its debt payments. As it turns out, while Dubai was building up its very impressive skyline and city, they were also deficit spending. A lot. As such, there's a little trouble in paradise.
---
**The Justice Department decided this week that ACORN should receive taxpayer money for . ACORN, which has been receiving federal money for more than a decade, was made infamous for the undercover video depicting ACORN employees encouraging federal lawbreaking.
---
**As for this next one...it's not good. Barack Obama is the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. He must be protected. Period. This is unacceptable. Normally, the Secret Service is top notch, but this mistake, which allowed two seemingly amiable people very close to the President, is unacceptable. Especially since the Indian Prime Minister was present as well.
---
**Finally, central Iowans struggling to afford travel this holiday season have reason to rejoice. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Des Moines is one of only 7 large cities in this country whose plane ticket prices have DROPPED over the last 15 years. Average cost of plane tickets from Des Moines International Airport have dropped an average of 4%. Largest decrease? Denver. Largest increases? Hawaii and Alaska.

How’s the stimulus doing?

2009-11-20T20:29:00.003-06:00

According to the Obama administration, the stimulus reviews are in, and this plan receives an A+ (with a few minor issues).

Politico:

“White House officials announced Friday that they had counted exactly how many jobs were created or saved by recent stimulus spending: 640,329.

So how many were saved and how many created? They don’t know.

In a briefing with reporters, officials acknowledged they can’t tell the difference between jobs “saved,” and jobs “created” by the $787 billion stimulus package.

They said they also can’t tell the difference between private sector jobs and government jobs.

And they said that they had found and corrected significant errors in the data submitted in 57,000 separate reports to the federal government by Recovery Act funding recipients.”

It seems as though they don’t know a lot. But 640,329 sure sounds like a great number. And if it’s an accurate number, then that truly is good for the American people! Plus, it’s good for the Democrats, politically. They know 650,000 jobs gained sounds much better than the ten million jobs that have actually been lost since the Democrats took over in 2007. We tend to forget this key point, which is what Democrats desire. They want the public to believe that Republicans were in charge of everything budgetary in the country in 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately, it’s a lie.

2007, 2008, and 2009 – The Democrats controlled Congress, controlled the budget, controlled the purse strings, controlled legislation, and controlled the Capitol. By the end of 2007, their first year in charge of dominating Congress, the recession was beginning, and jobs were being lost.

See, the Democrats would LOVE to blame George W. Bush for this recession. In fact, it’s their favorite pastime. However, President Bush was not a dictator who controlled lawmaking (although many Democrats would have you believe that he was). He did not control the purse strings in this country. The Democrats did.

And the last 34 months of Democratic governance have NOT been very pleasant. Just ask the 10.2% of those who are unemployed.

So, here’s the recap:

January 1995 - Republicans take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 6.2%
November of 1997, nearly 3 years later, the Republicans are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment is down to 4.3%

January 2007 - Democrats take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 5%
November 2009, nearly 3 years later, the Democrats are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment has doubled to over 10%.

These are the facts, and they are indisputable. This is why there is so much concern among Democrats today. They fear that independent voters might discover this data from the Department of Labor. But judging by recent polls, plus the recent gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, Independents might already be realizing the governance by the Democrats is not the best solution.

What do the Democrats really want?

2009-11-16T18:55:00.001-06:00

This quote from Representative Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, says it all.

“This is an opportunity to do something as big as Social Security.”

I know what he means, but his words reverberate around my head, nonetheless.

“As big as Social Security.”
“As big as Social Security.”
“As big as Social Security.”

How is Social Security doing right now anyway? Why can’t we solve the problem with Social Security and Medicare first? Congress reminds me of the man with two or three unfinished projects around the house, who decides to start yet another project.

Let’s solve the current crisis first. We have a lot of work to do.

This week, the U.S. quietly passed a horrific economic milestone. The United States National Debt now stands at more than 12 trillion…excuse me…$12,000,000,000,000.00.

Here's where the current debt lies.

I encourage you to notice the bottom of the picture…particularly unfunded liabilities, which currently stand at over 100 trillion dollars. So what shall we do with so many unfunded liabilities?

Add another one!

Steak Fry - This Thursday!

2009-11-08T19:46:00.006-06:00

The Dallas County GOP is going to hold its annual Steak Fry at Waukee High School this Thursday, November 12th, at 6pm.

We have several guest speakers lined up:
- RPI state chair Matt Strawn
- State Auditor David Vaudt
- WHO Radio host Jan Mickelson

We'll also be having a delightful pie auction. Let me be very clear about this. There are some folks in Dallas County who have a firm grasp on baking tasty desserts. I encourage you to come by and witness this firsthand, after you enjoy a steak dinner and a great lineup of speakers.

Tickets are $25. For more information, click here.

Hope to see you there!

House of Representatives - 2.5 days a week

2009-10-07T14:09:00.005-05:00

This might be the problem.

It's no wonder...the Dems can't actually read the bill, or put it up online before voting on a bill. It's seems crazy...are we actually expecting Congress to work more than 2 1/2 days a week?

(Lack of) Transparency

2009-10-06T00:00:00.001-05:00

In my last post, I was wondering if the Democrats would refuse to post a bill online before a vote. Now we know.

U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) today issued the following statement after Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee rejected his Transparency Amendment to the "America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009."

Senator Bunning’s amendment would have required that the legislative language and a final and complete cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be made publicly available on the Finance Committee’s website for at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee could vote on final passage of the bill.

The Democrats on the Finance Committee refused to vote aye for this amendment, instead deciding to shoot it down, by a vote of 13-10. I guess the Democrats in Congress don’t want to live up to standard that President Obama set during his campaign.

How is that promise going, Mr. President?

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2009 AT 3:39 PM

Update on Sunlight Before Signing

“Since a few questions have come in, we want to update you on the President's campaign commitment to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting non-emergency legislation online for five days before signing it. This policy will be implemented in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar.

The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.”

Well, it's been exactly 8 months. Apparently, this particular promise isn't terribly important, especially when the President and his party are trying to get an unpopular "public option" bill through Congress. Hopefully, the President will whip his party into shape so that the American people can get the transparency that they deserve.

As for right now, it looks as though the Democrats are just going to ram this bill through Congress as fast as they can…a bill that less than 30% of Americans support. Great leadership.

Comfort, in case you're worried

2009-10-05T11:11:00.004-05:00

Senator Tom Carper (Democrat-DE) has some words of reassurance for you. Actually, what he tells this reporter might enhance your concern, rather than assuage it.

From an interview with CNS. Feel free to watch the 4 minute video, if you choose to follow the link.

Here's the bottom line.

If you, a citizen, are concerned that:
- Members of Congress aren't actually reading legislation that impacts 1/6 of the largest economy this planet has ever seen
- The Legislative language might be very confusing, and intentionally difficult for a court or the American people to understand
- The Democrats might sneak in language to a piece of legislation that the American people don't want

...then you should be. Disaster is slowly developing in the halls of Congress. Why can't people understand that this is not normal behavior for a group of people who are supposed to be advancing solutions? What's their next great idea? Secret health care bills that Americans won't be able to view online before an actual vote?

The Only Poll That Really Matters

2009-10-04T23:03:00.007-05:00

and no one is even talking about it!

Polling companies, including the Rasmussen poll below, have been focusing on the following question.

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

* Favor 46%
* Oppose 37%

While this appears to be a fair question, seemingly innocuous, it is a flawed question, because it deprives those polled of the reality of the situation.

The CORRECT polling question is below. Fortunately, Rasmussen has been kind enough to ask this question.

