Primary Source

Ten Years Later: Looking Back and Moving Forward

2011-09-11T11:04:00.003-04:00

Every time that the calendar flips to September 11, we take a moment to look back at the tragic events of that infamous day in 2001. As we look back, we remember not just the struggle of that day, but the countless examples of heroism and courage that we witnessed. We remember how we all united and stood strong together. This year, though, as a decade has passed and our world has changed, we have a particularly welcome opportunity to look forward. Ten years ago, Osama bin Laden became the face of the Islamic faith. For nearly ten years, he became a symbol of intolerance, hatred, and extremism that was unfairly linked to an entire religion. Today, though, is the first September 11th in which Osama bin Laden’s face is no longer on our Earth. And, as fate would have it, at the same time he was killed, myriads of new faces emerged to represent the Muslim world. The Arab Spring began in spring of 2011, as thousands – perhaps millions – of young Muslims took to the streets in a revolutionary spirit to tackle tyranny. Within a matter of months, the face of the Muslim world changed. Members of a religion that was marred by terrorism and oppression suddenly were fighting against terrorism and oppression. Yes, the part year marked a changing point for the Middle East and for the world. Here in America, it has been a decade since we lost our innocence. Children are entering our school system who were not even born on September 11. We are drawing troops down in the war on terror, and changing our approach to the remaining global threat. Perhaps the greatest thing to see is the work being done in New York City. In the place that the Twin Towers stood, there is an even larger building that is being erected. This tower is a symbol to the world: If you knock us down, we won’t just recover; we will rise up stronger than ever.

Thoughts on Bloomberg's exclusion of Prayer at The 9/11 Memorial Service

2011-09-04T09:29:00.003-04:00

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced last week that there will be no “clergy-led” prayer at the September 11th memorial. The decision was made not only because of the issue of prayer alone, but the issue of appeasing all religions and not showing favoritism towards one.

This decision is a terrible one for a host of reasons. Most importantly, to deny prayer a place in the memorial service is to deny the events of September 11, 2001. As the towers fell and Americans were in a state of panic, they prayed. We’ve seen images of people banning together to pray in the streets of New York. When the rest of America returned home at night, many of them prayed with their families. Millions of Americans attended vigils at their places of worship during the evening. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani asked for people’s prayers, and President Bush ended his evening address with a bible verse.

The fact of the matter is that when millions of Americans could have turned to fear, they turned to God. I remember as a child on September 11th, feeling safe for two reasons: The might of our military and the faith in God that I witnessed around me. And as America healed, America prayed. You simply cannot recall the events of that terrible day without including the role that faith played. Whether or not you believe that there is a God who had a hand in America’s recovery, you cannot deny that millions of Americans do believe in God and did turn to Him as they healed. Simply put, you can deny the existence of God, but you can’t deny the existence of faith, and the role that faith played in the healing of America.

Additionally, as America continues to heal from the tragedy of September 11, there has been an important effort to protect and maintain the dignity of all religions in our country. With the controversies surrounding the mosque near ground zero, and with an emerging debate about the role of Shariah Law in America, many fear that that we may be taking a step backwards in terms of religious tolerance. Rather than ban prayer, Bloomberg should have brought all faiths together to pray. He could have united the faiths of America on one stage, for one event, for one prayer. It would be a symbolic gesture to the world – a renewal of the tagline that defined post-9/11 America, “United We Stand.”

The Pros and Cons of the Late Entry

2011-08-16T08:23:00.000-04:00

Since Rick Perry announced that he was going to run for president, conservative and liberal activists have been dissecting his record. Many of them have not liked what they have found. This got me thinking, “Was it a good strategy for him to wait so long to get into the race?”

For starters, I take Perry at his word that he did not want to run for president when this race started. So, the speculation of what the best path to the presidency would be may be a moot point. However, for the sake of future campaigns it’s worth examining the strategy of the late entrance.

There’s a clear positive result to entering the race this late. For three months, conservatives have been waiting for a candidate to come in and save the primary. Unsatisfied with the current field, Republicans have been waiting for an outsider to come in and fire up the Party. Because of this, a late entrance from Perry immediately makes him one of the favorites for the nomination. If he had simply entered the race back in March or April, his name recognition would have been low and he may have been in the middle of the pack. Surely, he would fundraise well and move upwards, but he still would have started in single digits. By entering late, Perry was able to boost his name recognition without spending money, and was able to capture the title of “savior” before he announced his campaign.

There are some significant problems with the late entrance. If Perry had low name recognition and entered the race in April, there would have been an examination of his record at that time. The press would have found the bad spots in his record and would have reported on it, but none of the other candidates for the nomination would have. The Democrats would have put out an initial press release attacking Perry as a right-wing extremist, but wouldn’t have done much more. As Perry inevitably rose in the polls, the criticism would grown, but it would come out in small waves rather than the tidal wave we have seen over the past three days.

Since Perry announced his candidacy on the unofficial begin of the “real” campaign, in a span from Saturday to Monday people were overwhelmed with dozens of different criticisms of the Perry administration. They learned that he signed an executive order mandating that all girls be given HPV vaccine. They learned that he supported Al Gore in 1988. They learned that he was a bad student in college. From the left, he was criticized by people who claimed he didn’t deserve credit for the job creation in his state. As New Hampshire Young Republican Brinck Slattery said on his facebook page, “I feel like I’ve learned everything about Rick Perry in just two days – good and bad.”

Additionally, the other candidates in the race already have a loyal following – no matter how large or small. If Perry had entered the race early, he would have faced a field in which almost all Republican activists were still undecided. Instead, he enters a field in which a large chunk of the conservative base has already chosen a candidate, and they will go to great lengths to defend their candidate. So, as this immediate onslaught of negative information comes out, Perry doesn’t just have to face media scrutiny – he has thousands of Republican activists working against him. Rather than having these people defending his record, as they would have early on, he faced a large chunk of the GOP that wants to destroy him.

Within the next month or so, all of the legitimate criticisms of Rick Perry will be brought to the forefront of the political world. How he handles the criticism will determine whether he gets the nomination.

Ames Wrap-up

2011-08-14T16:28:00.000-04:00

After the Ames Straw Poll this weekend, there are some serious shuffles in the campaign for the Republican nomination for President. Here’s my take, candidate by candidate:

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney remains the front-runner in the race for the GOP nomination. He had a solid debate performance before “Ames” and his biggest critic is now out of the race. However, Michele Bachmann continues to rise and will likely fully eclipse him in Iowa polls within the next couple of weeks. With Ames behind him, he has to start putting a ground team together for January’s Caucus, and he needs to keep pushing hard in New Hampshire. Lastly, he has to prepare to the attacks that Bachmann and Perry will hit him with soon.

Michele Bachmann: She is riding high right now. She almost single-handedly knocked Tim Pawlenty out of the race and won the Ames Straw Poll. Her fundraising and credibility will see a boost over the next week. There may be trouble on the horizon for her, though. There’s a new Anti-Romney person out there, and he’s as strong of a social conservative as she is, and he’s got executive experience. Rick Perry will take votes from her. Additionally, Rick Santorum’s emergence over the past few days will also take a few points away from her. She may pick up some Pawlenty supporters to outweigh those losses, though.

Rick Perry: He’s finally in. The upside: He can start raising money and really getting his name out there. He can start campaigning. The downside: Here comes the vetting. In the coming weeks, Rick Perry’s name will be dragged through the mud by the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, and his primary opponents. There are two possible results: He emerges unscathed as a frontrunner for the nomination, or he fails to adequately defend himself and becomes the Fred Thompson of the 2012 election. This is a guy with a strong record, a ton of experience, and the “it” factor that the race has been missing. He’s likely going to be a force to reckon with in this primary process.

Rick Santorum: Outside of Michele Bachmann, he did more than any other candidate to help his cause this weekend. With Pawlenty out, Santorum is the 3rd-place winner in Iowa and finishes up a strong month of campaigning in that state. He’s got a legitimate ground came in that caucus state, and still has some grassroots support in New Hampshire. Early in the process, people in the early primary states recognized that Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum were the two people who cared most about New Hampshire. This could lead to some Pawlenty supporters flocking his way. He could use the extra hands. Two weeks ago, no one knew who he was. Now, he’s a legitimate candidate for president.

Newt Gingrich: He did poorly in the Straw Poll. If he’s going to make a move, it’s got to be soon.

Herman Cain: No one seems to care very much anymore. He was entertaining for a while, but there’s not much there.

Ron Paul: He’s still Ron Paul. He needed first place if he was going to get real credibility. He still can make a push, though.

Jon Huntsman: He’s happy the Straw Poll is over, because he wants the focus on New Hampshire. He has a real chance in the Granite State, and continues to work hard to get the independent Republican votes.

Tim Pawlenty: He’s a wonderful man and a strong conservative, and it was kind of sad to see him quit his presidential run. Is there anyone better positioned to take on Al Franken in 2014?

Potential Problems for Romney

2011-08-14T16:02:00.001-04:00

During the 2008 election, when it became clear that John McCain and Mitt Romney were going to be the frontrunners for the GOP nomination, it also became increasingly clear that the rest of the field was rooting for McCain. Rudolph Giuliani declared that if he wasn’t a candidate himself, he’d be endorsing McCain. Mike Huckabee said, “If anyone in this race knows the word ‘honor’, it’s John McCain.” Huckabee also took relentless shots at Mitt Romney throughout the campaign, while leaving John McCain largely unscathed. As candidates began to drop out, many of them endorsed McCain. Additionally, they all seemed to view Mitt Romney with some bit of animosity.

Tim Pawlenty’s exit from the race today reminded me of this fact. As this race goes on, candidates who drop off will still play a pivotal role. Hard-working New Hampshire activists like Jennifer Horn, Linda Twombly, and Sean Van Anglen are now looking for a new candidate, and Pawlenty will play a major role in who that candidate is. If he harbors the same feelings toward Romney that the field did in 2008, he could really make a difference by backing Rick Perry early-on (I wouldn’t hold my breath for an endorsement of Bachmann).

Romney also has a lot to worry about as far as Rick Perry’s announcement. Many activists, like me, have seen him as an inevitable frontrunner. Many of the old-time party faces and moderates cringe at the thought of a Bachmann nomination, which has increased the notion of Romney’s inevitability.

Perry’s entrance immediately ends that notion. And so, many voters who were reluctantly moving toward Romney have now stopped in their tracks. There’s no reason for anyone to hold their nose any longer. Granted, Romney is still a strong candidate, a great speaker, and the smoothest person in this race. He has a loyal following. But many people speculate that he has reached his peak in the polls, and if Perry or Bachmann passes him he will be in serious trouble.

Don't Mess With Bachmann

2011-08-14T15:42:00.001-04:00

If any lesson is clear from Governor Tim Pawlenty’s announcement this morning, it’s this: Don’t mess with Bachmann. Early in the race, when Governor Pawlenty was largely considered the #2 man in the Republican race for president, Michele Bachmann leapfrogged him with ease. Since then, he continued to trail and she continued to move upward.

It took her just one debate to become the anti-Romney candidate that conservatives had been waiting for. She snatched that role from Pawlenty on the day she announced her candidacy on live television.

Then, last Thursday, a desperate Pawlenty tried to gain ground and take her head-on. He said that she had a “non-existent” list of accomplishments during her time in the U.S. House. In response, she pummeled Pawlenty on his record and completely turned the tables. Although her attacks were completely false, they stuck. On the most important night of Pawlenty’s campaign, his offensive was stopped by the first commercial break.

The next few weeks will be interesting. Bachmann is establishing herself as the anti-Romney candidate, and has easily defeated the person who was once the only clear challenger to that role. She delivered a solid one-two punch to Pawlenty and also one-upped Ron Paul in the Straw Poll this week. She still has a long way to go, but Michele Bachmann made one thing very clear: She’s here to stay.

It will be interesting to see where her campaign goes from here. There’s a new anti-Romney candidate in the race, and he is a ruthless campaigner and a favorite of social conservatives. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the gloves come off very soon.

There's Something About Perry

2011-08-14T09:27:00.002-04:00

There’s simply something about Rick Perry. He’s got a commanding presence. He draws people in and captures their attention. This is an element that has been greatly missing from the race for the Republican nomination so far.

It’s difficult to put a finger on exactly what makes Perry special. He is a talented orator, but he’s no Barack Obama. He’s solid at answering questions, but he’s not terribly impressive. He has effective policy positions, but nothing that’s very revolutionary. Perhaps Rick Perry is the perfect combination of simplicity and extravagance, two words that haven’t been combined in such a commanding fashion since Sarah Palin took the national stage in 2008.

When you watch Rick Perry, you see nothing but extravagance. He’s a buff, good-looking man with “perfect hair.” He wears big gold cuff links, and his fingers are covered with giant golden rings. His pants are held up by a belt that’s filled with silver notches. He is the personification of the term, “Everything’s bigger in Texas.”

When he speaks, though, there’s a sense of simplicity. He talks a lot about common sense. He preaches common values. And as he makes his speeches, he doesn’t use a teleprompter – he actually looks people in the eye. Look closely, and you can see him actually connect with people. He nods; he points; he winks.

And there are certain times in his speeches that Governor Perry can combine the energy and simplicity. It is in these moments that his Presidential campaign will be made. On multiple occasions last night, he would deliver a strong line, pump a fist with his large hands, or wave his arms toward the crowd. He takes his simple message and elevates it, sweeping loud applause across the crowd.

It’s not easy to say what makes Rick Perry so commanding, but it is easy to see that he is going to have a major impact on this nominating process.

Chris Crawford is chairman of The New Hampshire Conservative Future PAC. He has not endorsed any candidates for the Republican Nomination for president.

Debate Wrap-up: Eventful Night, Santorum Wins

2011-08-12T00:11:00.002-04:00

When we look at tonight’s Ames debate, there are a few major themes: The emerge of Senator Rick Santorum, Governor John Huntsman and Speaker Newt Gingrich, the solidifying of Bachmann and Romney, and a new low for Governor Tim Pawlenty.

I’ll analyze, candidate by candidate:

Going into the debate, Tim Pawlenty was the candidate to watch. He has had a rough couple of months on the campaign trail, and has a lot riding on the Straw Poll this weekend. He passed an opportunity to hit Romney in the first debate, so debate viewers were watching for a confrontation this time around. In order for Pawlenty to gain traction, he would have to tear Bachmann and Romney down a notch.
The former Minnesota Governor was aggressive out of the gate. First, he took a folksy shot at Barack Obama and a side-swipe at Mitt Romney. The joke, however, didn’t seem to go over well with the audience.
He took solid shots at Michele Bachmann, but she was prepared for them. She slapped down his attack and went completely on the offensive, saying that he had a record that “sounds like Barack Obama”. The attack simply didn’t stick, and she defeated him in the back-and-forth.
On the issue of healthcare, Pawlenty did go after Romney this time. He was fairly effective, but Romney didn’t engage and remained above the fray. The confrontation, if we can even call it that, will go unremembered by debate viewers.
It would be a stretch to say that the Pawlenty campaign ended tonight. But if his campaign can’t pull together a top four finish on Saturday, he could be in serious trouble.

Governor Mitt Romney looks more presidential than anyone he shares the stage with. He was the smoothest candidate on the stage, and showed a calm, commanding demeanor tonight. He solidified his place as the frontrunner by side-stepping attacks and staying above the fray. However, he runs the risk of being boring, and also has to be careful that he doesn’t sidestep too many questions. Also, it’s time to ditch the 7-step plan to a better economy. No voter will remember all seven points.

Similar to Governor Romney, Michele Bachmann solidified her place as a frontrunner in tonight’s debate. When Tim Pawlenty went after her on the issue of “results”, I thought she was going to take a hit. Instead, she pummeled Pawlenty on his record. It was like watching a boxing match in which the first boxer lands one solid punch, and the second immediately responds with a flurry of effective blows.
She was called out by numerous candidates tonight, and she handled it fairly well. She was strong where she needed, and relaxed when necessary. Perhaps her best answer was her answer regarding her relationship with her husband. Even doubters like me are starting to recognize that Bachmann will be a force throughout this primary. If she edges out Ron Paul in the Straw Poll this weekend, she could inch toward Romney in the national polls.

Speaking of Ron Paul, there isn’t much to say. On foreign policy, he disagrees with almost everyone with which he shares the stage. It was like a replay of the 2008 debates, with the entire field attacking Paul as weak and irrational. While many Tea Partiers have joined Paul’s side on foreign policy, most of us don’t understand why complaining that we “started it” in Iran in 1958 should prevent us from stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon in 2011. Whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul on the issues, he looked like an angry old geezer on occasion tonight.

Herman Cain is beginning to lose traction. The field is too busy for him to get much recognition, and his entertainment value has gone down. However, he put together another strong debate performance enough. His answers on taxes and energy provide a clear vision for the country.

Jon Huntsman looked very comfortable in his first GOP Presidential debate. To voters who were just tuning in for the first time, they saw a confident, highly-intelligent person who has pragmatic ideas. He positioned himself as the moderate intellectual in tonight’s debate, which is consistent with his campaign’s message. If he is as strong on the campaign trail in New Hampshire as he was on the stage in Iowa tonight, he could make a real run at the primary.

Speaker Newt Gingrich finally showed some signs of life at tonight’s debate. He did a fantastic, necessary take-down of Chris Wallace early in the debate. There’s not much that GOP primary voters like more than a healthy take down of unfair moderators. Throughout the debate, Gingrich showed signs off annoyance and anger – feelings that Americans deeply share with him. Additionally, he was able to share some of his common sense ideas for the future of America. For voters who like Gingrich but doubt his ability to win, tonight was a comforting night. I would suspect that he gets a solid boost in upcoming polls.

Perhaps the biggest winner of the night was Rick Santorum. Santorum did not get a fair amount of speaking time, but he made up for it in the short time that he did have. He took solid shots at Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul regarding their interpretation of the 10th Amendment. This was important for two reasons: First, he challenged a front-runner to boost himself. Second, the person who takes on Ron Paul on foreign policy is the person who emerges strongest in a debate. (i.e. Rudy Giuliani in the first SC debate in 2008)
There was another way that Santorum helped his cause tonight. He gave the strongest answers on social issues. His response to the pro-life question was one of the boldest pro-life statements ever made in presidential debate history. His response to the question of marriage was the strongest stand of anyone on the stage. Michele Bachmann has sprung into the forefront of this race because she has been seen as THE social conservative in this race. Tonight, Rick Santorum may have snagged that title from her. He will surely see a boost in his poll numbers – at least in Iowa – in upcoming polls.
Additionally, there is a low level of expectation for Santorum in Saturday’s Straw Poll. If he can pull out a surprise third or fourth place, he could see a small boost in the polls and a boost in fundraising.

I'm sick of this can

2011-08-11T07:15:00.001-04:00

I’m sure I’m not the only one sick of the “kick the can down the road” metaphor that politicians love to use. Even more sickening is the fact that these politicians still refuse to stop kicking that can. No matter how tirelessly they use the metaphor, they can’t possibly find a way to pick up the can and solve our problems.

The latest budget and debt deals exemplify everything that is wrong with Washington. When the nation needed a budget, our so-called leaders waited until a government shut down loomed to take action. When we needed a deal on our debt ceiling, they waited until the eleventh hour to come together to pass one of the poorest excuses for a solution that I’ve seen in my short lifetime. They continuously wait until their backs are against the wall, and then make a deal that doesn’t solve the problem.

If you look at the chart of our projected spending before and after the debt ceiling deal, they match almost exactly. The supposed $800+ billion in cuts next year are offset by an $800+ billion increase in discretionary spending. And sure, statements like “We cut $2 trillion” sound good at first glance, but when you consider that this is over a ten-year period where the debt will actually continue to grow, you realize that it’s the equivalent of Chris Farley proudly announcing, “I lost five pounds this decade.” Sure, big boy, it’s a start. But you’ve got a long way to go.

Earlier this year, S&P announced that if we didn’t cut $4 trillion from our debt, our credit would be downgraded. The Treasury Secretary said there is “no risk” that the U.S. would lose our AAA credit rating. He was wrong.

We were promised that this debt deal would avoid catastrophes. We were told that we had to pass the deal or the stock market would crash, and we were told that we needed to pass the deal or we would lose our credibility. What’s happened in the days since the deal passed? Our stock market had its biggest drop since the entire financial system collapsed in 2008. And for the first time in American history, our credit rating has been downgraded to AA+.

Sure, it’s not as bad as defaulting on our debt. But these are disastrous developments of historic proportion.

And how did the White House respond to this horrific news? They didn’t respond by calling for larger spending cuts. They didn’t call for entitlement reform. Instead, they chose to doubt S&P’s credibility. For the umpteenth time since taking office, the President has chosen to play the blame game rather than tackle the challenges facing our country.

Washington has failed us again. Their “monumental” deal simply keeps us on the track toward disaster. They refused once again to take on the difficult issues facing our country. For the second time this year, Washington has faced an opportunity to fundamentally change our trajectory, and they have refused to do so. For my generation, every day that goes by is another toward the day of reckoning that today’s Washington has guaranteed us.

Once again, our politicians continue to put one foot in their mouth and the other on the metaphorical can in the road.

Can someone, please, pick up the damn can?

Promises To Keep

2011-08-11T07:14:00.000-04:00

Originally Written July 2, 2011

Every election cycle, the electorate is faced with a field of candidates who promise “a new direction” and “an end to politics as usual.” After electing these candidates, the American people are continuously disappointed as their representatives go to Washington and are trapped into the same old partisan bickering and refusal to solve problems. The McCain mantra of, “We promised to change Washington and allowed Washington to change us” rings true for far too many in Washington.

It was a little over a year ago that then- Attorney General Kelly Ayotte began airing television ads, all of which had the same message, “Stop the spending.” Her campaign was based on a promise to go to Washington, shake up business as usual, and stop the runaway spending that threatens future generations.

New Hampshire voters, in their trademark skepticism that makes them deserving of the First in the Nation Primary, have been watching Senator Ayotte like a hawk. Sure, conservatives voted for her and helped her win, but they would surely mount a primary challenge if she deviated from her message and refused to follow through on her promises.

Fortunately for all involved, Sen. Ayotte has not only voted the way she said she would, she has stepped up as a fresh leader in the U.S. Senate. She is one of the Senate’s leading voices for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and she used her maiden floor speech to highlight the need to get our fiscal house in order.

Earlier this week, from the back corner of the Senate Chamber, a group of freshmen Senators called for the U.S. Senate to stay in session next week, saying that they did not deserve a recess until a budget was passed and a deal on the debt ceiling was reached. In a town where the name of the game is “Go along to get along”, it was inspiring to see a group of freshmen step up and demand change.

In what was her best floor speech of her young term, Senator Ayotte chastised Majority Leader Harry Reid for saying that passing a budget would be “foolish.” She talked about how eager she was to roll up her sleeves and pass a budget. And, just a day after the president went on an all-out attack against Republicans, Ayotte delivered some harsh criticism back at him.

A day after the President invoked the names of his children numerous times in a press conference, and condescendingly compared the Congress to those children, Senator Ayotte called him out, saying, “I’m the mother of two children. I know that the president mentioned his children yesterday, but if you care about our children, and the future of this country, we owe it to our children to not continue to kick the can down the road.”

In an impassioned speech, she went on to ask the question, “Why aren’t we rolling up our sleeves right now, Mr. President?”

After the president’s lecture on “getting to work”, he took a flight to Camp David for a short, restful vacation. Sen. Ayotte took to the Senate floor to fight for her constituents.

There are some people who think a verbal promise of change is enough. There are others who understand that meaningful change in America has always meant rolling up your sleeves and working hard.

There are some people who approach public service from the perspective of a lecturer, and others who approach it as a tireless prosecutor.

There are some people who make promises and fail to deliver on them, and there are others who have the New Hampshire spirit of making “promises to keep.”

RIP, Walter Peterson

2011-08-11T07:13:00.000-04:00

Originally Written June 2, 2011:

Three years ago, while I was at the Republican National Convention, I approached an older gentleman by the "New Hampshire" sign on the floor of the Excel Center. I asked if he was a delegate, and he smiled at me and said, "Yes." He was very gracious and we chatted for a few minutes.

The next morning, someone addressed the same man was "Governor Peterson" at the New Hampshire delegate breakfast. Embarrassed, I approached the Governor during the breakfast and said, "I can't believe I didn't know who you were. You were a little bit before my time, but I still should have known who you were."

He smiled at me with a twinkle in his eye and said, "That and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee. I'm before EVERYBODY's time!" He laughed and asked me to take a seat as we talked for a few more minutes.

I share this story this morning because it shows the character of Governor Peterson: Kind, humble, and friendly. Peterson was a dedicated servant to the state of New Hampshire and an inspiration to young conservatives across the state. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who mourn this loss. Governor Peterson will be missed.

Letter to the Lilac Luncheon

2011-08-11T07:12:00.000-04:00

Originally written May 21, 2011

Earlier today, The Lilac Luncheon, the annual gathering of NH Republican Women, was held. I meant to bring this letter to distribute at the event, but am in New York for my brother's graduation from Manhattan College. However, I still wanted to share the following words. Please spread them to anyone you think would be interested:

Ladies of the Lilac Luncheon,

I wanted to share a few words with you all to thank you for all that you do for the conservative moment in New Hampshire. As a young person just getting my start in politics, I draw a lot of insight from all of you.

I have learned early on that you do not have to be a woman to be inspired by one. My first experience with a woman in politics was during my time as the student member on the Nashua Board of Education. I had expected long, boring meetings about district policy with a bunch of boring old men with a distant idea of how the school district operated. I never expected to meet someone like Sandra Ziehm.

During my year on the board, I learned countless lessons from Mrs. Ziehm. Through her words and actions, Mrs. Ziehm taught me the meaning of compassionate conservatism. She taught me to question the facts and search for the truth. She taught me the importance of standing by your principles and standing up for what you believe in. And whether she was passing out Butterfingers during meetings, cracking self-deprecating jokes during debate, or taking the time to compliment her fellow Board members, Mrs. Ziehm taught me that politics can be an enjoyable endeavor. When I first saw Mrs. Ziehm, she was a stranger. Then she was a fellow Board Member. Over time, she became a political ally. Now, I am honored to call her my friend.

As I recount my experiences in politics, I’m reminded that I’ve made a lot of friends and have been inspired by a lot of women in New Hampshire politics. It was inspiring to volunteer next to people with the work ethic of Linda Twombly and Susan Carroll. It was inspiring to intern in Senator Kelly Ayotte’s office, where I was struck every day by the senator’s professionalism, her genuine nature, and her ability to tackle tough challenges. As a staffer for Bob Giuda’s 2010 Congressional campaign, it was always fun to compete against this year's "Woman of the Year", Jennifer Horn. And, of course, all of us at the New Hampshire Conservative Future PAC have been inspired by the great deal of help we have been given by New Hampshire conservative icons Liz Christofferson, Karen Testerman, and Nancy Elliott.

The stereotype that the Republican Party is the party of old men could not be more off base than it is in New Hampshire. When we look at our grassroots Teenage Republican groups in Nashua, they are both run by wonderful women.

From Mayor Donnalee Lozeau, to State Representative Jeanine Notter, to U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, every level of government is full of women conservative leaders. On a daily basis, they are standing up for liberty, defending the unborn, and working for a better future for my generation and beyond. It is often said that women are the heart of the conservative movement, but it is also true that you are the feet that keep it moving, the hands that keep it working, and the brain that keeps it running.

For all that you’ve done for me, and for all that you do for your communities on a daily basis, thank you and may God bless you.

Sincerely,

Christopher Crawford
Chairman, The New Hampshire Conservative Future PAC
(603)508-1359
nhcfpac@gmail.com

NHCF: Stop Kuster....Again

2011-08-11T07:10:00.000-04:00

Originally written March 2011

As we look forward to the 2012 election, the focus will undoubtedly be on the presidential election. Here in New Hampshire, though, our mission is much larger. In 2010, we were instrumental in the Republican Revolution. We flipped two U.S. House seats and created veto-proof majorities in our state government. After a long drought, we have put our nation and our state back on the path of fiscal sanity.

You know how we did it because you were a large part of it. We knocked on doors, we made phone calls, we talked to our neighbors, because we understood how much was at stake.

The good news is that in 2010 our hard work paid off. The bad news is that the work in 2012 will be even harder.

Annie McLane Kuster’s announcement yesterday shows that the 2012 campaign has already begun. In the last election, she raised millions of dollars through grassroots campaigning. She had enough money to win the 2012 election because she announced early and was a skilled campaigner. There was one thing that stopped her: You.

