. . . and why the Palin presidency doesn't have to fail. Below: I don't want Sarah Palin in 2020 to be complaining that "Soros and the media ruined my presidency." Instead, I want her -- about 2020, at the end of her second term -- saying, "I crushed George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all those associated with them."
GWB was and is a good man, an American patriot. His wife was one of the greatest of First Ladies.
But he was a lousy salesman. (Today, Obama did a lousy job of "selling" the Afghan War, because he failed to make it personally meaningful to Americans.) Republican Presidents have a very small margin of error, because of media hostility, and somehow I never got the impression that GWB was having searching discussions of how best to "sell" the war or his handling of Katrina.
On somebody like Harriet Miers, the question is not whether she's an outstanding person, but rather: "How do I sell her as a credible nominee for the Supreme Court?' Yes, some conservatives stabbed her -- and GWB -- in the back, but that's the world we live in.
Compare the nomination of John Roberts, a bullet-proof candidate, versus that of Harriet, who never had a chance. The Gonzalez appointment turned out to be a disaster. Yes, he was loyal, but he wasn't much more than that.
He needed people around him who would say: "Mr. President, NO! It won't work." He didn't have such people.
Frankly, GWB's desire to have "friendly" relations with the White House Press corps showed a truly amazing naivete. Those people inhabit a culture that sees Bush's views and his religious faith as toxic.
His little "teasing" comments to journalists were seen as embarrassing and phony. They are not his friends; they will never be his friends.
Does he understand that? No, but Sarah Palin does.
Yes, Soros types and the Dems did everything they could to undermine GWB's presidency. What was his plan for counteracting that? Potentially, the POTUS is a thousand times more powerful than George Soros. It didn't work out that way. Soros lied -- and [the] Bush [presiency] died.
I don't want Sarah Palin in 2020 to be complaining that "Soros, Pelosi, Reid, and the media ruined my presidency." Instead, I want her saying, "I crushed Soros and all those associated with him and his kind." As Gen. MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory."
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obama: Anatomy of Failed Presidency
Barack H. Obama, disconnected perpetually from America and Americans (that is, from the kind of Americans who would actually fight for their nation).
If Barack Obama and his cohort in economic crime, Nancy Pelosi, would each wear a bell, taxpayers would know when they're coming.
Obama, listen up: "Hopelessness is not a strategy. And terrifying people is a recipe not for recovery, but rather for national paralysis."
Obama, listen up: "Hopelessness is not a strategy. And terrifying people is a recipe not for recovery, but rather for national paralysis."
"We cannot continue to spend as we please." (Barack Obama)
"He's [Obama's] amplifying this [national] fear." (Jeffrey Rosenzweig, Associate Professor, Emory University)
Obama needs to present "some hope, some vision for the future." (Rosenzweig)
If Obama continues as he has since January 20, his presidency will be a monumental failure. His constant fear mongering is not only decimating financial markets, but also depressing the spirits of the American people, where consumer confidence is in the toilet. Scaring people is not a manifestation of leadership, although it might in the short-term be "good politics."
As you see in the quotes above, Obama recently said, "We cannot continue to spend as we please." Unfortunately, the "we" seems to apply both to individuals and Congress. Frankly, individuals in a free society exercise their liberty through making economic choices, either spending or saving. It's none of Barack Obama's concern what you do -- legally and reflectively -- with your money. He is the President (sadly), not the dictator of economic decisions.
In Congress, their has been wild overspending, plunging the nation into huge deficits and enabling huge trade deficits. Who's responsible for the profligate spending? Why, the most liberal members of Congress, since "liberal" is a synonym for "spend more."
And who are the extreme liberals? According to the non-partisan National Journal, the most liberal Senator was. . . Barack Obama. The second most liberal is Obama's Illinois colleague Dick Durbin. The third most liberal is avowed socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The fourth most liberal is . . . Joe Biden.
In a few short years in Congress, Obama was responsible for nearly a billion in "earmarks," pet projects that are a hallmark of wasteful spending. The purpose of most earmarks has nothing to do with advancing national interests, but rather buying votes from a legislator's constituents.
Barack Obama's entire career consists not of solving problems, but rather at ensuring he's always on the government payroll. He has almost no real accomplishments either as an Illinois Senator or U.S. Senator. Why? Because he spent most of his time -- years -- positioning himself and running for higher office. What's next? Emperor of the Western Hemisphere?
Most people will grant that Obama is an excellent public speaker. By that, they apparently mean he has a nice baritone voice. In fact, his speeches are dreadful, devoid of any intellectual content. In one recent speech, he used the word "crisis" 26 times. Unfortunately, the "solution" to the "crisis" was to do more of what generated it -- over-spending and devaluing the worth of a dollar.
With his fear obsession, Obama reminds us of a famous statement by humorist Woody Allen. He said, "We are at a crossroad. On one side lie insoluble problems. On the other side lies the abyss and utter destruction. God grant us the wisdom to choose wisely."
"He's [Obama's] amplifying this [national] fear." (Jeffrey Rosenzweig, Associate Professor, Emory University)
Obama needs to present "some hope, some vision for the future." (Rosenzweig)
If Obama continues as he has since January 20, his presidency will be a monumental failure. His constant fear mongering is not only decimating financial markets, but also depressing the spirits of the American people, where consumer confidence is in the toilet. Scaring people is not a manifestation of leadership, although it might in the short-term be "good politics."
As you see in the quotes above, Obama recently said, "We cannot continue to spend as we please." Unfortunately, the "we" seems to apply both to individuals and Congress. Frankly, individuals in a free society exercise their liberty through making economic choices, either spending or saving. It's none of Barack Obama's concern what you do -- legally and reflectively -- with your money. He is the President (sadly), not the dictator of economic decisions.
In Congress, their has been wild overspending, plunging the nation into huge deficits and enabling huge trade deficits. Who's responsible for the profligate spending? Why, the most liberal members of Congress, since "liberal" is a synonym for "spend more."
And who are the extreme liberals? According to the non-partisan National Journal, the most liberal Senator was. . . Barack Obama. The second most liberal is Obama's Illinois colleague Dick Durbin. The third most liberal is avowed socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The fourth most liberal is . . . Joe Biden.
In a few short years in Congress, Obama was responsible for nearly a billion in "earmarks," pet projects that are a hallmark of wasteful spending. The purpose of most earmarks has nothing to do with advancing national interests, but rather buying votes from a legislator's constituents.
Barack Obama's entire career consists not of solving problems, but rather at ensuring he's always on the government payroll. He has almost no real accomplishments either as an Illinois Senator or U.S. Senator. Why? Because he spent most of his time -- years -- positioning himself and running for higher office. What's next? Emperor of the Western Hemisphere?
Most people will grant that Obama is an excellent public speaker. By that, they apparently mean he has a nice baritone voice. In fact, his speeches are dreadful, devoid of any intellectual content. In one recent speech, he used the word "crisis" 26 times. Unfortunately, the "solution" to the "crisis" was to do more of what generated it -- over-spending and devaluing the worth of a dollar.
With his fear obsession, Obama reminds us of a famous statement by humorist Woody Allen. He said, "We are at a crossroad. On one side lie insoluble problems. On the other side lies the abyss and utter destruction. God grant us the wisdom to choose wisely."
Hopelessness is not a strategy. And terrifying people is recipe not for recovery, but rather for national paralysis.
As Emory University's professor Rosenzweig pointed out today on CNN, Obama's main oratorical accomplishment seems to be engendering panic. In short, Obama is a very scary man. He never misses an opportunity to evoke gloom and suggest darkly that we're on our way to doom. If his favor word is "crisis," it's followed closely by "catastrophe."
In another difficult time, Ronald Reagan offered a vision of "a shining city upon a hill." In Obama's case, his calls for "hope" and "change" didn't survive the presidential campaign. If he sees a city on hill, it apparently lies in ruins. If it shines at all, it does so in the manner of a dead mackerel.
The U.S. will survive the presidency of Barack Obama, the man who, with a straight face, can have U.S. governors attend a "Summit on Fiscal Responsibility. Obama lacks the rhetorical skills, experience, and vision to offer this country the kind of leadership it so desperately needs. Yes, we will survive the reign of Barack H. Obama . . . but just barely.
In another difficult time, Ronald Reagan offered a vision of "a shining city upon a hill." In Obama's case, his calls for "hope" and "change" didn't survive the presidential campaign. If he sees a city on hill, it apparently lies in ruins. If it shines at all, it does so in the manner of a dead mackerel.
The U.S. will survive the presidency of Barack Obama, the man who, with a straight face, can have U.S. governors attend a "Summit on Fiscal Responsibility. Obama lacks the rhetorical skills, experience, and vision to offer this country the kind of leadership it so desperately needs. Yes, we will survive the reign of Barack H. Obama . . . but just barely.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Protest Obama Everywhere He Goes!