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%

From the Rasmussen article

"The second question asked about the creation of a public option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Given that possibility, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.

Even if it encourages employers to drop private health insurance for their workers, 51% of Democrats still support the public option. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans and 61% of voters not affiliated with either party are opposed.

The president has said that no one would be forced to change their insurance coverage if his plan is implemented. However, many analysts have concluded that some employers would drop their private health insurance coverage if the plan is passed, forcing millions of workers to change their coverage."

As I discussed in an earlier post, the public option plan has only one goal. Getting rid of private insurance altogether to replace it with a single-payer system. Don't lie, President Obama. Don't lie, Democrats. We know it's what you actually want. You are tip-toeing around the issue because you don't want us Americans to know what you're REALLY doing.

How do I know that Americans don't want what you want? Let me recopy from above!

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%

29%. If you've ever thought that the Democrats are being driven to left by the most radical in their party, look no further. Here's your evidence. The Democrats are being driven to the left by 20-something percent of the American people.

This is just stupid

2009-10-01T23:56:00.004-05:00

Dumb

The Empire State Building is going to light itself up, celebrating the communist takeover of China.

What exactly are we celebrating? Are we celebrating the lack of freedom in China? Perhaps the mandatory lifetime, government-sponsored room and board for political dissidents? What about Mao's apathetic attitude (best case scenario) towards the death of more than ten million of Chinese peasants in the 1950s and 60s? Shall we celebrate these ideas too?

This is stupid. However, I guess we don't have a choice, since China now owns a good portion of the United States. Darn.

Health Care and Abortion

2009-09-30T23:16:00.002-05:00

From the New York Times

Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.

But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.

While Congress continues to debate the health care bills that are being juggled as we speak, let’s briefly talk about how the health care bill might affect the issue of abortion.

Cutting through the crap, here’s the specific policy difference between pro-life politicians and pro-choice politicians today.

If you are pro-life, you want ZERO dollars going towards abortions. You want ZERO taxpayer monies going towards the termination of unborn children. It’s a very passionate desire, indeed.

If you pro-choice, you want lots of dollars going towards abortions. You want the government to pay for abortions. In fact, you desperately want to ensure that the public option will be able to circumvent the Hyde Amendment so that federal subsidies will go towards abortions. This too, is a very passionate desire.

However, here’s a message for all of you pro-choice folks out there. If you get your way, you KNOW that my taxpayer dollars will likely be used to fund abortions in our nation. Just don’t lie to me, and say that the "spirit" of the Hyde Amendment is still in the health care bill.

No. If you truly care about the Hyde Amendment (which you don't), put the explicit language in the bill. Of course, I know you won't.

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals

2009-08-18T08:32:00.003-05:00

Check out the recent Gallup Polling.

"Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years."

"Hope and Change" is working out real well for conservatives coming out of the woodwork. Conservatives are normally rather busy living out their lives and don't take the time to get overly involved in politics.

But when President Obama fires the CEO of GM, gives unions more influence over the company, and attempts to take over the entire Health Care industry of the nation to socialize it, things change. And this poll proves it...Enough is Enough.

President approval -8

2009-08-13T13:26:00.003-05:00

How is "Hope and Change" working out for everyone? Dear Democrats and mainstream media: Go ahead and keep calling us town hall meeting attendees un-American.

I suppose it's stupid to think that we can say anything that's not a praise for the all mighty President.

However, not all Americans are enamored by the President.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8."

Health Care Reform Pt. 5

2009-07-15T11:40:00.001-05:00

Super Wow!

The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

House Democratic leaders pledged to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.

"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."

Two things.

1. You want this done by the August recess? Three weeks? Really? Ever since the Democrats regained control of Congress in three years ago, there has been one aspect of their leadership that is very impressive. They know how to pass bills without actually reading, analyzing, or understanding them. The bank bailout, the stimulus bill, and now the health care overhaul. You cannot begin to imagine my frustration with my own government when I realize that half of the members of the House and Senate will not even have a chance to read over and comprehend a bill that includes trillions of dollars in new spending. The irresponsibility and poor leadership is mind-numbing.

Three weeks is not enough, Representative Waxman. Three weeks is not enough, Speaker Pelosi. Three weeks is not enough Senator Dodd. And finally, three weeks is not enough, President Obama.

2. Are some folks not understanding the depths of the recession that we are mired in right now? Unemployment will reach 10% soon, and yet, who will pay for this health care overhaul?

"Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy."

I'm sure that after employers pick up a good portion of this $1,500,000,000,000.00 tab, they'll be a great position to expand their workforce. Or unemployment will continue to soar, and the recession will grow deeper.

Tough choices. Should we force through a poorly planned health care overhaul or work together to halt this recession. Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress are leaning toward the first option.

Health Care Reform Pt. 4

2009-07-14T23:59:00.002-05:00

Wow!

HOUSE ROLLS OUT PLAN TO MAKE HEALTH CARE A RIGHT

House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.

The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.

The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election.

Let's just be clear here.

1. Honesty and competition

When President Obama says that we want to keep the insurance companies honest and create a competitive alternative to achieve this goal, what he really means is that he wishes to spend one trillion dollars to ultimately drive private insurance out of business.

If he truly believed that government is a better, more efficient, and more cost-effective health care option, then it wouldn't need to cost over $1,000,000,000,000.00 would it? Theoretically, it should be self-sustaining, WITHOUT the need for taxpayers' money. But that's not part of the agenda, is it?

Be sure to reread my previous post on Health Care Reform for more information about the agenda of liberal Democrats here.

2. The wealthiest pick up the tab.

Regardless of how you feel about the subject, let's just say what it really means. The upper class is going to pay for inefficient health care for the lower class.

3. "Individuals would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties."

Recall the title of the article. Making health care "a right." But this is not what the article is describing. The article outlines how it becomes a criminal act (otherwise, why you face "hefty" penalties) if you do not purchase health insurance. This is not establishing a "right." This is establishing a mandate. Do we have any libertarians out there?

4. Perhaps my favorite line of the article.

"Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election."

How perfectly convenient....for President Obama.

Now, it should be said, this is not the bill that will reach President Obama's desk. But it should indicate how out-of-control spending dominates the House of Representatives, which should be the house of the people, and not of the iron fist of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Supreme Court: Part 10

2009-07-10T13:12:00.004-05:00

Now that President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, we can reflect a little more on the Supreme Court.

First, Sotomayor will be confirmed. There is no doubt about it. The real question will be whether she receives the votes of 60, 70, or 80 senators. With the power of 60 in the Senate (see my post earlier this week), Democrats will breeze Judge Sotomayor through confirmation hearings, committee votes, and the full vote of the Senate. She will become part of the Supreme Court by October.

Second, for those conservatives out there, be thankful(ish). Obama could have nominated a person with extremely radical views. I'm not saying that Sotomayor isn't liberal, because she certainly is, but believe me...there are nominations that are far more dangerous.

Third, for those interested in a court that reflects the general population, Obama's pick is just for you. Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States, and the nation's highest court will soon have its first Hispanic member. Also, for the ladies out there, the court will now have two women on the bench, as she will be the third woman in history to serve on the court.

Finally, and most importantly, elections matter. If my feelings are correct, I believe that two more justices (Stevens and Ginsburg) will retire in the next two years. While Obama's appointments will not technically change the ideological balance of the court, he will have replaced older liberal judges, with younger liberal judges who will remain on the court for decades. Had McCain been elected president, this would not have happened.

Elections matter...especially when it comes to lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land.

Health Care Reform Pt. 3

2009-07-09T13:03:00.000-05:00

A recent study by John Lott Jr. at the University of Maryland indicates what some Democrats may be trying to hide.