You remember her big-spending fiscal agenda and radical social agenda. You remember the opening line of her stump speech: “I want to help Barack Obama change the United States.” And you obviously remember that she is not only a staunch supporter of Obamacare, she thinks it did not go far enough.

There are no breaks in the fight for liberty. Patriots do not rest. While the official campaigns are still many months away, the simple tasks of researching facts and talking to our neighbors must start immediately. You were the ones who stopped Kuster in 2010, and it’s up to you to stop her again.

The 2012 congressional campaign may seem likes it’s off in the distant future, but it’s never too early to work for the future. That’s our belief at The New Hampshire Conservative Future PAC. It’s in our name, and it’s in our work.

Why We Danced

2011-08-11T07:09:00.003-04:00

Originally Written May 3, 2011. Also appeared in the Concord Monitor.

When I walked past the White House yesterday, there was no sign that there had been a celebration there the night before. Indeed, the nation has sobered up to the fact that Osama bin Laden has been killed. And over the course of the past few days, many people have lambasted those of us who took to the streets in celebration, who sang our country’s national anthem outside the White House, and who were euphoric at bin Laden’s death. Some have called us inhumane, some have called us disrespectful, and some have gone as far as to call us disgusting. Let me take a minute to explain why we did it:

Nine-and-a-half years ago, I was sitting in a fourth grade classroom the day after going to a Backstreet Boys concert, eating Yodels during snack time. Our school’s secretary walked in and asked my teacher to speak with her next door. When she returned, she was white as a ghost but acted like everything as all right. In the hours that unfolded, we learned.

There are no words hyperbolic enough to describe the horror of that day. For my generation, the attack was not just the murder of our countrymen. It was the first act of war that we had witnessed in our lifetime. On September 11, 2001, we lost our innocence as a generation. From that day forward, we have not known a single day of peace.

In the weeks that followed, Osama bin Laden’s face became as engraved in our young minds as the images of the burning Twin Towers. We were told on a nearly non-stop basis that this was the man who orchestrated the attacks, and that he would try to attack us again. We saw him go on television and vow to kill us. What developed in our minds was not an “enemy combatant,” it was a nightmarish villain that rivaled the bad guys we had seen in the movies.

Over the past ten years, as a nation we have obviously thought less and less about Osama bin Laden. To policy makers, bin Laden became a more distant thought as we dismantled the Taliban and dethroned Saddam Hussein. To us, he remained a figure that represented the fear that we lived with every day.

It’s been a difficult decade for the United States. The 9/11 attacks started off a decade that saw two wars and the greatest economic collapse since The Great Depression. After an era that was known as “The American Century”, many people have been expecting the decline of American Exceptionalism.

The very idea of American Exceptionalism has become a foreign concept. While we remain the greatest nation on Earth, there are still so many people hurting that our dominance is fading. Americans have been craving something to believe in for the better part of the past decade, and we elected a president largely because of his slogan of “Hope.”

Indeed, our Patriotism was truly born in the weeks after September 11, 2001 and many members of my generation have struggled to keep it growing. Americans young and old have been looking for something to believe in.

On Sunday night, when it was announced that President Obama would make an emergency speech on the subject of national security, our imaginations traveled back to September 11th as we wondered what was going on. We feared the worst.

When the news finally broke that Osama bin Laden had died, our first emotion was relief – not because he was dead, but because we hadn’t suffered anotherattack. Then, it started to sink in, and that is when relief really began to overcome us. Whether rational or irrational, it was like watching the end of a Disney movie. The object of our childhood fear - the man who introduced us to terror - would never orchestrate an act of terror again. The Bad Guy lost.

It had been said that we would never catch Osama bin Laden, and had even been said that he was already dead. The news that he had been killed by United States forces once again filled us with pride for our country. Ten long years ago, George W. Bush stood on the rubble of Ground Zero and vowed, “They’re going to hear from us real soon.” Our Armed Forces stormed into the Middle East with the mission of bringing al Quaeda to justice. At long, long, last, justice had been served. We are not naïve enough to think that this is an end to the war, but we know that this was a huge victory – both symbolically and logistically.

We donned the colors of Old Glory and rushed into the streets to join with other members of our generation. At first, we celebrated the fact that bin Laden would never harm us again. We finally had something to believe in. Our military’s might had been shown once more. Our intelligence agencies proved their ability. This was a celebration that was 10 years in the making.

Many of us also celebrated for another reason, too. We basically celebrated the fact that we were all celebrating. Our generation has not had a defining moment to celebrate our nation, other than perhaps the election of Barack Obama. This was a victory for America. We didn’t care the political ideology, the race, or the religion of the people around us. We were hugging our friends and high-fiving strangers. We sang “God Bless America,” “America the Beautiful,” and “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”. It was the cheesy Americana that you see in the movies. This was not just about the death of an enemy; it was about the fact that we could celebrate our nation together. The “United We Stand” mentality of the weeks after September 11th was alive and well.

Those who say that we shouldn’t be celebrating the death of a fellow human being have a good point. Death and war are not to be glorified by decent human beings. But the death of Osama bin Laden is a step toward peace and a step toward the winding down of the War On Terror. Because of the fact that these battles are being fought halfway across the world, people seem to forget that we are living in a war. In war, victory is celebrated.

I can stomach the argument that we shouldn’t glorify war or celebrate death. I can understand the point that chanting, “U-S-A” in the streets may enflame anti-American sentiment among terrorists and those who don’t understand the context. What I cannot stomach is being called heartless, disgusting, or inhumane for celebrating this victory – especially by people who understand the situation.

On September 11, 2001, when we were huddled with classmates in elementary schools, my generation learned our first lesson in Patriotism while mourning the tragic loss of thousands of our countrymen. Last Sunday, this Patriotism kindled in our hearts once again as we joined our college classmates in the streets to celebrate. Call me radical, but I still think a victory of good vs. evil is something to celebrate.

Live From DC - Jubilation

2011-08-11T07:09:00.001-04:00

Originally written May 2, 2011:

When I got out of 10:00 mass at St. Stephen’s Parish in Washington, D.C., I had a text message from Melissa Fernandez.

It read, “The president it [sic] making an emergency speech right now….They say it’s going to be really dramatic.”

Vince Nordin, who came with me to Mass for the first time this year, said, “It’s probably nothing.”

Naturally, I panicked. I thought, “What could be this important? Was there an attack or a disease outbreak that no one in the press had known about? What if there’s a meteor on its way toward us?”

I thought aloud to Vince and he said, again, “No, seriously, it’s nothing. Relax.”

We rushed into Madison Hall and ran out of the elevator. Vince had to pee, but I was just really excited. I burst through the door and looked at the TV. I saw Wolf Blitzer’s face and the bottom line that said, “OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD”.

My heart pounded. I looked at the rest of the room and let out a yell for joy. Tyler McAfee called me and we went crazy on the phone.

Friends from our floor crowded into the room and waited for Obama’s speech. Ed Hendry appeared outside the White House and said, “There is a crowd forming outside. There are about 30 or 40 people. They are chanting “U-S-A and singing The National Anthem.” Little did he know, the crowd would grow to thousands within just a couple of hours.

Next, Wolf Blitzer appeared and said that the president would not be speaking for another 20 minutes. I played “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue,” by Toby Keith and shortly thereafter I went to grab my sweater off of the door. It’s a bright red, white, and blue sweater with elephants on it that Uncle Michael had given me for my birthday last year. I also tossed the white cowboy hat that I had gotten at CPAC earlier this year. Then we made the decision to watch the speech later, and go celebrate now.

We met outside Madison and began walking quickly down 22nd Street toward the White House. There were dozens of people in the street cheering, and there were cars honking in the streets in the distance. As we got closer to the White House, we broke into a jog –and then an all-out run, toward Lafayette Square. There were hundreds of people already there, and the crowd was growing. On our way into the crowd, people spotted my sweater and my white Cowboy hat and were high-fiving me. Some people took pictures.

A “U-S-A” chant was breaking out as we joined hundreds of our countrymen and women at the White House fence. We hugged everyone we knew, and some that we didn’t. There were people waving American flags, holding personalized signs, even a Bush-Cheney sign was surfacing! We started singing “The Star Spangled Banner”, and my group of friends began “God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” songs that spread throughout the crowd.

TV cameras were making their way around, and we all swarmed them and tried to get our own personal moment on this great night for our nation.

When I saw the cameras surfacing, I was determined to get us “immortalized” and took Josh Star, my roommate, and said, “Put my Cowboy hat on your head and get on my shoulders.”

He did that and members of the crowd began cheering in his direction. Video cameras scanned in his direction, and still cameras flashed toward him. A large American flag was blocking the view in front of him, so I did my best two-step to put him next to it. “If I get him in that place,” I thought, “they can get a good shot.” [Update: They did. He is on the Miami Herald web site in an absolutely epic picture.]

I was shaking like crazy and sweating in my wool sweater, so I had to put him down, but we were far from finished with the celebration. We sang every patriotic song we could: The Star Spangled Banner, America The Beautiful, God Bless America, God Bless the U.S.A., and even “Take Me Out To The Ballgame” and “We Are The Champions.” We even started, “Na, Na, Na, Na, Hey, Hey, Hey, Goodbye!” At one point, college students from GWU and other D.C. schools began chanting, “Cancel finals! Cancel finals!”

The mood was absolute jubilation. It was pandemonium outside the White House. Strangers were high-fiving, hugging, and chanting together. There was a feeling of togetherness. Heck, a die-hard conservative like me started an “O-ba-ma” chant. As we celebrated, my phone began vibrating as people from home called and texted me to say that they saw us on television.

It was the greatest celebration of our country that my generation has seen. 10 years ago, when we were in elementary school, Osama bin Laden stole our innocence and changed our lives forever. In the days after September 11, we all learned the meaning of patriotism as we joined our neighbors in mourning. Tonight, now in college, in the heart of the nation’s Capitol, we came together in the spirit of patriotism once again; this time, to celebrate. God bless America.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - NASHUA REPUBLICAN ACTIVISTS FORM NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSERVATIVE FUTURE PAC

2011-08-11T07:07:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – NASHUA REPUBLICAN ACTIVISISTS FORM NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSERVATIVE FUTURE PAC

Nashua, NH, January 6, 2011 – Today, conservative activists Tyler McAfee and Christopher Crawford filed paperwork to form The New Hampshire Conservative Future PAC. They announced that the purpose of the PAC is to recruit and support young and first time conservative candidates at the municipal and state levels in New Hampshire.
Chief Financial Officer Tyler McAfee said, “In the past four years, New Hampshire has seen its Libertarian spirit, the cause of Live Free or Die, and its fiscal responsibility come under attack. It's time to renew responsible government and political sanity to America, starting with New Hampshire. It is imperative that we allow New Hampshire to prosper again by hindering government intrusion and the best way to do that is to elect people of integrity to office in our state. We need to preserve the New Hampshire spirit.”
Chairman Christopher Crawford added, ““Last November, the people of New Hampshire returned their state government to the Live Free or Die principles that make our state great. The work begins anew to preserve these values in 2011, 2012, and beyond. We are excited to begin the important work of preserving the values of low taxes, responsible spending, and common sense reform in government.”
In the coming weeks, the PAC will focus on laying out its strategy and groundwork for the 2011 municipal elections across New Hampshire and planning its first event.

Crawford is the former president of The Nashua High School South Class of 2010, Nashua South Teenage Republicans Club, and former student member of the Nashua Board of Education. He now attends college at The George Washington University.
Tyler McAfee is the former vice president of the Nashua High School North student senate and is the former president of the Nashua High School North Teenage Republicans Club. He now attends The University of New Hampshire.

Contact:
Christopher Crawford
Chriscra@gwmail.gwu.edu
(603)508-1359

Election Night Remarks

2011-08-11T07:06:00.001-04:00

Originally given on November 2, 2010:

OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Washington, D.C. 11/3/10

Christopher Crawford delivered the following remarks last night at "Ziehmfest" at The George Washington University:

"Ladies and Gentleman of Ziehmfest: we have sent a loud, clear message to Washington tonight from Washington. We’ve had enough of the deficits, the debt, and the corruption.We’ve taken the house, we’re waiting on the senate.

But in the granite state, voters have once again shown true to the slogan 'Live Free or Die'

[Applause]

Thank you, thank you.

We’ve elected overwhelming majorities in the house and senate of New Hampshire. We’ve taken back the United States House. While we’re happy of what we’ve accomplished, tonight, we the people have a clear message moving forward: John Lynch and Barack Obama: You’re next.

Ladies and Gentleman, We are proud to elect Kelly Ayotte and Sandra Ziehm, who are both testaments to the power of conservative women. We’re proud of what we’ve accomplished, and we move forward in the strength of the lord. Thank you! God bless you! And God bless the United States of America!

An Open Letter to Mike Pence

2011-01-22T12:52:00.000-05:00

Dear Congressman Pence,

Last month, I attended the National Christmas Tree Lighting with you, your family, and a group of supporters. At the end of the evening you asked us all to pray for you as you decide on your political future. In the weeks that followed, it began to look as though you were definitely going to run for governor of Indiana. Within the past week, though, a national movement has started, urging you to run for president instead. With the days counting down to when you make your decision, I wanted to write to you and make the case for why you should run for president.

The field for the Republican nomination is crowded with people who have run for president or on a national ticket before. These people come with baggage. I am not saying that I would not necessarily support any of them – as I will not endorse someone until late in the game – but some of the people in the field represent the Republican Party of the past at a time in which we need a presidential nominee who represents a conservative movement that sticks to its principles. Those in the field who do represent this new conservative movement come with baggage as well, having faced the scrutiny of a national election in the past and the approval-rating drops that come with it.

You are a fresh face, but you’re not inexperienced. You have been doing the people’s work on Capitol Hill for a decade, but never lost sight of your principles. As a party, we need to recognize that we didn’t win back the House in 2010 just because we had strong conservative candidates, we won because the Democratic Party made such a mess of itself that the GOP was the people’s only option. The American people are watching this “new” Republican Party with intense scrutiny to see if this Party will go back on its principles like the Bush Republicans of the last decade. So why not throw a candidate into the mix who opposed the Big-government Bush agenda that made the president so unpopular? Why not throw in a candidate who chose to stick to his principles when most of the party abandoned them?

Those who say you shouldn’t run for president claim that you don’t have the name recognition or the star power that some of the other major candidates possess. They say that you don’t have the “dazzle” that Sarah Palin has in her speaking style. To these people, I would ask who had heard of Mike Huckabee – the Iowa caucus winner of the 2008 election – in January of 2007. I would ask if they’ve seen the people listen to your speeches with tears in your eye. And above all, I would remind them what happened the last time the American people elected a president on dazzle over substance.

Like I said, Mr. Pence, this letter is not an endorsement of your potential candidacy. This letter is simply a note from a concerned conservative who wants the GOP to put our best field forward in the 2012 nomination process. You released a web ad last year urging Americans to “Step into the ring” and fight for America’s future. I urge to do the same.

Whether you choose to run for president, governor, or state in the House, I wish you good luck.

Sincerely,

Christopher Crawford

Who's that man on TV?

2010-09-30T15:02:00.001-04:00

Looking at my television and online, I have seen this guy Paul Hodes appear in a few ads. He says he is a fiscal conservative who answers to the people – “and no one else.” I want to know who this guy in the T.V. ads is, and what he did with my congressman.

The Paul Hodes on television says he answers to the people. Congressman Paul Hodes refused to hold open town halls during the healthcare debate. And when constituents asked questions by sending letters, we were treated to form letters that had nothing to do with our questions.

The Paul Hodes on television says he is a fiscal conservative. Congressman Paul Hodes was in the highest 10% of earmarkers in Congress. He supported a wasteful stimulus package and a trillion dollar healthcare bill. He has served in Congress while our national debt has risen to $13 trillion. Is that fiscally conservative?

The Paul Hodes on television says he is an independent voice. Congressman Paul Hodes voted with the Democratic Party over 94% of the time. He didn’t object to Nancy Pelosi when she decided that congress wouldn’t pass a budget this year, and he didn’t object this week when congress decided to go to recess without stopping one of the biggest tax increases in American history.

Let’s get real, New Hampshire. Paul Hodes is insulting our intelligence. He thinks we have forgotten about the past four years. Here’s a message in response to the hot-dog-eating imposter on TV: We will remember in November.

Stephen's The Real Deal

2010-09-16T18:04:00.002-04:00

New Hampshire used to be known as a state that was head and shoulders above the rest. In 1997, three of the top ten on Money Magazine’s “Best Places to Live in America” were New Hampshire municipalities. Our tax structure was the envy of 49 states in the union, and our state was revered as a wonderful place to raise a family and run a business.

That has been unraveled. Our business rating is horrendous, with some groups calling New Hampshire the worst place to open a business. In the last year alone, 39 new taxes were introduced by the governor and legislature. Our deficit-per-capita matches California. That’s right: California.

John Lynch has been a popular governor. For the past two elections, even many Republicans have voted for him. What have we gotten as a result? A state in shambles.

It’s time for a new way forward, provided by John Stephen.

John Stephen was born, raised, and educated in New Hampshire. He has served in Hillborough County as Assistant County Attorney, as New Hampshire's Assistant Attorney General, as an administrator at The Department of Safety, as Coordinator of Homeland Security in New Hampshire.

Perhaps most impressively, he served as Health and Human Services Director of The Granite State. In that capacity, he ran a tight budget and saved New Hampshire Taxpayers $143 million, all the while sustaining high quality care in New Hampshire.

Stephen was so successful in his job that other states hired him to help get their states back on track. He consulted with Rhode Island and other states, and directed them on how to save taxpayers millions – even billions – of dollars.

Stephen’s experience as a problem-solver has allowed him to develop a comprehensive plan to help move New Hampshire forward. He has a bold plan, titled “First In the Nation” (www.johnstephen.com/first-in-the-nation-plan.htm) to lower taxes, cut spending, and put people to work in New Hampshire.

John Lynch’s rooms and meals tax increases are hurting New Hampshire businesses; John Stephen will reduce them. John Lynch has allowed our business taxes to be the highest in the region; John Stephen will make them the lowest in the region.

Most importantly, John Stephen is ready to lead. John Lynch has spent his tenure as governor following a radical legislature, party bosses, and out-of-state special interests. John Stephen has a whole list of economic initiatives, steps to make state budgeting more transparent, and vows to be “Salesman-in-Chief” of the State of New Hampshire. He repeatedly says, "It's time for a leader in the corner office," and he is absolutely right.

When you talk to John Stephen, you understand he is someone who cares deeply about New Hampshire, and someone who truly understands how to fix our state. You see someone with a specific vision of what they want to do, and someone who has the know-how to carry out that vision.

Stephen is the GOP’s best opportunity in years to put a conservative in the governor’s office. In the opinion of this young blogger, Stephen doesn’t just have a chance at beating John Lynch – he has a chance at being a great governor.

A letter to Paul Hodes

2010-08-03T09:32:00.000-04:00

Dear Congressman Hodes,

Last summer, when you refused to hold town hall meetings with your constituents, I waited outside Hermano’s restaurant to talk to you about healthcare reform. While it bothered me that your priority was speaking at a liberal blog’s fundraiser rather than with your constituents, I was glad that we were able to chat.

When I asked you a question about spending, you gave your canned answer that the healthcare bill would, “create jobs, bring down the price of premiums, and save money.” My reason for writing today is simple: Did you lie to my face, or did you just not understand the bill?

You said that the bill would bring down the cost of healthcare, but my family’s premiums went up this year.

You said that the bill would cost one amount, and then the CBO projected that it would cost a few billion dollars more.

You made a firm promise to senior citizens, members of the Greatest Generation, that their Medicare benefits would not be cut, but AOL News is reporting that many of their benefits are being cut.

You promised that no money would pay for abortions, but in Pennsylvania high-risk insurance pools are being set up to do just that.

You promised that this healthcare bill would make things easier on businesses, but ski resorts in New Hampshire are looking at cutting jobs and raising prices in order to afford the change.

Congressman Hodes, I would like an explanation as to what changed between August 2009 and August 2010. I would like an explanation as to why you were so dead-wrong about the main components of this bill.

For four years, your constituents have gotten nothing but form letters from your office when we have questions. Most of the time these letters did not answer or questions, and we quietly accepted that.

That time has passed. For four years, you have refused to answer my questions, and as a result I have had to swallow hard and accept the “change we can believe in”. Well I’ve had enough.

I’ve had enough of the form letters.

I’ve had enough of the canned answers.

I’ve had enough of you ducking your constituents.

And I have had enough of getting my questions ignored.

You are supposed to by my representative to Washington, not Washington’s representative to me.

Please, for the first time in four years, give me an actual answer to a simple question: What happened between August 2009 and August 2010 that made the results of the healthcare bill so drastically different than what you predicted.

Sincerely,

Christopher Crawford

Nashua, NH

Nashua High Grad Eyes Senate Seat

2010-04-29T19:42:00.003-04:00

In an upstairs office of her campaign headquarters, United States Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte, of Nashua, thought long and hard on how to answer the question, “If the 1986 Kelly looked at where you are now, how would she feel?”

“Proud. . .” she said. “Very proud of what I’ve done as Attorney General. . . and surprised.” Indeed, no Attorney General in New Hampshire’s history has had a career quite like hers. She worked in the Attorney General’s office for a number of years before then-governor Craig Benson selected her to serve as the state’s top prosecutor in 2004.

In 2006, she gained national headlines for representing the state in a Supreme Court case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, in which she defended a state law that created parental notifications for minors seeking abortions. Two years later, she was in the headlines again after the murder of Manchester police officer Michael Briggs. As Attorney General, Ayotte served as the prosecutor in the case, and the defendant, Michael Addison received the first death penalty sentencing in New Hampshire in over 50 years She was named the Manchester Union Leader’s “New Hampshire Citizen of the Year” in part for winning the case.

Before all that, and her recently-launched Senate campaign, Kelly Ayotte was a student at Nashua High School. She graduated in 1986, two decades before the name “South” was added to the school’s name. 24 years ago, she took part in many of the activities that we do today. The most important part of her high school career, Ayotte said, was being a part of the ski team.

“Team sports were important to me. There was an appreciation that it’s not about your success – it’s about the whole team being successful.”

Ayotte was a successful skier and was a good student at Nashua High School, but she does have some regrets about her time at the school. She said, “When you’re in high school, there are times where you worry too much about what others think. If I could go back, I would talk to myself and say, ‘it’s more important to be your own person’.”

She noted that there is a fundamental similarity between her generation and members of our school today. “Teens today still have the challenge to be your own person, stand up for what is right – even if that means going against the popular crowd.”

Fitting words coming from Ayotte as she runs as a Republican for United States Senate. If elected, she will join a body in which her party currently holds just 41 of 100 seats. She has expressed opposition to much of the Obama agenda that has been passed, including the “stimulus package” and “Obamacare.” To bring down the rising cost of healthcare, she believes solutions lie in tort reform and allowing health insurance to be bought across state lines.

Ayotte is competing against lawyer Ovide Lamontagne, and businessmen Bill Binnie and Jim Bender for the Republican nomination. The Republican nominee will go on to face current Second District Congressman Paul Hodes in the general election.

For right now, Kelly Ayotte’s eyes are fixed firmly on the future. It’s all about the next event, the next interview, the next fundraising and poll numbers, and ultimately, the next election. For a few minutes on Tax Day afternoon, though, looking at the past was probably a nice change of pace for the former Attorney General. Before she left, though, she had a few words for South students – the future of the state.

“What I would say to the people in your high school is to get involved. What you think matters, what you have to say matters, but you can only make a difference if you take action,” she said. “Oh! And one more thing: make sure when you turn 18, vote.”

Endorsement: Kelly Ayotte for US Senate

2010-03-05T22:48:00.001-05:00

Two things that I hold dear to me when researching candidates are their toughness and their honesty. I want a representative who has won tough fights, and knows how to tackle tough challenges. Furthermore, I’m a firm believer that New Hampshire voters are the best voters in the world at judging the personalities of candidates. So when I go to town hall meetings, forums, and meet face-to-face with candidates, I can fairly-reasonably judge the character of a candidate and tell if they are being honest.
Kelly Ayotte passes my test in both of those areas. She has taken a strong stand against sex offenders of the state. She has taken a strong stand to protect the children of this state. She has handled a case before the Supreme Court. She personally prosecuted a cop-killer to the furthest extent – and won. She has fought tough fights and she has won tough fights.
We all know that partisan gridlock has been ruining our country for years. There has not been a strongly bipartisan congress since the days after September 11, 2001. Kelly Ayotte knows bipartisanship. She was appointed to her post during Republican Craig Benson’s governorship, and was reappointed by Democratic Governor John Lynch. During her tenure, Kelly Ayotte became one of the most successful attorney generals in New Hampshire history, because she was successful in making New Hampshire the safest place to live in America.
In meeting with Kelly Ayotte on multiple occasions, I can tell that she is a genuine person. She is always very gracious, and incredibly kind. She has the type of personality that draws people to her, and people generally like what she sees.
When I spoke with Ayotte at the Young Republicans Christmas Party, I talked to her about Paul Hodes. Ayotte said, “I’m going to crush him.”
The polls agree. Kelly Ayotte is the strongest candidate to stop Paul Hodes from becoming our next senator. The seat currently held by Judd Gregg is of great importance to the Republican Party, and we cannot let it fall into the hands of our terrible congressman.
Ayotte has a strong record of public service to our state, and she is going to make a great junior senator from New Hampshire. She has the toughness, the talent, and the personality to keep this seat red. There is no better person to be our next senator.

Endorsement: Bob Giuda for US Congress, NH-2

2010-03-05T22:47:00.000-05:00

Abraham Lincoln used to say, “Be sure to put your feet in the right place, and stand firm.” As the 2010 election year approached, I was deciding who to back in this year’s congressional election. The field is a strong one, I recognized, and it would be wrong for me to back someone without looking into all of the candidates. So as I studied the positions of Charlie Bass, Bob Giuda, and Jennifer Horn, I also began to look at their leadership capabilities and their strategy for changing our nation.
After contacting all three, Bob Giuda gave me a call one Friday afternoon. We talked for over an hour, and by the time I hung up I knew that I had found my candidate. For one thing, I had met Giuda because he was kind enough to comment on this blog – a nice gesture - and in the months afterward, he had impressed our Teenage Republicans Club at a kick-off event, and had stayed in contact with me. He would call every few weeks to ask how things were going both personally and with the Club. He knows how to treat people, and is a master at building personal relationships that are essential to building a grassroots movement.
More importantly, though, Bob Giuda has what it takes to represent the Second District. On the issues, he is a solid conservative who believes in free-market solutions, a strong fight against terrorists, and the importance of individual and economic liberty. His stance on ethics is clear: give constituents – not a government committee – the power to hold their representative accountable. He has been a staunch fighter for taxpayers in New Hampshire for many years, and will be a steadfast leader against the tax-and-spend ways of Washington.
As voters, we must also look at the size of our state. In a 435-member Congress, one vote is almost insignificant. We cannot simply have a representative for the Second District, we need a leader. And through years in the military, at the FBI, as a humanitarian leader, and as Deputy Majority Leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, he has distinguished himself as a proven leader.
The 2nd District of New Hampshire has fallen to the Democrats during the last two elections. To take back this seat, is vitally important that we nominate the right candidate. Charlie Bass was a successful congressman, but he will not draw the support of the party’s conservative base or the growing number of independent voters. He is a Washington “insider”, and the Democrats will have a field day picking at his record during a general election. He represents the moderate, Bush Republican Party of yesterday. Bob Giuda’s leadership and life experience are exceptionally relevant to dealing with our country’s problems, and he is in very close alignment with the mood of the voters our party needs to win the general election.
Jennifer Horn is a wonderful woman and a great mother. She ran a hard race against Paul Hodes during the 2008 election. But she, too, is vulnerable to attacks during a general election match up. She lacks the knowledge and experience on issues of foreign policy, national security, taxation, economics, and the legislative process that Bob Giuda possesses.
As Republicans, we simply must nominate the best candidate possible for the 2010 Congressional race. Bob Giuda has been a strong fighter for New Hampshire voters, and has a clear, conservative plan to change Washington. He has the real-world experience to make that change reality. He is a tough leader, a passionate conservative, and a fierce fighter.

I support Bob Giuda for United States Congress. My feet are in the right place, and I’m standing firm for victory in November.