Obama and the Obama Democrats advocate a "gimme, gimme, gimme" society, one that has no real future. He should be protested everywhere he goes. More photos on Friday.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are not going to cause the U.S. to descend into socialism and unfreedom without a fight. The signs above (and I'll have more up tomorrow) are from the protest that greeted Obama in Mesa, Arizona. As a great man said, "It's time to stand up and fight for America. Fight for what's right!"
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Nancy Pelosi Could Lose Race
San Francisco Nancy, all dressed up . . . and heading for defeat?
Many supporters of Hillary Clinton are very angry at Nancy Pelosi, who -- in her usual smiling way -- shafted Hillary Clinton. Here's my analysis . . .
On Nancy Pelosi who, for whatever reason (jealousy? hostility to Bill for the 1994 Republican victory?) stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back. Of course, Nancy is raising millions from the special interests her friend Obama supposedly loathes (but also takes a lot of money from).
There's a three-way race in San Francisco. It involves Queen Nancy, Cindy Sheehan (who has her own problems and can't raise any money), and Dana Walsh, the GOP candidate. There is a chance -- not huge, but a chance anyway -- that Ms. Walsh could win with as little as 36-37% of the vote. I know she's reaching out hard to Hillary voters.
Nancy's main advantage is the huge amount of money she's raising. Gas prices are playing a big role in the race, as they are everywhere else. Mrs. Pelosi is known for her hostility to several other female members of Congress, especially Jane Harman from southern Cal.
Like Pelosi, Harman married very well -- that is, to an extremely rich man. Harman's net worth (including her husband's fortune) is higher even than Pelosi's! That may the main cause of Nancy's animosity toward Jane.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
PELOSI FIDDLED, AMERICA CRUMBLED
How San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi and friends fiddled while America declined . . .
Malia Nash (Sanity102), a native Hawaian and American patriot, sent me the material in the following paragraphs. If GOP candidates run on these points alone -- all of them factual matters -- they will rout their opponents. Being in Congress is about providing leadership, and the Democrats have provided none -- period. Every Republican candidate -- challengers and incumbents -- should be running on the following points.
Just two years ago, remember the election in 2006? Two years ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; and,3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
However, since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet to historically low levels;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 20% increase);
fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; and,6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we sure got it!
Remember, it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him, and Pelosi, Reid, and their cronies have stripped America's cupboard bare.
Note: The above material (with some distinctive additions) is appearing on all my blogs today, because it's very important. I'll add some more comments today about Dems' role in skyrocketing gas prices. Thanks for visiting.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hillary Supporters: Exacting Justifiable Revenge
Well said by Jean Avery at Moms4McCain: "Last week, Howard Dean and friends gave delegates to someone who wasn't even on the ballot and took half the delegates from a candidate who was. And, by the way, she was also the first woman with a serious shot at the Presidency. Suddenly millions of American women who hung their hopes on Hillary are the Desirable Voting Bloc. (Sure, Hillary had male supporters, but because many women's motives differed, their response to her rejection may differ too.)" Note: That's not Jean below.
Last Democrat Superdelegate holdout warily eyes Barack Obama. This is the first in my "Odd Picture" series, which will appear daily. You send me an odd pic, and I supply the caption. Send to: TalkTop65@aol.com.
The sound of the voice is that of PA Rep. Patrick Murphy, but the words coming out always seem to be those of Nancy Pelosi
"I would rather lose an election than lose a war." (John McCain, uttering words you'll never hear from the John Murtha or Patrick Murphys of the world)
Last Democrat Superdelegate holdout warily eyes Barack Obama. This is the first in my "Odd Picture" series, which will appear daily. You send me an odd pic, and I supply the caption. Send to: TalkTop65@aol.com.
The sound of the voice is that of PA Rep. Patrick Murphy, but the words coming out always seem to be those of Nancy Pelosi "I would rather lose an election than lose a war." (John McCain, uttering words you'll never hear from the John Murtha or Patrick Murphys of the world)
Today (Wednesday), I'll be writing more about a fascinating phenomenon I revealed yesterday on my Hillary Supporters for McCain site: the presence of a very large number (it may be in the millions) of Democrats (Hillary Supporters) who will NOT vote for Barack Obama.
Of great interest to GOP congressional and senatorial candidates, those Hillary Supporters are beginning to target "SuperDelegates" who went against the voters of their districts or states to support Obama. Such people include SuperDelegates (a profoundly anti-democratic concept in itself) like John Kerry, Bob Casey, Jr., Ted Kennedy, and Jay Rockefeller. Such individuals now look a lot more beatable than they did a few weeks ago.
I've been discussing one particularly odious individual, Rep. Patrick Murphy of PA's 8th congressional district, centered in Bucks County in Southeastern PA. Murphy, one of Nancy Pelosi's particular favorites, came out for Obama last summer. How did Obama do in Bucks County? He got skunked by Hillary Clinton -- 70,253 votes to 41,791.
So, how exactly does Murphy's endorsement of Obama square with the wishes of his constituents? Of course, it doesn't. It shows that his constituents' views play little part in his actions.Can Tom Manion get a large chunk of those primary votes that went to Mrs. Clinton?
Exit polls and political developments on the Internet (see another of my columns) suggest he might be able to get at least one-third of them -- and perhaps more. A lot of those Hillary voters are going to look at people like Murphy as Public Enemy Number 1. Murphy's opponent is 30-year Marine Corp veteran Tom Manion. Mr. and Mrs. Manion lost their son, Travis, a Naval Academy graduate, in Iraq.
Frankly, a totally politicized and cynical creep like Murphy has no business being in Congress. Manion is a better candidate and a better man. Hillary Supporters value toughness and authenticity in a candidate. They certainly won't support a Hillary hater like Murphy.
It's clear how Manion should proceed with the Hillary voters. First, he can ask for them. Second, he can point out how Murphy shafted Mrs. Clinton in the race for the nomination. Third, he can use the primary results to show how Murphy's views are totally at variance with those of Bucks County Democrats -- let alone with the views of Republicans and Independents.
Overall, the best thing Tom Manion has going for him will be the fact that he's not Patrick Murphy.
Murphy has money pouring into his campaign from special interests, including far-left extremist groups like Moveon.org and the Daily Kos. In fact, the Daily Kos, which loves the Murphys of the world, expelled Hillary supporters from its web site. Its constant message could be summed up in two words: "Hate Hillary." If people like you support Tom Manion, he can win this race.
I've suggested that people who are really serious about getting rid of Murphy give a part of their economic stimulus check to Manion. But even donations of as little as $10 to $20 will be very helpful.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
American Politics: The Real "Skinny"
By 4:30 p.m. today ET I'd had 259 visitors (wow) and nearly 400 hits. The old record was 257. You may just have set the new one. Thanks. I do believe you can find information here that isn't available elsewhere. The beautiful woman below (Sarah Palin) may just be America's first woman President (2012 or 2016)
Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska with husband Todd and newborn son "Trig"
Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska with husband Todd and newborn son "Trig"Will you be reading about any of this on the national media? Nope. Please tell your friends and family that this site exists . . . Thanks . . .
The McCain Campaign: Early in the game, the campaign is not exactly a "well-oiled machine." It is still having problems raising the necessary funds. The Senator still needs a top-flight speechwriter (I've suggested myself, since I've written successfully for CEOs at 10 of America's top 50 companies). Some of the people on the McCain payroll proceed under the illusion that they can ask congressional candidates for support -- without providing them them with the same. That will never, ever happen. Things will get better, mainly because they must. Good news? The unofficial campaign is proceeding very well, picking up tens of thousands of supporters. Please join that unofficial efforts at http://mccainnow.com/.
Congressional Candidates: If the McCain Campaign has difficulties, the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) is a disaster. It's under the leadership of Oklahoma Representative Tom Cole, who has a defeatist mentality. The NRCC sees its major function as pouring millions into candidates who shouldn't be running for office in the first place. They delight in financing candidates who should be able to generate their own money. There will have to be changes in the leadership of the NRCC -- and, frankly, the RNC (Republican National Committee). Those changes will take place shortly after November 4, 2008.
Sarah Palin for V-P Effort: This is very much a good news story. Sarah Palin probably has a 50-50 chance of getting the V-P nod from John McCain. Almost two years ago, Adam Brickley, a 21-year-old college student in Colorado Springs started the "Draft Palin" movement. I was the second person Adam signed up, and I worked my tail off to bring more people on board. At first, Adam -- a model of what tenacious activism can accomplish -- had to explain to people who Gov. Palin was. Now, in the past two weeks, many important bloggers have endorsed Sarah (including "Flap," The Anchoress, The Catskill Commentator, and numerous others). Yesterday, Adam's site -- http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/ -- received 5,000 hits, a monumental number. (It took this site a year-and-a-half to get 40,000 hits. If you want to support Sarah -- and many of you do -- go to MSNBC's "Veepstakes" site and vote for her in the cable channel's "Veepstakes." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
The Hillary Clinton Soap Opera: It was Sigmund Freud who posed the famous question: "What does a woman want?" On my Hillary Supporters for McCain site, I attempt daily to figure out what's on Mrs. Clinton's mind. This Saturday she's supposedly going to endorse Barack Obama in a display of "party unity." I'll believe it when I see it. Senator Clinton has repeatedly made the point that point that Obama is not "ready" (i.e., qualified) to be President. Is something going to change in the next few days to make him ready? Please visit my Hillary site for updates on the continuing political soap opera.