From the abstract:

"The debate over government-provided insurance for Americans frequently makes two assumptions: that the uninsured are unsatisfied with the health care they receive and that government health insurance would improve the quality of care for the uninsured.

This paper finds that the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care. Indeed, only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive. The paper finds that Canadians are much closer to uninsured Americans than to insured Americans in their satisfaction with their health care.

There is also little difference in the level of Americans' satisfaction with their health care based upon race, marital status, educational attainment, income, or political views. There is some difference in satisfaction based on age and between the most extreme levels of educational attainment."

Now, Dr. Lott is a conservative, and we must take his findings with the appropriate grain of objectivity salt, but his findings are at least worth exploring, are they not?

A big question: Should we align our health care system to look like the one present in Canada?

Dr. Lott would say, "No." I believe that many Democrats would say, "Yes." Which brings me to my next point: transparency.

Why don't we all know precisely what Congress is doing? Instead of hiding in committee rooms, coming up with plans that no Americans even know about at this time, perhaps the Congress (who, according to their campaign strategies of 2006 and 2008, are committed to transparency) should share MORE of what's going on.

After watching Sunday news shows, and hearing Democratic leaders in the Senate and White House talk about health care, I've come to conclusion that they are dancing around the issue, perhaps masking their true intentions.

Frankly, my biggest fear is that Congress will push through a hastily thought out bill that has a lack of common sense and ridiculously wasteful spending. As I said in a previous post, health care reform can not and should not be achieved in a matter of weeks.

Speaking of Money

2009-07-08T00:46:00.001-05:00

My previous post was regarding the lack of money for Health Care Reform. As we continue talking about this issue, I will continually stress that this country is spiraling into the dark oblivion of debt.

However, this problem is not lost on President Obama. In fact, in the first 1/8 of his presidency, he has made a serious commitment towards cutting down our spending.

How much? Take a look at this video, made by a very creative fiscal conservative.

(**UPDATE** Just so we're clear, the pennies on the table are stacks of five pennies)

After viewing this video, you might realize that Obama is simply reducing our amount of spending from "Insanely, ridiculously ludicrous" to a mere "Insanely ludicrous."

Well done Mr. President. I do appreciate the solid effort, but I firmly believe that we need more pennies taken off that table.

Health Care Reform Pt. 2

2009-07-07T12:34:00.000-05:00

While the discussion continues about Health Care Reform in the Capitol, let's not forget a major problem.

We have no money to pay for this.

Check out the following CNN Article.

"Chairman Max Baucus told reporters that lawmakers still need to come up with $320 billion over the coming decade in taxes to pay for the health care plan."

Great. It looks like President Obama's promise for no new taxes for 95% of the population is going to be broken, barring a major Powerball win for the United States Government.

Perhaps even more concerning is this:

"Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told the Nevada Democrat that negotiators need more time to write the bill and shouldn't be forced to meet a goal set by Democratic leaders to have the bill off the Senate floor by August 7.

Reid told the lawmakers he would be "flexible" on the time frame, but that he still wants to try to have the bill done by that date, a Reid aide said."

Brilliant, Senator Reid. Let's push it through as quickly as possible!

Again, going back to my previous post: A Republican senator tries to explain that one month is not enough time, and her COMMON SENSE concerns are mostly brushed aside by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has to stick to his schedule.

I'm sure than there are many good people working on this problem, but it seems as though Senator Snowe is correct. Overhauling our entire health care system in less than 30 days is the worst idea since government cheese.

The 60

2009-07-06T12:18:00.000-05:00

I was in Europe during a large portion of the last month, so I apologize for the lack of posts. Let's get this started again.

The Election of 2008 has finally come to an end. Minnesota has a new senator. And the Democrats in Congress now have 58 senators in the United States Senate. Throw in Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, and you have 60 senators that caucus as Democrats...which means that they can easily overcome any common sense that Republican senators throw at them.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (the dudes in charge of financing Republican candidates for the Senate around the country) created this video, titled "60," in response to the dominant position that the Democrats have obtained in the White House and Congress.

I would say it's a bit over the top (and certainly not very flattering to Al Franken), but their point is certainly driven home. Blaming Bush can no longer work. Blaming Republicans can no longer work. The ball is completely in your court.

Obviously, if the country does turn around completely, the Democrats will be taking credit for said turn-around, but frankly, I'm not so sure that their policies will be successful.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because the Democrats are going to implement them anyway.

Federalism and Health Care

2009-05-21T10:13:00.003-05:00

It’s fantastic to live in a government that is federalist in nature.

What is federalism exactly? It is a “system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units” or state and local governments.

Bottom line? The federal government takes care of some nationwide issues, but state and local governments are the ones that really do most of the legwork. I support this system because it gives We, the people, better access to leaders and governmental entities that affect our daily lives the most. Plus, Massachusetts is dissimilar to Alabama and Arizona is very different than Iowa (although both states apparently have large canyons, if you’ve seen the new Star Trek movie).

Thus, in a system of federalism, it is no surprise that 50 different states have 50 different ways of running their governments. Personally, I think this is fantastic, because it gives local governments more control. Plus, it offers the federal government the unique opportunity to see what’s working in the states, and what’s not working in the states.

For example:
“Hey! This tort reform law is working really well in Oregon. Perhaps we should make it a federal law.”

Great! Federalism!

Our system of government gives Congress the chance to look at state programs, agencies, laws, and regulations and determine whether or not they would be appropriate at the federal level.

Therefore, what DOESN’T work at the state level should NOT be tried at the federal level. However, there are some in Congress who seemingly don’t understand how federalism works.

The following Wall Street Journal article discusses how statewide healthcare is currently failing in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, this is the kind of system that President Obama wishes to implement nationwide. I encourage you to peruse the entire article .

The best line comes at the very end of the article.

“The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.”

If it doesn’t work in one small state of 6 million people, it’s not going to work in a huge country of 300 million people. Period.

Health Care Reform?

2009-05-20T09:32:00.003-05:00

The talk about health care reform is in the air. Now that the Democrats have firm control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, they are certainly going to try and get the ball rolling for their health care agenda.

While I disagree with much of this agenda, I feel it’s especially important to understand that this entire debate that we’re about to have is part of a mostly covert strategy (by some folks’ own admission) that is designed to bring about exactly what the Democratic Party desires: socialized medicine within a single-payer health care system. Here's the playbook:

Step 1: Establish that a problem exists
Step 2: Debate several solutions to the problem
Step 3: Create a compromise
Step 4: Laud the compromise as the beginning of a new era
Step 5: Gradually transform the compromise plan into exactly what you wanted in the first place

The compromise in this situation is a public plan, which is what the President has been talking about as of late. He uses many words which are pleasing to some people’s ears: “Competition. Options. Freedom.”

His stated goal as President is to create a government run health care option, so that people can choose either their private plan or choose the new government plan. You have the freedom to choose your plan! Friendly competition! Free markets!

However, the President is very intelligent. Obama realizes that when private companies attempt to compete with the federal government, those companies will lose. I learned a similar lesson from The Shawshank Redemption: Public labor can always undercut private labor.

Because of this, private insurance will cease to exist, and a single payer health care system will emerge. This is the strategy…there’s no doubt about it.

We can debate the merits/fundamental flaws of single payer or the public option (and Congress will be doing this A LOT over the next year). However, I’m not going to talk about this right now. I’m simply here to criticize the Democrats for dishonesty. Watch the following three clips, and you’ll understand better.

Secretary Sebelius simply states that there is no strategy. However, this next clip demonstrates that the President is being disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst.