A Letter to Paul Hodes

2010-03-03T19:13:00.002-05:00

Dear Congressman Hodes,

As the debate over healthcare comes to an end, I wanted to write to you one last time. Last summer, as the healthcare debate heated up, I wrote to your office with questions about healthcare. I did not find answers. I asked when you would have a town hall, and I was told you were planning one.
Come August, your constituents realized that you were not going to hold an open forum on healthcare reform, so we waited for you outside the Bluehampshire Bash to pose our questions. While you were partying with the left-wing of your party, your constituents were left scratching their heads by the pavement.
Finally, in the fall, I reached out to your office and offered to help you plan a town hall meeting on the subject of healthcare. Our school would have given you a forum, and all you would have had to done is shown up and talked with the students of Nashua. I’m still waiting for the follow-up phone call that I was guaranteed.
When I wrote your office again, asking for answers to my questions, I received a form letter that every other voter in the state got.

I don’t mind if you disagree with me on the issues, Congressman Hodes. If our political ideologies do not match up, that is normal and understandable.
But I don’t like being disrespected. Your work for me, congressman. My taxes pay your paycheck and my vote gives you your job. And I do not appreciate hitting brick walls whenever I want information. I do not appreciate getting stonewalled when I ask for an open forum. And above all, on behalf of all of your constituents, I want to tell you that I cannot believe that you still have not had a town hall meeting to listen to our grievance and hear our concerns.

You’re going to sit down in Washington, D.C. and you are going to vote on a massively important bill without having a single town hall with your constituents. Furthermore, it’s expected that you will have the arrogance to pass the bill through reconciliation – again, without the public input of a town hall meeting.

I registered to vote today, Congressman Hodes. In doing so, I gained the right to hold my elected officials accountable. So, I want to put you on notice: If you vote for this healthcare bill, especially through reconciliation, I promise that the first vote of my lifetime will be to knock you out of office, and I will everyone I know to do the same.

Please respond with an actual, written letter or a phone call – even if it’s from someone in your office. I have enough form letters to last me the rest of the winter.

Sincerely,

Chris Crawford, Nashua
(603)508-1359

A Letter to Senator Shaheen

2010-03-03T19:13:00.001-05:00

Dear Senator Shaheen,

Thank you for your service to our state as governor and as senator. Your dedication to the people of New Hampshire is admirable, and is appreciated.

I write to you today on the subject of healthcare. As you know, this divisive issue has dominated the debates of Washington for most of your first term as our United States Senator. Last summer, a movement broke out across the country and across our state to stop the healthcare plan. You remained steadfast in your support of the president’s plan. As time went on, public support for the bill disappeared. You remained steadfast in support of the president’s plan. And now, after over a year of debate, the people of New Hampshire and of America have stood up time after time and have done all they can to let you know that they don’t like this idea. Yet your support remains.

I believe that we need healthcare insurance that is accessible and affordable for all Americans. I believe we need to make sure that insurance companies cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Where we differ, though, is that government expansion is the key to solving the healthcare problem. We can’t afford the massive spending that will be passed on to my generation. We can’t afford the “public option” that you are fighting so hard for, because you and I both know that the public health insurance company will do nothing to change the industry, it will only pile up debt for our country. Competition needs to come from the people of America, not from government.

Additionally, I find it appalling that you are willing to pass the Medicare expansion onto the states. State budgets are hurting across America – just look at New Hampshire. This expansion will take budgets that are already on the brink, and it will push them over the edge. We can’t afford it.
What disappoints me the most, though, is the idea of ending this debate through reconciliation. You may argue that the Republicans are refusing to go along with the measure, and you may be correct. But we still have the correct processes of doing business in this country. The filibuster system is a way for checks and balances to be placed in government. It makes sure that no massive legislation can be passed that is too far in one direction of the political spectrum. It is a way of demanding bipartisan support before bills are passed, and there is a reason for that.

I registered to vote today. At age 18, I finally have the greatest ability to hold my elected officials accountable, just as thousands of people across this state do. And I promise you that if you vote for this bill, especially through reconciliation, you will not have my vote in 2014. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that everyone I know feels the same way.

Sincerely,

Christopher Crawford, Nashua

Bass Backwards

2010-03-01T20:45:00.000-05:00

Anti-Washington sentiment is larger than ever in America. As the primary races for congressional seats begin to take shape, it is clear that the American people are ready to “kick the bums out” and put our country on a different path. They are sick of the corruption. They are sick of me-first, country-second governing. And they are sick of the expansion of government and runaway deficits that threaten our future and our prosperity.
The Republican Revolution of 2010 started in Massachusetts, and it is undoubtedly going to move northward into the state of New Hampshire. New Hampshire voters are known for their serious approach to politics and their independent spirit. It is important for the Republican Party to nominate someone who will be able to take the seat vacated by Paul Hodes and turn it into a Republican seat once again. The GOP is counting on an easy ride to general election victory, with the sweeping wave of Anti-Washington and Anti-Democrat that has taken over the electorate.

It would be a disaster if the seat that Paul Hodes has kept warm for the past four years was handed once again to a Democrat. The only way that this is possible is if the Democratic Party can somehow turn the anti-establishment mindset in their favor. And the only way that is possible is if the Republican Party nominates a Washington-insider to the ticket in November. That’s why former Congressman Charlie Bass would be a dangerous nominee for the Republican Party in September.

You can’t fight Washington with Washington. Bass was kicked out in the 2006 midterm elections because he supported runaway spending. He was kicked out in another wave of anti-Washington sentiment. And now he is attempting to run as the Washington outsider who will tackle the deficits. People are tired of the hypocrisy and the empty promises of Washington. Nominating a candidate who represents that would be dangerous.

Two years later, the Blame Bush style of campaigning and attacking still works. Its effectiveness is not what is once was, but people still think that George W. Bush was a bad president whose vision for America was wrong. Bush was a big-spending, moderate Republican who is responsible for many of the problems Americans face today. It is questionable just how much Bass supported the Bush agenda, but come November the Democrats will beat the Blame Bush drum to no end, and they will say “We can either move backwards or forwards.”

Indeed, it is time to tell ourselves: We can move backwards or forwards. Over the past decade, we have had failed leadership in Washington. Our party lost its values, lost its focus, and was knocked on its ass for a reason in the last two elections. We have shown in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts that we are on our feet again. But which direction do we move in? Backwards or forwards?

There is a clear difference between Bush Republicanism and the libertarian conservatism that the country needs now. Our nation faces record deficits, higher taxation, and a growing government that endangers our freedom.. This problem started within the first eight years of the decade, and has grown at a horrendous rate during the Obama presidency, which has raised countless more problems on its own.

In 2010, our party has the opportunity to say, “We get it.” We need to move conservatism forward, and truly be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, and individual liberty. If we nominate candidates who represent the Republican Party of yesterday instead of the new-age conservatism of today, we would be doing ourselves a disservice.

Charlie Bass was a good congressman and he is a good man. But Charlie Bass represents a Republican ideology that is out-of-date and unpopular. It’s an ideology that was destructive for our party in the past two elections.
In the 2010 election, it is our job to nominate people who are ready to move the Republican Party and the United States of America forward again. A step backwards would be simply catastrophic. *** - Chris Crawford

PrimarySource is not affiliated with any party, campaign, or candidates.

Unbelievable

2010-01-20T06:23:00.001-05:00

This was the perfect storm of politics. It had all of the drama and irony of a literary drama, and it’s a great day for the state of Massachusetts and for America. The balance of power has been somewhat restored, the all-but-passed healthcare bill now faces possible defeat, and a seat that few thought would ever swing Republican has done so.
The people of Massachusetts sent a loud and clear message last night. They bucked the party in power, the Boston Globe, and the president himself. Over the course of the campaign, when the usual partisan attacks and elitist tone set in during the campaign, the people rejected it. In the past, if the president had flown in and made fun of a candidate’s truck, and a Democrat made false claims against a Republican, the people would have laughed and gone along. Not anymore.
People are sick of bills being rushed through Congress. They are sick of this healthcare bill. And they are sick of the arrogant air that the politicians have. They rejected Coakley because of her out-of-touch nature, because of her sense of entitlement, and because of her connection with the people in power.
No matter how anyone tries to spin this, it is a referendum on the president. Scott Brown yelled loud and clear to the commonwealth that he would be the 41st vote against the healthcare bill. When the president made his emergency landing in Logan last Sunday, he talked about how Scott Brown would do everything he could to put the Obama Agenda on hold. The people knew it – and they liked it.
The irony of the moment is incredible. Ted Kennedy dedicated his life to universal healthcare, and it is his seat that will be the 41st vote against it.
Six years ago, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a bill taking power from the governor, saying that the governor could no longer appoint a senator and that a special election must take place. . . Wonder how they feel about that vote now…
The little campaign that could ended in Boston last night. Two weeks ago, a Rasmussen poll showed Brown within nine points of Coakley, but no one paid attention because the race was still over. Coakley went harshly negative, and Brown stayed positive. And somehow, he pulled it off in the end.
This could change the way people do politics. Don’t let the Coakley’s tell you otherwise – it was Martha who went negative in this campaign. She distorted Brown’s record and made false, out-of-line attacks against Brown. Typical politics would say that Brown should have gone back at Coakley harder. He didn’t. He stayed positive, brushed it off, and kept running. And somehow, he continued to climb in the polls.
This could mean that over the course of the next few months, campaign strategists may rid themselves of negative campaigning and bring in a new era of positive politics.

This is a time to celebrate. The people of America have been sending a message to Washington for months now, but last night was the loudest message yet. If the people of Massachusetts chose a conservative, anything can happen come November. The Republican Revolution of 2010 started last night – in Massachusetts. It’s still hard to believe.

"Red Invades Blue"

2010-01-12T18:56:00.001-05:00

When Martha Coakley edged out Mike Capuano in the Democratic Primary for the open Massachusetts senate seat, it was widely-known that she would stride easily to the general election, where she would defeat little-known state senator Scott Brown. In a state with an overwhelming Democratic electorate, the campaign for a senate seat that was held by the same family for over five decades would never be close. Massachusetts would – with ease – elect their first woman senator, another progressive step from the nation’s most progressive state.
Little did we know, Scott Brown is one of the best Republican campaigners that we have seen in the last ten years. Maybe timing is everything, and that is why Brown has made this a neck-and-neck race. But I think otherwise. I think that in addition to timing, Brown has developed a message that resonates with voters – even Massachusetts voters. He is leading a folksy, down-to-earth campaign. His Ford truck highlights his campaign commercials, and his daughters frequent campaign events. He is a family man, a graduate of Tufts and BC.
This is contrasted with Coakley. She was a tough Attorney General and is a very typical Democrat. She has the backing of the Kennedy family and the persona of Hillary Clinton. In her ads, Coakley sits alone in a chair, speaking with her rich-side Massachusetts accent about the importance of her election.
The difference in character is clear, and Brown knows that. He has struck the personal tone with voters that Coakley should have had from the start (and that Mike Capuano has had for years.).

Most importantly, Scott Brown is the exact candidates Republicans have been looking for. He has the intelligence and know-how, and has a special way of explaining it. In last night’s debate, he did not just stick to tired, GOP talking points. He brought new facts to the debate, brought new arguments to support his views. He was aggressive without being annoying, smart without being elitist, and savvy without being sleezy.
When Coakley pulled the Bush card, he slapped her down by saying, “I’m not George Bush…I’m Scott Brown” and continued to drive that point home.
When she tried to paint him as an extremist, conservative on abortion, Coakley apparently forgot that Brown is pro-choice. He not only defended that position, but exposed Coakley’s record as a supporter of partial-birth abortion.
He even had a Reagan-in-Nashua moment. When David Gergen, who did an absolutely horrendous job moderating the debate, asking Brown is he would be willing to “Sit in the Kennedy seat. . .and be the vote that stops debate. . . for the next 30 years. . .” Brown looked at him and said, “All due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, it’s not the Democratic Party’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.” Bang-bang.
I’ll say it again, Scott Brown is the best Republican campaigner we have seen in the last 10 years. His campaign strategy is flawless, his arguments are appealing, and his demeanor is cool. He was able to raise $1.3 million in one day, and the next day John Kerry was begging for Democratic Senatorial Committee members to help raise a mere $250 million.
He may not win this race, but the fact that Scott Brown has indeed made this a close race is already a victory for the GOP. The Democratic Party is spending money in the race that they never should have been forced to use. They are in panic mode. Bill Clinton is being rushed into Massachusetts to stump for Coakley. The Democratic senators from across the country are joining her fundraising effort.
And amidst all this, Martha Coakley flew down to Washington today to attend a fundraiser, featuring Democratic officials and dozens of lobbyists – some from the healthcare industry. National-level operatives have been flown in to take over her campaign, and have started by going aggressively negative.
Kudos to Scott Brown. He has knocked Coakley off of her high horse and has forced her, and her party, into the trenches. He has united a Republican base in Massachusetts that no one knew existed, and has mobilized an independent movement that hasn’t been on the GOP’s side in decades. Whether he wins this race or not, I doubt that we will have seen the last of Scott Brown.

"I haven't seen this. . . since George Wallace"

2009-12-27T11:48:00.001-05:00

On NBC’s Meet the Press this morning, Andrea Mitchell took one of the most violent shots at conservatives that we have seen this year. We had Nancy Pelosi call us “Un-American” and liberals call us “Tea-baggers”, mock our protests, and poke fun at our ideology. This morning, Mitchell was asked about Sarah Palin and the conservative movement. Her Response?
“I have not seen this type of anger since my first campaign . . . 1968. . . with George Wallace. . . This anger that is not fact-based – just angry.”

Sarah Palin is George Wallace and we are all “just angry?” This is a blatant play of the race card and when a “journalist” uses a phrase such as that they lose all credibility and all objectivity.
There are literally no parallels between George Wallace and Sarah Palin. Wallace was a Democrat, Palin is a Republican. Wallace was anti-civil rights, Sarah Palin is a product of civil rights success. Sarah Palin has never done anything near as inflammatory as Wallace’s segregationist work in Alabama.

As for the “anger that is not fact-based,” here are some facts for Andrea Mitchell:

-Unemployment is above 10.5%, when we were promised it would not rise above 8%
- The federal deficit has multiplied over the past year under this administration.
- A government health care bill just passed the senate.
- Taxes are being raised.
- Cap and trade passed the House of Representatives.
- Iran continues to move toward making nuclear weapons.
- Terrorists are given the rights of American citizens guaranteed in the Constitution.

Mitchell spewed baseless, mindless attacks this morning on NBC. She blatantly called us racists, compared Sarah Palin to an inflammatory racist, and without any merit claimed that conservative anger is “not fact-based.” The facts are clear, Ms. Mitchell, this country is moving in the wrong direction. It may be hard for you to understand, since facts are so unpopular at MSNBC, especially when they work against the network’s Obama-worshipping ideology.

Obamacare.

2009-12-21T22:39:00.001-05:00

‘Twas the night before Christmas and on Capital Hill,
Harry Reid got the votes to pass his health bill. . .

2010 was the year of the Tea Party. Coming off of one of the biggest Democratic victories in our nation’s history, conservatives bounced back in 2009 by getting informed, mobilizing, and standing in the way of President Barack Obama’s agenda. We mobilized after the stimulus package, when people finally realized the direction that his nation was going in. Conservatives who were willing to give our president a chance realized as early as February that this president was going to take us down a terrible road if we allowed it. Even those, like me, who said, “We will stand by this president, because he is the president”, were forced immediately to oppose him and his reckless agenda.
We put up a good fight this year, my conservative friends. And we did a great job exposing the Obama Agenda and presenting the facts to our neighbors, friends, and co-workers. As a result, his approval numbers have dropped and the opposition to his plans has risen.

And as Christmas Eve approaches, it’s time to buckle down more than we ever have. During the summer, we banded together and took to the streets in order to let our senators and congressman know that we oppose Obamacare. Conservatives gathered in Washington, in Town Halls, and across America to challenge their representatives – in a true example of Democracy. For the first time in my life, I was compelled to take part in a protest in Concord when Paul Hodes refused to hold a Town Hall meeting.

Indeed, since the dog days of summer we opposed this bill with and intense passion. We fought it at every turn, with every amendment. And although the president and Majority Leader can bribe their senators, they cannot bribe the people of this country.

The six-plus months of battling against Obamacare have grown from the Tea Party, to the Republican Party as a whole, to Moderate Democrats, all the way to Howard Dean (YEAH!). Yet, as the opposition has grown, the senate now prepares to pass this bill that is based on politics rather than Healthcare.

Harry Reid thinks that he has secured a victory for his party by securing 60 votes. He is wrong, because we can still make thousands of phone calls and send a strong message to our representatives that if they pass this thing, they WILL lose re-election. If they decide to retract their yes vote, it will kill the bill. If they decide to vote for it, they will be screwed in 2010.

It’s not a victory for the Democratic Party if it passes. It’s a loss for the American people, and a long-run loss for the Democrats.

Well-played, Ben Nelson

2009-12-20T09:41:00.000-05:00

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska became the leader of the pro-life movement over the past month. He demanded strong language on the issue of abortion and said that he would not support a bill that lacked language banning federal funding for abortion. I was ready to nominate him for the “Profiles In Courage Award” for his ability to stand up to his party on behalf of the unborn.
Then came David Axelrod, Barack Obama, and the Chicago-style politics. The “Shut up and get out of the way” game continued. The president promised the most transparent administration in our nation’s history, and said that healthcare discussions would be held on C-SPAN. Instead, in order to get a deal from Senator Landrieau of Louisiana, he paid her state $300 million. He didn’t address her concerns about the bill, he just paid her off in plain sight and bought her vote.
Yesterday, the same thing happened. An extremely watered-down amendment on abortion was passed, along with a new deal with Ben Nelson. His state will not pay any money for Medicaid now, because the federal government will cover the complete tab. While state budgets will crumble across the country as they try to pay for Medicaid increases, Nebraska is getting extra aid from the federal government. Don’t you wish Jeanne Shaheen held out and played “Let’s Make a Deal?”
This administration and Ben Nelson should be ashamed. The American taxpayers have been used in a bribery scam right in front of their eyes. I think we should ask whether Nelson was ever concerned about the pro-life cause, or if he was planning to sell out the entire time.
As far as Barack Obama’s Administration, this is another example of the “New Washington.” During the 2008 campaign, we were promised transparency and an end to politics as usual. The transparency claim is laughable, but the president did deliver on the new Washington. Politics as usual as over. They’ve been replaced by something much worse.

Franken-slime

2009-12-19T09:20:00.002-05:00

Al Franken made an ass of himself once again on the senate floor. Yesterday, Joe Lieberman took up his ten-minute time limit, and Franken cut him off to inform him that his time had expired.
Lieberman requested unanimous consent to continue the final two minutes of his statement. “I object”, Franked –the chair- said.
This is what our senate has come to. The incivility has come to the point where a Democrat won’t let an independent senator get an extra minute to speak. Furthermore, Franken the Clown didn’t even let the other senators decided whether or not Lieberman should be allowed to continue his remarks – he went on a one-day power trip and denied his fellow senator the opportunity to speak.
I was happy to see John McCain take Franken to task later in the day, when he said he has “never seen that” in his long senate career.
This was the second time Franken made headlines this week. On both occasions, he looked like a buffoon. Not a senator, but a performer. I wonder why that is. . .

Nat GOP - Get out of our primary!

2009-12-19T08:56:00.002-05:00

The national organizations need to get out of the New Hampshire Republican Primaries. Charlie Bass has not even entered the race yet, and his exploratory committee is receiving thousands of dollars from outside the state, from Washington PACs and National Republican Congressional Committee fundraisers.
It has been made clear over the past year that Republicans want their candidates chosen by them, not the national committee and not anyone in the media. Even as far back as the New Hampshire Primary, when talk radio hosts and a conservative push was going against Senator John McCain, New Hampshire elected him as the winner and gave him a boost to the nomination.
Then there was the 23rd District of New York, in which a group of big-wig Republicans in New York decided that a liberal “Republican” should be the candidate, not the conservative who had garnered the support of the grassroots. What was the consequence of that decision? The result was chaos in the NY-23 GOP race and the election of a Democrat for the first time in that district since the Civil War.
Charlie Bass was a great congressman, but his image will be tainted by the “Inside Washington” image. Indeed, that is why he lost re-election in 2006. Getting money from PACS and national committees will just further this notion, and the “Washington guy” label will stick.

Additionally, why should the national PACS and GOP get involved so early? It is not even clear yet that Bass is best primed to take that seat back for the Republicans. Why would the party choose to completely ignore Jennifer Horn, the widely-loved conservative who won the GOP primary a year ago? And why would they completely overlook Bob Giuda – a strong conservative, former Marine, and former Deputy Majority Leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives?

In the senate, Kelly Ayotte has received “Washington money” week after week. The result has been a backlash among grassroots conservatives, and the air of inevitability has worn of because of it. Ayotte is perhaps the best candidate, with her strong record as Attorney General, but the party should not overlook the other candidates for the post. If they do, the backlash will continue and their “help” will actually end up hurting their candidates.
It is good that the national-level GOP is geared up and eager to help out Republican candidates in 2010. It is bad, however, that the party is doing so at such an early time. Hand-picking candidates doesn’t go well with primary voters, especially in a state like New Hampshire.

A letter to Senator Boxer

2009-12-10T00:28:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, Senator Boxer compared getting an abortion to taking Viagra. . . I wrote her the following letter last evening.

Dear Senator Boxer,
The first clip that I ever saw of you was when you disrespected a member of the armed services because he DARED to call you “ma’am” rather than “senator.” The next was when I saw you call out Lindsay Graham for his “theatrics” of flailing around a bill on the senate floor.
Today, though, you made one of the most hideous statement anyone has ever made regarding abortion. You compared the ending of an unborn life to the taking of Viagra. This comparison is disgusting.
In the abortion debate, reasonable people agree that abortion is a terrible thing, and that the number of abortions should be brought down. Anyone who claims that anyone “likes abortion” doesn’t understand the other side of the argument. As a pro-lifer, I still respect the pro-choice view because as a conservative I understand the view that the government should stay out of people’s business. I disagree, however, because I think the government should intervene in order to save an innocent life.
Let’s put aside the normal abortion debate though. Let’s not talk about when life starts, Roe v. Wade, or partial birth abortion. Let’s not talk as pro-life and pro-choice, or about the Nelson amendment, but as two people looking seriously at the issue of abortion.
To compare abortion to Viagra is one of the most outrageous statements ever uttered on this issue. It shows no respect for the importance and magnitude of the decision that a woman makes – a decision you defend so ardently. It hurts your cause, SENATOR, when you drift away from debate and into condescending, over-the-top comparison. When debating the issue of abortion, you cite that the decision is a difficult one for a woman to make. By comparing this decision to taking a pill goes against your argument and downplays the difficulty of the decision.
I can handle your condescending nature when it’s directed at people who are tough enough to defend yourselves. But when your rhetoric, no matter how well intended, becomes offensive to the very women you claim to defend, and demeans the decision that they have to make, your condescension crosses the line. Additionally, I did not think it was possible, but you have taken your disrespect for innocent, unborn life to a new level by comparing it to the little blue pill. Comparing the little blue pill with the little innocent life is offensive and disgusting.

You disrespect service members, you disrespect your fellow senators, and you disrespect the sanctity of human life and the difficult decision-making of pregnant women. Therefore, SENATOR, I have no respect for you.

Sincerely,
Christopher Crawford
Nashua, NH.

"Pay any price, bear any burden. . ."

2009-12-02T10:24:00.001-05:00

Over a decade ago, Osama bin Laden declared that he would challenge our nation, topple our empire, and bring the “paper tiger” to its knees. He called us cowards. George W. Bush’s response was to say, “Bring it on” and go after bin Laden, and since then the al Qaeda leader has been sleeping in caves and hiding in the mountains of the Middle East. Say what you want about President Bush, but is must be recognized that he know what it took to send al Qaeda on the run: a strong offensive.

It was encouraging last night that Barack Obama has set forth a plan to boost troop levels and go after the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, just as the Democrats planned in Iraq, a troop withdrawal date has been set for July of 2011, to be ended by November 2012. The president is sending more troops overseas, just as he drafts a plan to take them out. I find it unbelievable that a president of the United States would submit a withdrawal date for the whole world to see. Rather than rally everyone together in the pursuit of victory, the president claims the war is “not winnable . . . finishable.”

And so, he has decided to go with the same plan Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam. This plan is as much a political calculation as it is a military assessment. Rather than go with the “no risk” plan of 60,000 troops, as his general suggested, President Obama went with 30,000 troops – a level that he thought would satisfy conservatives but appease the liberals. Additionally, the president has announced that withdrawal date to further appease the far-left. He has decided to use politics as the driving force for his plan forward in Afghanistan, rather than buck his party and make the tough decisions that need to be made.

Some people don’t recognize that our America is at stake here. We were attacked on a Tuesday morning in 2001 by a group of radical Islamic extremists. In the months that followed, we banded together like never before. Our president and our military promised to defeat the enemy who attacked us, and also take those who harbored them out of power.

At some point in the past eight years, this war has become an “option.” It is not an option – it is a war that must be won. It is a war against the bastards who attacked us on 9/11, and it is a war against the extremist government that harbored them. It is a war to show the world: If you attack America, you will be defeated.

I’ll say it again, our standing in the world is at stake here. We are the nation birthed in opposition to tyranny. We are the nation that delivered the knock-out blows of World War I. We are the nation that defeated Adolf Hitler and freed Europe. We are the nation that defeated communism without firing a shot.

Last century, America was the hope of the earth. On the dawn of a new century, a group of terrorists attacked us for that reason.

We have a choice to make right now. We have to decide if we want to continue to be the America that is the leader of the free world. And if we choose to do so – if we choose to stand up and fight once again as the hope of the earth and the defender of liberty around the globe – we can’t do it with one eye on the exit sign. We have to go all-in, and we shall not back down.

Think back on the great leaders of the past century during times of war. Winston Churchill vowed to “Never, never, never give in” against the Nazis.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised that “The American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.”

John F. Kennedy declared that America, “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe for the survival and success of liberty.”

During his inaugural address, President Obama even said, “You cannot outlast us. . . We will defeat you.”

It’s time to make the choice of whether we want to continue the tradition as the hope of the earth and the driving force in the fight of good vs. evil, or we can be the America that thinks a war is “too expensive” or “unwinnable,” and truly be that “paper tiger” that Osama bin Laden suggested we are.

It’s time to choose to stand up rather than kneel down. We owe it to the members of our military from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Normandy to Desert storm; to continue to lead the fight for justice and liberty.

Last night, the president exposed himself as a politician rather than a leader.

But we are still America. We never back down from a challenge. We must win this war.

Driving Permit bill, just because.

2009-11-23T16:39:00.002-05:00

The Concord Monitor reported today that New Hampshire Democrats have moved forward on a bill that will require learner’s permits for New Hampshire teens before they are allowed to drive with an adult. Currently, at 15 ½ years old, teens can drive with an adult over the age of 21. At 16, after completing a driver’s education course, they can apply for their license.
The new bill, sponsored by Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster), would require teens to pass a test and pay a $20 fee before the teen could drive with an adult. Today, the House Transportation Committee recommended the bill by an 8-7 vote.
It seems that this is yet another example that our representatives in Concord making laws simply for the sake of making our state more like our neighbors. When they tried to pass HB 415, dubbed by NHGOP as “The Bathroom Bill”, they cited that dozens of other communities had the same law. When they tried to pass the seat belt law a year ago, Democrats noted that every other state in the nation already had the law in place.
Now, once again, they come to the people of New Hampshire with another useless law. New Hampshire remains one of the safest places to drive, and the number of teen accidents is lower than most other states. Yet, every year it seems as though they try to slap unnecessary regulations on New Hampshire drivers.
Sure, we have moved leftward in the past few elections, but does that mean that we have to begin to mirror our neighbors to the south? When New Hampshire was at its best, and Nashua was the #1 place to live in America, it was because we dared to be different, and we remained conservative at heart. The people of New Hampshire did what they wanted, with little government interference, and the results were spectacular.
We’re moving backwards today. Rather than being a small state that serves as a model for the rest of the nation, we are falling back to the same level as Massachusetts, Maine, and our other lefty neighbors. And rather than our representatives passing laws that will help turn our economy around and move our state forward, they continue to pass laws for the sake of passing laws.

Where's The Communication?