"Operation Pennsylvania": On my Pennsylvania blog, I'm doing my darndest to get people around the nation (and the world) to "adopt" some outstanding Pennsylvania congressional candidates. The effort is expanding beyond Pennsylvania (see below), and I'm getting help from many significant bloggers around the country, including Kathy Morrison (NH), Sharon Caliendo (OK), Jean Avery (Washington), Rajan Vaish (computer genius from India), Jim Fryar (Australian mining engineer), Brad Marston (MA), Beth Cleavere (AL), Ted Mol (MA), Tym Machine (Montreal) and numerous others. Pennsylvania is going to be a major battleground state in the presidential and congressional elections. (I'll write more soon about the "internationalizing" of the McCain effort.)
Dana Walsh "Adoption" Campaign: In San Francisco, two of the candidates for the congressional seat there are Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi, the twin "Witches of the West." The Republican candidate is Dana Walsh, and she needs your backing, your prayers . . . and your money (small amounts or large). Please visit her web site at: http://danawalshforcongress.com/.
The material you're going to see here is unlike any you'll see on other blogs. The national media? It's hopeless, providing little insight into what's happening in America. Remember, your contribution to congressional candidate Dana Walsh can strike a blow for the real America.
The material you're going to see here is unlike any you'll see on other blogs. The national media? It's hopeless, providing little insight into what's happening in America. Remember, your contribution to congressional candidate Dana Walsh can strike a blow for the real America.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Huckabee Supporters: Back Hart, Gilhooley
I'll add some comments tonight about the Hillary-Barack circus. Both of them become more demagogic and embarrassing with every passing day.
I sent the following to Larry Perrault. He's an important political thinker/activist/blogger/social conservative in Houston, Texas. He was a significant and effective supporter of Gov. Mike Huckabee and now endorses John McCain. I'm trying to get him and other Huckabee advocates interested/involved in some of our fascinating races in Pennsylvania (McCain, Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Marina Kats, Mike Livingston, and others).
Larry, Kathy Morrison is absolutely one of the best people going with Internet politics -- an extremely helpful woman that I'm trying to put in touch with several of my "adopted" congressional candidates. People like Kathy and Sharon Caliendo do not recommend spending a gazillion dollars on TV. Instead, they advocate some low-cost ways of "building the circles" -- making small circles of support into large ones that start "smelling like victory."
Two of the candidates I'm backing (Hart and Gilhooley) are running against incumbent Democrats who masquerade at "moderate-conservative" Democrats. Thus, my candidates need to do the difficult task of "re-branding" their opponents as backers of people like Obama, Pelosi, and Murtha (which in fact they are).
The only things that truly work well in politics are simple things, and "outing" liberals who swear they're conservatives is not a simple task.
Remember (actually, nobody's old enough to) when Harry Truman ran against "the do-nothing Congress." Well, he didn't run for or against very much else, but as Gov. Dewey found in 1948, the "do nothing Congress" was a powerful image/slogan.
I'm delighted that Melissa Hart is running "against" Obama (and her opponent's flirtation with the Illinois Senator) and Nancy Pelosi, whom Jason Altmire backed for Speaker of the House. Coincidentally (or not), Toni Gilhooley's opponent, Tim Holden, also voted for Ms. Pelosi, from San Francisco (a town that Pennsylvanians place somewhere between Sodom and Gomorrah). Altmire has not been able to make up his mind between Obama and Clinton.
If I were Toni, I would be telling everybody in Harrisburg and parts east that Tim Holden can't make up his mind between Obama and Clinton, both of whom are "totally unacceptable to the people of central Pennsylvania."Both Altmire and Holden apparently have relatively high "favorables," but that will change if Melissa and Toni can portray them for what their votes truly indicate they are: Nancy Pelosi's "groupies."
Melissa and Toni need to keep the Democrats constantly on the defensive by blasting them for "the company that they keep." Obama criticized Pennsylvanians for clinging to Christianity, guns, racism, and xenophobia. Does Congressman Altmire agree or disagree? I hope she asks him that face-to-face. I expect Mrs. Gilhooley will do the same with Holden.
John McCain should win Melissa's district by something in the range of 56-57% to 44% to 43%. (Bush won the district by 54-45). Thus, McCain will be an extremely important "shadow figure" in Melissa's campaign.
In 2006, the DNC, Altmire, and 527s tried to tar Melissa by linking her to Bush and Santorum, and they had some success. I assure you Altmire and friends are NOT going to associate her with McCain. I'm currently going around talking about the "McCain-Hart ticket."
The old saying was, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." I believe that as McCain goes in western Pennsylvania (and he should go very well), so goes the marvellous Ms. Hart.
John McCain should win Toni Gilhooley's district by perhaps 59% to 60% against 41% or 40%. Bush won in 2004 by 58% to 42% There are early signs that Obama could lay a huge egg in Pennsylvania. Again, as John McCain goes, so goes Toni Gilhooley. The key is to get across to voters that a vote for Tim Holden is a vote for Barack Obama (the probable nominee). Toni needs to drive home the point that it makes no sense to vote for John McCain and then to vote for Tim Holden.
Larry (Perrault), you are one of the more articulate pro-life spokesmen in the country. Melissa Hart and Toni Gilhooley are staunchly pro-life and have the moral fortitude to advance that cause in DC.
Altmire claims to be pro-life, but he voted for federal financing of embryonic stem cell research. Holden also claims to be pro-life but he is supporting a Democrat leadership that's relentlessly "pro-death" -- and that won't even allow a vote on any proposal that might in any way advance the cause of life. Altmire and Holden can't continue to have it both ways.
Larry, I hope you and all other Huckabee backers will consider "adopting" these superb candidates. They need support, financial and otherwise, and the key to their gaining such support is that they eminently deserve it. God bless.
I sent the following to Larry Perrault. He's an important political thinker/activist/blogger/social conservative in Houston, Texas. He was a significant and effective supporter of Gov. Mike Huckabee and now endorses John McCain. I'm trying to get him and other Huckabee advocates interested/involved in some of our fascinating races in Pennsylvania (McCain, Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Marina Kats, Mike Livingston, and others).
Larry, Kathy Morrison is absolutely one of the best people going with Internet politics -- an extremely helpful woman that I'm trying to put in touch with several of my "adopted" congressional candidates. People like Kathy and Sharon Caliendo do not recommend spending a gazillion dollars on TV. Instead, they advocate some low-cost ways of "building the circles" -- making small circles of support into large ones that start "smelling like victory."
Two of the candidates I'm backing (Hart and Gilhooley) are running against incumbent Democrats who masquerade at "moderate-conservative" Democrats. Thus, my candidates need to do the difficult task of "re-branding" their opponents as backers of people like Obama, Pelosi, and Murtha (which in fact they are).
The only things that truly work well in politics are simple things, and "outing" liberals who swear they're conservatives is not a simple task.
Remember (actually, nobody's old enough to) when Harry Truman ran against "the do-nothing Congress." Well, he didn't run for or against very much else, but as Gov. Dewey found in 1948, the "do nothing Congress" was a powerful image/slogan.
I'm delighted that Melissa Hart is running "against" Obama (and her opponent's flirtation with the Illinois Senator) and Nancy Pelosi, whom Jason Altmire backed for Speaker of the House. Coincidentally (or not), Toni Gilhooley's opponent, Tim Holden, also voted for Ms. Pelosi, from San Francisco (a town that Pennsylvanians place somewhere between Sodom and Gomorrah). Altmire has not been able to make up his mind between Obama and Clinton.
If I were Toni, I would be telling everybody in Harrisburg and parts east that Tim Holden can't make up his mind between Obama and Clinton, both of whom are "totally unacceptable to the people of central Pennsylvania."Both Altmire and Holden apparently have relatively high "favorables," but that will change if Melissa and Toni can portray them for what their votes truly indicate they are: Nancy Pelosi's "groupies."
Melissa and Toni need to keep the Democrats constantly on the defensive by blasting them for "the company that they keep." Obama criticized Pennsylvanians for clinging to Christianity, guns, racism, and xenophobia. Does Congressman Altmire agree or disagree? I hope she asks him that face-to-face. I expect Mrs. Gilhooley will do the same with Holden.
John McCain should win Melissa's district by something in the range of 56-57% to 44% to 43%. (Bush won the district by 54-45). Thus, McCain will be an extremely important "shadow figure" in Melissa's campaign.