Market competition? It’s all part of your strategy, President Obama. Why don’t you just tell us? Senator Feingold (Democrat-Wisconsin) feels free to let us know what’s actually going on.

I mentioned this in an earlier diary about gay marriage, but in general, I will respect those who want to have an honest, open, and genuine debate about issues. We may disagree in every conceivable way, but at least I’ll probably respect you.

I will NOT respect you if you are being untruthful. I find this most disheartening that the President clearly believes in the more radical single payer idea, but he does not want to use his political capital (he’s in the midst of his reelection campaign after all) to support it. Rather, he is stating his support for the more “moderate” idea of the public option, which stands a better chance of passing through Congress and public opinion. However, we all know the eventual goal that he has.

To attempt to stop Democrats from being disingenuous, I've crafted the following letter.

Dear Democrats:

You've been a party for a long time. Since 1828, you've been keeping it real in American politics...except during the times when you haven't had good policies or when you haven't been as honest as you should, such as right now.

If you wish to gain my respect:

Keep it real! Say what you mean and mean what you say!
Don’t say that you support the moderate public health option, when you really want single payer.
Don’t say that you support marriage between a man and a woman, when you really want gay marriage and polygamy (or as you have been calling it, equal marriage for all)
Don’t try and trick the public. Stand up for your beliefs! Shout them from the rooftops!

Then and only then, will I respect you. And then and only then, will you find that your ideas might be a little out of the mainstream.

Sincerely

ghbraves

Saturday Morning Musings

2009-05-16T09:57:00.002-05:00

As the 2010 elections are merely 18 months away, the campaign for governor will begin shortly. Some might say it has already begun.

As such, we Republicans are looking to ensure that Governor Chet Culver will not be reelected. Fortunately, the tides may be beginning to turn against the governor.

Let’s take a look at the most recent poll from late April.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chet Culver is doing as Governor?

Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 50%
Net Popularity: -8%

Generally speaking, if you sit below that 50% mark in a poll, you’re in trouble. Culver sits well below that line.

In his defense, the economy is not terribly strong, jobless claims have increased, and some people across the country are saying that this is the next Great Depression. With all of the negative talk that has been permeating this nation, it’s not really that surprising that Iowans feel as though the leadership of this state and nation is problematic. With strong feelings of discontent among Iowans evident, one would expect to see our other three leaders who have been elected statewide to feel the popularity pinch. However, we don’t really see evidence of this.

Let’s take a look at Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, and President Obama.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chuck Grassley is doing as Senator?

Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 32%
Net Popularity: +27%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Harkin is doing as Senator?

Approve: 51%
Disapprove: 38%
Net Popularity: +13%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President?

Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 35%
Net Popularity: +24%

It appears that these three are not as harmed by the economic downturn as our poor governor. It also demonstrates that Senator Grassley remains more popular than Tom Harkin (and President Obama).

Why is this? I’m guessing it’s because Chuck Grassley is a better United States Senator.

Bye Bye Specter

2009-04-28T12:02:00.004-05:00

"Light weight "Lefty" Republican switches party."

After years of stabbing Conservatives in the back, the RINO goes home. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The party of the Democrats sounds like a good home for you. Arlen sees how the wind is blowing and decides to bail.

Let’s see how this works out for you since you don't seem to be too concerned about your new Party in spending our children and grandchildren’s future. You will quite helpful in prosecuting the Bush administration. I can't wait until 2010. Let’s see what happens then, Arlen. Glad to see that this Flushing of the Party will be far better for us in the long term.
~Jeff

Statement by Sen. Arlen Specter:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.

Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary.I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for reelection determined in a general election.I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate.

I take on this complicated run for reelection because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight

2009-04-22T13:32:00.004-05:00

From MSNBC:

"President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Some parts of memo deleted Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders."

Isn't it amazing how this administration could care less about keeping this country safe?

Democrat's are now in a race to prosecute former Bush officials, while releasing cherry picked memos to make the US look bad while ignoring those that show the true of info learned and plots stopped.

Jimmy Carter must be loving this. If this keeps up, he may be freed of the title "Most incompetent President ever."

~Jeff

Budget Cuts, Mr. President?

2009-04-20T21:55:00.005-05:00

President Obama in campaign mode:

“I mean, Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18 billion of our budget.”

Bottom Line: $18 billion is nice to cut, Sen. McCain, but it’s not terribly important.

President Obama after becoming President:

On Tuesday evening, when President Barack Obama declared before a joint session of Congress that "we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks," House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, popped out of their seats like jackrabbits for a standing ovation. On Wednesday, those same House Democrats, led by Pelosi, passed a budget with, by some counts, nearly 9,000 earmarks, worth an estimated $7.7 billion.

Bottom Line: Nearly $8 billion in earmarks is fine by me.

President Obama today:

"None of these savings by themselves are going to solve our long-term fiscal problems. But taken together, they can make a difference, and they send a signal that we are serious about how government operates."

Bottom Line: I was kidding earlier. Every little bit DOES count.

I welcome your cut today, Mr. President. However, I ultimately question your budget trimming sincerity, mainly because of your comments during the campaign AND during your first address to the Congress.

However, your own estimates on budget deficits are pretty sad, evident by the chart below.

One of my biggest criticisms of President George W. Bush and the Republicans in charge of Congress from 2002-2006 and the Democrats in Congress from 2006-2008 is the lack of intelligence when it came to fiscal responsibility.

However, if we stay on this road President Obama, we will go WAY beyond lack of intelligence. By 2020, we will achieve utter lunacy. And I’m sure that’s not what you want to be remembered by.

Des Moines Tea Party 4-15-09

2009-04-17T10:57:00.006-05:00

Wednesday April 15th, 2009.

On this Tax Day, more than four thousand gathered at State Capital to protest the government’s out of control spending, tax increases, and judicial activism. There were over a dozen American speakers, and not one elected politician speaker. This was a day for everyday Americans to talk amongst ourselves and listen to others speak.

The media was present, trying to make it look as though we were just a bunch of misfits each with our own personal gripe with the government. Not that we all came together against a Government out of control at all levels: State, Federal, and Local. The Government solution is "We just need More Government and all of our problems will be solved." Today, we were saying "NO!" Stop spending our children and grandchildren’s money. Stop taking over our lives. Stop telling us that YOU know what is correct, ignoring the Constitution.

Eighty percent of the people there had never protested or been politically active before. We have lives we want to live and we do not want to take time to protest, but DEMOCRATS have gone too far and many Republicans are not standing and fighting for us. We aren't exactly sure what to do but we’re “mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore," stealing a phrase.

Today, Ronald Reagan’s speeches were played over the loud speakers between live speeches. Making us all wonder: When will we find a true leader for us again? Who will be the Next Reagan to lead us out of the wilderness????

The Big Ruling

2009-04-04T17:08:00.009-05:00

The simple issue at question was this: Is marriage only between a man and woman?

In Iowa, seven people said no.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that the Iowa’s existing Defense of Marriage law was unconstitutional. As such, one of the major social questions that permeates American politics has been answered, forcefully I might add, by the seven members of Iowa’s highest court.

One day later, we have heard the celebrations on the left and the statements of disappointment from the right and center. As such, Republicans will begin work to restore traditional marriage to Iowa. And Democrats, will begin side-stepping the issue as much as they can.

Let’s start with the Iowa House and Senate. After reading the joint statement from the Democratic House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, I’m rather surprised that they haven’t ever tried to pass a same-sex marriage law in the House and Senate. After all according to them, “Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.” Then why the wait?