2009-11-12T20:24:00.000-05:00

During the four years that Paul Hodes has been my representative in Congress, I have written letters and emails to him on numerous occasions regarding a wide range of issues. On each occasion, I received an automatic response from his web site thanking me for my interest. Weeks later, I received an automatic response that never addressed my specific questions.
Last week, I called the congressman’s office, wrote him a letter, and sent an email expressing my opposition to the health care bill, and also offered to have the Nashua South Teenage Republicans Club hold a town hall meeting for him so that he can speak face-to-face with his constituents. I got the usual auto-response from his web page and his office told me they would call me back on Friday, November 6th. They never called.
I did get an email from Hodes today, though, regarding my email. The subject was “Automatic Response to E-Mail Message”. In the email, Congressman Hodes expressed his reasons for voting for the bill and thanked me for writing. The email mentioned nothing of the invitation to speak at South, and no answers to my questions.
The funny thing is that my father received the same email. So did a few other people I know. If you wrote to Hodes regarding healthcare, you probably received the same exact email as well. Does this mean that Hodes didn’t even read our correspondence before voting on the bill?
The residents of District Two deserve a representative who will listen to our concerns and engage in conversation with us – not someone who refuses to hold town hall meetings, takes forever to respond to our concerns, and replies to our questions with empty rhetoric and form letters.
For four years, Congressman Paul Hodes has responded to our concerns with “automatic responses.” As a result, in 2010 our response should be automatic: a vote for his opponent.

The Story of Louis Prince

2009-11-10T22:52:00.002-05:00

In World War II, General George S. Patton, Jr. specifically requested an anti-aircraft battalion to help out in Northern Africa and in his sweep across Europe. This battalion was named the 443rd Anti-Aircraft Battalion, and was instrumental in the successes of the Allies during World War II. A corporal from this battalion is a legend of Nashua military history named Louis Prince.
Prince was born the son of Eugene and Delima Prince on March 6, 1920 in Three Rivers, Canada, and moved to Nashua when he was about one year old. He got an education at St. Francis School and then at Nashua High School, where he left a year early to join the service.
When Prince joined the military in 1920, he was part of the 197th of Nashua, and was stationed in Texas. Prince only thought he would stay for a year, but when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor he re-enlisted and became part of the 443rd Battalion, stationed in Sherwin, Illinois.
For the remainder of the war, Louis Prince and the 443rd were at the heart of just about every major battle in North Africa and Southern Europe. Prince served in nine campaigns (Algeria, Morroco, Tinisia, Liberia, Sicily, Italy, France, Germany, and Austria) and three invasions (North Africa, Sicily, and Southern France. He served as part of nine divisions: The United States 1st Armored Division, 2nd Armored Division, 1st Infantry Division, 3rd Infantry Division, 9th Infantry Division, 34th Infantry Division, 45th Infantry Division, 88th Infantry Division, 36th Infantry Division, and served under the United States 3rd, 5th, and 7th Armies and the French 1st Army. When describing working under the French 1st, Prince shrugs and says, “They didn’t have what we had. We have better technology, so we had to bail them out.”
Between November 8th, 1942 and October 9, 1945, Battery C of the 443rd saw a lot of action. They started off with the invasion of North Africa at Fedala, Safi, and Port Lyautey, and within three months broke through Faid Pass in Tunisia. On May 9, 1943, the 443rd had won a German surrender in Tunisia, and a day later invaded Sicily at Licata.
They moved so quickly through Sicily before forcing a withdrawal of German troops in August 16, 1943 that they barely had any time to do laundry. During that time, Italian women were paid in money and cigarettes to wash their clothes. In one instance, a woman returned back to the 443rd with the laundry still dirty. When the confused officers asked why their clothes had not been cleaned, the young woman explained that during the time she met the Americans and returned home, her house was blown up by the German Luftwaffe.
On October 20, 1943 the 443rd landed at Bagnoli Harbor, Italy, and a day later was permanently made part of the 36th Infantry Division. When the 85th and 88th Divisions drove through Italy to Rome, the Battalion was assigned to defend them against German Aerial attacks, and in June of 1944 the 443rd was there when Rome fell to the Allies.
A little over a month later, on August 15, 1944, the Battalion invaded Southern France at Drammont, and over the next three months liberated Lyons, rescued the “Lost Battalion” near La Houssiere, captured St. Marie Aux Mines, and stopped the German offensive at Colmar/Selestat.
Between Christmas Day 1944 and February 3, 1945, the Germans launched one of their final offensives that was defeated by the Allies, sending the Germans back past the Moder River Line.
From late March until the end of the War the 443rd saw constant action. On the 21st of March, they took control of the Rhine Ferry sites. From the 1-22 of April, they took over occupation duties in the Kaiserlauten Area. From April 23 to May 11, the 443rd advanced from Germany into Austria. They were in occupation in the Kempton for the rest of the war because separated from the 36th Infantry and sent to England to be processed for the Pacific Theater.
On June 28, 1946, Corporal Louis Prince was discharged at Fort Devens, M.A. His discharge papers describe his duties during the war:“As section chief of a crew of five men fired and maintained four fifty caliber machine guns used for protection against enemy aircraft and infantry. Was responsible for gun emplacement and coordination of crew when going into and out of action. Knew duties of each member of crew and instructed them in mechanical functioning and tactical use of the guns.”
The men of the 443rd and 36th Infantry are known by historians as some of the greatest fighters of World War II. Prince received dozens of medals upon return, most notably the Croix de Guerre, a French medal that is similar to a Congressional or Presidential Medal of Honor in the United States.
Prince’s life, as is the case with many veterans, has been dominated by his service. His many stories include meeting General George S. Patton on multiple occasions, spending nights in a Parisian hospital while he was injured, and joining with another Battalion to beat an entire German Army. In his Nashua home, Prince displays many picture of his family and has rooms full of World War II memories. Visitors’ favorites are his boxes of Nazi goods that he took off of defeated soldiers during the war, including a bayonet, arm-band, and the helmet of a German soldier “Mueller.” Prince smiled as he showed us the German apparel. “Not stolen,” he said. “Liberated.”
He fought in the campaigns through Europe in heavy boots and dirty clothing for two-and-one-half straight years, and went 133 days once without relief. When he was injured by German artillery, he chose to continue fighting rather than go to the hospital. That was just one of the injuries, Prince says, along with many other concussions from bombs going off. Prince had two brothers, Marcel and Paul Prince, who fought in World War II as well. One of them was at Normandy on D-Day. All three brothers were lucky enough to make it home at the end of the war, and Prince married his wife Lucille Prince, who is now deceased. They had four children; three boys and a girl: Roger, Richard, David, and Diane Brunelle. He has remained active in veterans’ organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, and Disabled American Veterans, and often serves at the Grand Marshall in Nashua parades. When talking about getting older, he says, “I just have to beat my father; he lived to be 101.”

Writer's note: Interviewing Louis Prince was my favorite interview that I have ever done. He welcomed us into his home with open arms and freely discussed his years of service with us. He told us funny stories that has us cracking up, but also talked about the darkest parts of World War II and had us on the brink of tears. Prince is one of the most highly-decorated veterans in the city and is an all-around gentlemen. On this Veteran's Day, let us hold Mr. Prince and all of the members of our military - past and present - in our hearts and prayers.

Health Care Passes

2009-11-08T00:17:00.001-05:00

It passed. The Healthcare bill passed the House of Representatives late tonight – barely tonight – and the celebration for Democrats has begun. They clapped and cheered on the floor of the house and then gave each other hugs and kisses and shared tears of joy in a press conference shortly after.
You all know the details of the bill. It will raise costs. It will lower quality. And it forces every American to get health insurance, whether they want it or not. It poses the risk of cutting benefits and creating waiting lists. And it is “not an end. . . but a means to an end”, as the president put it, inferring that reform in the leftward direction can be expected from this administration.
The press conference was a laugher. The Democratic leaders, gleaming with excitement, stood together and patted each other on the back. I had a few favorite moments in the evening. The first was when one of the committee chairs spoke.
“When the American people understand what is in this bill . . . the worries will lift. . .” she said. The Democrats are ADMITTING that the American people don’t understand the bill. Isn’t that a problem? Isn’t it a problem when the House of Representatives passes a bill and has the audacity to admit that the American people don’t understand it yet. “Don’t worry America,” they tell us. “You don’t have to understand. Just trust us and figure it all our later.”
The other HAHA moment of the night was when Majority Leader Hoyer got up and declared Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House “for the children”.
There’s a problem with that statement. She is NOT my speaker. She does not speak for me. And my interests are not her interests. Thanks, but no thanks, to the record debts you are sending to my generation. Thanks, but no thanks, for DEMANDING by law that I get health insurance. And thanks, but no thanks, for taking us one step closer to a government take-over of the health system of this country.

The other thing I didn't understand was all of the praise the speaker recieved. Pelosi went into today with one of the largest majorities a speaker has ever had. She has strong-armed her fellow congressman and has called in the big guns from Moveon.org all the way to the White House, and STILL only got the bill passed by five votes. 39 members of her party voted against it, and only 1 Republican voted for it. A real speaker would have crafted a bill using both sides of the aisle. She can blame Republicans for sitting back and complaining, but they wrote their own bill. They suggested Amendments. In the end, Pelosi chose to once again polarize the issue and destroy any chance of a bipartisan bill.
This is a sad day for America. This is yet another step in the wrong direction. And once again we see the elitists of Washington patting each other on the back while we’re left scratching our heads.

2009-11-05T21:42:00.002-05:00

As I look at what is going on in Washington today, I am reminded of the words of Tom Ridge at the 2008 Republican National Convention, “You run to win, but you win to govern.” As we look at the politics of the past year, it becomes increasingly clear that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. I’m not saying this as a young curmudgeon – I’m saying this because it seems as though the president simply ran to win. The governing part has become very difficult.
Candidate Obama promised everything to everyone, and was sure to get elected. He gave fantastic speeches; he knew how to appeal to his crowds. Hell, it’s difficult for me to admit, but I stood in the Verizon Wireless Arena on my feet waving an Obama sign as he delivered a knock-out closing in winter of 2007. For the record-length presidential election, he ran on his words. He ran on “Yes We Can”. And he ran on the promise of universal everything.
And just now, the “Yes-We-Can" Bandwagon that was rolling merrily down Pennsylvania Avenue has been T-Boned by the Reality Bus. The right has mobilized like they haven’t in decades. They have been on his every move since inauguration, and are anxious for an opportunity to take their country back. They lost on the stimulus and they lost with cap-and-trade in the House. But there was one issue that the American people were not quite ready to swallow – Healthcare.
And Obama and the Democrats have put themselves in quite the mess. Rather than take control, the Great Communicator punted and left the decisions to Congress, only to take them out by the knees and denouncing the importance of a Public Option. It was left to Reid and Pelosi to make decisions and collect votes, and that hasn’t worked out too well. And through all of this mess, the right has organized and is armed for a political battle – with ammunition provided by the Democrats.
The same Democrats who promised no cuts in benefits or waiting lists have specific lines deeming “cuts in benefits. . . waiting lists” a possibility. The same Democrats who promised transparency are ONCE AGAIN shoving a gigantic piece of legislation down our throats in a matter of days.
Most importantly, that whole problem of promising everything to everyone is coming into play. To seniors, the president promised “no cuts in Medicare”. To the conservatives, he promised a bill that wouldn’t add to the deficit. Well, that’s a problem. Because when he offers to cut Medicare in order to cut costs, the opposition says, “Wait, you promised not to cut Medicare.” And when he offers to keep Medicare and raise cost of the bill, they say, “Wait, you promised it wouldn’t add to the deficit.”
This president fooled us during the presidential election. He told people what they wanted to hear. But now that he is not doing what people wanted him to do, the trouble will begin. More and more people are realizing the mistake they made a year ago yesterday.
It comes back to an old Abraham Lincoln quote, “You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” For a season, a skilled communicator lured us in with plentiful promises, elegant words, and the hope of a better tomorrow. He had what it took to win, but he doesn't have what it takes to govern.

A Letter to Paul Hodes

2009-11-01T12:04:00.001-05:00

I sent the following letter today via email and will snail mail it tomorrow.

Dear Congressman Hodes,

This summer, many of your constituents were disappointed that you did not hold an open, town hall meeting with us. However, we do understand the hostility that was presented at many town hall meetings and understand why you would want to avoid such a situation. We also understand that since there was no bill on the table, we could not get into specifics.
Now, a bill is on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we think that you should come back to your district and hold a town hall meeting before you vote. We understand as well as you do that the healthcare system in America is broken, we need reform now, and it has to be the right kind of reform. We also understand that the bill on the table is not just reform, it is an overhaul of the healthcare system as we know it, and since that is the case we would like to get a good, clear look at the bill and the effects it will have on our lives.
It is your job as a representative of the people of the Second Congressional District of New Hampshire to represent your constituents in Washington, D.C.. The people who you represent are concerned about the healthcare reform that is on the table. We are concerned about the uninsured who may be left out of the plan and we are concerned about higher premiums, waiting lists, and coverage cuts.
I would like to request on behalf of my fellow New Hampshire citizens that you hold a town hall meeting at some point before voting on this bill in Washington, D.C. We want our voices heard, and we want our concerns addressed. We would like you to candidly tell us where you stand, and we would like to candidly tell you where we stand.
As president of the Teenage Republicans Club at Nashua High School South, I would like to offer NHSS as a venue for your town hall. We will go through the process of organizing the event and inviting your constituents. The only request that we have is that your office provide any security they find necessary, as our club does not have the funds to do so.
Please do not be deterred by the fact that our club is a Republican club. We are the only political club at our school, and want to provide an open forum for our representatives to speak – no matter which party they are in. We will treat you just as we would a Republican congressman, and will show you the respect that you deserve and take the necessary steps to ensure that the attendees of the event do the same.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Hodes. Please get back to me as soon as you can.

Sincerely,

Christopher Crawford
President, Nashua High School South Class of 2010
Student member of the Nashua Board of Education
President, NHSS Teenage Republicans Club
(603)508-1359

Bill Ayers, "inspirational guest" at Kappa Delta Pi Convo

2009-10-26T18:14:00.001-04:00

The Kappa Delta Pi, which is the International Honors Society of college students interested in becoming teachers, is having their annual convention this week. The event will bring over 1,000 future teachers into Orlando for the conference. One major event includes a discussion with a panel of educators and then a follow-up, fireside chat with the members. One of the key “Inspirational Speakers” is none other than William Ayers, Barack Obama’s terrorist friend.

Ayers’ areas of expertise include “Teaching for social justice” and “Children in trouble with the law”. When researching Ayers, students are asked to look at his article in which he describes the high school recruitment process as a “battlefield” that the American military is failing. Another link on the web site goes to his works, including “Sing A Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiques of the Weather Underground”

While the organization does not receive any federal money through grants and does not receive any money from the Department of Education, this shows the direction our country is going on. Bill Ayers is a self-described terrorist who claimed on September 11, 2001 that he had not done enough during the 70’s, when he bombed federal buildings and people’s homes.

People wonder why schools and colleges are becoming more and more of a breeding ground for the liberal mindset. How could they not be when THOUSANDS of the best and brightest future educators are invited to a prestigious conference and are told that William Ayers is a respected educator who they should research and adore (nevermind that whole terrorist thing).

This is an outrage and I encourage people to call Kappa Delta Pi and ask them to bar William Ayers from speaking at this week’s conference. Do we really want our educators teaching children “social justice” as taught to them by a convicted, self-described terrorist?

The Latest from our beloved congressman

2009-09-30T20:54:00.001-04:00

He’s done it again. Either Paul Hodes and his staff are the biggest bunch of idiots in New Hampshire politics or they are trying to pull yet another fast one on the people of New Hampshire. In today’s Telegraph, on page four, the paper reports that Paul Hodes will hold a telephone Town Hall today. It’s good that Hodes, who has been slammed for months now for not having a town hall, is finally looking to hear the voices of his people.
But wait. The article says that the call-in is being held today for Rockingham and Hillsborough members, and even includes the telephone numbers. What they forgot to clarify was WHAT TIME TO CALL IN! So, if the general population of Hodes’ district doesn’t know what time to call those numbers, who do you think would know? My guess would be those in the congressman’s office and those close to him.
I don’t want to make accusations against Mr. Hodes without any proof, it may have been just a stupid mistake by his staff, which wouldn’t be surprising, considering when asked today spokesman Mark Bergman said that the staff would “look at the schedule and let the public know.” So they don’t even know his schedule?
No matter what angle you look at this from, today Paul Hodes ones again tried to fool the people of his district into thinking he is having an open debate on healthcare for all when in reality access is limited.
Perhaps it was simply bad oversight. . . But I’m sure Hodes remembers this phrase: “If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.”

Propoganda Paul.

2009-09-28T15:50:00.002-04:00

Well, this is a new first for me. Never in my life have I seen a push poll sent to me by a sitting member of Congress. . .
That's what Paul Hodes did today. He always takes longer than any other representative (incluiding ones from other states) to respond to my opinions about issues facing the state and the country, and always sends a form letter back rather than anything substantial. (My favorite was a response to a letter I wrote about abortion that he responded to by saying things like "We must support family values by valuing and supporting families" and other doozies like that).

However, Hodes finally sent me an email today asking my opinion on health reform. I was glad to be able to voice my opinion, since for the most part only liberal bloggers and unior workers were able to speak to Hodes during the recess and the congressman didn't hold any town halls.

I didn't like it as much when I got into the polling questions that Mr. Hodes asked. The first two are very generic, and ask questions about people's approval of health care. The last two, however, are what scares me.

When Hodes asks, "Which part of health insurance reform is most important to you?" response optiosn are:
-Keeping the coverage that I currently have
-Lowering my family’s health care costs, even if I keep my same insurance
-Expanding the number of health insurance providers that I can choose from
-Providing access to health insurance for the 47 million Americans who are uninsured
-Other

First of all, this question is clearly asked including all aspects of a bill Hodes supports, so that no matter what he can point to the healthcare bill and say, "See?! It's what you want, New Hampshire!" Very clever, Mr. Hodes. Very clever indeed.

Also, let's take a look at the "providing access..." selection. The 47 million figure means including illegal aliens, people who don't want insurance, and people who are in between jobs and will get insurance very soon. The figure of 47 million has been wildly discredited as a real estimate of how many Americans are without healthcare that should be insured, and if he uses this in debate we should all be prepared to shoot it down.

The final question makes me sick:
"Do you believe that a health insurance reform plan should include a “public option” that gives people a choice between private insurance plans and a public health insurance plan, in order to expand choice and lower costs?"

That is a blatant push poll question. If Judd Gregg sent this email out to his constituents and said, "Do you support a "public option" that creates yet another government program in the healthy industry and runs the risk of adding to the largest deficit in our nation's history?" the liberals would be UP IN ARMS over it.

I also want to know who he sent this to. . .

If Paul Hodes really cared what the people of New Hampshire thought about health insurance, he would have held town hall meetings and had a fair, honest debate with the people. He has yet to have a town hall since the recess and since returning, and still continues to be dishonest and sleezy as he prepares to run for the U.S. Senate. I've called him "Puppet Paul" before. Today, it's "Push-Pollin', Propoganda Paul."

Steak-Out wrap-up

2009-09-12T23:05:00.001-04:00

Today was the day of the annual Steak-Out at Jennifer and Bill Horn’s house in Nashua, New Hampshire. 140 Republicans crammed into the house as the rain showered down outside. They were young and old, big names and small-town activists. And at the end of the day, I have never been more proud of my party and have never been so optimistic about its future. We have the candidates to get the job done, and we have the grassroots supporters to get them elected.
Former Congressman Charlie Bass, who has been rumored as a candidate in two races but doesn’t seem to be making any moves, was his usual self: comfortable, personable, and well-spoken. It’s odd how a Congressman from just three years ago seems like someone that represents a better time from our politics – a time in which our Representatives stayed in contact with us and held themselves responsible.
Kelly Ayotte, former Attorney General and candidate for senate, seemed much more comfortable than she had in other appearances. Although I think she needs to tone down the handlers a bit (they seemed to be more in the way today than helping out), she showed why she is the front-runner in this race. She was funny, cool, and showed the fighting spirit that she demonstrated as Attorney General of the state. In the coming months, expect her to build on her image as a tough reformer who can get things done.
Ovide Lamontagne was as impressive as ever, as well. He is a fantastic speaker in his own right, and although he is often overshadowed by Ayotte, Lamontagne can make a serious run for that senate seat. When he speaks, it is like a lawyer giving a closing argument (for obvious reasons) and he knows how to hit emotions and get a crowd going. Whichever of these candidates wins the primary, the Republicans will have a tough candidate to go after Paul Hodes.
Although Bob Guida was not at the event, the gentlemen who spoke on his behalf made a very good case for the former Deputy Majority Leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Giuda has a lot of life experience and a positive energy that will help him out in his Congressional campaign.
Then there was Jennifer Horn – as always a model of grace. Of the candidates, she is perhaps the most impressive speaker because everything she says seems so genuine. She is likely the frontrunner in this congressional race, and will be tough to beat next November.
The candidates were all great, but even greater was the energy surrounding the event. 140 Republicans braved out in the rain and came together for a common cause. They were energetic. They were positive. And they were pumped up about their candidates. It reminded me of the Democratic events in 2008, where the organization was in place for clear victories.
The energy is on our side now. We are the underdogs. We are the ones who can bring the effective change to Washington. And it’s all coming together for the New Hampshire Republicans. Candidates who can win, with a base to hold them up.

The Race Card

2009-09-12T22:49:00.001-04:00

I’m sick of the stupid people that keep saying that the hatred toward Barack Obama is because of race. It’s just not an intelligent argument at all, and I just heard someone on CNN using it once again.
Now, you will not hear me ever defend someone who yells out during a speech to Congress, or defend someone who holds a picture of our president with a Hitler moustache, or someone who won’t allow their children to watch a motivational speech by their president. However, these people are NOT racists. They disagree with the politics and the policies of this president.
The line that gets me the most is “This wouldn’t be happening if he wasn’t black.”
Let’s examine:
“They wouldn’t be calling the president a liar if he was white.”
President Bush was white. He was called a liar numerous times. You don’t get called a liar because of race. You get called a liar if you LIE.
“They wouldn’t hold Nazi signs if he was white.”
President Bush was white. People called him a Nazi numerous times and even made posters that said “King George: off with his head!”
“There wouldn’t be this outrage over the school speech if he was white.”
Ronald Reagan was white. George Bush was white. They both were criticized for their in-school speeches.
Now, if anyone wants to get down to issues of POLICY, please go right ahead. But the race card is ineffective, out of line, and downright stupid.

Eight Years Later - The Lessons We Learned

2009-09-11T15:41:00.001-04:00

My generation was robbed of its innocence on this day eight years ago. Before that day, war was distant to us – it didn’t even exist. Sure, we had learned about war. War had happened. But not in the real world.
War happened in the 1700’s and war happened in the 1800’s, we had read about it in history. War even happened throughout the 20th century – our grandparents and parents could tell us about it. War had even happened right before we were born, but that was rarely discussed.
Then, on that warm September morning, war happened.
War happened in places we knew about, places we had seen on TV, and maybe had even visited in person. War happened on our homefront – in places we knew, and to people we knew. And we were forever changed. . .

We learned a lot of life’s lessons on that day. The first lesson was that evil does exist in the world, and that there are evil people with agendas to kill and spread fear.
We were in school when the planes struck the towers, but we heard the stories and watched TV. We understood that when the second plane hit the World Trade Center, our lives were changed. What happened in New York City was not just a horrific accident, it was done with the intention to kill and to scare.
The evil dominated our lives through those first few hours. We sat scared in our classrooms, some of us crying, not knowing if a plane was going to crash into our school, for heaven’s sake! We didn’t know what was going to happen next. Were there more planes in the air? Was there another attack coming? Were we going to make it through the day? We had no idea what was coming…

But when we expected things to get worse, we looked around and learned another one of live’s lessons: the lesson of the struggle between good and evil. The lesson we learned on that day is that good will triumph.
Because when we looked around, we didn’t see the usual division that we were accustomed to seeing when the going got tough. We hugged our classmates and teachers. We discussed the crisis with other classes, and even complete strangers were comforting each other and sharing their thoughts.
When we came home, our parents didn’t show fear. They looked stronger than ever. And when we looked at the television screen, we saw Peter Jennings at ground zero with his sleeves rolled up and a look of pain in his eyes. He epitomized the American spirit on that day, as so many others did. He looked battered. He looked sad. But he did not look defeated. He was not going to deny the situation at hand – rather he rolled up his sleeve and did the job even though it was hard.
He wasn’t the only one who defined America on September 11, 2001. Passengers on American Airlines Flight 93 showed America’s never-give-up, fighting spirit by taking control of the plane and crashing into a Pennsylvania field. Firemen and police officers who ran into the twin towers while others were running out showed the courage of America. Volunteers who put aside their everyday lives to help people at the scene showed the compassion of America. And the millions of people who lined up to give blood, give money, and lead fundraisers for the victims showed that even when this country is battered, it looks forward and steps up. Every person in America, in some small way, came together as one. As it has been plainly put many times: We stood united.
And as day turned into night, as a young child the fear would not subside. But when we looked at everyone around us, we could tell everyone was feeling this pain. Everyone was hurt. But no one was going to fold. We were Americans. It was not in our nature. You can hit us hard, but you won’t knock us out.
The safest I remember feeling was when a military leader – I never learned the name of who it was - stood on the White House lawn and said something to the effect of, “We know you’re scared. Don’t be. Because whatever happens from this point forward, your Armed Forces are ready.”

My generation lost a lot that day. We lost our innocence. We lost our peaceful lives. From that day forward, we have never seen a day without war.
But we gained much more than we lost. We gained a patriotism that some people take lifetimes to develop. We learned that in times of crisis, this nation always steps up. And we learned to value the freedoms we love and the life we live here in America.

Eight years later, we have continued life as usual. But 9/11 remains a part of all of us – probably more than we even notice. We made a promise to the victims on that day: We will never forget.

100th Post: Obama Speech analysis

2009-09-09T22:13:00.000-04:00

The president delivered a fantastic speech on the floor of the House tonight. He was firm, stern, and very simple with his language. His shorts sentences were direct and carefully crafted. His arguments were well-crafted as well, and he took on just about every concern that the American people have expressed. From a Republican standpoint, it was difficult to pick out things that you could possibly disagree with.
There are, however, a few minor and a few major concerns that I had with the speech.

First-off is the fact that taxes will be raised in order to pay for the plan. Sure, it’s on the rich, but in a market in which no one is spending – especially not the rich - and in which Washington Post articles claim that the rich need to step up and spend to get us out of the recession, it is not a good idea to raise taxes on anyone.

My second concern is the claim that every single person in the country will be required to buy health insurance. I simply reject that type of intervention into personal decisions.

Another issue was that a lot of the facts did not add up. You simply cannot add all of this spending, cut costs, and provide healthcare for everyone. The numbers simply do not add up.

My final concerns are the major ones, and they have more to do with the semantics of the speech than the actual substance.

I simply find it amusing that when Barack Obama ran for president, he invited Americans to “choose hope over fear.” Every time he spoke, he attacked the Bush administration for fear mongering and for trying to scare people in order to go to war and pass legislation.

Well, what have we seen from this president over the first months of his administration?
-Pass the stimulus, or we will go in a depression and YOU will be hit hard.
-Pass cap and trade or the world will perish.
-Pass my healthcare bill or you will get sick and possibly die.

It is depressing to see another politician – one who truly convinced us that politics as usual could be cast aside forever – is resorting to Bush-style tactics and fear mongering at the highest extent.

Another issue is the “plan” that Obama kept bringing up this evening. There simply is not plan yet. There are over five bills that are circulating itself, each unique in its own right. So this speech may have been better served to push the final bill, rather than the plan tonight. This is Barack Obama though, I’m sure we will see him on primetime again before this debate is over.

Finally, I have an “I told you so” moment. For months, I have been telling you that when push came to shove, the Democrats would pull out the Ted Kennedy card. When the going got tough, and substance was simply not enough, “Do it for Teddy” would become the rallying cry.

You know I would never discredit the incredible senate career or Edward M. Kennedy. However, to play politics with his death was out-of-line by this president.

His speech tonight was a great one. It was probably one of the best Obama has given because of its short, simply nature and his ability to shoot down many arguments that are plaguing his push for healthcare. Expect to see at least a 10% jump in his healthcare approval rating over the next few days.

However, this is not the end of the road as many in the media played it up to be. This is only the beginning. Once a final bill is agreed upon to bring into discussion, the gloves will come off. It will be hard-nosed politics at its best. And it will define the Obama presidency.