In 2006, the DNC, Altmire, and 527s tried to tar Melissa by linking her to Bush and Santorum, and they had some success. I assure you Altmire and friends are NOT going to associate her with McCain. I'm currently going around talking about the "McCain-Hart ticket."
The old saying was, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." I believe that as McCain goes in western Pennsylvania (and he should go very well), so goes the marvellous Ms. Hart.
John McCain should win Toni Gilhooley's district by perhaps 59% to 60% against 41% or 40%. Bush won in 2004 by 58% to 42% There are early signs that Obama could lay a huge egg in Pennsylvania. Again, as John McCain goes, so goes Toni Gilhooley. The key is to get across to voters that a vote for Tim Holden is a vote for Barack Obama (the probable nominee). Toni needs to drive home the point that it makes no sense to vote for John McCain and then to vote for Tim Holden.
Larry (Perrault), you are one of the more articulate pro-life spokesmen in the country. Melissa Hart and Toni Gilhooley are staunchly pro-life and have the moral fortitude to advance that cause in DC.
Altmire claims to be pro-life, but he voted for federal financing of embryonic stem cell research. Holden also claims to be pro-life but he is supporting a Democrat leadership that's relentlessly "pro-death" -- and that won't even allow a vote on any proposal that might in any way advance the cause of life. Altmire and Holden can't continue to have it both ways.
Larry, I hope you and all other Huckabee backers will consider "adopting" these superb candidates. They need support, financial and otherwise, and the key to their gaining such support is that they eminently deserve it. God bless.
Monday, April 14, 2008
McCain Supporters: Reject Altmire
In the 4th congressional district of Pennsylvania (north and west of Pittsburgh), perhaps the most important race in the country (aside from the presidential battle) is shaping up. It pits former congresswoman Melissa Hart against Rep. Jason Altmire.
Altmire seeks to portray himself as a "conservative" Democrat. However, he voted for the Iraq War timetable (after telling voters he would not do so). He also voted for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (after telling voters he was pro-life). And he opposes the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit (after telling seniors they had his undying love).
Recently, one of Altmire's minions challenged me on my statement that Altmire supports the largest tax increase in American history. The situation is this: the congressman backs Nancy Pelosi's and Charlie Rangel's effort to let the Bush tax cuts die in 2010. If that happens, it will re-impose the marriage penalty, reduce deductions for children, and bring back the "death tax," which means you'll still be paying taxes after your demise.
Of great significance, an end to the Bush tax cuts will raise the minimum tax category from 10% to 15%. In other words, it will hit hardest those least able to pay, essentially raising their tax bill by 50%.
Obviously, there are many reasons to oppose Jason Altmire. However, perhaps the most important consideration is the need John McCain will have for a supportive Congress.
Recently, Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama made comments denigrating the religious beliefs and "hunting culture" of Pennsylvanians. Essentially, Obama called the people of Pennsylvania a bunch of gun-toting, Bible-thumping rubes and bigots. We are not.
So far, Jason Altmire has made no statement criticizing Obama's statements. Senator McCain and Melissa Hart strongly disagree with Obama's offensive comments. Are we to take Altmire's silence as a sign that he agrees with Illinois Senator? Jason, in some cases "silence is golden," but in this case it's a sign of political cowardice.
If you're voting for McCain, it makes no sense to vote for Altmire. Why elect McCain and at the same time tie his hands behind his back? Why make it impossible for him to carry out the mandate he will get from American voters?
In other words, anyone who wants to support John McCain should avoid sending Altmire back to Congress. One of the best ways to stand with McCain is to cast a ballot for Melissa Hart. Please go to her web site to see how you can help.
Altmire seeks to portray himself as a "conservative" Democrat. However, he voted for the Iraq War timetable (after telling voters he would not do so). He also voted for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (after telling voters he was pro-life). And he opposes the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit (after telling seniors they had his undying love).
Recently, one of Altmire's minions challenged me on my statement that Altmire supports the largest tax increase in American history. The situation is this: the congressman backs Nancy Pelosi's and Charlie Rangel's effort to let the Bush tax cuts die in 2010. If that happens, it will re-impose the marriage penalty, reduce deductions for children, and bring back the "death tax," which means you'll still be paying taxes after your demise.
Of great significance, an end to the Bush tax cuts will raise the minimum tax category from 10% to 15%. In other words, it will hit hardest those least able to pay, essentially raising their tax bill by 50%.
Obviously, there are many reasons to oppose Jason Altmire. However, perhaps the most important consideration is the need John McCain will have for a supportive Congress.
Recently, Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama made comments denigrating the religious beliefs and "hunting culture" of Pennsylvanians. Essentially, Obama called the people of Pennsylvania a bunch of gun-toting, Bible-thumping rubes and bigots. We are not.
So far, Jason Altmire has made no statement criticizing Obama's statements. Senator McCain and Melissa Hart strongly disagree with Obama's offensive comments. Are we to take Altmire's silence as a sign that he agrees with Illinois Senator? Jason, in some cases "silence is golden," but in this case it's a sign of political cowardice.
If you're voting for McCain, it makes no sense to vote for Altmire. Why elect McCain and at the same time tie his hands behind his back? Why make it impossible for him to carry out the mandate he will get from American voters?
In other words, anyone who wants to support John McCain should avoid sending Altmire back to Congress. One of the best ways to stand with McCain is to cast a ballot for Melissa Hart. Please go to her web site to see how you can help.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Obama Spews Venom on Pennsylvanians
Obama: "Not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate . . ."
For those of you who have been vacationing in a distant land (or, alternatively, don't have access to FOX News), here are the comments Barack Obama made to a group of "wealthy donors" in Nancy Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments.
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments. In fact, Obama's San Francisco statements provide no insight in the lives -- and beliefs -- of people in Pennsylvania. There are surveys of beliefs and attitudes that are completely at variance with Obama's views -- the standard ones we hear regularly from liberal journalists and politicians.
I've been writing recently about Rep. Jason Altmire, congressman from PA's 4th congressional district (west and north of Pittsburgh). I'm very curious what Altmire has to say about Obama's negative comments about small-town Pennsylvanians. Actually, I assume Altmire, like most PA Democrats, hopes the whole thing blows over.
The national media is based most of its comments on Obama's statement on the word "bitter." In other words, they're saying that bitterness is the core of the San Francisco remarks.Actually, Obama is saying that Pennsylvanian's Christian faith and their belief in the Second Amendment is reflective of social and economic disorder. He's also saying that many Keystone Staters don't like people who are know like them (us, since I'm one).
In fact, Obama's views reflect his tendency to make broad, racially focused statements about large categories of people. For example, Obama refers to his very untypical grandmother as "a typical white person." Of Kansas farm boys during his grandfather's childhood, Obama says "they stank like pigs." Since he never smelled a single such farm boy, one wonders how he knows.
Frankly, one also wonders: what's wrong with this man? If he is a post-racial candidate, as he has claimed, then why does he see everything through the prism of race (or class)? This graduate of Columbia and Harvard reflects the elitism and vague anti-Americanism of those institutions. He's not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate.
(More to come.)
"LargeBear" (Randy) of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo is performing a major public service: he is demonstrating, with facts and logic, that the standard Left-wing anti-military and anti-American views have no merit. For example, the notion that American soldiers like to kill civilians is the reverse of our country's military practices. The vast, vast majority of liberals never serve in the military and have no understanding of what makes soldiers tick. There's a recent book out by an economics professor at Syracuse that does more to explain liberals than anything else I've ever seen.
(It's the book that uses sophisticated surveys to arrive at the point that conservatives tend to be much happier (and better able to cope with life) than liberals. It also points out how liberals' faith in -- and dependence on -- government makes it extremely difficult for them to handle a free society.
The books author is Dr. Arthur Brooks, and its title is: "Gross National Happiness."Among other things, the book says (in the words of one reviewer): ". . . The American Left is now a coalition of groups that define themselves as the victims of social and economic forces, and in as much as its leaders encourage people to feel aggrieved, he [Brooks] thinks they make America a glummer place."
Reading Brooks's study is like having a 10,000 watt light bulb come on. It won't come as a big surprise to most members of the Black Conservatives Group (or other conservatives). One of the fascinating things about Dr. Brooks is that he's not especially conservative; he's a scholar who tells the truth as the evidence indicates.
For an economist, Brooks has a great sense of humor. For example, he talks about having a child who was a "biter," that is, one who bit other people, children and adults. Brooks says, "There are many things in a parent's life that bring great joy. For example, spending time away from [one's] children." He's being "parentally incorrect," but also accurate. :-)
For those of you who have been vacationing in a distant land (or, alternatively, don't have access to FOX News), here are the comments Barack Obama made to a group of "wealthy donors" in Nancy Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments.