Oh, I know. It’s straight from a Democratic playbook. Sidestep the issue, put it on the backburner, fail to show leadership, and then let the court do the hard work for you. Gronstal and Murphy know that passing such a bill would hurt them at the ballot box. They aren't stupid. But they sure aren’t leaders. Their press statement also asks “why it took so long.” Well, Mike and Pat, clearly you weren’t passionate enough about the issue to use your majority in the legislature to do anything about it, so you should probably blame yourselves. As for your passion, I’m relieved that it’s returned now that the Supreme Court has done your work for you.

What about the other biggest Democrat in Iowa, Senator Harkin? His statement:

"My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept…”

but same-sex marriage is fine with me. I guess I'm having a little trouble with the Senator's logic.

It seems as though Harkin is saying a couple of things here.

I don't care for same-sex marriage
I know that nearly a super-majority of Iowans do not believe in same-sex marriage
Therefore, I have no problem with this ruling.

I've always had a problem with illogical politics. Here's what I think. If you believe in something, and your constituents believe in something, take a stand. However, I don't expect Harkin to follow his heart or his constituents regarding this issue.

Honestly, it is reminiscent of Vice President Biden’s position on abortion.

“My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion…”

but abortion is fine with me. Biden is basically saying two things:

I’m pro-life, but that’s just me personally. I’m pro-choice for the other 6.5 billion people on the planet.
Abortion is bad, but it should not be illegal. It's not as though you stole $147 from the local gas station.

Note to Harkin, Biden, Gronstal, and Murphy. If you believe in something, do something about it. I know it's odd for me to give advice to the opposition, but I'd rather have a good policy debate with someone who actually believes in themselves and their issue, than with a Eggo waffler.

To conclude, when it comes to the Democrats in this state and in this country dealing with controversial social topics, the popular thing is to sidestep the issue so that they won’t get into trouble at the ballot box.

We’ll see what Governor Culver does in the coming days and weeks as he prepares to sidestep the issue as well.

A Light-Hearted April Fool’s Day...

2009-04-01T22:53:00.002-05:00

With the United States’ strongest ally in this world today.

Now, we all know that President Obama is still in his honeymoon phase, but when he disrespects both the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Queen Elizabeth II, shouldn’t we take some notice?

When PM Gordon Brown came to the U.S. last month, he presented President Obama with several excellent gifts. The most impressive gift may have been this:

The British PM presented our president with a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. A perfect gift to place on his desk in the Oval Office which just happened to have been made from the sister ship of the Gannet — the HMS Resolute.

Think of it this way: 129 years after Queen Victoria presented President Rutherford B. Hayes with the desk made from the Resolute, Prime Minister Brown reunited the ships with this exquisite offering.

Excellent. Kudos PM Brown, for a well-thought out gift from the UK.

I do ponder if President Obama felt a little sheepish after he presented Brown with America’s gift. Apparently:

the British press took high exception to the modest presents the Obamas gave Gordon Brown and wife on their visit to the White House last month: a box set of DVDs, allegedly in the wrong format.

Although movies such as Star Wars and Psycho are American classics, it seems as though a more appropriate gift would be one that could not be purchased on Amazon.

So, President Obama arrived in Europe today to meet with the Queen of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty Elizabeth II. It’s a wonderful chance to make up for the so-so gift that he gave Gordon Brown! What does he bequeath her? An iPod.

The president gave the Queen an iPod with footage of her 2007 state visit to the U.S. already downloaded.

An iPod. Amazon must be the homepage for the Oval Office. However, with the footage of the Queen’s visit to the United States, it does become “more” thoughtful than before. And now the Queen has joined the iPod digital music revolution. Except that she joined it four years ago. Tough break, Mr. President.

Now, some might believe this story to be superficial, and to a certain extent it is. But it’s April 1st. I only wish that our President’s foolish gifts were a joke. Alas.

The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debate

2009-03-18T14:29:00.003-05:00

Last week, President Obama rolled back former President Bush's executive ban on the federal funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

You may have read the CNN Headline: Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

Reading the headline alone might make you believe that President Bush was against all stem cell research, which is inaccurate at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst. But I digress.

With strong feelings on both sides of the issue, the mainstream media has been struggling in their reporting of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Unfortunately, this reporting has omitted many important details that are not only important, but critical in the national discourse over the topic.

Josh Brahm over at Right to Life of Central California writes a lengthy response about the details that were left out of various news stories from the past several weeks.

I encourage you take a look at it.

Perhaps my favorite quote.

"Naturally we want to see people afflicted with painful diseases treated or even cured, but IF these embryos are individual living human beings, as science says they are, THEN we should not kill them for their body parts. Of course, if it can be proven scientifically that these embryos are not human beings then I will promptly withdraw my objection and put my full support behind this research."

A bold statement. However, President Obama's insistence of instituting taxpayer funded human embryonic stem cell research was a bold move also.

Salute to Congressman Latham

2009-02-19T15:14:00.002-06:00

I’ve recently been thinking more about the Election of 2008, and our very own Tom Latham.

In 2008, Congressman Latham had a lot going against him. Here’s a few things:

1. Barack Obama was at the top of the ticket. He earned 54% of Iowa’s vote

2. Tom Harkin was next to the top of the ticket. He earned 63% of Iowa’s vote

3. The Republican Party was as unpopular as it has ever been in 2008.

4. Becky Greenwald was not a poor Democratic opponent.

5. The Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of Iowa’s 4th Congressional District is R+0/D+0, which basically means that the number of Republicans and Democrats in the district is generally the same.

Even with all of these things pushing against him, Tom Latham was able to win by more than 20 points.

As such, we Republicans in Dallas County thank you all for supporting a solid conservative to represent us in the House of Representatives. Congressman Latham…we salute you for a very impressive victory.

Bad idea

2009-02-18T22:47:00.002-06:00

Here’s how the conversation goes:

“Hey, let’s get rid of the Electoral College”
“All right. Let’s pass a constitutional amendment”
“Hmmm…that’s too difficult. So I guess we can’t get rid of it.”
“Wait a second. Maybe we don’t have to change the constitution.
“What? How are we supposed to get around the Constitution of the United States”
“Oh… I have a plan for that. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.”

The Register:

“Iowa lawmakers are considering changing the way the state's presidential votes are counted as part of a national effort to break from the Electoral College system.”

Is it December of 2000?

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal certainly has a strong opinion on the matter. "If states that represent a majority of electoral votes in the country pass this compact, we can get a national popular vote without Congress, without a constitutional amendment, without any of those folks."

There are several serious problems with this statement.

1. I assume Gronstal believes it to be a fantastic idea. If this is such a wonderful idea, why has it not been implemented through a Constitutional Amendment during the past 220 years?

2. As of right now, the nature of our federalist system of government gives Iowa a good amount of power (proportionally) when it comes to the Electoral College. The present system benefits smaller states, like Iowa. Why would one of our leaders want to give our state less power?

3. The essence of federalism is more power for the states. For example, if the Democratic candidate won 70% of the vote in the state of Iowa, but the Republican candidate won 53% of the vote nationwide, I firmly believe that the people of Iowa want their electoral votes to go to the Democrat, and that candidate should receive them. Why let the rest of the nation usurp our electoral rights? I’ve always felt that the candidate Iowa votes for should automatically earn our votes from Iowa.

4. If I’m not mistaken, Senator Gronstal’s statement suggests that he desires to make an end run around the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps I’m an old-fashioned pro-constitution man, but frankly, I don’t think we should ever be attempting to make an end run around our Constitution. The only reason that people don’t want to do a constitutional amendment is because they wouldn’t be able to pass it.