Horn To Focus on Congressional Run

2009-09-08T21:28:00.001-04:00

Today, Jennifer Horn, host of On The Air with Jennifer Horn and former candidate for Congress, announced that she will be airing her final show this Friday to focus on another run for the congressional seat in the second district of New Hampshire.
“It is no secret to anyone that I am strongly considering a run for US Congress in the Second District. The time has come for me to give this my full attention. I look forward to talking with my friends and supporters throughout the district in the weeks and months ahead as I go through the process of making a final decision,” Horn said in a press release via facebook today. In the press release, she took shots at the Democratic Party and Congressman Paul Hodes, who currently holds the 2nd District’s seat.
However, this will not be a re-match of the Hodes-Horn race of 2008, because Hodes is in the midst of a heated senate run against former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and former gubernatorial candidate for Governor Ovide Lamontagne, neither of whom have officially announced their candidacy.
Should Horn choose to run for Congress, her most viable candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination would be Bob Guida, former Deputy Majority Leader of the New Hampshire State House of Representatives.
Horn does have a slight advantage over Giuda in one respect: she has been here before. In 2008, she shocked the state – frankly to the dislike of some party insiders - by winning the primary over Bob Clegg and others to set up a match-up against incumbent Paul Hodes. The seat was going to be an easy win for Hodes, and some people said that if Jennifer Horn held Hodes under 70% it would be a small step forward. So when she lost to Hodes by just 15 points, 56-41, it was clear that her campaign and her candidacy were a positive for the Republican Party.
A year later, Horn takes the first step toward running again. This time, there will be no incumbent, and so she may be looked at as the early frontrunner in a general election match-up simply because she was a major candidate last time. Her familiar face, likability, and fighting spirit will be tough for opponents to overcome. She ran an effective underdog campaign last time around, it will be interesting to see how she handles being on top.

Domestic Terrorists?

2009-09-03T22:50:00.002-04:00

Should a Community Organizing group run by the president's advisors really be using the term "domestic terrorists" to describe people who simply oppose their vision for America? And is it right for that same group to complain about name-calling, personal attacks, and misleading statements while they are using such language? Well, that is exactly what "Organizing for America" did within the past week.

They sent out an email to their followers asking them to "fight back against right-wing domestic terrorists..." Not only is this statement outrageous, it is FALSE. Have their been crazy people acting like, well, crazy people? OF COURSE. But there is a difference between crazy people excercising their rights and crazy people who are TERRORISTS.

The closest thing to terrorism that we have seen over the past two months was the vandalism of a Democratic office in Colorado, and that was attacked BY DEMOCRATS!

I'm not going to come on this blog and defend people demeaning our president and holding up swastikas at down hall meetings, but the word "terrorist" is out-of-line. While the left has cried foul every time the right has used over-the-top language and has called them "fear mongers", it apparently is quite alright for their to compare for them to compare right-wingers to Domestic terrorists. The word "terrorist" is the word in America that generates the MOST fear of any other, well above communist and socialist. And those on the right who show up at town hall meetings are simply pissed off, and some of them are past their boiling points....

But there is no reason to compare them to Bill Ayers...

The Cheney Obsession

2009-09-02T18:30:00.001-04:00

For some reason, the Democrats STILL just can’t get enough of bashing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It was a winning strategy in 2006, when they road the dislike of the Republican duo to take back the House and Senate. It was a winning strategy in 2008 again, when they gained even more seats and linked the entire Republican Party – including Senator John McCain – to the Bush-Cheney policies.
But in this new era, they Obama Administration and the Democratic Party have not left it that that. No, they believe they had an election stolen right out of their hands in the 2000 election and never quite got over that fact. When 2004 rolled around, and the best they could produce was John Kerry to counter the sitting president, they were just about ready to flea to Canada.
The new administration has followed suit, and has assaulted the Bush policies at every corner, and destroyed them where the opportunity arose. But aren’t they starting to border on obsessive?
Generally, when a new party takes over power, they do all that they can to break from the policies of the previous administration – especially when the policies failed like Bush’s did. But, the difference between Obama and other administrations is that many of them chose to change course and move on in a new direction, bringing in a new reign of power that is starkly different, whereas Obama has chose to go for the jugular.
The Democratic Party has been waging attacks on the CIA, the Gitmo guards, and the entire administration, even going as far as to launch an investigation into the CIA. . .
Today’s developments are evidence that they just simply are having trouble letting go. It is September 2, almost eight months since Cheney left power, and the Democratic Party has launched an ad campaign talking about how often Dick Cheney was “wrong.” Sure, Cheney was wrong. Sure, he was unpopular. But why run the ad? I don’t think he has any future political ambitions.
The strategy has worked in the last two elections. But today, most Americans have moved on from the hatred of the Bush administration. They are now worried about the economy, the war in Afghanistan, and the healthcare crisis facing America. They are worried about their governors, their congressman, and their senators who are IN office right now. And when 2010 rolls around, their minds will have long-since wandered away from the Bush administration. The strategy has worked twice, but there is NO way it will work a third time in 2010, because while the DNC is looking for vengeance against the former administration, the American people will be focused on this one.

Changing Mass law would be pure politics

2009-08-30T14:10:00.000-04:00

If the Democratic Party of Massachusetts makes the decision to follow through and change the law regarding a special election for the senate, as requested by Ted Kennedy in his final days, it will show the people of Massachusetts that they have just about no principal. It was Ted Kennedy who fought for the law with the support of his party in 2004, when John Kerry was running for president and he did not want Mitt Romney to have the power to select a replacement. Now, five years later, the party has completely switched positions. When it is THEIR side who needs a quick appointment by a Democratic governor, they want it done as quickly as possible, without a special election. And if the state legislature of Massachusetts makes a decision based solely on politics, their people will notice. And let's face it, there is NO reason here except politics. The decision was made in 2004 for their party's advantage, and now it will be changed in 2009 for their party's advantage. The reason we HAVE laws is so that situations arise, we knew how to deal with them. It takes credibility away from the legislative process if the government can simply change laws every time it doesn't work out best for them. It's time for Massachusetts politicians to vote on principal, not party. Take a position: special election or appointment. Look into the matter, research the issue, decide which side you are on, and stay there. Don't flip back and forth every few years just because it makes your side more powerful.

Remembering Edward Moore Kennedy

2009-08-28T19:19:00.001-04:00

Ted Kennedy was not my favorite senator, to say the least. He was to the left of the leftiest lefties – a drunk, a womanizer, a man whose legacy is tainted by a horrible car accident and the cowardly handling of its aftermath. But, damnit, did I respect him.
There may be no one in the history of the United States senate who worked harder for their causes than Senator Kennedy did. He was one of those rare people who was given much, born rich, and truly believed that they had a responsibility to fight for those less fortunate than themselves. He didn’t do it for political purposes. He didn’t do it for personal again. Edward Kennedy felt in the bottom of his heart that it was his job to fight for the rights of all Americans, even before it was the popular thing to do.
His life was marred by tragedy, and from each one he seemed to emerge stronger. After the assassinations of his last two living brothers, Kennedy was suddenly deemed the patriarch of the Kennedy clan in 1968. It was he who was taking the reigns of a political dynasty, and had the responsibility of not only keeping the family together, but fighting the Demcratic fight as his two brothers who proceeded him. It’s been said that in that time, Kennedy had to step out of the shadows of his brothers John and Bobby and step up as his own man.
It was not the end of hardship for the senator. His life was rocked with personal hardships, letdowns, illness, and scandals. But in each time, he seemed to encompass that American spirit of never giving up, never giving in, and believing that better days lay ahead. And in each instance for Kennedy, they did.
For 47 years, Kennedy fought for the poor, the minorities, and the women. He fought for people completely unlike himself, and fought for just about any constituent who asked. He took files home to do work with in the evening, and stayed at the Capitol longer than most any senator. On each issue, and with each vote, Ted Kennedy did a tremendous amount of research on his subject, leaned on his tremendous staff for help, and always came to the floor of the senate to make rousing speeches to his colleagues.
As far as being a senator, Kennedy may be considered the best of all time because of the countless bills with his name on them, and the countless people whose lives he touched. As far as being a senator, it may be said that Kennedy was the most influential for the same reason.
He never backed down. He never gave in. And he always did things with passion.
In 2008, I got the most memorable Ted Kennedy moment of my young life. Watching the Democratic National Convention, I had the honor of watching Senator Kennedy take the stage in Denver to deliver his final address to the Democratic Party. He was advised by his niece Caroline and many others not to speak, and a stool was placed behind the podium so that he could lean or sit as necessary.
But when the crowd roared and he walked onto the stage, there was a limp in his step, a gingerness to his movement, but he looked as passionate as ever and his spirit was strong. He got up to the stage, pushed the chair aside, and delivered a rousing speech to the DNC. If you weren’t moved by that speech, you simply have no soul.
He had always stood up for what he believed in. He had fought for equal rights for all Americans, including the battle for healthcare that he continued on his death bed. Earlier this week, a family lost its leader. A commonwealth lost its senator. And a nation lost an inspiring figure.
Earlier this week, Ted Kennedy’s life came to an end. But to all Americans whose cause was his concern, now and forever, “The work goes on. The cause endures. The hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

Today's protest!!

2009-08-24T23:12:00.001-04:00

I finally had that moment that many Americans have had over the past few months – that moment where it suddenly hits you and you say “enough is enough.” For me, it was when I Google’d Paul Hodes Town Hall and found the Nowhampshire.com report that Hodes would be attending a liberal blogger “bash” in Concord when he has not held a single town hall meeting since the recess. As I said, he is willing to talk with the far-left, but not with his constituents.
So, since there was no other way to get answers from Paul Hodes, I decided to attend the event and seek out answers from my congressman. I woke up my buddy Tyler from a nap and we drove up the highway to Concord and made our way to Hermano’s Restaurant, where the event was being held. I had RSVP’d the night before, and so we parked the car and went up to the entrance, where I donned my “Don’t Blame Me! I voted for McCain and Palin” shirt and packed a “TIME FOR A TOWN HALL” sign in my back pocket, clearly visible.
We were greeted at the door by a relatively short guy with a pair of large-rimmed glasses who greeted us with handshakes and a smile. I gave him my name and told him that I had RSVP’d and he let us right in. As we made our way to the stairs, the man spoke, “What’s that in your back pocket? A present for us?”
I wasn’t hiding anything, and I said, “No, it’s a sign for Mr. Hodes,” with a smile.
The guy’s face turned very serious, the warm welcome was brushed aside. “No, no, no,” he said. “This is not a place to make political statements.”
I held my ground. “I RSVP’D. We are going to pay to go in. If the sign is the problem, I can put it in the car. I promise you I won’t disturb anything, I just want to ask a few questions to my representative.”
“No, this is a private party. This is not a political event.”
“This is not a political event?!” I asked. “You have Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter coming. They are POLITICIANS-“
He cut me off. “No, this is not place for people to make political statements.”
“Sir, I respect what you are saying, but he hasn’t held a town hall since the recess. This isn’t about his view on healthcare, it’s about the fact that he is coming to events like this and won’t talk with the rest of his constituents. This is the only way I can get my questions answered.”
“No.” He was pissed now. “Get out of here. This is my private party.”
We stormed out angrily, discouraged that our trip to Concord was for nothing.

Just after we got into the car, I saw a gentleman and a woman walk by, and the man had a piece of cardboard under his shoulder, and I could barley see, “Hands off” written on it. I got out of the car, struck up a conversation, and learned they were Tea-Partiers and were meeting dozens of other people there. Turns out the trip was not for nothing, and we began chatting while we waited for others.
Then my buddy from inside came back out, cell phone in hand. “You understand why I kicked you out, right?”
Surprised that he was following me to my car when I was on public property, parked at a meter, surprised me. “Yes” I said, hoping he would go away.
“It’s because you were dishonest and tried to smuggle your sign in. If you had been honest at the door, I probably would have let you go ahead in.”
This, of course, was bullshit, and I called him out on it. “You kicked me out because you disagreed with the sign. I wasn’t hiding anything, and I would have paid money to get in there. I gave you my name and RSVP’d, what was I hiding?”
His response of “You were dishonest” was cut off by Tyler telling him to go back to his “private party.”
He kept arguing, saying I was trying to disrupt things…
“How so?” I argued. “I RSVP’d and brought money to get in!”
“We don’t want your money!” he responded, and stormed away on his cell phone.

Over the course of the next hour, over twenty Tea-Partiers and other pissed off Granite-staters came and stood with us. After a little while, a group of women who were standing nearby were greeted by a man with blue dress-pants and a light-blue collared shirt, very professional-looking. Since the left has gotten criticism from people for their professionally made signs, this time the gentleman had MADE signs for everyone, to at least look less organized. They stood next to us (all of whom had brought their own, home-made signs) and we split up so that half of us were on one side, half were on the other. Disgruntled after a few minutes, they went to the other side of the road, and I was able to count: 20 for us, 5 for them.

I must give some credit to Paul Hodes. Rather than try to enter a back way, or cross the other side of the street, the congressman walked right up to us to greet us and shook our hands. Some of the protesters were calm, some were, well, not so much…
“You’re inside there?” One older man asked. “When are we going to get our turn to talk to you?!”
Hodes brushed it off and I said, “Are you going to have a Town Hall before you go vote?”
“We had a forum today…”
“Yeah, but a town hall!” I said. “When will you talk to both sides?”
He began walking down the line, until one woman asked if he would answer a question, and exploded. He stood calmly while she went through the bill reciting lines she had read.
“We’re trying to give insurance to those who don’t have it,” Hodes said.
“I already have it!” She yelled back.
“Well, we are going to bring the cost down.”
“Oh, no you’re not.” She was on a roll. “And what about the abortion line?”
“There is no abortion line,” Hodes pointed out.
“There isn’t?” She sarcastically responded, and you could tell Hodes was caught of guard.
“Ma’am, let me tell you the facts…”
It was too late. She was one of those people you see on TV, making the rest of the protesters look foolish with her. She stuck her hand in his face and raised her voice, “What about the babies? You’re killing the BABIES!” She had a point, but was a little too angry for Hodes’ liking, which was understandable. However, he took off and wouldn’t answer anyone else’s questions.
As he walked away, I said, “Can I have one more question, Mr. Hodes? What about the spending?” … He wasn’t touching that one.
Carol Shea-Porter wasn’t quite as friendly to us. She parked up the hill and didn’t interact at all, except for a wave on her way up the steps.
“We don’t want a wave, we want to talk to you!” Someone yelled.
“YOU’RE A COWARD!” screamed another as she disappeared into the restaurant.

That was pretty much our day. We stood in the street waving our signs and exercising our rights. We got way more thumbs up than we did thumbs down, or middle-up, although one large woman did take both hands off the wheel to lean out the window and scream “F*** YOU! F*** EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU A*******.”
One man with our group, who was wearing an eye-patch, had brought a multitude of signs including “Got constituents? Not for long!” and a few others. At one point, he held up a sign that read:

Real eyes
Realize
Real Lies.

Two gentlemen exited the Bluehampshire bash and were on their way to their car when they looked over at the man with the sign and stopped in their tracks. One of them yelled, “But you only have one eye!” I was seething…

Then, later, an elderly woman crossed the street next to Tyler. “How’s it going?” Tyler asked when they made eye contact.
“You people disgust me,” was her response…

It felt great to stand on that sidewalk today. I felt so American. The constitution guarantees us the right to stand up and speak our mind when we don’t approve of the direction of our country. At this juncture, it has never been so important in my lifetime to stand up what I believe in. And so there we stood, side by side, most of us strangers from all different regions of the state, from different backgrounds, with different political ideas, united under a simply cause: Liberty and Democracy. This wasn’t Astroturf like some may say, it was as grassroots as it gets. The movement is just beginning, my friends, and it will be interesting to watch things play out over the next year-and-a-half.
We need to continue standing up, and must do it with the passion to let them know we’re angry, the civility to let them know we’re listening, and a never-ending drive to know the facts on every issues.

Where in the world is Paul Hodes?

2009-08-23T14:11:00.001-04:00

Paul Hodes is the only person in the state of New Hampshire that is harder to find than Kelly Ayotte is, so this morning I began searching around to find where our representative is spending his recess, and when we can expect to see him. After all, he is our representative to Washington, D.C., so surely he will be holding at least one town hall meeting to talk with his constituents before traveling back to Washington to vote on the massive healthcare bill.
With a simple Google search, I was glad to find that Paul Hodes IS planning on meeting with some of his constituents. At a town hall meeting? No. At a forum on healthcare? No. A coffee at someone’s house? Try again… Nowhampshire.com reports that Hodes will be attending the Blue Hampshire Bash on August 24th, and will be the featured guest with the man who runs the Daily Kos Blog.
SO, rather than talk with all of his constituents about the healthcare crisis and the gigantic bill that he will be voting on; rather than gather the opinions of his constituents on the issue; he will be attending a Libfest in Manchester where he will be in a comfortable environment surrounded by progressives, where he can gather some grassroots Democratic support for his 2010 senate run.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME, HODES? He is going to go back to Washington without facing the public ONCE with the exception of a “bash” with people who only agree with his point of view.
To be fair, maybe Hodes is not meeting with constituents because he wants to read through the thousands of pages the House bills have in them, so that he has a full understanding of the bill before going back to D.C. to vote. Oh wait, that is unlikely since Hodes said last week that it is “not realistic to expect members of congress to read every bill word-for-word.”
Actually, that is the biggest part of being a representative. If you haven’t looked up the bill word-for-word, you may have missed parts that your constituents would disagree with and therefore you should request be taken out of the bill. But, Paul Hodes doesn’t need to read the bills. He will just do what he has done 98% of the time while in Congress: vote with his party. Call him “Puppet Paul.”

Today's Letter

2009-08-20T10:01:00.003-04:00

Last Sunday, the Nashua Telegraph wrote an editorial about the Nashua School District's decision to hire Mr. Katsohis, a long-time veteran of the school district, as the interm principal at Charlotte Avenue Elementary School. The editorial was written, it seemed, with little research to back it up, and took a few unnecessary shots at the integrity of Mr. Katsohis and Dr. Edward Hendry.

When I read it online after the link was sent to me, I thought it was a letter to the editor, and drafted a response to defend the decision that was made by the district. I knew I had gone way over the word limit when I sent it, but I had figured "their letter was really long, why can't mine be just as long?" The answer it simple, they printed an editorial, mine was a letter. So, my original letter had no chance of being printed, and my request to print it as an Op-Ed was denied, so I had to do some serious chopping to the letter and got it down to 250 words.

The 250-word letter apparently had too many abbreviations and a few lacks of explanation, so when the final draft was printed they had to take out one of two lines - lines that were two of the most important I had written. I'll explain: The issue that I had with the original editorial was the accusation that "the decision was made by an acting superintendent with no long-term interest..." and that was false because Mark Conrad and Ed Hendry made the decision together, and Mr. Conrad plans to stick around for more than a decade, and there is NO ONE that cares more about the district than Dr. Hendry. The Telegraph left out the fact that Mr. Conrad was involved in the decision-making process, and in my letter I explained that. For some reason, they took that line out in the final letter. It's almost as if they made a mistake in the first place by not reporting the full story, and then chose not to fix that mistake when it was pointed out by a reader. Interesting... The other line was my clarification that I was speaking only for myself, and took issue with the editorial.

Below is the link to the Telegraph's original editorial, followed by my full Op-Ed that could not be printed in the newspaper, followed by MY final draft of the letter, and finally the letter that was printed in the Telegraph. The changes between my final draft and their final draft are very small, but I think they are very significant.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090816/OPINION01/908159989/0/opinion

ORIGINAL LETTER:
As the student representative on the Nashua Board of Education, I was lucky enough to be at last week’s meeting in which Mr. Conrad and Dr. Hendry explained their reasoning for hiring Mr. Katsohis for the interim principal’s position. I agree with their analysis for not hiring Mrs. Cassidy for filling the role. I know Mrs. Cassidy from her days at Sunset Heights, and know that she is one of the brightest people in the Nashua School District and would have made a fantastic interim principal at Charlotte Avenue. However, she switches as an assistant principal between Dr. Crisp and Charlotte Avenue, and, as Mr. Conrad and Dr. Hendry explained, if Dr. Crisp reaches AYP next year it will no longer be listed as a school “in need of improvement”. So, it was in the best interest of both schools for her to stay in her current position.

I agree that Mr. Katsohis may not have been the cheapest candidate for this position, but there is no one in the area who is more qualified than he is to run a school. The Board of Education was not part of this decision-making process, and if they had been, the money factor may have become more of an issue. However, I take issue with the implication that Mr. Katsohis joined the Board of Education with personal ambition in mind. He has done whatever he could to help this district over the past few decades, he was a valued member of the BOE, and did a tremendous job running the Superintendent Search Committee. The fact that he now wants to go back into the classroom and work in the trenches is no reason for his motives to be questioned.

I also take issue with the statement that the decision was made by “an acting superintendent with no long-term stake in public reaction.” Again, disagreeing with their actions is acceptable, a different point of view is always encouraged, and perhaps the decision was not the best one financially. However, the statement that they have no long-term stake is simply not true. Mr. Conrad and Dr. Hendry made this decision together, and Mr. Conrad has expressed interest in staying here for over a decade, and Dr. Hendry will remain on board as Associate Superintendent for the remainder of the year, long after Mr. Katsohis’ tenure is through, and is as interested as anyone in the well-being of this district.

A healthy debate is encouraged, the Telegraph’s point is well-taken, and the board should be able to have a more active role in the hiring of interim positions, but doubting the motives of some of the district’s finest is unnecessary. I want to make clear that I am speaking for myself, and no one else in the district or on the BOE, but I took issue with the editorial that was run last Sunday.

MY FINAL DRAFT:
As student representative on the BOE , I understand the reasons put forth by Mr. Conrad and Dr. Hendry in hiring Mr. Katsohis as interim principal, and I especially agree with their analysis for not hiring Mrs.Cassidy for the role. Mrs. Cassidy is one of the brightest people in the District and would make a fantastic principal. However, she is assistant principal at both Crisp and Charlotte Avenue. If Crisp reaches AYP next year it will no longer be listed “in need of improvement”. It was in the best interest of both schools for her to stay in her current position.

I take issue with the implication that Mr. Katsohis joined the Board with personal ambition in mind. He helped this district for decades, was a valued member of the Board and did a tremendous job running the Superintendent Search Committee. The fact that he now wants to go back and work in the trenches is no reason for his motives to be questioned.

I disagree that the decision was by “an acting superintendent with no long-term stake in public reaction.” Conrad has expressed interest in staying here for over a decade, and Hendry will remain on board for the remainder of the year, and is as interested as anyone in the well-being of this district. Doubting the motives of some of the district’s finest is unnecessary. I want to make clear that I am speaking for myself, and no one else in the district or on the BOE, but I took issue with the Sunday editorial.

Final Draft:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090820/OPINION02/908209966/-1/opinion

How's this for astroturf?

2009-08-14T17:14:00.000-04:00

Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee was criticized a few days ago for getting on her cell phone during a town hall. She looked good at last night’s, though, thanks to a doctor in the house. In the middle of a town hall, a person in the crowd was called on to speak. Her name was Roxana Mayer, and she told Lee and the crowd that she was a physician of four years, and fully supported the president’s healthcare plan. After speaking, Lee thanked her and gave her constituent a BIG hug as the crowd applauded. It really was a great moment for Sheila Jackson Lee, connecting with a constituent in a very REAL way….
Except for that Roxana Mayer is not a doctor; she is an Obama delegate from Texas. She attended the town hall and lied to the citizens who went to learn about healthcare in order to make Obama’s plan and Congresswoman Lee look better. Yet another example of hypocrisy from the left.

Hypocrisy.

2009-08-12T12:05:00.001-04:00

The hypocrisy from the left is incredible. How can they continue to think that simply saying, “these conservative activists are organized” is a way to nullify the argument from the other side?First of all, most of them are NOT organized. There are angry old people who simply have had enough and have an opportunity to do what they have wanted to do for years – scream at their congress people. There are once-Democrats who think spending has gone out of control and the country is moving in the wrong direction. Most of these people are just simply going insane over what their representatives are doing and they have the chance to speak out!Now, on the subject of the ones who ARE being organized, there are two separate things that boil my blood. First, just because they are invited by conservative groups does not mean that is the SOLE reason that they attend these meetings and these protests. For example, I was on the computer yesterday and I got an email from Cornerstone Policy Research telling me that they would be in attendance protesting upon Obama’s entry to Portsmouth. I wanted to go and protest anyway, but had no friends that were available to go, and so when I read the email I planned on meeting that group up in Portsmouth. Does that mean my voice should not be counted because I was “organized” to go? Absolutely not. The people at these rallies, no matter how organized, are sick of the wasteful government and the direction this country is going in.The thing that amazes me here is the hypocrisy, because those of you who were on Barack Obama’s email list during the election know that your email has now been added to “Organizing for America”’s email list, and you have received an email telling you to go tell your congressmen and women about your view on healthcare. So, at the same time that the Democrats are claiming the “Conservative mob” should be shut up because they are organized, BARACK OBAMA’S COMMUNITY ORGANIZING ORGANIZATION IS DOING THE EXACT SAME THING. And what about when Code Pink and Veterans for Peace took to the streets at the Republican National Convention last fall. They were “organized” but since Nancy Pelosi agreed with them, they were simply exercising their free speech, and were in no way "Un-American" to demand surrender in two wars... And people from the ACLU and Greenpeace were lined up and down Newbury Street in Boston last week trying to recruit members. MORE community organizing from the left that is perfectly okay by the liberals, but don’t you DARE join a right-wing grassroots effort or Janet Napolitano will take your name and your voice WILL NOT be heard!Perhaps the greatest part of the left’s attack on community organizing is to look back to a year ago, when Sarah Palin, when her popularity was at its peak, claimed that “Being a small-town mayor is sort of like being a community organizer...Except that you have actual responsibilities.” Well, the Democrats were LIVID that someone would attack community organization. “Jesus Christ was a community organizer” was a talking point for a few days. They called the then-Alaska governor out of touch, and wondered out loud how anyone could deny that community organizers were not the very greatest part of America, and claimed that they are “the backbone of America.”They, in part, were right. Organization and free speech is the backbone of our Democracy. And this administration, in the greatest hypocritical showing in the history of this country, is now doing what it can to break America’s back...

A broken back... wow. Sounds like we'd need some healthcare..

Dems: Look to McCaskill

2009-08-12T01:05:00.002-04:00

Senator Claire MacCaskill tonight showed EXACTLY how the representatives should run their town hall meetings. She found the balance that is somewhere between Jeane Shaheen and Barack Obama. Jeane Shaheen held a telephone-town hall meeting in New Hampshire, likely out of fear of running into angry groups of constituents. The president had a crowd in New Hampshire today that didn't say peep against him throughout the town hall, and he had the easy job of hitting softballs out of the park all day with a favorable crowd at his back all afternoon.

MacAskill faced a packed house of constituents. She stood at the podium and allowed her constituents to write questions down and she put them in a fish bowl, which would be selected at random. She answered each question that she could, and when there were repeats she called the person out and allowed them to ask another question if they wished. When the angry crowd started to loudly boo or interrupt, she would calmly tell them to quiet down and waited until they did so. She had some interesting back-and-forth discussions with people, and looked above the fray while also simplifying issues for her constituents. Her fish bowl strategy was a refreshing change from what we've been seeing throughout this debate, and her town hall should be used as the ideal event for our congress people to hold.

In this debate, no one is winning

2009-08-12T00:58:00.000-04:00

It is incredible how stupid the Democrats are handling this health care issue. They tried to bring their message to the American people, and their voices were drowned out by conservatives who flocked to town hall meetings and SCREAMED out against them. They showed up by the hundreds, took on their congressmen, and stormed the town halls with incredible passion. The response from the Democratic leaders was not to debunk rumors and get the facts out, it was to demean these protesters and totally disregard the first amendment of the United States constitution. The conservatives that scream at these town halls are out of line, and are abusing their right to free speech by now allowing a true discussion to happen, but the Democratic Party has done NOTHING to debunk their healthcare claims and has emerged from this looking more out of touch than ever.
First, in the back rooms, Democratic strategists somehow decided the best policy to answer angry conservatives and independents was to demean them. They decided to claim these people were “manufactured” by right wing groups. Their proof was a memo emailed out by one organization, an organization run by someone with 23 facebook friends, an organization that 9 out of 10 grassroots conservatives would probably not even recognize. Rather than go point by point and describe their healthcare bills and exactly what they would do to fix the healthcare crisis, the spin doctors decided that damaging the credibility of the town hall-goers was the better way to go.
There is a problem with that strategy. The problem is that hundreds of thousands of Americans are looking at their televisions and seeing what the left is trying to do with the country and they ARE getting angry. People who have never been politically active in their lives are traveling miles to town hall meetings to speak their voices. People of all ages are taking to the streets to protest this plan. And for every person who joins the fight, there are those hundreds of thousands of people that WANT to speak out, that ARE angry, and who can relate to these people that they see screaming at their senators. When they see the Speaker of the House implying that the protesters are “carrying swastikas” and categorizing every protester with a few of the crazies, they realize how out of touch this congress is.