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments. In fact, Obama's San Francisco statements provide no insight in the lives -- and beliefs -- of people in Pennsylvania. There are surveys of beliefs and attitudes that are completely at variance with Obama's views -- the standard ones we hear regularly from liberal journalists and politicians.
I've been writing recently about Rep. Jason Altmire, congressman from PA's 4th congressional district (west and north of Pittsburgh). I'm very curious what Altmire has to say about Obama's negative comments about small-town Pennsylvanians. Actually, I assume Altmire, like most PA Democrats, hopes the whole thing blows over.
The national media is based most of its comments on Obama's statement on the word "bitter." In other words, they're saying that bitterness is the core of the San Francisco remarks.Actually, Obama is saying that Pennsylvanian's Christian faith and their belief in the Second Amendment is reflective of social and economic disorder. He's also saying that many Keystone Staters don't like people who are know like them (us, since I'm one).
In fact, Obama's views reflect his tendency to make broad, racially focused statements about large categories of people. For example, Obama refers to his very untypical grandmother as "a typical white person." Of Kansas farm boys during his grandfather's childhood, Obama says "they stank like pigs." Since he never smelled a single such farm boy, one wonders how he knows.
Frankly, one also wonders: what's wrong with this man? If he is a post-racial candidate, as he has claimed, then why does he see everything through the prism of race (or class)? This graduate of Columbia and Harvard reflects the elitism and vague anti-Americanism of those institutions. He's not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate.
(More to come.)
"LargeBear" (Randy) of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo is performing a major public service: he is demonstrating, with facts and logic, that the standard Left-wing anti-military and anti-American views have no merit. For example, the notion that American soldiers like to kill civilians is the reverse of our country's military practices. The vast, vast majority of liberals never serve in the military and have no understanding of what makes soldiers tick. There's a recent book out by an economics professor at Syracuse that does more to explain liberals than anything else I've ever seen.
(It's the book that uses sophisticated surveys to arrive at the point that conservatives tend to be much happier (and better able to cope with life) than liberals. It also points out how liberals' faith in -- and dependence on -- government makes it extremely difficult for them to handle a free society.
The books author is Dr. Arthur Brooks, and its title is: "Gross National Happiness."Among other things, the book says (in the words of one reviewer): ". . . The American Left is now a coalition of groups that define themselves as the victims of social and economic forces, and in as much as its leaders encourage people to feel aggrieved, he [Brooks] thinks they make America a glummer place."
Reading Brooks's study is like having a 10,000 watt light bulb come on. It won't come as a big surprise to most members of the Black Conservatives Group (or other conservatives). One of the fascinating things about Dr. Brooks is that he's not especially conservative; he's a scholar who tells the truth as the evidence indicates.
For an economist, Brooks has a great sense of humor. For example, he talks about having a child who was a "biter," that is, one who bit other people, children and adults. Brooks says, "There are many things in a parent's life that bring great joy. For example, spending time away from [one's] children." He's being "parentally incorrect," but also accurate. :-)
NOTICE TO JASON ALTMIRE STAFFERS
Any members of Jason Altmire's campaign staff or legislative staff who write comments on my blogs will not have them printed here unless they identify their position and their annual compensation totals. If they do, their comments will be printed and responded to. Otherwise, they will end up in the delete basket.
I am paid nothing by anyone associated with Hart, and I am completely independent in what I say and do.
Jason Altmire voted to make Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco-leftist-elitist, Speaker of the House. That gave her and the Moveon.org segment of the Democratic Party tremendous power. Now that election time is up again, Jason is claiming to be a "conservative." On important issues, he votes with the Pelosi-Murtha wing of the Democrats, thus following an agenda totally at variance with the views of people in Western Pennsylvania.
In supporting Obama (which he will do), Altmire will be backing a man who slandered everyone in Pennsylvania who doesn't live in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. If Jason really wants to be a "conservative," I suggest he change his registration to Republican.
I am paid nothing by anyone associated with Hart, and I am completely independent in what I say and do.
Jason Altmire voted to make Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco-leftist-elitist, Speaker of the House. That gave her and the Moveon.org segment of the Democratic Party tremendous power. Now that election time is up again, Jason is claiming to be a "conservative." On important issues, he votes with the Pelosi-Murtha wing of the Democrats, thus following an agenda totally at variance with the views of people in Western Pennsylvania.
In supporting Obama (which he will do), Altmire will be backing a man who slandered everyone in Pennsylvania who doesn't live in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. If Jason really wants to be a "conservative," I suggest he change his registration to Republican.
McCain, Altmire, and Melissa Hart
Today (Saturday), I'm cross-posting from my Pennsylvania site (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com). Melissa Hart's site is at: http://peoplewithhart.com/.
Starting this weekend, I'm be writing more about congressional candidate Melissa Hart and her opponent, a loathsome creature named Jason Altmire. He won the seat in 2006 mainly by spewing falsehoods about Melissa --she called them "a pack of lies" -- and by making false promises to the voters of the 4th congressional district (where I live).
For example, he told the voters he opposed a "timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq. However, when he got to Congress and Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha showed him the Democratic "trick," he fell all over himself to vote for the timetable. He claimed to be pro-life, but in Washington he voted for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. He claimed -- and claims -- to be a conservative Democrat, but he voted for the largest tax increase in history. His motto seems to be: "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no truths." He's a piece of work, and he must be defeated.
Please visit Melissa's web site (http://peoplewithhart.com) and offer your support. If you can make a donation, I assure you it will be much appreciated.The Hart-Altmire will be one of the nation's most important. The national Democrat Party is pouring money into the race in order to prop up a weak and feckless candidate, Altmire, a former lobbyist. (Please check out Altmire's campaign funding on http://opensecrets.org. As you'll note, he is selling out to every interest group that comes bearing a bag-full of cash.
How does Melissa Hart's campaign relate to that of John McCain? Frankly, everyone in the 4th Congressional District -- and the country as a whole -- that wants to support McCain needs to back candidates like Melissa. It will do little good if we send John McCain to the White House -- and confront him with a Congress full of Altmire types.
So, how can you support Melissa Hart? You can do so by linking your blog, if you have one, to Melissa's. Also, visit her site regularly. And if you can do so, please consider contributing to her campaign so you can counter the national Democrats' effort to buy the seat for Altmire.
Finally, if you know people who lives in the 4th congressional district -- mainly north and west of Pittsburgh -- please ask them to support Melissa. The best way to ensure John McCain has a successful presidency is to send people like Melissa to Congress. Thanks for your help!
Note: If you would like, please reprint this material on your own blog. The Hart-Altmire race will be the most intensely fought contest in the U.S.
Starting this weekend, I'm be writing more about congressional candidate Melissa Hart and her opponent, a loathsome creature named Jason Altmire. He won the seat in 2006 mainly by spewing falsehoods about Melissa --she called them "a pack of lies" -- and by making false promises to the voters of the 4th congressional district (where I live).
For example, he told the voters he opposed a "timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq. However, when he got to Congress and Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha showed him the Democratic "trick," he fell all over himself to vote for the timetable. He claimed to be pro-life, but in Washington he voted for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. He claimed -- and claims -- to be a conservative Democrat, but he voted for the largest tax increase in history. His motto seems to be: "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no truths." He's a piece of work, and he must be defeated.
Please visit Melissa's web site (http://peoplewithhart.com) and offer your support. If you can make a donation, I assure you it will be much appreciated.The Hart-Altmire will be one of the nation's most important. The national Democrat Party is pouring money into the race in order to prop up a weak and feckless candidate, Altmire, a former lobbyist. (Please check out Altmire's campaign funding on http://opensecrets.org. As you'll note, he is selling out to every interest group that comes bearing a bag-full of cash.
How does Melissa Hart's campaign relate to that of John McCain? Frankly, everyone in the 4th Congressional District -- and the country as a whole -- that wants to support McCain needs to back candidates like Melissa. It will do little good if we send John McCain to the White House -- and confront him with a Congress full of Altmire types.
So, how can you support Melissa Hart? You can do so by linking your blog, if you have one, to Melissa's. Also, visit her site regularly. And if you can do so, please consider contributing to her campaign so you can counter the national Democrats' effort to buy the seat for Altmire.
Finally, if you know people who lives in the 4th congressional district -- mainly north and west of Pittsburgh -- please ask them to support Melissa. The best way to ensure John McCain has a successful presidency is to send people like Melissa to Congress. Thanks for your help!
Note: If you would like, please reprint this material on your own blog. The Hart-Altmire race will be the most intensely fought contest in the U.S.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
McCain: American Hero, Patriot, Christian
Mike Devine, who posts under the name "Gamecock" sent me an article that's critical of Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and just about everybody other than Fred Thompson. It centers on the South Carolina primary, and you can see it by clicking on: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109d.html
The article may tell you more about SC politics than you want to know, but you won't find anything better between now and the Palmetto State primary. I expect Larry Perrault and SJ Reidhead can't wait to respond it -- especially SJ (Cindy), who hails from SC.