We already know that many ideas that are coming from the Democratic side of 1007 E. Grand are not exceptional. However, this idea is particularly unfortunate because it attempts to give the rest of the nation what we alone should have: our votes.

Stimulus Thoughts

2009-02-16T22:52:00.000-06:00

The Stimulus:

It's been a pretty big topic these past few weeks. However, one major concern is the continual and reckless expansion of the already huge federal government.

This Op-ed link outlines a couple of concerns.

First, when they say $800 billion, we should probably double it in our minds, because the Congressional Budget Office believes that, if renewed, the cost will eventually be over $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

But will it be renewed? As the author contends, it will be difficult to dismantle programs once they are firmly embedded in the massive infrastructural monstrosity that is the United States Federal Government. Which is probably why most Republicans voted against the package. Although Republicans clearly lost this battle of the bill, Congressional Republicans, by voting no, clearly realize that expanding the federal government at this particular time is not the wise move to make.

Alas...at least the effort was there.

Saturday Morning Musings

2009-02-14T09:41:00.002-06:00

A Poor Defense of Illegal Immigration

From CNN

And Father John Herman, a Roman Catholic priest whose Spanish language Masses are packed with illegal immigrants, blames the fence for more risky crossings in less-populated desert areas. “We know that the way enforcement has gone has driven many people into the desert and caused more deaths. Needless deaths. If we could only get together and work for comprehensive immigration reform.”

With all due respect Father, I’m sorry. I’m sorry that the U.S. government is not being very accommodating for those trying to come into the United States without proper documentation. Let me paraphrase Father Herman’s opinion.

“How dare you put a wall in the path of those trying to break the law! You’re forcing people to go around the wall, and that’s just silly. It’s not as though these folks have a choice!”

Father Herman makes us believe that these deaths are the fault of the American government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, any death is tragic, but if I

Drive to Nevada in August
Take a 100 mile walk through the desert
Perish in the process

I’m pretty confident that we should not and cannot blame the government. People have the right to make their own decisions. However, for those who are thinking about walking through the desert, please do not walk through the desert. Again, in the interest of avoiding needless suffering and even death, please do not walk through the desert.

If folks just follow my advice, Father Herman will be pleased...because there will no deaths in the desert, because people will not be walking through the desert.

The Unity

2009-01-22T18:07:00.003-06:00

Obviously, we've been hearing a lot about our new President and how everyone is behind him. After all, millions of people went to the Mall in D.C. to witness the historic inauguration. Certainly, the election of the first African American to the Presidency is outstanding.

However, it's important to remember that tens of millions of people voted against President Obama. While we respect his position as the chief executive, we certainly can (and will) disagree on many things.

One would not think that tens of millions of Americans had voted against the President if they watched or read the news these past few days. In fact, one might believe that the country is completely behind the President and the subsequent policies that he wishes to enact. I honestly do not remember the same honeymoon for former President Bush when he was elected twice.

Which brings me to today's cartoon.

Frankly, it speaks volumes about the past few days.

"Something will have to go"

2009-01-20T20:06:00.002-06:00

The state budget is somewhere on the order of 5% to 10% out of balance, and something will have to be cut. Where's the state legislature going to bring out the trimming shears?

A New Year

2009-01-07T22:57:00.001-06:00

The Election of 2008 has concluded, as has 2008 itself. As we enter the final year of the 00s, we’ll be saying goodbye to President Bush, and hello to President Obama. Besides the obvious switch of the political party in control of the White House, we’re going to be seeing several years where the Republican Party is in the Congressional wilderness as well.

One thing is painfully obvious: The Republican Party was crushed in the 2006 elections and soundly defeated in the 2008 elections. As such, we Republicans will begin this year looking to rebuild/rebrand or whatever you want to call what the party will be trying to do in the upcoming year(s). However, this rebuilding should NOT start from the top. We should rebuild from the bottom up. How do we do this exactly? For starters, we need to have superior local organization, among other things. Ultimately, though, we need to be able to communicate our ideas successfully to the citizens of Dallas County, the state of Iowa, and the entire United States. As conservatives, we know our ideas have merit…we know they have value…and for the most part, we know that they work.

However, let’s be honest…we’re not in charge anymore. The Democrats control:

The Presidency
The Senate
The House of Representatives
The State Senate
The State House
The Governor’s Mansion

Now, we have some fantastic Republican office holders here in Dallas County at the local level, but as for the state and national government, it’s pretty much all about the Democrats.

During this year, my posts here at 1007 E. Grand will be analyzing several things:

Legislation moving through Congress and the state House and Senate
President Obama’s ideas and policies
The re-branding of the Republican Party…and more.

2008 was a pretty rough year, all things considered. Let’s hope for a better 2009.

A New President

2009-01-06T22:53:00.002-06:00

I salute Senator Barack Obama for becoming President of the United States. I also salute Senator John McCain for his service to this nation. During the heat of the political battle, we, of course, get rather passionate, disagreeable, and downright snarky. However, it is a testament to this republic that our elections are safe and free.

Senator Obama, you have broken a huge barrier, and we wish you the best as you become this nation’s 44th president. Certainly, we will disagree (on a plethora of things), but I hope that your leadership helps our country continue down the road to prosperity and perpetual freedom.

God bless.

P.S. On a personal note, I like Barack Obama…except for his policies and ideas.

$250,000

2008-10-31T17:14:00.003-05:00

$250,000.

That's all I've heard for the past 6 weeks from Senator Obama.

$250,000.

This is the cutoff. Above it, your taxes go up. Below it, your taxes go down.

$250,000.

This is wealthy, according to Senator Obama. It's not middle class.

$250,000.

95% of Americans will get tax cuts, says the good Senator. So, I guess that only 5% of Americans make over $250,000. Okay.

$250,000.

So, I watched his Obama informercial the other night.

$200,000.

Okay. We know! We've heard you spout the same number over and over and o...(pause) Excuse me?

He dropped his number! Everyone under $200,000 will receive a tax cut? What the heck? He just dropped his number by 20%. I'm no math teacher, but it seems pretty significant, especially since he's slyly changed the number during his primetime special.

I won't say that he's a liar, by any means. It just seems as though the past six weeks he hasn't been telling us the truth about the centerpiece of his economic tax policies. I don't care for that, Senator Obama.

What can you do?

2008-10-27T23:20:00.002-05:00

So, if you're looking for something to do over the next week, the GOP could sure use some help getting out the vote. While Iowa may be lost for John McCain, unfortunately, we must remember that the down ballot races are very important.

Especially considering this poll.

Research 2000 Poll - 10/20-22. Likely voters. Margin of Error ±5%
Tom Latham (R) 47
B. Greenwald (D) 42

Now, a big concern is that Barack Obama is going to have some serious coattails in this election. Thus, Congressman Latham could potentially be in for a tight race. He really need to win this, though.

I'll be blunt. I'm not that excited about having a Democrat speak for me (or not listen to me as the case would be) in the House of Representatives. Tom Latham is the perfect representative for us here in Dallas County and the entire 4th district. He's a solid, common sense conservative.

In the words of our County GOP Chair,

"It is VERY important that we retain Congressman Latham, State Senator Behn, State Representative Watts, State Representative Tymeson and Supervisor Hanson in office"

Well stated.

Just in case we forgot...first 18 seconds of clip

2008-10-23T22:37:00.003-05:00

Sometimes we forget about these clips from the Democratic Primary...and how these opinions were coming from a woman who pretty much agrees with Senator Obama on every major issue.

As always, if you're friends say Barack is inexperienced, and your opponents say that Barack is inexperienced, he's probably inexperienced.