Every week, as surely as Sarah Palin will make a stupid comment, Nancy Pelosi will make a comment that infuriates me beyond belief. This week it was when she labeled the anti-Obamacare crowd as “Un-American.” HOW THE HELL IS PROTESTING UN-AMERICAN? This nation was founded by groups of people who dared to say, “Don’t tread on me,” and the American Revolution started as a protest. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House in a year where her supporters took to the streets and protested the war in Iraq. Protesting when you disagree with your leaders is about the MOST American thing you can do. It is the backbone of democracy, and for the Speaker to call it un-american leaves me to question just how out of touch she is.
The president also writes off the supporters as tools of the healthcare industry and special interests.

As entertaining to watch as the spin doctors inside the party is the Obama Press Office, also known as MSNBC. Rachel Maddow had about as apocalyptic a show as Glenn Beck the other night. She made it seem as though the Republican grassroots were planning to murder their representative town halls and were using mob rule and intimidation to start a revolution.
Keith Olberman named Rush Limbaugh his “Worst person in the world” tonight. We all know how much Olberman loves the left. So, why is it that Olberman chose to highlight his show by saying that it was Limbaugh who started the Nazi comparisons, and it was Limbaugh who was going crazy. Well, Keith, if you want to keep talking about Pelosi comparing protesters to Nazis, even if your conclusion is in her favor, you just go right ahead. And see how far that goes to help the party.
The best was tonight, when Chris Matthews had Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and an economist from the Wall Street Journal, whose name escapes me at the moment, had a discussion on healthcare. As the economist was explaining the grassroots efforts of conservatives, Chris Matthews interrupted and said, “I think part of it is some of you just don’t like the fact that we have a black president…” Of course, Ed Rendell jumped in and agreed. When the economist disagreed, Rendell and Matthews brought up the “birthers” as their trump card. That’s right, they tried to use the dumbest of dumb people in the conservative coalition and use one stupid view that they have and use it to imply that conservatives are against healthcare because Obama is black. Typically, they played the race card at an unnecessary time. On the same night that Sean Hannity had a woman on his show because she spoke out at a Town Hall with Arlen Specter and stated her case, rather reasonably, Chris Matthews led in with his race-baiting a moment before showing her statement and calling her crazy.
Newflast for NBC News: Conservatives are proud that we have a black president. We are proud that this nation can put many of our racial problems behind us. The problem lays in the policies. And on the healthcare policy, it’s about time both sides get down to issues and bang out a solution that works for Americans, rather than raising their voices, name-calling, and attacking the American people. The way to win the debate is by explaining the healthcare bills in a way that people understand. If people don’t understand it, they will fall for bullshit. Rather than call the American people racists and un-American, it’s about time to actually talk about healthcare.

Random Prediction

2009-08-05T10:30:00.000-04:00

As the Healthcare debate rages on in the House of Representatives and United States Senate, President Obama is starting to realize just how difficult of an issue Healthcare is. The grassroot conservatives are opposing ANY kind of government-run healthcare system and are coming out in massive numbers against the president’s plan. Other Republicans are putting their foot down at certain junctures and saying, “You cross this line, and you lose my vote.”
But the Republicans should be the least of President Obama’s worries. Watch out for the left hook, Mr. President. We all know that John Boehner would oppose any plan the president puts forward, along with Mitch McConnell and most of the other members of the GOP. They are consistent.
The challenge the president has is that he needs to make a plan conservative enough for the Blue Dogs to come back to his side and vote for the biggest healthcare reform since the Johnson presidency.
But even that isn’t the biggest problem. Suppose the president gets the support of the blue dogs by going conservative, but in the process goes TOO conservative and loses the far-left. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd will not simply go along with whatever is put forward. If the plan does not go far enough to insure the uninsured, they will kill the bill in a heartbeat.
The other problem: He gets the votes from both sides of the aisle, gets bi-partisan support, and the number of people insured does not go up. See what I mean? The hurdles keep coming.

Then there is that whole Afghanistan problem. Obama’s party, particularly at the grassroots level, has been calling for peace in Iraq and a decrease of troops in Afghanistan since 2006. He has delivered on Iraq, although not as swiftly as he had originally promised. But Afghanistan could be the biggest quagmire he faces.
If, a year from now, the violence in Afghanistan does not go on, and this president is forced to go before the American people and ask for a troop escalation, it could doom his presidency. If any of the aforementioned problems on Healthcare arise, his party will already have lost a degree of confidence in him. If, all of a sudden, he can’t deliver the peace he promised, and goes as far as to want MORE troops, he may face mutiny in the party. People will say, “We were promised healthcare for all. We were promised peace. Where is it?”
And then, waiting in the wings, there will be someone ready to lead the Obama Mutiny. They will lead the disaffected Democrats into a primary in 2012 and start a lively debate over whether or not the president deserves the nomination of a party whose platform he could not accomplish. And who better than Hillary Clinton to lead the charge?
I can see it now. As the president requests thousands more troops in the middle of 2010, the Secretary of State can no long sit by and watch. She resigns from her post in a flurry of controversy and becomes an outspoken opponent to the president. She takes her case to the American people, and with an “I told you so” attitude starts building a coalition of supporters just as she did in 2008.
And all of a sudden, it’s primary time, and the Republicans are not the only ones with multiple candidates. A long, aggressive primary is raged between Clinton and Obama, and it’s just like the good old days. Clinton will be relentless, and use the Kitchen Sink politics we saw at the END of her last campaign from the BEGINNING, and will wage the most aggressive campaign in this country’s history.
In the end, though, it will not be enough. The president will reassure the base of the party that he is in control. And images of 1980 will come back again. Clinton will deliver her own “The Dream Shall Never Die” speech, and give a half-hearted endorsement to the man who crushed her dreams. Obama, like Carter, will go limping to the finish line, where a new Ronald Reagan will be waiting to bring the first Republican Revolution of the 21st century.

Ortiz, Ramirez tested positive in 2003

2009-07-30T15:15:00.001-04:00

Robert Frost’s famous line, “Nothing gold can stay,” fits the day perfectly. Throughout all the scandals in baseball over the past decade, through all of the black eyes, there was the loan story of greatness: One of sports’ most storied franchises overcoming an 86-year-old curse in the most dramatic fashion possible. Generations of Red Sox Nation coming together to celebrate what they had waited lifetimes to see, and many never did live to see. The best part in the long run has not just been the walk-off hits, the nail-biting finishes, and the defeat of the Evil Empire after being down 3-0. The best part has been that as scandals have come out all across baseball, the 2004 Red Sox team was left out. And so, even as every accomplishment since 1998 had been tainted, the greatest sports story of the decade remained pristine. Until now.
The news that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez both tested positive in 2003 (Another great year in Red Sox history, up until the final game) eliminates the final white spot on the once-clean jersey of Major League Baseball. Now everything since the McGwire-Sosa home run chase.
This hits home for Red Sox fans for numerous reasons. The first of which is that those great memories are now tarnished. October 2004 was the single-greatest month of my entire life, and at age 12 I wore a Red Sox shirt to school EVERY DAY and made the best friends of my life by rallying around that 2004 team. The way my best friend and I started talking was by chanting “3-0 chokers” every time we saw each other in the hallway. I called my grandfather almost every day to talk to him about it, and prayed to my other grandfather, a former Red Sox employee, throughout the playoffs. His memory was with us throughout that magical October. And now, ever last memory is tagged with the word “cheaters”.
It has been a fun run chanting at Yankees and former Yankees for their steroid use, and for accepting no excuses from the players on other teams who tested positive. However, we must keep the same attitude here. Let’s be true fans, Red Sox Nation. If, over the past few years, you have been demanding asterisks next to Barry Bonds’ record, Yankees World Series Championships, and Cy Young Awards, you have to have a no forgiveness outlook in this situation as well. You have to accept that the squeaky-clean 04 Sox, led by the lovable teddy bear who was equally clean, have had a bucket of mud dumped on them today. The argument that the Yankees had users on their team, too, does not suffice.
This is a day of heartbreak for every citizen of Red Sox Nation. Perhaps we were naïve not to see this coming. But in reality, this was our greatest fear. With every steroid report, we held our breath that David Ortiz would not be in it. Today, that nightmare came true. The player who hit three walk-off hits in once playoff and the World Series MVP are cheaters. The perfect season has been made imperfect.
Nothing gold can stay.

Buckley's Attacks on Ayotte are out of line

2009-07-10T13:46:00.001-04:00

Don’t let the Democrats try to link the names Sarah Palin and Kelly Ayotte together. In the July 8th Telegraph, New Hampshire Democratic Chairman Raymond Buckley tried to say that Ayotte, like Palin, is abandoning her responsibilities in order to further personal ambition. Let’s get real here.
Kelly Ayotte signed on board as the state’s top attorney after Governor Lynch appointed her for another term. Her successes in her prior position are undeniable. She has cracked down on sex offenders, got the first death penalty ruling in decades, and has made this state a safer place to live. There is no doubt that she will be hard to replace, but to say she is abandoning responsibilities to further personal ambition is a stretch.
Perhaps Ayotte has simply looked at the way things are going in Washington. Perhaps she has taken notice, as many of us have, that the stimulus package is failing and unemployment has already climbed over 1.5% higher than was promised. Perhaps she has taken a look at the agenda of taxes on energy and healthcare and realizes that the direction this country is moving in is not one that she can sit back and let happen. Perhaps Mrs. Ayotte took a look at Paul Hodes’ voting record in the United State House of Representatives and thinks we need someone with a backbone in the senate rather than electing someone who will vote with their party more than 95% of the time. In these desperate times, I bet that Kelly Ayotte looked at the political landscape and decided that the people of New Hampshire cannot afford to lose another seat to this reckless majority, and realized that she is the person with the greatest chance to stop that from happening. She is giving up her solid, safe job in order to take a chance at making a better future for the people of New Hampshire. She’s not stepping down from responsibilities, Mr. Buckley, she is stepping up to do what she believes is right for her state.

It's ALL Over for Palin

2009-07-03T20:33:00.001-04:00

Sarah Palin’s political career ended today, whether she was planning on it or not. The former vice presidential candidate announced today in a press conference outside her Alaska home that outside operatives have cost the state too much valuable time and energy and have made too much of a strain in her family for her to continue serving as governor. For now, it is up to everyone else to speculate what the future holds for her – whether she is quitting politics altogether or preparing for a 2012 run.
If she thinks a 2012 run is in the works, it is over before it began. No one in their right mind will vote for a governor who was not tough enough to finish ONE term in office because they faced overwhelming challenges. Leaders face tough times, but great leaders work through them. If she wanted a chance at the presidency, she needed to stay in as governor and lead to the best of her ability and almost forget about 2012. She could have re-emerged in 2016 as an experienced, intelligent governor who has matured to the level of elder stateswoman, ready to lead the nation. OR she could have announced that she was not running for re-election and could have run for senator, pushing herself onto the national stage where she could become familiar with national issues before a presidential run. Backing down and blaming democratic operatives and the media was not the way to move herself forward. From now to 2012, “quitter” will define Sarah Palin much better than “Maverick” ever will.

There is the other side to this. What if the media and democratic attacks were too much? It goes to show you just how terrible the media has been to her. You can only push a person around so much. And thus, the left-wing media outlets of this country are likely in back rooms tonight high-fiving each other and shaking hands, as tonight they have defeated their greatest fear.
However, you won’t find much sympathy from me. She stepped into the spotlight and should have anticipated what she was getting herself into. She “didn’t blink” in accepting the vice presidential nomination, as she put it.
When she walked on that stage in Ohio after being introduced by John McCain as his running mate, Palin looked like a young, tough maverick ready to take on Washington. Today, she looked anything but tough. Today, she looked like angry and edgy. Pitbull Palin from the RNC is gone, replaced by a sad old dog with its tail between its legs.

Jamie Foxx's BET Comments

2009-07-01T00:05:00.002-04:00

At the BET Awards a few nights ago, Jamie Foxx spoke about Michael Jackson and said that he was black and said that, "He was one of US. We shared him with the rest of you."

Can you imagine if Britney Spears got up at the Grammy's and said that Bruce Springsteen was white, one of us, and that we shared him with the rest of the world? There would be outrage. I'm sick of these double standards.

EARTH TO DEMOCRATS

2009-06-30T13:31:00.002-04:00

Both sides of the aisle are already gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. History tells us that the Republicans should have the advantage, because since the Civil War the president has lost its seats in all but THREE elections. Granted, the Republicans look dead as a doornail, but things are looking like they might turn around.
If the Democrats want to hold on their majority, they have to first realize that they have the majority! Sure, when it comes to legislating they are easily pushing through their agenda. But when it comes to elections, they are stuck in the past. When talks of spending and taxes and foreign policy come up, the most capable defense they have is "look at George Bush." That slogan worked in 2008, and was very effective. Americans did look at George Bush, and they didn't like what they saw from him or his party. However, they will not be able to ride the Bush-bashing through 2010. Obama is the president now, and he has worked with the Congress to provide the change that he promised. The question over the next two years will not be whether or not he is better than Bush, it will be is he helping the country. And the Democrats just don't get it.
In 2010, the "change slogan" has to die. Voters that want change will not vote for the candidates of the party who is now in power. When I got an email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, it provided me with insight to their new fundraising plan: "Donate $5 and you get a Change Starts With Me bumper sticker." They can try to ride the change wave for two more years, but the change that voters would choose would not be in their favor. It's common sense.

Fili-Boehner Rocks the House

2009-06-28T00:51:00.000-04:00

On Friday night, the House passed an “Energy Bill” that will raise taxes on every American that uses energy, ship jobs overseas, and hurt our economy. If there is any good that could come out of the bill’s passing, from a Republican viewpoint, it was the strong stand that Minority Leader John Boehner took against the bill.
He was allotted two minutes to oppose the bill, but as the Minority Leader he was allowed to talk for as long as he wanted. Boehner was upset that Waxman had added a 300+ page amendment to the bill at 3:09 A.M. Friday morning, and was expecting a vote that evening. He posed the question, “Is it any wonder the American people feel that this Congress it out of touch?” Then, the Congressman from Ohio went through multiple pages of the amendment and pointed out all of the horrible parts of it, one-by-one.
In the middle of the hour-long fili-Boehner, Chairman Henry Waxman, the rat-faced congressman from California, interrupted and complained about the time that was being allotted. He wondered if any historical records were being broken.
Boehner, with his deep voice with the Midwestern drawl, shot back. “You’ve had thirty years to write this bill…And you added this amendment at 3:09 this morning…I think our constituents expect us to understand this before we pass it” – the last part was a clear shot at the way the stimulus package was passed a few months ago.
Boehner continued his lambasting of the Democrats and their stimulus package, donning his reading glasses as he flipped through the long amendment. He called the bill the most important one to face Congress in a hundred years, and urged his colleagues to vote against it. He finished by talking about the freedom that was being taken away, raising his voice until he was yelling at his colleagues and calling for a new way of doing things in Washington. The Republicans in the House of Representatives rose to their feet when he was finished and cheered for a full two or three minutes while Waxman tried to re-claim the floor.
Waxman began to try to talk, but the GOP remained on their feet hooting and hollering. “Point of order,” Waxman whined, “The house is not in order.”… The cheering continued.
Then Waxman, seemingly forgetting the rules, asked how long the minority leader was allotted, and asked if he went over that time. The speaker clarified that the leader could speak as long as he pleased. He then yielded his time to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who chose to pass up her time and said little more than, “Keep four words in mind: Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And Jobs.” In her mini-speech leading up to that he was inarticulate and fumbled two or three times a sentence.
For that hour-plus time, John Boehner had taken over Washington and taken control over Washington. Republican principles were on full display. He looked like a leader while Waxman looked like a Weiner and Pelosi looked like a cheerleader. His speech, and his powerful comebacks to Waxman’s objections, were the best political theater I have seen since I have become politically active.
The Republicans are finally starting to get it together. And when this disasterous bill is put into play and its results are on full display, the Minority Leader can point to his speech last Friday night and show a record of opposition from the Party. This was the first step toward stopping the agenda that is being steam-rolled through by the Democrats… And healthcare is right around the corner.

Here comes the tough part

2009-06-19T09:02:00.000-04:00

The honeymoon is over. The first few months of this administration, Barack Obama has been subject to a multitude of attacks – mostly from angry conservatives who are having trouble gripping the fact that they got their asses handed to them in the last election and thought that petty attacks on non-issues would help bring the president down a notch. This is an unwinnable battle, at least for today, where the president’s approval rating remains above 60% and the media serving loyally as his second press team. It is clear that the American people have agreed with this president, and the Democratic Party, that a softer plan for security and increased spending is the direction that they believe this country should go in. For now. Like Robert Gibbs said yesterday, everyone kept score last November. The Dems won. This is the change people wanted. And to fight unwinnable fights from the unpopular side has done nothing but make the GOP look like a bunch of whiners.
But it looks like things are starting to get back on track. Newt Gingrich is emerging as the new face of the Party and is doing a great job of putting together a common-sense message to bring to the American people. Sarah Palin has gained support from the embarrassing “comedy” by David “I-used-to-be-funny” Letterman. And, the polls in Virginia are promising for the GOP candidate, which Michael Steele has predicted will be the start of a “Republican Renaissance.” Rush Limbaugh has even quieted down!
For now, however, the battle remains unwinnable for the GOP on its own. They are taking steps in the right direction, but for the next year or so the left will have control of everything and be able to do as they please.
BUT, notice how I say “the left”, not “The Democratic Party.” President Obama is reaching a party of his presidency in which both sides are laying down demands, and the “we won” response has lost its touch, because what happens when the far-left of the Party starts calling him out on his campaign promises from the primary. What happens when Bill Maher viciously attacks him in a monologue, and homosexual groups are outraged over his lack of support for them?
When the entire right and the far-left join together in attacking the president from both sides, he will be in a difficult situation. That’s the problem with elections these days. During the primaries, candidates take extreme positions in order to align with the party, and in the general election move to the middle to satisfy the electorate as a whole. Politicians are forced to promise everything to everyone, and all of a sudden when they are elected everyone actually expects them to follow through.
Gays expect the candidate who promised to fight for them; conservatives expect a president who opposes gay marriage.
Cindy Sheehan wants the end to war that she was promised; most Americans expect victory over terror.
Nancy Pelosi wants Guantanamo Bay closed; the American people say keep them out of my backyard.
Healthcare is going to be where the real struggle happens, and I am willing to predict that the battle over healthcare will be the first stand of the Republican Party since this president was elected. The liberal agenda has been pushed through with ease, with that loyal opposition at every turn but providing no real power.
On healthcare, Obama will hit a wall. The universal healthcare fans have lost this battle time after time before. There are too many similar systems that have failed throughout the world, and there are just too many directions where the president can get himself in trouble:
If he doesn’t insure EVERYONE, the left will get angry again.
If he creates a completely, government-run program, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to conservative Democrats will be outraged.
If he suggests a costly plan that he can’t pay for, MAYBE the American people will finally say “enough is enough.”
He has to walk the line of involving government to a level that will make liberals happy, and have the private sector involved enough to make Republicans happy. It is a complex issue that, in the end, a majority of the people will not be happy.
Obama will learn quickly over the next few months that you can’t make everyone happy. You can’t promise everything to everyone without being held accountable in the end. The honeymoon is over. The tightrope walk begins. We shall see just how savvy Axelrod, Gibbs, and the rest of the White House Dream Team is once this hits the fan.

"Do it for Teddy, America"

2009-06-06T10:05:00.002-04:00

The ailing, lion of the senate who has so steadfastly stood up for everyday people for decades of public service, who is heroically battling a brain disease, has proposed a bill that would provide health insurance for all Americans. The brave old man who has fought this fight before is giving it one last shot, because, even as his body slips away, “the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” Come on, America, let’s pass universal healthcare for all. Do it for Teddy!
I hope you could sense the sarcasm in that above paragraph. When Rush Limbaugh, who I all of a sudden find myself defending two times in as many days, said that they liberals would put Ted Kennedy at the heart of this issue to get the sympathetic support from Americans, he was criticized by everyone. Just months later, he was proven right.
Universal healthcare will destroy this nation’s healthcare system just as it has in other countries. This fight has been fought before, and the ultra-liberal healthcare proposal has rightfully been shot down before.
Now, in the New Liberal Order, the Democrats are going to the heart of the issue. They think that they can push healthcare through by attaching Ted Kennedy’s name to it, and thus avoid a debate. Anyone who tries to argue with healthcare will receive the paragraph that I started this post with. “Do it for Teddy,” they’ll say.
Well, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Pelosi, there is still an obligation in this country to look out for ourselves and our fellow countrymen. The American people are smart enough to know what is right and what is wrong, what will work and what will not. We don’t make decisions because a senator wants us to, no matter how sick he may be. I urge all of the conservatives to never yield and never flinch in this debate and fight universal healthcare at every turn, no matter what emotional attacks come at you from the left. It’s more important to “Do it for America” than to “Do it for Teddy.”

MUST-READ: Obamanomics

2009-06-05T23:51:00.002-04:00

For the past few months, I have moved slowly toward the center-right, away from my previous far-right positions in a little bit. I did this because I saw it as the patriotic thing to do to give our president a chance to work his magic on the economy and help restore our standing in the world. When the stimulus passed, I hoped it would work. When he made his speech yesterday, I thought it was pretty good. Additionally, I have told many people that I hope the first vote I ever cast in a presidential election is for President Barack Obama, and had the hope that over the next for years things will turn around and I will praise him for his great work.
Today, I finally started to understand what Rush Limbaugh meant when he said that he hopes this president fails. He did not mean that he hopes the economy fails, that we are attacked, and that things go down the hole. Mr. Limbaugh meant that he hopes the policies of this president fail so that this nation can remain strong and free. That seemed like an unfair thing to say, I thought. Let’s give this guy a chance…
That chance ended today.
When I got home from school today, my grandparents and aunt were all in my living room, and I asked where my parents were. “They went to the bank” was their solemn response. When they got home, I asked why they went. “We needed a loan to pay the bills”, my mother told me. This was the first time I realized just how much this recession is impacting my life.
Later on, we were sitting around the table when my dad started telling a story about work. My dad is a graduate of Tufts University and worked his way through college to get where he is today at KLA-Tencor. At Tencor, a large amount of the money that he brings in is based on commission. Because of the current recession, he has not sold as much as he usually does. Thus, as I already mentioned, our family’s income has gone down drastically.
Over the past few weeks, my dad finally landed an order on a piece of equipment that his company sells. The buyer was ready to buy the $60,000 equipment, and everything was supposed to go down today. The buyer, however, called my dad. “Brian, we have a problem,” he said. “Because of the string attached in the stimulus, if a piece of this equipment costs X amount of dollars, and a small business sells it, we have to buy it from them.”
And so, because of Obamanomics, this company has to buy a piece of equipment that is lesser quality AND more expensive than the one that my dad is selling. Because of the stimulus package, my dad could not land a simple deal that would have helped my family. Because of these economic policies, a single person who has to put food on the table for his family is punished because he has been labeled as “big business” by Obama and company.
I agree with this president that we should do what we can to help small businesses, because they are a crucial part of the economy. But there are ways to do that WITHOUT hurting other businesses. You cannot just decide in Washington, D.C. what companies are good and what companies are bad. The Big Business executives may be rolling in more money than the small-business owners, but you cannot base an economic policy on that. This economy was built on competition and a free-market. Labeling good guys and bad guys will not help fix things. I am a firm believer that we need to do something to help EVERYONE rise up, not tear some companies down to help others grow. The American Dream is being squashed here. The president is sending a clear message to Americans: Be successful, but not too successful. Because if you are rich, you are evil. If you make too much money, you should be punished. And if you build a company from the bottom up, make sure it doesn’t get too big, or it will get placed on the “naughty list.”
And since when could the GOVERNMENT tell you where to buy things? My father’s company sold a better piece of equipment for a lesser value than the small business, but OBAMA told them they couldn’t buy it. Since when did we get to a point where our elected representatives can tell us where we can and cannot do business. “Don’t get the good deal,” they say. “Buy what we want you to buy.” Is that the American way?
Enough is enough. Clauses like this made it through the stimulus package because they were not READ by our representatives, and were rushed through by the president and the Speaker of the House so that they could look good politically and always have their claim of “swift action.” I would have chosen effective action over swift action any day. This is what happens when there is almost no debate on a bill that is supposed to have the single-biggest impact of any bill in the history of this nation.
The honeymoon’s over, Mr. President. I’m not necessarily a fan of trickle-down, but it is a hell of a lot better than the tear-down policies of today. I want my America back.

Revolution Rap 09

2009-04-06T08:26:00.000-04:00

It’s time for a movement, a new revolution,
In the name and defense of the old constitution.

We need a Tea Party and a new bunker hill,
They’re ruining the country, we’re footing the bill.

What happened to a nation based on representation,
Formed to oppose all the unfair taxation?

Laws pass to steal and spy, we just go along,
Without a single realization of what’s going on.

Boxes on the street are home to children and their moms,
Instead of helping them we’re overseas dropping bombs.

The focus of our leaders goes to a Wall Street bail-out,
Instead of on our schools, where there’s a massive fail-out.

You heard A.I.G., Other S.O.B.'s
Bonus money paid by you and me.

They form a nation without responsibility,
to replace a nation formed on liberty.

The machine targets one group, and we all just let it,
But when they come for you, you’re gonna regret it.

They take your wealth and their gonna spread it,
American Dream,you can just forget it.

They reach out and steal our democracy,
To replace it with a massive beauracracy.

The people are sick of losin' all their freedom.
They need a new generation of people to lead 'em.

It’s not a new idea, kid, we’ve done this before.
Stand up, fight back, before 1984.

Winston Smith’s of the world, stand up, unite.
Grab a soapbox and a megaphone, it’s time to fight.

We’ll use our voices to take back what’s yours and mine.
It’s all part of Revolution 2009.

Setting Spending Straight

2009-03-25T09:53:00.002-04:00

Our politicians are stuck in a catch-22 over spending in Washington. On one side, you have the Republicans pushing through massive spending and saying, "Well, this is not much, look what the Democrats are doing." On the other side, you have President Obama saying, "Those who criticize me seem to have a short memory" and cites the fact that George W. Bush created a 1.3 trillian dollar deficit.
First of all, you can't defend a budget that is three times that amount by saying the other guy spent too. That just doesn't work. Second, both sides are refusing to take responsibility for their failures and instead choose to just blame the other side. THAT is how the entire government fails. Eventually, we are going to need some accountability in this government if we are going to turn things around.

Daily Dodd Update

2009-03-23T18:57:00.002-04:00

Dodd just keeps getting deeper and deeper into trouble with this AIG mess. It was reported today by Real Clear Politics that the Connecticut Senator's wife was on the board of directors of a Bermuda-based company called IPC that was controlled by guess who. I'll give you a hint: It starts with an A and rhymes with PAY I G...
She recieved thousands of dollars from the company.
Dodd has gotten more money from the company than any other senator.
Where's the outrage?

Dodd's Excuses Don't Add up

2009-03-22T09:40:00.002-04:00

I was reading the Boston Globe yesterday, and there was a short article on one of the back pages (Why expose Democrats on the front page?) about Chris Dodd. The Democrats are trying to sweep this thing under the rug, and have actually been fairly successful at it thus far.
First, he said he had no involvement.
When he was exposed as the person who wrote the amendment, he blamed the Treasury Department and his staffers who wrote the majority of the bill. The former would put Tim Geithner in even hotter water than he already is, the latter shows that he is incredibly out of touch and needs his staffers to do his job for him.
Now, his latest excuse is that he didn't know the amendment would allow the bonuses. At least that's understandable. Because when language says that contractual bonuses will be protected, why would someone think that that meant contractual bonuses would be protected.
Either Chris Dodd is incredibly stupid, or he is corrupt. You be the judge. Either way, he should resign.