I think all the article's criticisms, including those of Mike Huckabee, are somewhere between petty and totally unfair. For Huck fans, the accusations are mostly "inside baseball" stuff about the conservative wing of the So. Baptist Church and the VERY conservative wing. In the mind of some Baptists, Mike chose the "wrong" side in a denominational struggle. Talk about arcana.
I like Mike Devine (Gamecock) a lot, but his support of Thompson, like the Fred Campaign itself, is embarrassing. Fred is the laziest of candidates, and he's the worst when it comes to raising money.
After 9/11, Fred said, "Now is not the time to leave [the Senate]." Shortly thereafter, he left -- to join the cast of a television show (Richard Wolf's "Law and Order") that missed few opportunities to bash the military and the GWB segment of the country. Frankly, Fred should be ashamed of himself.
"Yes, we have no bananas," when bananas is an analogue to perfect candidates.
I criticize Mike Huckabee myself, but anyone with sense will see that he, like several other candidates, is a good one and a man with some remarkable political achievements.
As for John McCain, yes, he is a "maverick," that is, someone who thinks for himself -- wow, how exotic. He has been pro-life and pro-military for his entire life. He is a Christian, which is a term that does not and should not have a narrow meaning. Of great significance, he's an American hero who underwent torture for many years.
Of great note, he has tackled issues (including immigration and campaign finance) where others have relied on pandering to an increasingly clueless "base." That's a group which believes the answer to real, pressinging problems is to "just say NO."
On campaign finance: it has turned into a vehicle for re-electing incumbents (Pelosi, Murtha, Obey, Waxman, Rangel) unto perpetuity. McCain's approach may have had its flaws, but anybody who doesn't see that the current system is a nightmare for representative democracy has not been paying attention.
For Huck supporters, they need to see that -- in many ways -- McCain is a lot like Mike Huckabee, although without the Southern accent. Mike and John both get criticized at least as much for their virtues as their faults. At times it appears the only people who like them are voters (and not just in states like Iowa and New Hampshire).
My point is that we need to recognize that candidates who disagree with us on one or more issues are not therefore beyond the pale. Heck, even in my case, I'm not always right.
May the best man win.
The article may tell you more about SC politics than you want to know, but you won't find anything better between now and the Palmetto State primary. I expect Larry Perrault and SJ Reidhead can't wait to respond it -- especially SJ (Cindy), who hails from SC.
I think all the article's criticisms, including those of Mike Huckabee, are somewhere between petty and totally unfair. For Huck fans, the accusations are mostly "inside baseball" stuff about the conservative wing of the So. Baptist Church and the VERY conservative wing. In the mind of some Baptists, Mike chose the "wrong" side in a denominational struggle. Talk about arcana.
I like Mike Devine (Gamecock) a lot, but his support of Thompson, like the Fred Campaign itself, is embarrassing. Fred is the laziest of candidates, and he's the worst when it comes to raising money.
After 9/11, Fred said, "Now is not the time to leave [the Senate]." Shortly thereafter, he left -- to join the cast of a television show (Richard Wolf's "Law and Order") that missed few opportunities to bash the military and the GWB segment of the country. Frankly, Fred should be ashamed of himself.
"Yes, we have no bananas," when bananas is an analogue to perfect candidates.
I criticize Mike Huckabee myself, but anyone with sense will see that he, like several other candidates, is a good one and a man with some remarkable political achievements.
As for John McCain, yes, he is a "maverick," that is, someone who thinks for himself -- wow, how exotic. He has been pro-life and pro-military for his entire life. He is a Christian, which is a term that does not and should not have a narrow meaning. Of great significance, he's an American hero who underwent torture for many years.
Of great note, he has tackled issues (including immigration and campaign finance) where others have relied on pandering to an increasingly clueless "base." That's a group which believes the answer to real, pressinging problems is to "just say NO."
On campaign finance: it has turned into a vehicle for re-electing incumbents (Pelosi, Murtha, Obey, Waxman, Rangel) unto perpetuity. McCain's approach may have had its flaws, but anybody who doesn't see that the current system is a nightmare for representative democracy has not been paying attention.
For Huck supporters, they need to see that -- in many ways -- McCain is a lot like Mike Huckabee, although without the Southern accent. Mike and John both get criticized at least as much for their virtues as their faults. At times it appears the only people who like them are voters (and not just in states like Iowa and New Hampshire).
My point is that we need to recognize that candidates who disagree with us on one or more issues are not therefore beyond the pale. Heck, even in my case, I'm not always right.
May the best man win.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
A CONSERVATIVE DEATH-WISH?
I sent the following to members of a conservative group on Yahoo. A member of the group was complaining that Nancy Pelosi and friends had bascially gutted spending for the Border Fence designed to keep out illegal immigrants. My response speaks to the current situation, where single-issue conservatives are doing great damage to the conservative cause.
I have been talking on here [in this group] about the practical politics -- the kind that ends in electing good (not necessarily great) people to Congress and passing good (not great) legislation. My impression is that I'm talking to myself.
In 2006, the American people (a large majority of them) voted for candidates who opposed border security and voted against candidates (e.g., George Allen, Rick Santorum) who supported border security. That is called a political reality.
Now, we're reaping the fruits of the 2006 disaster. The Democrats would not be doing what they are if they didn't feel 2008 will be a bigger disaster for Republicans. They're raising twice as much money as we are, which is a very ominous development.
Many of my fellow conservatives have reacted to the situation I described by attacking . . . Republicans! People like John Kyl and Lindsay Graham and John McCain are not the problem. That is obvious to anyone with eyes to see.
In many states (see Santorum mention above) opposition to illegals is NOT a winning issue. In 2006, it wasn't even a winning issue in border states, where the Dems did very well. No Democrat who opposed the fence was defeated in a re-election bid. NONE.
The prevalent notion in this group seems to be that Republicans got beaten becaus4 they weren't "conservative" enough. There is no evidence that point of view is correct.
The way you win on issues is NOT by attacking your political friends. It is by building coaltions of like-minded citizens. It is also by contributing to conservative candidates, something the Republican base has NOT done.
As long as Republicans continue shooting the (Republican) wounded things will go from bad to worse. Ideological fantasies are not going to repair an awful situation.
We conservatives have to stop blustering. We need to wake up and wise up. Otherwise we will have no real say in what our government does.
steve maloney
I have been talking on here [in this group] about the practical politics -- the kind that ends in electing good (not necessarily great) people to Congress and passing good (not great) legislation. My impression is that I'm talking to myself.
In 2006, the American people (a large majority of them) voted for candidates who opposed border security and voted against candidates (e.g., George Allen, Rick Santorum) who supported border security. That is called a political reality.
Now, we're reaping the fruits of the 2006 disaster. The Democrats would not be doing what they are if they didn't feel 2008 will be a bigger disaster for Republicans. They're raising twice as much money as we are, which is a very ominous development.
Many of my fellow conservatives have reacted to the situation I described by attacking . . . Republicans! People like John Kyl and Lindsay Graham and John McCain are not the problem. That is obvious to anyone with eyes to see.
In many states (see Santorum mention above) opposition to illegals is NOT a winning issue. In 2006, it wasn't even a winning issue in border states, where the Dems did very well. No Democrat who opposed the fence was defeated in a re-election bid. NONE.
The prevalent notion in this group seems to be that Republicans got beaten becaus4 they weren't "conservative" enough. There is no evidence that point of view is correct.
The way you win on issues is NOT by attacking your political friends. It is by building coaltions of like-minded citizens. It is also by contributing to conservative candidates, something the Republican base has NOT done.
As long as Republicans continue shooting the (Republican) wounded things will go from bad to worse. Ideological fantasies are not going to repair an awful situation.
We conservatives have to stop blustering. We need to wake up and wise up. Otherwise we will have no real say in what our government does.
steve maloney
Saturday, December 8, 2007
"DOWN GOES MURTHA, DOWN GOES MURTHA"
"DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER" (From a famous boxing match between "Smokin' Joe Frazier and Muhammed Ali.) Lt. Col. Russell will play the role of Ali.)
I sent the following to Chris at http://thehotjoints.com/, the most recent person to join “Bloggers for Russell”
Chris, Thanks very much for joining the Bloggers for Russell. On William's web site there will be a steady stream of releases and comments over the next 11 months (yikes! that's a long time). It's critically important at this early stage of the campaign that everyone who supports Russell make at least a small contribution.
I'll have everybody up on The Bloggers for Russell-- there are about 40 now -- within the next week. Much appreciate the support. As is happening with Huckabee in Iowa, the bloggers are going to be William Russell's secret weapon in defeating Murtha.
Chris, you’re right that Murtha’s comments on Haditha were outrageous. For political gain, he damaged our soldiers and provided propaganda for our enemies in Iraq.