Saturday Morning Musings

2008-10-18T11:35:00.004-05:00

How is Barack Obama's Get Out the Vote (GOTV) Campaign going to work?

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." - Barack Obama, September 2008.

Ahh...there's nothing like the old "Get In Your Face" politics. I guess this is the "Hope" and "New Kind of Politics" that Senator Obama has been talking about since he started running for President 5 years ago. Two things.

1. I've only had a few Obama supporters get in my face, thusfar this election. Fortunately, their talking points are repetitious and overused, and thus, easy to debunk. So, it's actually been all right. It's a nice self-esteem booster for me.

2. Frankly, John McCain's message of government getting out of your face has been one that I've admired. It's very Reaganesque, i.e. government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem. However, I think that Senator Obama is going to run the government like he runs his campaign. Get in your face government!

What would this look like?

1. The 2nd Amendment

In his speech that day, Senator Obama goes onto say that the 2nd amendment will be protected under his administration. I just don't believe him though. As previously discussed in earlier entries, the justices that he would appoint would be very hostile to the 2nd amendment.

2. Federally funded abortions.

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is receiving millions of dollars from you, I, and the American people every year. Plan on the government to "Get in your face!" and take even more.

3. Finally, get in your face government overall.

The size, scope, and budget of the federal government will no doubt increase under an Obama administration. Period. Between 2009 and 2013, I guarantee you that the government, with Obama as the chief executive will be "in your face."

I can't wait!

Tax "Plan" Corollary

2008-10-16T23:17:00.002-05:00

One final note

It’s not a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes. Let’s repeat that. It’s not a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes. 44% of the people in this country do not pay income tax. Yet, Barack Obama likes to include these folks in his “95%” that he drones on and on about.

He should really take away that 44% from his fancy 95% statistic, so he’s, you know, being truthful.

Tax "Plans"

2008-10-16T21:10:00.002-05:00

I’m sorry, but we have to talk about this…because it’s why I have a big problem with Barack Obama and his tax plan.

From the Wall Street Journal

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

So, let’s be clear on this.

You’re an American with a lower income. Due to our very progressive tax system, you don’t pay income tax. However, you can receive a tax refund (oh, I’m sorry, tax credit) from the government for doing a number of things...check out the article for that list.

This is bad. The reason we complain about taxes is because we believe them to be too high. However, I’ll be blunt here. If you don’t pay income taxes, you really should NOT get a tax refund. Perhaps it’s the fair, logical bones in my body, but it’s how I feel.

Sunday Musings

2008-10-12T19:10:00.003-05:00

On occasion, something happens on the campaign trail that strikes me as curious. A couple of months ago, it was Senator Obama's campaign airplane.

This time around, my curiosity is focused on one of his posters.

First off, they are very Obama-centric (i.e. not just "Vote for Obama", but "Vote for Obama, and here's who he is in case you don't recognize him"). In recent history, it's not very common for presidential candidates to put their faces on their posters.

Second, it's curious how Senator Obama portrays himself on his own campaign posters. The posters bears a stylistic resemblance to a Che Guevara poster.

It's an odd move for someone who has been trying to:

Woo moderates
Convince independents that he's not too radical
Woo unsatisfied Republicans into his camp
Generally convince all Americans that he is not scary.

After all, according to Time Magazine, Che Guevara remains to this day a "potent symbol" of rebellion, revolution, and radicalism.

Simply a curious thing to do. Slightly concerning, but mainly curious.

What the other side is thinking

2008-10-10T09:12:00.001-05:00

One far left blogger has thrown the gauntlet down, making the following statement.

"We're going to win the White House, we're going to win big in the Senate, and we're going to rack up big gains in the House. Republicans know this and are preparing for the worst. Now think of 2004 -- we really thought Kerry was going to pull it off. Remember that? And remember how utterly devastated we were when Bush pulled it off? The pain was so much worse because we expected to win."

So with conservatives bracing for the worse, they won't experience the kind of pain we did. Not unless we deliver a defeat even worse than their worst nightmares. And I'll be honest with you -- I want them to hurt as much as we did. I want their spirits crushed, their backs broken.

So the way we do that is we deliver a defeat worse than they ever imagined. The day after the election, I want to see an electoral battlefield littered with defeated Republicans."

A couple of things about this.

First, the confidence that the far left has going into this election is insane. Keep in mind, these are people that criticized Bill Clinton for not being liberal enough. These are the folks who criticized Hillary Clinton for not being liberal enough. These are the people who are getting ready to explode with excitement that one of their own is being elected President of the United States.

While they have many reasons to be confident, the election is not over yet. I truly believe that McCain can pull this one out. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but there are still more than 3 weeks until this election. It's not over, yet.

Second, for a "tolerant" left winger, this blogger sure is intolerant....AND HATEFUL. Although, he is right about one thing. As a conservative, I'm AM really frightened, of having my spirit crushed and my back broken...but not by a McCain loss. I fear my back will be broken by excessive taxes, an activist Supreme Court, the erosion of the First and Second Amendments, and, in general, the socialist Obama Administration.

As such, I'll continue to issue the call for volunteerism. Whether it be for city, county, state, or national, I encourage you to lend a hand over the coming 4 weeks. Trust me...we really need all the help we can get. Plus, you'll want to get out and help before you're laid up with a broken back.

Sub-prime thoughts Pt. 3

2008-10-08T21:55:00.003-05:00

It appears that Senator McCain is going to continue to tell the American people how the Democratic Party is partially responsible for the economic issues of today.

The link below will take you to a slideshow with 15 slides that explains how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got off track.

It's pretty interesting, and slightly unnerving that the Democrats, i.e. the self proclaimed 2008 "Saviors of the Economy" were in on the ground floor of some nasty financial behind-the-scenes chicanery.

McCain's Fannie Mae Slideshow (via RedState)

Once you follow the link, you'll be able to click through the slideshow.

The Supreme Court: Part 9

2008-10-08T21:50:00.001-05:00

How about one more Barack Obama quote about who should be on the Supreme Court?

“We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.” Barack Obama - July 2007.

Gee, Senator Obama. It must be tough to find someone like that...who understands what it's like to be all of those things.

Well, I guess you could look to the court right now. While there are no gay or disabled justices, it seems as if most of them are rather old. Check. I will say that none of the justices have ever been young teenage moms, unless Ruth Bader Ginsburg is hiding something.

As for being poor and black, where can we find an African American who grew up rather poor, with a single mom after his dad ran away?

Ahh! We found someone! It’s Clarence Thomas! Lucky for you Senator Obama, he’s already on the court, so you don’t have to go through the trouble of nominating him.

Hold on…would you have even nominated him, Senator?

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.” – Barack Obama, August 2008

Hold on, Senator. Let’s not be hasty. Did I mention that his mother was a young teenage mom, giving birth to Justice Thomas when she was only 18 years old? That’s a good perspective to have, and it’s on your list. What about now?

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.” – Barack Obama, August 2008

Are you sure? Clarence Thomas’ mother was a young teenage mom, he was poor, and African American, and now he’s over sixty. It seems as though he has 4 of your 6 “qualifiers” for serving on the Supreme Court. Would you have at least CONSIDERED nominating him?

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.” – Barack Obama, August 2008

Oh, that’s right. You’re rhetoric is simply a bunch of nonsense. I forgot.

To reiterate what I said yesterday: I don’t trust this man’s appointments.

(Author’s note: I really got quite angry as I was writing this…rarely happens, but here we are. I really would like to say more words, that are not as kind, but that’s not what 1007 East Grand is about.)