American Democracy, 1776 - 2009

2009-03-19T17:44:00.002-04:00

Maybe I have been watching too much Glen Beck, I may be becoming an alarmist. But today, March 19, 2009, may go down in history as the day Democracy died. Today, we have seen the very worst of the Democratic system at work. We have seen our founding fathers’ worst nightmare. We have seen that the corrupt leaders of the nation have found a loophole for everything and have found a way to give themselves the power of a totalitarian dictatorship. We have seen today that if one party controls all facets of government, the desires of those people can be carried out however they please. Today, congress passed a bill that will tax 90% of the bonuses that were given to AIG executives who were given a $250,000 bonus or more. They claim to have the right to do this because, essentially, they paid for those bonuses with taxpayer money. But let it be known, as John Boehner said today, this is nothing but a political circus to try to steer people away from realizing the mistakes of this government in planning the initial bail-out.
Sure, the AIG executives got disgusting bonuses. Sure, they are greedy bastards who deserve none of the money that they got. And sure, it was a total misuse of the tax-payer funding that they received. But it’s not this specific instance that I am worried about. It is the principal and the potential for tyranny. If they can target a small group of executives, they can tax any small group of people. As long as they have the numbers in Congress, they can put a 90% tax on anyone that the majority pleases. And that is scary. They can tax anyone making over $100,000-a-year that much, and can tax anyone any amount that they please as long as they are in the majority.
We should be outraged. If they can take out these guys, and tax whatever money they please, they can tax you 90%. They can tax me 90%. They have figured out a way to throw Democracy aside in the name of political theater, and the name of the Democratic Party. They have only taken out the AIG executives. But who’s next?

Will the man whose name is 75% D's please step down...

2009-03-19T17:27:00.001-04:00

Fact: Chris Dodd has received more money from AIG than any other senator.
Fact: Chris Dodd wrote an amendment to the bail-out bill that allowed outrageous bonuses for executives at the company.
Fact: Chris Dodd lied about writing the amendment two days ago, and when he was found out yesterday he blamed his staffers who wrote the bill, and said that the Treasury Department told him to make the change.

…. And it all starts tumbling down. John Boehner couldn’t have written this himself. The second most powerful senator in the country gets caught not just screwing over the American people and making a gigantic mess, but also LYING about it. Blame the AIG executives all you want for the bonuses that they are greedily taking, but it must also be realized that the writers of the bill – such as Sen. Dodd – SPECIFICALLY allowed for this type of thing to happen, and were apparently shocked by the results.
This type of potentially corrupt behavior could force someone like Dodd to resign. However, instead of taking the fall, he is grabbing on to his staffers and the Treasury Department for support. He said unnamed sources from the Treasury wanted it in the bill. Oh man, this just keeps getting better. You know that once this is looked into the unnamed sources will no longer be unnamed, and Geithner and his buddies will be exposed as the frauds that they are.
That will happen if pressure if put on Dodd by members of the media and of his party. Speaking of his party, this is the exact type of behavior that Barack Obama said he would end in Washington. So, in the coming days and weeks, Obama will have no choice but to go directly after Sen. Dodd. This could ignite a battle between two of the party’s biggest stars, ending with either Dodd or one a Treasury scapegoat taking a major fall.

Then there is the ridiculous response by Nancy Pelosi on the controversy. She said “We are taking the eye off of the ball… We have inherited a mess; The president has inherited a mess…” Madame Speaker, we all know that this mess was inherited. But there is no way in hell that George W. Bush can be blamed for a bill that was written by Chris Dodd, that Chris Dodd has admitted to writing, and that was passed through the Democratic Congress and Senate. George Bush has zero responsibility for this one. It was owned by the Democrats. And the “inheritance” bullshit is going to get old to the American people very soon, and if things are not turning around by the end of the year the Democratic Party will be in serious trouble.

North Korea

2009-03-10T16:07:00.003-04:00

Quick Statement:

North Korea says they will send a sattelite into space.

We say its a missile, and if it is launched we will shoot it down. Japan says the same.

North Korea says that they will declare war on anyone who shoots down their "sattelite."

And no one is talking about this.

What the hell?

Here They Come...

2009-03-10T15:56:00.002-04:00

As was predicted, the Limbaugh Backlack has begun. Newsweek has a picture of Limbaugh on the cover with the headling "ENOUGH" running across his mouth. The news media are hanging on his every word, reading to attack, as was proven with the publicity surrounded his statement that the Democrats would use Ted Kennedy as a way to garner support for Universal Healthcare. Five months ago, when Limbaugh made the statements, they went unnoticed, but now that he is "the leader of the GOP", it makes a major headline.
The Democrats are out in full-force as well. It's been said that in order to unite people you need to give them a good enemy. Right now, the GOP is united against "the enemy", Barack Obama. The Democrats are united against Rush Limbaugh. They have been talking non-stop about Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" comments and keep saying that the Republicans are taking marching orders from him. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent an email to donors with the title "he crossed the line". The email goes on to say that "Rush Limbaugh is too extreme for America. The best way to fight against Rush and the GOP is with 60 seats....Rush is already plotting for 2010. We can't fall behind."
No matter how disengenuous the Democrats are being about the Republicans' allegiance to Rush Limbaugh, the GOP dug its own hole by flocking toward him and standing behind him. This is the backlash.

Hypocrisy From The GOP

2009-03-08T11:02:00.002-04:00

Note to Republicans: to take back Washington and the trust of the American people, try NOT going the hypocritical things that got your party kicked out of Washington in the last two elections. For the last decade, the GOP has looked like the party of hypocrites as they have claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility and have pushed through nearly as many earmarks as the Democrats. They go with the old, "Well, we're not as bad as those guys" line to try and save themselves. At least when the Democrats add these projects, they try to make it sound like the pork is necessary.
John McCain is leading the charge against the massive government spending bill that just pushed through the senate, and he is about the only one who has the credibility to do it. The Republicans are doing the right thing by saying that the pork should be cut out, but they have no credibility when THEY PUT 40% OF THE PORK IN! It's an embarrassment.
Sure, President Obama promised to got through the budget line by line and find out what can be cut, promised to bring an end to earmarks, and promised, as the budget's name suggests, a new era of responsibility - and this bill is the exact opposite of all of those statements. But it's easy to be a hypocrite when everyone around you is doing the same.

My heart beats fervently again....

2009-03-04T23:17:00.001-05:00

18 months ago, no one would have ever expected any praise from me about then – New York Senator Hillary Clinton. I hated her tax plan, I hated her mindset, I hated her voice, I hated her policies, I hated her hair, etc. The yellow pantsuit that refused to go away was the only thing left that I couldn’t hate.
On April 22, 2008, I endorsed then-Sen. Clinton as the Democratic nominee for president. Although, still, I disagreed with her on most policy, it was nothing compared to the level of disagreement I had with the then-freshmen senator from Illinois. She was a fighter. She was tough. And she was starting to grow on me.
By the time the general election started my lovefest with Hillary had ended, but then a few months ago I came out in favor of her becoming Secretary of State. And today, my heart beats fervently once again for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
You see, when Barack Obama began announcing his homeland security team, I thought about America’s image for a second. Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano are hardly intimidating figures. This was a team of “diplomacy” that were said to want to talk to everyone about everything and have tea parties with dictators and fascists. But with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, there is going to be no softness coming from The United States of America.
In Clinton’s trip to the Middle East this week, she made the much-needed point that the United States supports the Islamic religion, but will not tolerate the radical terrorist extremists who destroy peace in that region. She met with Palestinian leaders, but not members of Hamas in her trip.
She also delivered some fierce talk on Iran. She said they seek to “intimidate as far as they can reach” and said “It is clear that Iran intends to interfere with the internal affairs of all of those people and try to continue their efforts to fund terrorism…” She re-iterated the point that the United States plans to continue their effort to create missile defense in Europe not because of the Russians, but the Iranians.
After eight years of Bush and Cheney being the “tough” faces of America, they have been replaced by a woman. She is not a gun-wielding conservative, but a fierce-tongued liberal who is not afraid to offend a few people. Let’s hope the tough talk toward Iran and Hammas continues, because a part of me wants to continue loving one of the least lovable women in America.

Why the Rush factor works, and why it doesn't.

2009-03-03T21:49:00.000-05:00

It was clear as Rush Limbaugh stretched his 20-minute speech into an hour-long affair in a week in which Bobby Jindal, the “future of the GOP” fell flat on his face, that Rush Limbaugh has become the voice for conservatives. That should be no surprise. Limbaugh has had that claim for more than a decade. The question is whether or not he is the voice of the Republican Party, and right now that answer is probably yes as well… And they’re playing with fire.
Rush Limbaugh is a fiery person who fires up conservatives like no other person in America can. He is articulate, smart, and best of all: he pisses of liberals like no one else – with the possible exception of Ann Coulter. In a time where Republicans have lost style, lost leadership, lost their principals, and lost elections, it is a good change of pace to have a true conservative leading the party into the future. Obviously, at this moment there are no Republican leaders set to take the front position as the leader of the party, and thus it is Rush Limbaugh providing the firepower. It works, because if Barack Obama is getting into back-and-forths with a radio talk show host rather than our real enemies or the actual members of the other party, he is going to look bad. Plus, the last few elections have hurt Republicans because they did not have their base in line, and having the base of the Party active is how they win elections. With Rush Limbaugh leading the charge, millions of conservatives are fired up.
This, however, does have its fallbacks. For all that he is articulate and witty, Rush Limbaugh is arrogant and angry. He has openly stated that he wants Barack Obama to fail, and has a history of outrageous statements about women, African-Americans, and other people across the world. This party works because he may be the guy just saying what some other people feel sometimes, and since he is not a politician he can say them. However, if he is the “leader of the Party” then the Republican Party all of a sudden is in line to answer for his actions. Since he has been pushed to the forefront as the lead elephant, his statements are going to be watched more closely than ever, and every single hateful thing he says will be revealed. And although most Republicans don’t agree with Limbaugh and his hateful rants, they will be held liable for his actions. We also have to forget, the far-right talk-show hosts and personalities put themselves at the forefront in the primaries last year. They slammed McCain, and promised to end his rise to the nomination – and they failed. Maybe the party’s voters are not in line with the Limbaugh conservatives. Then again, maybe this is all party of re-conservativizing the Republican Party.
I guess this works – but only for now. Right now, the party is starving for leadership. In the senate, their biggest leaders are John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsay Graham. John McCain, God love him, is old news. Mitch McConnell is as boring as the WNBA, and Lindsay Graham just plain gives some people the creeps. In the House, there is hope, with the skilled leadership of Minority Leader John Boehner. And the Governors across the country such as Palin, Crist, Pawlenty, Sanford, and Jindal are all very articulate and effective, but the party insiders are shying away from the middle few for some reason. My guess is that they are going to try and feel out those governors over the next few years, and see who the public reacts best to. They already knocked one off.
Big Rush works for now. He is helping the party get back to basic conservative principals, he is throwing the Democrats and President Obama off message, and he is doing what he does best: Making headlines and stirring the pot. But he is too big of a risk to keep steering this ship for too long, and pretty soon Michael Steele at the very least is going to have to step up and slide Limbaugh aside, because in the end Rush Limbaugh is not going to be a Congressmen, not going to be a Senator, and is not running for the nomination in 2012 (we hope.) And eventually, it is safer to have skilled legislators rise to the occasion and fight to take the country back rather than the leader of the far-right faction of the party.

Jindal disappoints on national stage

2009-02-25T11:44:00.000-05:00

Last night, after President Obama delivered his typical-styled speech to Congress, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had the tall task of delivering the Republican Response. Now, it was a tough act to follow, as Obama made a virtually mistake-free speech with a rousing crowd supporting him and the backdrop of the inside of the United States capitol, while Jindal was simply standing in a hallway.
This was a set-up. The party was not going to put up a typical, old, white Republican to follow the first African American president. And, thank God, they were not about to put Sarah Palin back in the spot light. They chose the young, charismatic, Indian-born governor with the highest approval rating of any governor in the country. They were hoping that he could effectively nullify most of the good points made by President Obama earlier in the night, and provide a new face to the Republican Party for people to remember in the coming years. Since Jindal was not at the 2008 Republican National Convention, this was a clear boost on to the national stage in preparation for 2012.
It’s too bad he failed. He looked goofy, sounded sing-songy, and stumbled over many words and didn’t have a sense for the flow of the speech that was prepared. He didn’t look presidential in any way. The speech read nicely, and some good points were made, but the delivery was below-average at best. Next time, they should put the issues of race and youth aside and put forth an experienced, skilled speaker such as Tim Pawlenty or Mark Sanford. The decision to put forth Jindal as the new face of the GOP definitely made a lot of sense, but in the end all it proved is that Jindal is not ready for that leadership position.

Holder's got a point

2009-02-20T07:57:00.000-05:00

Attorney General Eric Holder made a bold statement in a speech about race relations earlier in the week, stating, "Though the nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." As expected, the Republican Party was outraged and Conservative Talk Radio, Fox News, and even some mainstream media members spoke out against Holder and condemned his statement. Is part of this outcry because he is right?
Just look at it for a second, please. We have made such incredible strides in overcoming our racist past, but we are not quite out of the dark yet. Affirmative action is still in place, and no one has the cajonas to stand up and say that it's wrong because they will be tagged as a "racist." The number of African-Americans in our prisons is astounding, and the number of children being born without a father, particularly in the African-American community, is also unreal. And when people like Barack Obama try to say something to try to promote personal responsibility, the Jesse Jackson's of American throw a hissy fit and say that he is "talking down" to the community. Well Jesse, when people are misbehaving, they need to be talked down to every once in a while.
We also can't have an intelligent debate about illegal immigration without people being called racist. And White Americans refuse to recognize the racism that still live within some of them. And although the problem of racism toward African-Americans is becoming less and less of a problem, with the large migration of people from Latin America, a new age of racism is upon us and is being breeded in the schools of America today.
And what about the treatment of Muslim Americans. There is truly an amount of racism involved there. This is because ignorance has overcome interest. People would rather hear false statements about a foreign religion, make assumptions, and hold them true than go out and learn about the faith and understand that the Muslim faith is actually one of peace. It obviously does not help that overseas there are horrible people carrying out acts of terror in the name of that religion....

The fact is that no one is willing to stand up and recognize the problems that all of the races, White, Black, Hispanic, Middle-Eastern have, and lay a path toward truly overcoming our race problems. We need a new age of understanding between all people of America so that this melting pot can come together and overcome all of its problems. But everyone is afraid to. Because if they do, they are branded as a "racist", or accused of "talking down," or become victim to political outcry. No one's willing to fix this problem because the cowards Eric Holder mentions are standing in the way.

Shut Up, Sarah

2009-02-05T17:11:00.000-05:00

Maybe this makes me the newest member of Sarah Palin’s “Idiot Bloggers” Club, but there are some things that need to be said at this point:

We get it. The mainstream media did not give Sarah Palin fair treatment, and grossly were in the tank for Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election. We understand that some idiot bloggers started rumors about the origin of Palin’s son Trig. And we understand that Palin should have had more of a say in the election strategy, and also understand that Palin should have probably been handled differently by the McCain team.
Sarah, we understand where you’re coming from. But now it is time for you to understand a few things. First: Everyone under the sky realizes the left-wing media was in the tank for Barack Obama, harping on it three months after an election is NOT how you prepare yourself for a future, inevitable presidential run. Understand that no one has brought up your family in those three months, and complaining about anonymous bloggers from over six months ago is not going to help you either. I guess the bottom line here is: STOP WHINING.
The GOP faithful lined up behind Sarah Palin during the 2008 election and made her into a superstar. Her conservative credentials and new-wave leadership style impressed true conservatives and Republican women. The governor is the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination in the 2012 election. But in order to get there, she must realize that complaining about the failures of 2008 in NO WAY prepares her for her future.
The way she can prepare for 2008 is by doing exactly what she did before bring selected as the GOP nominee for Vice President: Govern. Instead of talking with newspapers and documentarians, get back to Juneau and cut taxes and spending and get your state’s economy booming. Instead of constantly commenting on national politics and staying up on the national scene, she needs to focus on home. It does not matter if she continues her assault on the media and bloggers and the president if she does not govern effectively. Let’s face it, she may have been in over her head this election. She needs to show next time that she is experienced and knowledgeable, and needs to re-invent herself as the Conservative Governor of Alaska rather than the “Maverick Hockey-Mom Airhead” that she has been portrayed as.
And the way she can do this is simple: Go away. For the next two years, hide up in the Alaska state house and quietly create a prosperous and productive state for the next two years. Put all of your plans in motion, and work bi-partisanly with the legislature in order to get things done. Stay out of the limelight, and simply govern. Hell, she may even want to do some serious foreign policy research in order to bolster her credentials for 2012. Then, after winning re-election as the state’s governor in a landslide victory and after continuing her successful terms as governor, she can magically re-appear in 2011 as a more distinguished, more experienced presidential candidate, ready to campaign HER WAY for the White House.
There was no one that loved Sarah Palin more than I did in 2008. But I am down-right sick of the whining at this point. It’s not what Republicans do. It’s not what Americans do.

Yes He Can

2009-01-20T16:34:00.000-05:00

Running for president as a one-term senator with the name Barack Hussein Obama, with far left views and a party that initially had put their future in the hands of a woman far more experienced than himself; then running against a formidable opponent whose entire life had been dedicated in service to America, and becoming the first African-American elected president of the United States was a tall, tall task for the 44th president of the United States. Looking back at images of him from the past four years, you can see how quickly he was forced to mature and how much older he looks now… and that was all the easy part.
Now, it’s time to govern. The American people have invested their hopes in this man. With his incredible public speaking ability, he won over millions of Americans and has inspired us to believe in America again. He challenges us to believe that although we face difficult times, we will make it through, and he truly believes that our best days are ahead of us. He has promised much to many, and now it is time to deliver.
There are not many presidents in the history of the country that have had more power than Barack Obama will. With the expansions of executive power put forth by the Bush administration, combined with his party’s domination of the House and Senate, the country is his for the leading, and there is no excuse not to deliver. In the congress, his fellow Democrats have had two years to use the excuse of a Republican president as a reason for not doing their job. That time ends today.
Luckily, the president seems to embrace that fact. In his inaugural address, as in his nomination acceptance speech in September, President Obama pointed out all of the problems that face the country. Today, those problems become his problems. And with his power, there is no way around solving them. Again, he seems to understand this, stating that “Today we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”
The greatest lines, in my opinion, of Barack Obama’s speech were the lines on foreign policy. Many in the world predict that President Obama will be weaker on national security than President Bush was, but he looked and sounded firm, maybe even Kennedy-esque, when he called out the rogue nations of the world: “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”
He also did something that President Bush never did, reaching out his hand to everyone in the world, and promising to give everyone a chance to join us in the fight against radical Islamic extremists. He balanced the hawkish, strong verbage very well, but also found a way to show the world that this is a new administration that will work hard for peace and unity in the world: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
For two years, we have heard the words “change” and “hope” repeatedly from Barack Hussein Obama. For two years, he has made promises to the American people about leading us into better times, about overcoming our challenges, and about securing our standing in the world. After years of pessimism, we have re-captured optimism in this country. We have a bold, confident leader claiming that he is ready to lead us in an effort to re-build our nation. And your years from now, there will be no excuse for failure.

Grading W

2009-01-19T12:45:00.000-05:00

On one side, you have people like Cindy Sheehan, whose facebook status reads “Adios Mother F#$%r”. On the other, you have some Republican spin doctors praising the president for his courageous leadership for the past eight years. I’m somewhere in the middle. Here’s my grading sheet:

His first problem was No Child Left Behind. It did not an ounce to help the education in America, and pissed off Teacher’s Unions across the country. Bush’s grade for that education act: 70%, a D.
On September 11, 2001, the course of the world, and the Bush presidency, changed drastically. We were attacked on our homeland for the first time since Pearl Harbor, and thousands of Americans lost their lives. This was perhaps Bush’s finest hour. He appeared strong, confident, and in control. After the attacks, his approval ratings reached as high as 90%. In grading his handling of the attacks, Bush gets a 95%, A-.
I separated the immediate response and the War on Terror because they are completely separate. The American military stormed into Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban, and went on the hunt for the bastards who attacked us. With the world on our side, we got off to a solid start in the war. It was not until we shifted focus into a different country that things started to go downhill. But, over-all, the strategy of staying on offense in the war has been successful, we have not been attacked since 9/11, and Osama bin Laden is believed to be isolated from his followers. For the war in Afghanistan, I give the president a 86%, B.
The war in Iraq was one of the defining issues of the Bush presidency. We marched in, took out Saddam Hussein, and overthrow his dictatorship. It was glorious. Except we didn’t find weapons of mass destruction…And we were not greeted as liberators… and there was that whole “Mission Accomplished” banner incident… and it sort of hurt our standing in the world…And, oh yeah, Congress voted to surrender in 2007. After horribly handling the war from the beginning, President Bush implemented “The Surge” and things are finally on track. It has taken too long, but we are clearly on the path to victory. For taking out a dictator and securing a strong democratic ally in the Middle East, he deserves a grade in the A/B range. However, he horribly mismanaged the war and it cost American lives and money. For that he deserves to be in the D/F range. So, somewhere in the C-range would be appropriate. I think I’ll give him an extra point for his cat-like reflexes in Baghdad a month ago: 80%, C+.
Katrina. Not much needs to be said. Catastrophic fail. 30%, F.
On the economy, it’s another low grade for the president. He oversaw this economic crisis, and must share the blame with Congress. He pushed the bail-out through Congress and has sold his soul to the Democrats for the past year. He doesn’t fail here, because of the strength of the economy in the first half of his presidency, but he gets a 70%, D.
On spending, the president abandoned conservative principles and let it get way out of control. 64%, F.
On immigration, he lined up with McCain and Kennedy on a failure of an immigration bill, but has done a little bit to help secure our border. 76%, C.

It’s been a long eight years. The president deserves tons of blame for tons of problems that he has brought about and/or failed to fix. But we also must give credit where credit is due. Only history will tell whether our interactions of the past eight years in the Middle East will pay off and make our world a much safer place, and only time will tell how bad this economy will get. It is too early to judge, but for now W’s grade is a 71, D+.

Why is Nancy Pelosi Still Speaker?

2009-01-18T18:44:00.000-05:00

Two years ago, Nancy Pelosi accepted her party's position as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Her party over-took control of the House by making bold promises to the American people to take on the president and lead this country in a new direction. Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House, promised spear-head these changes, and promised to create a "New America." During her campaign, as well as the other candidates in her party, promises were especially made to end the war in Iraq. Pelosi, when accepting the job as Speaker, stated that, "The election of 2006 was a call to change - not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq."
She promised to bring our troops home from that long, unwinnable war.
She did not.
She promised to create "A new America with a vibrant and strengthened middle class for whom college is affordable, health care accessible, and retirement secure." Two years later, the middle class is hurting more than ever and 47 million Americans are without healthcare.
She promised to create, "A new America that declares our energy independence, promotes domestic sources of renewable energy, and combats climate change." Yet she opposed off-shore drilling and turned out the lights on her counterparts who believed in it, and has done little to help make the nation more energy independent.
She said, "After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." Yet she has pushed through with giant deficit spending and jumped on the bail-out bandwagon, and now plans to support a stimulus package that would increase said deficit.

Above all, in the opening of Pelosi's historic speech before the Congress, she promised to be a b-partisan leader. She said that, "I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and look forward to working with you on behalf of the American people...In this House, we may belong to different parties, but we serve one country. We stand united in our pride and prayers for our men and women in the armed forces. They are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice."
Yet, time after time, Speaker Pelosi has polarized the issues facing the nation, has ignored that nation's people, and even stopped debate on the floor of the House as those who disagreed with her tried to continue an argument. She turned off their microphones, turned off the lights, and quite literally left the country out in the dark.

Now, sure, I hate Nancy Pelosi because I am a Republican, and because I am a Catholic. As a Catholic, I am astonished at not only her view on abortion but her bogus argument that the Catholic faith does not have a set stance on abortion. However, Democrats need to take a good look at themselves. They have the Oval Office. They have the senate. They have the congress. This is a unique opportunity that scarcely arises for political parties.
This is their opportunity to bring dramatic change to the country, and they should pick their most effective leaders to bring that change. Over the past few years, their congress has been rated lower than George Bush, and they have not brought a single major change to policy in America. But they were all too afraid to try to unseat Imperial Nancy and ruffle a few feathers in the party. No one had the guts to suggest that maybe in this year of "change" they should change from a disasterous, partisan, ineffective Speaker to one with experience who is respected on both sides of the aisle. Apparently, in this year of change, that change would have gone just a little too far.

Judd + Jeanne and Bail-Out Green.

2009-01-16T16:46:00.000-05:00

Last election cycle, we heard the Republicans expose "Jeanne Shaheen the taxing machine" as just another tax-and-spend liberal who would be in the Democratic Party's pocket for the next six years. They pointed out to New Hampshire voters that since the Democrats took over the two U.S. House positions a few years ago, Freshmen Representatives Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes voted over 95% of the time with the Democratic Party, and the Jeanne Shaheen would likely do the same as a U.S. Senator. During the election season, with an inevitable Democratic surge clearly on the horizon, Republicans begged with the people of New Hampshire to block another liberal spender who would tax the people, spend their money, and support bailing out companies.
On November 4, the Republican effort fell short. Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen became Senator-Elect Jeanne Shaheen, and was officially sworn in as the first woman senator in New Hampshire history last week. Today, she cast her first vote as a U.S. Senator. The issue: the remaining 350 billion dollars in the Wall Street bail-out. You remember, that 700 billion dollar thing that Washington insiders used to screw us all?... And what did the liberal, "Tax-and-spend Machine" do?
She stood up to her party in one of he first days on the job. She voted AGAINST releasing the rest of the money for Wall Street. She realized that the American people were screwed by this deal, and that this tragic waste of money has not provided the relief that we were all guaranteed. She realized that the people of New Hampshire are moderate people, that believe in the free market and who want their money spent wisely. Senator Shaheen sent a clear message to her Party: I'm not in your pocket. She, as the only Freshman senator to vote against the bill, went against the will of Barack Obama (who personally called her and asked for support), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. In the words of Sarah Palin, she is a Maverick. She sent a message to her party and the people that she serves: We deserve better. She showed, much to my surprise, that she GETS IT.
Apparently, however, there is one representative from this state that does not get it. He does not get that the Republicans need to get back to the basics of low taxes and smart spending. He does not, at least for today, understand that we need to bring relief to the American family and Washington must be smarter with our tax dollars. That person is the seasoned veteran of the senate, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. It is Judd Gregg, and last remaining Republican Congressperson in all of New England. Judd Gregg, the last hope for our party.
Gregg needs to get on the same page with New Hampshire voters, and he has to do it fast. I never thought I would say this, but he needs to take a page out of the Shea-Porter and Hodes book, and govern the way they people want. It's time for him to get back to the basic principles that have earned his continuous re-election.
Although John Lynch has taken his name out of the running for U.S. Senate in 2010, there are rumors among political circles that Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes are both taking aim at his senate seat, making 2010 predictably the closest race Gregg has had since his first election in 1992. In order to win, he has to show his true colors, and correctly represent the people of New Hampshire. Shaheen, Shea-Porter, and Hodes have all learned how this works. Gregg used to know it very well, and if he doesn't re-reach himself soon, he'll be playing golf with John Sununu during the 2011 legislative season.

Predictions of 2009

2008-12-29T22:32:00.001-05:00

SPORTS:
Super Bowl Champions: Baltimore Ravens
World Series Champsions: New York Yankees
NBA Champions: Boston Celtics

IN THE NEWS:

Politics:

-Much to the suprise of the majority of the world Barack Obama cannot achieve world peace, give everything to everyone, keep taxes low, and reverse the effects of "global warming." However, he has a fairly successful first year as president.
-A scandal breaks out involving one of the 2012 presidential hopefuls from the Republican Party that ends their campaign before it begins.

The War on Terror:
However, toward the end of 2009, the economy takes a turn for the better. Troops will continue to pull out of Iraq as focus shifts to Afghanistan, where America is more and more aggresive, and begins to see successes in that surge as they did in the Iraq surge. This time, Obama will recognize the success.

Israel:
The bombings with Palestine in late 2008 and early 2009 are nothing compared to the violence that breaks out when Israel bombs the Iranian Nuclear plant....

Thats all i have for now.