My suggestion -- and I'm working on the "outside" and NOT a member of the Russell Campaign Staff -- would be with Issue #1 to rub Murtha's nose in Haditha on every possible opportunity. His comments were totally self-serving, designed to get support for him as Majority Leader among far-left, anti-military Democrats. Supporting our troops does not mean making statements that put their lives in danger.
Another big issue is that he's done nothing for 90% of the 12th congressional district (outside his home county of Cambria). As I’ve pointed out in previous columns, the Median Household Income in the 12th is one of the lowest in Pennsylvania.
A major reason for this is that Murtha has relied almost exclusively on government handouts – “earmarks” – and has done nothing to stimulate the growth of private business. Even in his favored place, Johnstown, Murtha’s actions have led to a steady population decline. The area is beautiful and the souls there are hard-working, good people, and I’m happy to live among them, but Murtha has done little for them.
On October 30, 2007, The Wall Street Journal had an article about how Murtha's earmarks had "rebuilt" home town. However, the Journal is wrong. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources show that Murtha's "rebuilding' is an illusion -- a case of self-promotion.
In this century, the population of Johnstown, PA, has gone down by more than 7%. That's NOT the sign of an economy and a community that growing and thriving. Yes, unemployment in Cambria County has gone down, but that's because so many people who couldn't find jobs left the area.
The third issue is that he’s done everything possible to advance the power of Nancy Pelosi and others just as bad, which totally conflicts with his bogus image of being a "conservative" Democrat. Pelosi and her main supporters in Congress stand for everything that's detestible to voters in the 12t District. Murtha managed Pelosi’s campaign for the majority leadership and was one of the Democrats who voted for her as Speaker of the House. When the voters of the District figure out that Murtha and Pelosi are joined at the hip, they will react with revulsion.
A congressman can't be a complete backer of Pelosi and a supporter of things that matter to voters of the 12th District. He says one thing to his constituents and something else in Pelosi's quarters.
Pelosi believes that Murtha is “a good man.” Well, he might be a good something but he’s not a good MAN.
Is the approach I suggest “too negative?” Actually, it’s important for a congressional candidate – William T. Russell in this instance – to indicate both why he should be elected – and why his opponent should not. It's NOT negativity to tell the truth about Jack Murtha’s many failings, and that’s exactly what I’ve done. (Scroll down to see fact-based criticisms of Murtha.
One thing Democratic guru Joe Trippi says that I agree with is that the essence of a campaign should be on a single three-by-five card. The three issues I highlight will fit on that card. I hope the Russell Campaign focuses on basic points that emphasize exactly WHY Murtha must go.
Haditha, the Economy, and Pelosi: if Russell gets these three points across we all stay up very late on Election Night.
____________________
HOW TO WIN A CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION: ADVICE FOR WILLIAM RUSSELL
People keep asking me: "But how William Russell win against a powerful incumbent congressman (John Murtha) who's sold out to everyone with a huge handful of cash (lobbyists, basically)? And I keep telling them exactly how William Rusell can win -- and, I believe, will win. Russell symbolizes everything that's good and wholesome about American society -- being a soldier, a husband, a father of young children, and a thoroughly principled man.
In the 12th District, there are approximately 650,000 people and roughly 320,000 registered voters -- most of them, admitedly, Democrats. But they don't invariably vote for Democrats. George Bush, not the most popular guy in Pennsylvania, carried Murtha's home county (Cambria) in 2004. And Bush came close to carrying the entire 12th District (getting 49%-plus of the vote). p
To win the 12th District, William needs to identify at least 100 very influential individuals. Only a few of these people will be affluent people who will make large donations to his campaign. Trust me, most of the rich people in the 12th will support John Murtha, because he's the person who's played a major role in making them rich. Basically, he's helped funnel your tax money to them, and they reciprocate by giving him hefty campaign "contributions." In reality, they're giving him a cut of YOUR tax money. In contrast, the influential people making small donations to William realize that he's not for sale.
(Go to http://opensecrets.org/, plug in the name "John Murtha" and you can see how much money he's raised -- a year before the election! You'll also see exactly who's given it. They're mainly lobbyists and influence-peddlers, people described by John Brady (author of "Bad Boy") as "overpaid people who made their oversized livings with retainer fees based on influence rather than ability, people who could not explain what they did for a living in less than a paragraph.")
If you track Murtha's "contributions" carefully, and I hope you will, you'll find that most of his contributions are coming from DC, VA, and MD. That's where the lobbyists ply their questinable trades. Many of the Murtha contributions that appear to come from Johnstown actually have their origins in companies solidly embedded in the Washington Beltway.
So, since William is going to have a lot less money than Murtha, he has to rely heavily influentials that are real residents of the 12th District and are keys to victory. Here's how Internet guru Joe Trippi describes such people:
"In a place like Jones County, Iowa, you get Jimmy Hogan [a well-liked family farmer and local Democratic official] and you were halfway to delivering the whole [darn] county."
Trippi continues, "This is something not everyone realizes about our political system. Not all voters are created equal. Some people carry more influence."
"In his book on consumer 'epidemics,' The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell writes, '. . . the success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.' Gladwell calls these influential people, people like Jimmy Hogan, 'connectors.'"
Trippi adds, "In the [Howard] Dean campaign, we called them bloggers."
As I've explained in my discussion of Bloggers 4 Rusell -- now up to 40 and eventually to reach 400 -- the blogs will be a key NATIONAL factor in building support for William. Dozens of bloggers are making contributions to William's campaign -- and hundreds of bloggers will do so in the future. Many of the tens of thousands of people who will visit such blogs will do the same.
In terms of connectors -- people who are very social and seem to "know everybody," I've only been in the 12th District for about a day, but I've found four "connectors" -- and will find many more.
One of the connectors is Melanie, a greeter at a restaurant. Another is Rhonda, the outspoken sister-in-law of a soldier killed in Iraq. Yet another is the head of a local Republican Party. A fourth is an obvious choice, Diana Lynn Irey, who ran against Murtha in 2006 -- and garnered nearly 80,000 votes.
A tremendous blog effort is going to be an important factor, but by itself, it's not enough. There also must be an intense effort to find "connectors" and commit them to the Russell cause.
Connectors are people like ministers, priests, and rabbis, as well as barbers/hair stylists, local officials, police personnel, heads of organizations like the American Legion, and many others. They spend a lot of time talking about events of local significance, especially political campaigns.
Get the bloggers and the connectors -- and then you win the election. And you've struck a major blow for good government.
(Note: Material on this blog is NOT copyrighted. You're welcome to use it on your own blog or other outlet. Just be sure to give credit where credit is due. Thanks.)
I sent the following to Chris at http://thehotjoints.com/, the most recent person to join “Bloggers for Russell”
Chris, Thanks very much for joining the Bloggers for Russell. On William's web site there will be a steady stream of releases and comments over the next 11 months (yikes! that's a long time). It's critically important at this early stage of the campaign that everyone who supports Russell make at least a small contribution.
I'll have everybody up on The Bloggers for Russell-- there are about 40 now -- within the next week. Much appreciate the support. As is happening with Huckabee in Iowa, the bloggers are going to be William Russell's secret weapon in defeating Murtha.
Chris, you’re right that Murtha’s comments on Haditha were outrageous. For political gain, he damaged our soldiers and provided propaganda for our enemies in Iraq.
My suggestion -- and I'm working on the "outside" and NOT a member of the Russell Campaign Staff -- would be with Issue #1 to rub Murtha's nose in Haditha on every possible opportunity. His comments were totally self-serving, designed to get support for him as Majority Leader among far-left, anti-military Democrats. Supporting our troops does not mean making statements that put their lives in danger.
Another big issue is that he's done nothing for 90% of the 12th congressional district (outside his home county of Cambria). As I’ve pointed out in previous columns, the Median Household Income in the 12th is one of the lowest in Pennsylvania.
A major reason for this is that Murtha has relied almost exclusively on government handouts – “earmarks” – and has done nothing to stimulate the growth of private business. Even in his favored place, Johnstown, Murtha’s actions have led to a steady population decline. The area is beautiful and the souls there are hard-working, good people, and I’m happy to live among them, but Murtha has done little for them.
On October 30, 2007, The Wall Street Journal had an article about how Murtha's earmarks had "rebuilt" home town. However, the Journal is wrong. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources show that Murtha's "rebuilding' is an illusion -- a case of self-promotion.
In this century, the population of Johnstown, PA, has gone down by more than 7%. That's NOT the sign of an economy and a community that growing and thriving. Yes, unemployment in Cambria County has gone down, but that's because so many people who couldn't find jobs left the area.
The third issue is that he’s done everything possible to advance the power of Nancy Pelosi and others just as bad, which totally conflicts with his bogus image of being a "conservative" Democrat. Pelosi and her main supporters in Congress stand for everything that's detestible to voters in the 12t District. Murtha managed Pelosi’s campaign for the majority leadership and was one of the Democrats who voted for her as Speaker of the House. When the voters of the District figure out that Murtha and Pelosi are joined at the hip, they will react with revulsion.