The Supreme Court: Part 8

2008-10-07T23:16:00.000-05:00

Finally, there’s one more disturbing fact about Barack Obama’s views about the Supreme Court, and the justices that he may appoint.

Rather than using experience, intelligence, qualification, and other MEASURABLE indicators, as to whether or not someone should be nominated to the court, Barack Obama said the following:

“I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.
. . . [S]ometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.” Barack Obama - November 2007

The absurdity of this statement is off the charts. So, for Obama, pretty much all lawyers/judges/academics are out of the question, unless they’ve had life experience.

Question to Obama:
Well, what’s life experience?

Answer from the Obama Campaign
Barack Obama will tell you when the time comes.

Hmm. I don’t think I’m going to like his appointments.

Campaign Thoughts

2008-10-07T20:04:00.001-05:00

There’s no doubt that Senator Obama has run a better campaign than Senator McCain, thusfar. Fortunately, there is still about a month left to turn it around. It’ll be tough, but McCain needs to do three things:

1. Focus on Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, and Virginia. If he loses any of these states, the overall Presidential effort is futile. I’d love to think that Republicans in Iowa can get out the vote, but it’s a tough go here. Talk to your friends, make phone calls, knock on doors, and anything else you can to get people to the polls and vote for McCain.

2. Get the message out to the American people that an economy run by the Democrats would be very disastrous. In fact, there’s been an email circulating around, but it bears repeating:

At the beginning of 2007:

Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +

However, just months earlier, the Democrats ran on a platform against the President, and they took over Congress, with gusto.

What has happened over the last 18 months since the Democrats have been in charge of the budget, lawmaking, and this country's legislature?

Consumer confidence has plummeted
Gasoline is now over $3 a gallon...it's only recently come down to this level.
Unemployment is up to 5.5%
Americans have seen their home equity drop by trillions of dollars and prices are still dropping;
Tens of thousands of American homes are in foreclosure.
The Dow has reached an even more ridiculous low.
$2 trillion dollars has evaporated from their stocks, bonds, and portfolios.

Since Barack Obama is trying to pin this on President Bush and Senator McCain, the McCain campaign really needs to push back against the Democratic Party by saying, “You are culpable!”

3. Finally, deeply drive home the fact that Senator McCain is the most qualified for the job. There’s simply no doubt about it.

Do these three things, and maybe things can turn around. It’s time for a media blitz, but it’s a longshot when even Vegas has you down by a 2:1 margin.

Steak Fry!

2008-10-06T22:03:00.003-05:00

This Thursday Night (Oct. 9th) is the Dallas County Republican Annual Steak Fry.

Our speaker for the evening will be U.S. Representative Tom Latham, who has been fighting the good fight in D.C. for us in the 4th District for years. It truly is an honor for us to have the Congressman speak with us this week.

Tickets are $35, Master Griller is catering, and there's a pie auction too, so come on by.

Thursday night: 6pm in the Waukee High School Commons.

Hope to see you there!

The Supreme Court: Part 7

2008-10-06T21:48:00.004-05:00

So...let's talk about two decisions this summer:

1. The Supreme Court ruled a severe gun control law in Washington D.C. unconstitutional.
Generally, this was a conservative ruling…and it was popular.

2. The Supreme Court ruled the Louisiana death penalty for child rapists law unconstitutional.
Generally, this was a liberal ruling…and it was unpopular.

So...here are two facts about Senator Obama.

1. Senator Obama praised the first decision that struck down the restrictive gun ban. Of course, in reality, Barack Obama LOVED the law the year before. Hypocrisy…there’s no other way to put it, unfortunately.

2. Senator Obama criticized the second decision that struck down the Louisiana law. Of course, in reality, Barack Obama would love to abolish the death penalty…it’s just not politically convenient to say such a thing right now.

So, Barack Obama sided with the conservative, strict constructionists, such as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia on these couple of high profile cases. So, Senator Obama, who would you NOT nominate to the Supreme Court? Keep in mind that all 9 justices had more legal/judiciary experience when they were appointed than you have executive experience, well…right now.

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas…I don't think that he was as strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia, although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree.” – Barack Obama, August 2008.

Wow…so many words I want to say, but I think I’ll turn it over to Senator McCain. To repeat, after the 5 more liberal justices declared the Louisiana law unconstitutional, Barack Obama criticized the decision, and then McCain responded:

"Why is it that the majority (in the Louisiana case) includes the same justices he usually holds out as the models for future nominations? (Obama) may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama court." John McCain, June 2008

Booyah. And, John McCain hit the nail right on the head.

The Supreme Court: Part 6

2008-10-06T19:44:00.002-05:00

So, to continue our Supreme Court discussion, we need to discuss two more terms: Strict and Loose Constructionists. On the Supreme Court today, we have two groups.

Strict Constructionists: Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas
Loose Constructionists: Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

Anthony Kennedy is somewhere in the middle, which makes him the crucial swing vote in most 5-4 decisions. Let me share with you my opinion of these terms.

Strict Constructionist --> One who believes that the Constitution was written “for all ages.” All cases/questionable laws brought before the Supreme Court should be viewed through the lens of the actual words of the Constitution, and nothing else.

Loose Constructionist --> One who believes that the Constitution is more archaic than modern, and that it needs to “evolve” as time progresses. All cases/questionable laws brought before the Supreme Court should be viewed through not only the lens of the Constitution, but through the lens of the justice’s personal view on how the Constitution has “evolved,” and even international law. Again, how do we know the correct way in which the Constitution should “evolve?” Well, I guess we’ll just have to trust the loose constructionist.

Personally, I believe that the philosophy of loose constructionism smacks the faces all of those founding fathers who created a dynamite system of government that has lasted for 2 centuries.

Now, some might say, “But the Founding Fathers were racist, and the Constitution they created was racist! It needs to evolve!”

Indeed. The founding fathers were very racist. And the Constitution was racist. And it needed to evolve. However, there’s a right way, and there’s a wrong way.

The Right Way: Constitutional Amendments. Our Constitution is changeable, through 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. Over the years, our system has needed to evolve, and when necessary, it has.

The Wrong Way: Judicial Activism and Loose Constructionism. A justice feels very strongly about something, and so they twist the words of the Constitution, incorporate their own opinion, look at laws from outside of the United States, and make a decision that suits them.

This is simply dangerous. Here’s an example.

Now, here in Iowa, we do not have the death penalty on the books. However, more than 30 states do. Earlier this decade, Louisiana created a law that allowed the death penalty for child rapists. It was challenged in court, and with the 4 loose constructionists, plus Kennedy in the majority, the Supreme Court invalidated the law. Now, if they had looked at the U.S. Constitution as the LONE basis of their opinion, that would be fine. However, they did NOT.

John Paul Stevens, Supreme Court liberal loose constructionist since 1975, said the following in this high profile decision.

“I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty (is unconstitutional).”

Justice Scalia, in response, said,

“Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat.”

Well said, Scalia. Let me repeat that Stevens' quote one more time, in case you missed it.

“I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty (is unconstitutional).”

Your experience? You’re one man! And you’re not greater than the Constitution. In essence, a Supreme Court justice pretty much said, “Look. I know that we’re supposed to look at the Constitution as our only guide. However, I don’t care. I really don’t like the death penalty, and through my own experiences, I say it’s unconstitutional.”

Now, I don’t question Stevens’ intelligence, although some may. Gerald Ford called him a brilliant jurist. However, this opinion is simply absurd.

And that is loose constructionism for you: Absurd.

By the way, Obama is just itching to nominate a loose constructionist in the mold of John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. We should try and stop him.