Obama so far

2008-12-18T21:45:00.000-05:00

It's been about a month and a half since the election, Barack Obama has not even been sworn into office yet, and already it is time for a quick evaluation. And to behonest, this is going much better than I expected. On election night, I had feared that President-elect Obama would stack his cabinet with ultra-liberals who would steer this country on a far-left route to insanity. However, his cabinet has actually been what he said it would be, "A team of rivals." He has brought Republicans in, and added Hillary Clinton, one of his biggest rivals, to serve as the nation's top diplomat. He also added some great left-wing minds like Bill Richardson and Tom Daschle in to take stop spots in his administration. I've got to admit, this thing is looking better than I had expected.
However, if I am pleased for the most part with this cabinet, does that mean that Obama is doing something wrong? If I am okay with this direction, shouldn't the far-lefties that elected Obama as the leader of their party and their nation be OUTRAGED at the centrist turn that things are taking? For weeks, Bill Cunningham and others have been asking "Where is the outrage?". It finally came within the last couple of days.
Barack Obama announced that evangelical leader and super-pastor Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation at Obama's inauguration. It is yet another example of Obama reaching out to someone who does not necessarily agree with him on issues and showing respect and giving them a place in his transition to power. It's also a smart political move because it may help him garner a few evangelical conservatives in four years, and truly does show that everyone is welcome in his White House. However, the lefties that helped put him in that White House see NO place for a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, Proposition-8-lover at the table.
It's going to be interesting watching things play out. Middle and Right America are becoming pleasantly suprised by the news that keeps coming out of the Obama camp. But the far-left is starting to get a little testy. One he is inaugurated and bills start flying to his desk, we will see if he caters to the far-left once again or continues on this centrist path. Either way, he is going to make some people mad, and ruffle a few feathers from both parties. Which birds, we don't know at this point. But it is going to be interesting either way...

Madame Secretary?

2008-11-16T20:53:00.001-05:00

Six months ago, this would have been seen as implausible. A year ago, it would have been seen as absolutely impossible. But now, short of two weeks after the election, there is a good chance that New York Senator Hillary Clinton may be picked to serve as Secretary of State in the incoming Barack Obama administration. And I think she would be a great choice for a few reasons. One reason is the foreign-policy experience. She has met with some of the world’s leaders, and was first lady during a very successful administration that did a great job on foreign policy. Another is her personality. The final reason goes to the old saying, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”
Hillary Clinton has been on the world’s stage for a decade and a half. She has met with world leaders. Her husband – who will undoubtedly play a role in helping her, no matter what she ends up doing – was a pretty good president on the issue of foreign policy. She has proven that she can take hits, and is a hard worker. The woman is a fighter. It is not hard to picture Hillary Clinton laying down some hard-nosed demands to foreign leaders, as well as negotiating with our friends. It is not hard to picture her sarcastic smile appearing on her face as someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says something crazy as he talks with her, and it is not hard to picture her getting very serious and tough with the rogue leaders of the world. And imagine the look on someone like Vladimir Putin’s face if they ever became subject to hearing the “Clinton cackle” in response to something they say. Foreign policy is Sen. Clinton’s area of expertise. She knows how the world works even better than Sen. Obama does.
Another very important advantage of appointing Clinton as Secretary of State is that Obama can take her out of the senate. A bitter Hillary Clinton in the senate could be a dangerous thing for the president-elect. There are issues that he will take on that he will need a united party at his back, and she can use her support from the people and from her colleagues to sink some of his ideas.
Take a look back at the post-2000 world. John McCain was extremely bitter after the dirty tricks of George W. Bush defeated him in the primary season of that election. And so, when it was time to return to the senate with the new president in power, John McCain was ready for a fight. He passed McCain-Feingold, much to the dismay of President Bush. He opposed the president on numerous issues, including the tax cuts that the senator now supports. It became a personal battle against President Bush.
The same could easily be seen happening over the next four years. If Obama tries to implement a new healthcare plan, a certain senator from New York might object on the grounds that it leaves a few million people out. A certain New York senator might object to “naïve” foreign policy decisions by the president. And if this hard-nosed senator is successful in publicly altering the direction of the administration, she may be able to take on that president for his party’s nomination in 2012. Even more likely, if her voice goes unheard by the president while the American people intently listen, and the results are disastrous for the country, Sen. Clinton will have a very good case to make for a 2012 presidential run.
The choice is quite clear. There is an experienced, knowledgeable candidate for an open position. She has a loyal following, and can provide unity in the Democratic Party. She knows the foreign leaders better than the president-elect does. And for more than one reason, maybe the most important thing that president-elect Obama needs to remember about Hillary Clinton is that she is tough and never backs down from a good fight.

2012

2008-11-05T18:43:00.001-05:00

The way this election cycle went, it would not be completely surprising if a few people announce themselves as candidates for president starting next week. With the 2008 election finally behind us, let's take a quick look ahead at what the 2012 landscape could look like.
President Obama will likely be up for re-election, and will probably see no opposition from anyone inside of his own party. There is, however, always possibility of a certain New York Senator striving for power. I don't want to drop any names, but she might give it a shot.
Most of the action will be on the Republican side. After the 2004 election, many people were intrigued by the fact that a woman would likely be the frontrunner for president in 2008. Well, in 2012, it is likely that a woman will be the frontrunner for the nomination of the Republican Party for president. Many people inside the party fell in love with Sarah Palin, and although many people disliked her throughout the country, with four years of experience under her belt, and with Gov. Palin calling the shots instead of the McCain campaign, we may see a whole new style in 2012.
Mitt Romney may give presidential politics another shot as well. He gained a LOT of respect from his party when he stepped down from the race as soon as it was clear he was done, unlike what Hillary Clinton did to her party. The conservatives showed strong support for him in the end, and he has showed lots of knowledge on issues such at enegry, the economy, and national security. He will have to find something to keep him occupied between now and then, though.
If Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi push a plethora of far-left bills through the government, it may get people angry just as they were in the 1994 elections. In 1994, there was a man who stood up against the administration and led a revolution throughout America to put the Republicans in control of the House. That man was Newt Gingrich. If the liberals make the same mistakes they did in the past, a strict conservative like Gingrich could definitely have an opportuntiy to shake things up. If the Democratic Party remains popular, however, it will be hard for a poster-boy conservative to take the White House.
If the Democrats and Obama are indeed popular, a moderate candidate such as Tom Ridge might be a good choice. He will no doubt have to over-come the pro-choice problem with his party, but Ridge was a governor, homeland security director, and has loads of experience in the private sector. He is a war hero with a proven record of balancing budgets and securing the country. The Republicans might want to shy away, however, from picking a war hero known for disagreements with their party....
Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is another possible candidate for president. He is young, smooth, and by 2012 will have some decent executive experience under his belt. He was a front-runner for McCain's VP pick this year, and has emerged in the national spotlight in the party. He is one who says the party needs to re-think its platform and its strategy, and after last night many people will agree with him.
Two other governors who were potential vice presidential choices are Bobby Jindal and Charlie Christ, two more governors who have emerged nationally in the past few years.

I realize I am obnoxious for beinging up the 2012 election the day after the 2008 election, but it will be fun to look back two-and-one-half years from now and see who enters the election. There are a few people who clearly have tried to get some spotlight during this election cycle and may be setting up a run. There will be new-wave Republicans who are looking to the future. There will still be Reagan Republicans who want to go back to basics. There will be the same old names we have seen, as well as a few surprises. Maybe an unknown who was elected to the Senate just last night will enter the race and win the presidency... Hey, it could happen...

Recognizing History

2008-11-05T14:43:00.000-05:00

Today is a day that should be celebrated. For the first time in the long history of the United States of America, a black person has been elected as president. For at least a little while, we as Americans need to take off our partisan hats and take a moment to realize what a momentous occasion we are a part of right now.
Our nation was founded on the proposition that all men are created equal. That statement, for far too long, did not hold true in our societies. Slavery was a driving force in our economy for a century. America was plagued with dehumanization of blacks for most of our history. Even after the Civil War and the long, bloody battle to end slavery was finished, the problem of racism remained. White supremacists dominated ever facet of American life, and those who nobly stood up were oppressed, attacked, and even killed. Civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. fought hard for equal rights, and they paid the ultimate price for it.
Today, we must realize the undeniable magnitude of the results of this election. We have officially put what was once the ugliest part of our past behind us. What was thought to be unimaginable just thirty years ago happened last night, and the celebration that entailed was certainly appropriate. Politics aside, November 4, 2008 will go down as a great evening in American history.
The greatest part of the campaign of Barack Obama is not that he is a black person who was elected. The fact is, as results started pouring in last night, race was seldom on people’s minds. He was not a grievance candidate running on a race-based platform. He was a Democratic candidate who happened to be black, and the fact that race was truly a non-issue in this election is very important.
In this hour of celebration, we must also note that we still have a long way to go as a society. I heard many people last night talking about America finally reaching what Martin Luther King, Jr. described as “The Promised Land.” We did not reach Dr. King’s Promised Land last night. We will reach that point when hate is completely driven out of our society. And as far as presidential elections are concerned, we will reach that point when somewhere down the line – whether it be twenty years from now, forty years from now – whenever it may be, when a black person is elected president and no one notices their race.

I'm hopeful. But Cautious

2008-11-05T14:42:00.000-05:00

Optimism is a key component to the American Spirit. Through all of the good times and the bad, we have seldom lost our optimism. And so, the morning after a devastating election for the Republicans, I try to find some optimism inside of me to analyze this election.
First off, I want to say that I support President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden. I think that they were wrong about the issues, were dishonest with some campaign strategy, and worry about Obama’s experience. As an American, I am concerned with what the future holds, but I give Obama my support, as should you.
In the coming years, he will be our leader. If we do not support our leader, we do not support ourselves. I am sick and tired of the last eight years in which the Al Gore supporters of 2000 have attacked President Bush on every front, no matter what the issue. They disagreed simply because they lost. They disagreed because they didn’t like Bush, not always because of the content of the discussion. Some may call me a “Fairweather fan,” but fanhood should not be allowed in politics. We must support our leaders, especially the president, because without the support of the public behind them they are nothing. At the same time, it is our civic duty to question their decisions, learn the issues, and voice our opinion on their policies and actions.
“Change is coming.” That is President-elect Obama’s message to the world. This statement is true. Aligned with a Democratic-dominated congress, he will have free reign to pass legislation he finds appropriate.
Obama’s views on the world are very different from the policies of the past eight years. The landscape of American government will surely change over the next four years. He will redistribute the wealth. He will create new government programs. He will pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. And he will talk with foreign leaders without pre-conditions.
Although I think that distributing the wealth will stunt our economic growth and eliminate incentives to try hard, I hope that it helps bolster the economy and help save people who are in economic struggles.
Although I think big government programs will raise our taxes and make the national debt even bigger, I hope that his programs will be effective and that he will truly eliminate waste in government.
Although his pull-out may be a bit irresponsible, it is not as bad at is once was, and I pray to God that our troops come home safely and in victory.
And I agree with Barack Obama that we must fight hard in Afghanistan and we must pressure Pakistan to take action on the Taliban.
His foreign policy is very interesting. Meeting with rogue leaders could send a message to the world that we would rather negotiate than fight, and that everyone has a seat at the table in our minds. This could help our standing in the world after eight years of it going down the tubes. At the same time, our allies and other nations may be upset that the president would meet with terrorist-supports, anti-sametics, and rogue leaders, and our standing may lower.
Big changes in government can often be successful. Just ask John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Who knows, we may have another, new kind of leader who is going to change our country for the better. But, we could have another Jimmy Carter on our hands.
So today, I accept the defeat of my favorite candidate. But I’m not going to sit and complain about the results, and constantly complain for the next four years. I’m not going to hope that his policies fail so that I can say “I told you so.” I pray that these Democrats can bring this country to a new level, renew our standing in the world, and defeat our enemies, even if there is little in the past to make me believe it will happen in the future.

Election Day should be a national holiday

2008-11-03T22:17:00.000-05:00

After winning his presidential election in the year 1800, Thomas Jefferson deemed the election a revolution that was greater than the revolution of 1776. Although Mr. Jefferson may have been over-stating just a bit, his point was clear. In 1776, brave Americans fought for independence from tyranny, and vowed to establish a new, fairer, democratic government that was based on freedom and liberty. It was a government that would be for, of, and by the people, guaranteeing certain inalienable rights that all humans are entitled to. Surely, the Revolution that gained our sovereignty cannot be understated as the most important revolution in the history of the world. At the same time, however, T.J had a very valid point. In 1800, all of the ideals and liberties that the Revolutionary War had been fought for were being upheld and defended. There was a transition of power without violence, a rare feat at that time in the world. The people made the decision on who their leader should be, and one of the most brilliant men to walk this earth was elected as president.
It is in the logic of Thomas Jefferson that I believe that Election Day should be a national holiday. July 4th is a giant celebration every year – deservedly so – to continue the celebration of our independence, to realize how lucky we are, and to take a moment to think about how much has been sacrificed to protect our freedom. We go to barbeques, watch fireworks, and sing patriotic songs until our lungs hurt because we are part of the greatest nation on earth, and that is something were celebrating. We celebrate our liberty and freedom and the fight we will have to put up to defend them now and forever.
In the same token, the celebration would mean nothing if every year on the first Tuesday in November, Americans could not go out and cast their votes. We should celebrate the actions of living out our freedom just as much as we do the fact that we have it. Every November, when it is Election Day, Americans should band similarly to the way they do on the Fourth of July, and take a day off to reflect on how lucky they are that they live in the freest nation on earth, and that they can go down to their nearest polling station and actively participate in their government. It is a process that has been sacrificed greatly for, and should be given its own national holiday in which to be recognized.

If....

2008-11-03T06:31:00.000-05:00

If Sen. McCain wins, his two highest moments can be traced back two places: A debate in October where he delivered a line about a spending bill Hillary Clinton supported that would use 1 million dollars for a Woodstock museum. Sen. McCain said, "I wasn't there.... I'm sure it was a great event.... But I was tied up at the time...." the crowd went crazy and the Republican candidates paused for a moment and honored his service with their applause. That was at a critical point where he had finally started showing good numbers in the polls, and that put him over the top as a legitamite contender for the nomination.
His other big moment would be his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, where he became more emotional and more personal than ever about his entire POW experience, and delivered an epic "I hate war" line that gave me chills to hear.
Oh and one more, Mr. Joe T. Plumber helped him out.

If Barack Obama wins: First, thank Oprah. His Oprah tour brought new women into the voting fray and got him the attention he needed, and he delivered oustanding speeches in her presence that gave him a boost in the polls.

Then, his debate performances helped him mightily. In the first two debates, he handily dominated Sen. McCain.

Lastly, his selection of Joseph Biden as vice president may have won him this race. There were doubts about Obama's experience and his ability to lead, but alongside him is one of the most experienced, tested members of the senate who has tackled challenge after challenge in his personal and political life.

If Obama loses: Blame Hillary. She stopped him from securing an early nomination and having an even longer time to get the American people to know him. For a solid month, Obama had to take on heavy attacks on two fronts, and it clearly hurt his campaign. Also, blame Sean Hannity, who held him accountable for every last questionable thing in his past.

If McCain loses: First, Blame George W. Bush. It is because of his failures that Republicans are in trouble this week.

But the big reason that Sen. McCain may lose this election is from the bail-out. He looked ready to get down to Washington and show some leadership, but went against everything he believes in and supported a big government, tax-payer funded, pork-laced bill. It was very un-maverick of him.

ITS CRUNCH TIME.

2008-10-30T15:24:00.000-04:00

The McCain campaign called Barack Obama a “celebrity.” They have pointed out that his wife has said some very anti-American things over the course of the campaign. They went after him for Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers to the point where they have become household names. These attacks were all failures. Sure, some of them gained a few points in the polls for a small period of time, but nothing has been able to stick. While Barack Obama was talking healthcare, education, and taxes, McCain was talking about Spears, Hilton, and Ayers. Surely, Obama slyly landed a few punches of his own when it came to the attack game, but playing the victim and promising a “new kind of politics” worked for him. What McCain should have done from the beginning is what he did in the final debate: talk about taxes.
Why did it take MONTHS of a presidential campaign for McCain to finally go after him on the tax issue? For months, people like Jerry Doyle have been calling Obama’s views socialist, pointing out that raising taxes on anyone during a time of a recession will hurt the economy. While some people were talking policy back in June, many conservatives were obsessed with a lapel pin and a thesis Michelle Obama wrote at Princeton. After months of personal attacks – sometimes stretching the truth – it took McCain until October to finally realize that substantial attacks on the issues, when his plans are far superior, was the way that this election would be won.
He finally got it. Joe the Plumber was introduced to the world, and the mainsteam media and Democratic Vice Presidential nominee attacked the hell out of him. But Americans weren’t fooled. They didn’t care if Joe the Plummer’s name wasn’t Joe, or that he didn’t have a plumber’s license (you don’t need one in Ohio, but don’t tell Joe Biden that), they saw something in Joe the Plumber. They realized that you can’t put a cap on the American dream. You can’t punish people for reaching for their aspirations, and trying to get a business started. The fact was that people related to Joe the Plumber, and all of a sudden took a second look at the Obama Tax Plan. As McCain and Palin jumped on the issue, and took the Plumber story and ran with it, they started to gain some points in the polls, and all of a sudden we had a race again. As Winston Churchill once said, "If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile ddriver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack." The Republican ticket used that pile driver and whacked the Joe Plumber into the heads of all Americans, and their eyes were opened to some important facts.
Then came yesterday. They went back to the tricks of the summer, linking Barack Obama to a Palestinian in America. Is it a viable attack? Maybe. Will it stick? NO. People have heard so much about Wright and Ayers and other associations that if they were not going to jump off the bandwagon by now, they aren’t going to do it in the next few days over one last Hail Mary attempt. People simply are done caring about the character attacks. McCain wins the character battle hands down. That point has been made. And this latest scare tactic is not going to help much either.
Also, it is time to stop complaining about the left-wing media. Once again, this point has already been made! CNN, MSNBC, and all of the major networks are clearly in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, it is clear to everyone who watches. The newspapers love him, too. But over the past three weeks, we have heard more from the Republicans about the media’s love affair with Barack Obama than we have about winning the war, confirming constitutionalist judges, and providing affordable healthcare. Enough is enough. Attacking the L.A. Times for protecting Obama and holding onto a potentially damaging tape will not gain five points in the polls. It probably won’t gain a single one. Enough about the media, let’s hear about what John McCain will do as president.
Rick Davis and McCain’s team deserve a lot of credit for turning this around and securing Sen. McCain the nomination, but their general election tactics have been down-right awful. None of their personal attacks have stuck, they ran without a solid message, and completely mishandled Governor Palin. On her first day as the V.P. choice, she delivered a speech that highlighted the great job she did as mayor and governor. Since then, they turned her into your “hockey mom”, and allowed Saturday Night Live to define her better than the campaign ever did. They kept her away from local media outlets, didn’t allow her to answer questions from supporters, and kept her hiding on the Straight Talk Express for far too long. When she came off of the bus, the media was ready to attack, and she was often-times under-prepared. I think Gov. Palin is a smart, self-made, woman who has done great things for Alaska and can do great things in Washington. But if the McCain camp didn’t think she was ready to talk to crowds and talk to the media, how could they think she is ready to be Vice President?
Lastly in my list of venting about the mishandling of the campaign, let’s talk about that bail-out. Before one of my last blog posts, I wrote about John McCain flying back to Washington to help resolve the crisis. The Maverick was taking off to get things done. But the John McCain I know did not get off the bus in D.C. A John McCain who went along with Washington insiders sat back and watched as the biggest bail-out in American history passed on the floor, and he silently allowed billions of dollars in pork-barrel projects to make their way onto the bill. That’s not the John McCain I know.
The John McCain I know would have stood on the floor of the Senate and pointed out the outrageous pork-barrel spending on the bill. He would have stood up passionately and told both parties that this was unacceptable, and a prime example of why the American people do not trust their government. He would have told Chris Dodd that he didn’t care how urgent the bail-out seemed, such a pork-laden bill could not be passed if McCain had a say. It would have been a heroic moment for McCain, and the 75% of Americans who disagreed with the bail-out would have respected him more for it. Instead, McCain joined with Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and President Bush and allowed the bail-out to quickly make its way through the Senate. Dick Morris described it as the first time he had ever seen Sen. McCain lose his guts. I agreed. That’s not the John McCain I know.
In this final week, it is far too important of a home stretch to waste time with shady personal attacks. It is time for Sen. McCain to show that fire in his belly he showed in the weeks before the New Hampshire Primary. He needs to tell everyone the importance of cutting taxes, winning the war, confirming strict constitutionalists to the bench, stop outrageous spending, and he has to deliver that wonderful line where he vows to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell. He has to talk with the American people and tell them he is going to fix their problems the good, old-fashioned conservative way. He has to join with Governor Palin and Joe the Plumber in an effort to shake up Washington and change America. He needs to deliver the straight-talk on the issues and show off his experience and knowledge. THAT is the John McCain I know.

Obama ad: A Yawn.

2008-10-29T21:15:00.000-04:00

I have been fairly objective in my last few posts, if I may say so. That ends now, with the election less than a week away. I cannot try and show any more admiration for Senator Barack Obama, although I do respect how far he has come. The “Obama-mercial” put me over the edge tonight. It was the worst piece of television I have seen since Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was finally taken off of the air.
For one, it was far too presumptuous. The shot opens up with Barack Obama sitting at a desk in front of a large, wide window that, of course, looks similar to the president’s desk in the oval office. The presidential seal was already a little presumptuous. But an oval office look-alike took it a bit over the top.

Secondly, Obama has developed a very arrogant air to him lately. It started with his speeches, when he gives that smug smile at the mention of John McCain. It happens every time he cracks a joke or says a good line. Although Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews are big fans, no one loves Obama more than himself. That arrogance was shown tonight once again with the pushing back of the World Series time and the giant production that he put on. Is this a circus or a presidential election? It’s hard to tell.

Third, he managed to waste another chunk of our time by putting up a half hour ad about absolutely nothing. We basically were told for a half hour, “America sucks, but Obama is good.” And we saw those sweet, sad stories of people like US struggling to get by. It was very touching, senator, but what are you going to do for them?

His answers in the video:
1. Cut taxes of every FAMILY making less than $200,000 a year. Sounds good, but let’s take a detailed look, something Obama has never done with us. First, let’s point out that those “rich people who don’t need tax breaks” were the PEOPLE making $250,000 a year just a week ago. Apparently the standard of rich is going down quickly in the mind of Barack Obama. Let’s also point out that a family with three children in college could be dishing out close to $100,000 a year in tuition payments, spend large amounts of money paying off car, gas, and electric bills, and then spend money on basic goods. These people are not what you call “rich.” If you raise their taxes in order to “spread the wealth around”, and in “pursuit of the American dream”, you are not lifting other people out of the middle class, you are dragging people down into it.
2. Invest $15,000,000,000 in energy independence-related stuff. (worded horribly, I know – my fault.) If a President Obama can do this, it would be great. But the thing that has been lacking from Sen. Obama all along, and what independents wanted to hear from him is DETAILS. HOW are you going to do these things? Once again, there was no answer.
3. “Every American will get a tax credit to help buy fuel-efficient cars.” Get off my back, Obama. Give me a tax credit so I can do what I want to do with my money, rather than raise my taxes so you can hand money back telling me what to do. Also, what the hell kind of a plan is that? There is no way he can dish out the $30,000 or more it costs to get a new car. The whole thing just does not add up, a reoccurring theme. I think he just wanted to show that Oprah is still on board, shouting to the audience, “YOU GET A CAR! YOU GET A CAR! YOU GET A CAR!”.
4. Obama is going to give a tax break to companies that create new jobs. A $3,000 tax break. Sounds great, right? Creating jobs is a good thing, and now there will be an incentive to do it.
But it is not that simple. If a company is bringing in millions of dollars, $3,000 is not a big enough incentive to get them to change ANYTHING, and creating a new job costs companies thousands of dollars just to create a new spot, and then they have to pay a salary to the person they hire. If something is going to cost a company even as little as $20,000, are they going to do it because they get a $3,000 tax break? These people are smarter than that.

It was another half hour of everything we have already seen, but sadly it may work. If people simply watched and did not question, they saw a man who is guaranteeing everything for everyone. Those who research will realize it is impossible to do. If Obama does indeed win this election, I pray to God that he really does have a plan for this stuff. And if he has an in-depth plan, he should have sat down at the wanna-be-Oval-Office desk and just looked into the camera and told the American people his plan, rather than make a mini-film about the struggles of Americans and how the messiah has come to save us all “after eight long years.”

Also on the lines of the government providing everything, I want to leave with a quote from Barry Goldwater, who said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”

Palin strong, Biden victorious in first and only VP debate

2008-10-05T20:38:00.000-04:00

She nailed it. Again. When are people going to stop doubting Sarah Palin? Remember the Republican National Convention, when the mainstream media expected Governor Palin to fall flat on her face? She came out and made the speech of the week and the speech of her lifetime.
Then, after a number of fumbled interviews and the mainstream media stacked against her again, Sarah Palin took the stage for a debate with Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. As many political pundits said, Biden was expected to dominate the debate. Even volunteers at the McCain Office in Nashua stated that they were nervous for a repeat of the Bentson-Quayle debate of 1988. Joe Biden was going to mop up the floor with Sarah Palin like it was nothing…
Once again, we were all wrong. With expectations so low that, as Saturday Night Live put it, if she did not cry, faint, or leave the arena, people would have seen the night as a success. Now, maybe that is a slight exaggeration, but the fact of the matter is that Gov. Palin took the stage and delivered what my dad called a “great performance” on Thursday night.
She came out very strongly from the beginning, stating that she and Sen. McCain were going to keep taxes low and help the middle class. She pointed out many times that she is a woman of the people, your average “hockey mom” from Alaska. She said that she understands the struggles of every day people, she goes through those struggles with them. Time after time, issue after issue, the governor simplified the issues so that every-day people could relate to what she was saying. She stood toe to toe with Sen. Biden for most of the evening, and the endless hours of preparation seemed to have paid off.
Palin stood on the stage and claimed she will fight for America, fight for her ideals, and continue the fight for freedom so that it can be passed on from generation to generation. She did not look scared. She did not look intimidated. She looked ready.
As far as body language and appearance go, Palin clearly dominated. She smiled into the camera as she spoke, and gave sly, candid smiles at some of the comments made by Sen. Biden. Maybe the most memorable moment of the night was when she simply stopped and said, with her one-of-a-kind accents, “Say it ain’t so, Joe,” and followed up by taking a line that Ronald Reagan famously used to win a 1980 debate against incumbent President Jimmy Carter, stating, “There you go again…” It was a line that may have been over-looked by most people watching the debates, but those true political junkies had images of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter flash into their heads, which “you betcha” made conservatives smile and liberals cringe.
Here is what may surprise you. After all of the praise I have given to the Alaska governor, she lost the debate. Sen. Joe Biden, with 35 years of experience at his back, looked confident and was fairly smooth. He attacked John McCain vigorously on ever issue from foreign policy to the economy to global warming. Because of the surprising success of Sarah Palin, Joe Biden’s performance was over-looked by many.
Sen. Biden did a great job of showing off his experience. The man knows the world better than anyone else in the senate, and he showed that. He used a barrage of statistics to back up his arguments, and slammed Sen. McCain whenever he got the chance. Biden laid out Senator Barack Obama’s plans for healthcare, the war in Iraq, and the economy. He clearly was more knowledgeable than Gov. Palin on every single issue, and his knowledge of the votes of Sen. McCain in the senate were very useful for his arguments.
Now, something everyone has to understand is that even though Joe Biden won the debate, this evening was a win for the Republican ticket. This debate was much like the presidential debate, except with the sides switched. In the presidential debate, many people agreed that although Barack Obama looked smoother and spoke better, John McCain won the debate on substance and by showing off his knowledge of the world. The same can be said for Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. While Biden was clearly superior and more knowledgeable, Palin at least can now be called “acceptable.”
The best part of the debate for Joe Biden went after John McCain on the subject of being a Maverick. After Sarah Palin boasted John McCain and her “maverick” experience, Biden rejected the claim. On every issue major issue, Biden said, John McCain has sided with his party and with the president. As he said in his convention speech, that’s not change, that’s more of the same.
Sarah Palin’s strongest moment was when she called out Joe Biden on his past record. During the presidential primaries, Biden had disagreed with many of Barack Obama’s plans, especially in his foreign policy. Palin managed to take Biden’s area of expertise and his knowledge of the world against the senator, when she noted that Biden disagreed with Obama and agreed with Sen. John McCain.
At the end of the evening, both Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin walked off the stage knowing that they had gotten the job done. They both took pointed shots at their opponent, boasted their credentials, and assured the American people that the thought of them being “just a heartbeat away from the presidency” was not something that should be worried. For Joe Biden, he remained the beloved, experienced senator who seldom people doubt is ready for serve as commander-in-chief. For Sarah Palin, it meant taking it up to another level and proving that she – a true “person of the people” – is indeed ready to serve in Washington.