A congressman can't be a complete backer of Pelosi and a supporter of things that matter to voters of the 12th District. He says one thing to his constituents and something else in Pelosi's quarters.
Pelosi believes that Murtha is “a good man.” Well, he might be a good something but he’s not a good MAN.
Is the approach I suggest “too negative?” Actually, it’s important for a congressional candidate – William T. Russell in this instance – to indicate both why he should be elected – and why his opponent should not. It's NOT negativity to tell the truth about Jack Murtha’s many failings, and that’s exactly what I’ve done. (Scroll down to see fact-based criticisms of Murtha.
One thing Democratic guru Joe Trippi says that I agree with is that the essence of a campaign should be on a single three-by-five card. The three issues I highlight will fit on that card. I hope the Russell Campaign focuses on basic points that emphasize exactly WHY Murtha must go.
Haditha, the Economy, and Pelosi: if Russell gets these three points across we all stay up very late on Election Night.
____________________
HOW TO WIN A CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION: ADVICE FOR WILLIAM RUSSELL
People keep asking me: "But how William Russell win against a powerful incumbent congressman (John Murtha) who's sold out to everyone with a huge handful of cash (lobbyists, basically)? And I keep telling them exactly how William Rusell can win -- and, I believe, will win. Russell symbolizes everything that's good and wholesome about American society -- being a soldier, a husband, a father of young children, and a thoroughly principled man.
In the 12th District, there are approximately 650,000 people and roughly 320,000 registered voters -- most of them, admitedly, Democrats. But they don't invariably vote for Democrats. George Bush, not the most popular guy in Pennsylvania, carried Murtha's home county (Cambria) in 2004. And Bush came close to carrying the entire 12th District (getting 49%-plus of the vote). p
To win the 12th District, William needs to identify at least 100 very influential individuals. Only a few of these people will be affluent people who will make large donations to his campaign. Trust me, most of the rich people in the 12th will support John Murtha, because he's the person who's played a major role in making them rich. Basically, he's helped funnel your tax money to them, and they reciprocate by giving him hefty campaign "contributions." In reality, they're giving him a cut of YOUR tax money. In contrast, the influential people making small donations to William realize that he's not for sale.
(Go to http://opensecrets.org/, plug in the name "John Murtha" and you can see how much money he's raised -- a year before the election! You'll also see exactly who's given it. They're mainly lobbyists and influence-peddlers, people described by John Brady (author of "Bad Boy") as "overpaid people who made their oversized livings with retainer fees based on influence rather than ability, people who could not explain what they did for a living in less than a paragraph.")
If you track Murtha's "contributions" carefully, and I hope you will, you'll find that most of his contributions are coming from DC, VA, and MD. That's where the lobbyists ply their questinable trades. Many of the Murtha contributions that appear to come from Johnstown actually have their origins in companies solidly embedded in the Washington Beltway.
So, since William is going to have a lot less money than Murtha, he has to rely heavily influentials that are real residents of the 12th District and are keys to victory. Here's how Internet guru Joe Trippi describes such people:
"In a place like Jones County, Iowa, you get Jimmy Hogan [a well-liked family farmer and local Democratic official] and you were halfway to delivering the whole [darn] county."
Trippi continues, "This is something not everyone realizes about our political system. Not all voters are created equal. Some people carry more influence."
"In his book on consumer 'epidemics,' The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell writes, '. . . the success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.' Gladwell calls these influential people, people like Jimmy Hogan, 'connectors.'"
Trippi adds, "In the [Howard] Dean campaign, we called them bloggers."
As I've explained in my discussion of Bloggers 4 Rusell -- now up to 40 and eventually to reach 400 -- the blogs will be a key NATIONAL factor in building support for William. Dozens of bloggers are making contributions to William's campaign -- and hundreds of bloggers will do so in the future. Many of the tens of thousands of people who will visit such blogs will do the same.
In terms of connectors -- people who are very social and seem to "know everybody," I've only been in the 12th District for about a day, but I've found four "connectors" -- and will find many more.
One of the connectors is Melanie, a greeter at a restaurant. Another is Rhonda, the outspoken sister-in-law of a soldier killed in Iraq. Yet another is the head of a local Republican Party. A fourth is an obvious choice, Diana Lynn Irey, who ran against Murtha in 2006 -- and garnered nearly 80,000 votes.
A tremendous blog effort is going to be an important factor, but by itself, it's not enough. There also must be an intense effort to find "connectors" and commit them to the Russell cause.
Connectors are people like ministers, priests, and rabbis, as well as barbers/hair stylists, local officials, police personnel, heads of organizations like the American Legion, and many others. They spend a lot of time talking about events of local significance, especially political campaigns.
Get the bloggers and the connectors -- and then you win the election. And you've struck a major blow for good government.
(Note: Material on this blog is NOT copyrighted. You're welcome to use it on your own blog or other outlet. Just be sure to give credit where credit is due. Thanks.)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
PA's Odd Couple: Murtha, Altmire
"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people [Americans] preserve the spirit of resistance?” (Thomas Jefferson)
It’s time for a political revolution in the districts, the 4th and 12th, of Democratic congressmen Jason Altmire and John Murtha. It will be a peaceful revolution that culminates in many voting booths next November. It will be a revolution against two Democratic politicians who treat their constituents like a huge crowd of dunces.
If you’re a Democratic candidate statewide or in a congressional district outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, how do you get elected? You run on the proposition that you’re a “conservative Democrat.” You’ll announce that you’re favor of the rights of the unborn and gun owners.
You’ll also say regularly that you “support the troops,” although you’ll be very vague about how you can do so without supporting their mission. You’ll talk about the need for fiscal restraint, but that won’t apply to Bridge-to-Nowhere-type projects supposedly benefiting either your district or a political ally’s.
In most cases, you’ll proudly note that you’re a Roman Catholic (like Congressmen John Murtha and Jason Altmire, as well as yours truly). However, you will under no circumstances talk about how your religious faith has affected your personal or political life. (I will, but they won't.)
When you cast a vote in Congress that your constituents might not like, you’ll remain silent about your reasoning on the subject. You’ll maintain extremely close relations with Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Party’s far-left leadership, and you’ll vote with them on critical issues. The exception occurs in cases where your vote isn’t needed, when they’ll let you cast a vote that appears to be “conservative.”
You’ll look at your elected office as a lifetime position, and you’ll do everything necessary to retain it. If you’re in Congress, you will never, ever do anything to offend John Murtha, who has a long memory and likes to exact revenge.
If you’re very old, you’ll take younger Democrats under your wing. In fact, during his race against Melissa Hart, Jason Altmire declared that Murtha was his “campaign manager.” Murtha’s Political Action Committee funded a good chunk of money to Altmire, which helped to ensure his vote for Murtha as Democratic Majority Leader.
On an important issue in Pennsylvania – the sanctity of life – Murtha and Altmire must assume their constituents don’t pay much attention. They are both “pro-life,” mainly in the sense that they talk a lot about being . . . pro-life. I call such people "Pro-Life, Inc."
It’s true that Murtha voted against the hideous process known as “partial-birth abortion.” If Altmire had been in Congress, he probably would have done the same.
However, when Congress considered a bill providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, pro-life Jack Murtha voted for it. So did “pro-life” Jason Altmire. The destruction of viable embryos was okay, as long it didn't come under the heading of "abortion."
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton called up John Murtha and asked him to vote for full funding of “family-planning” overseas. Murtha did so. In Congress, “family planning” is a euphemism for abortion.
It bothers me greatly that the 30 or so Democrat congressional representatives who claim to be pro-life seem to have absolutely no influence on the vast majority of Democrats in their Party. Frankly, it also bothers me that other Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, who list their religion as Roman Catholic can't even bring themselves to vote against something as objectionable as partial-birth abortion. To many Democrats, being "Catholic" is about equivalent to being in the Rotary Club.
On military matters: In his campaign against hawkish Rep. Melissa Hart, Altmire was a hawk. He proclaimed he was against a “timetable” Iraq. He said he would rely on “our commanders on the ground.”
When he got to Congress as a Democrat, Altmire found hawkishness was not exactly in vogue. Murtha voted for an Iraq War timetable, and so did Altmire.
In Franklin D Roosevelt’s era, there was an a humorous political saying: “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.” In Congress, "as Murtha goes, so goes Altmire."
The porcine Mr. Murtha and his increasingly rotund younger colleague deserve not offices in Congress, but rather places at the buffet table.
Isn’t it time send Melissa Hart, a superb human being, back to Congress in the 4th Congressional District? And isn’t it time to elect Lt. Col. William Russell to Congress in the 12th District. They both need your help.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
4th Congressional District
("For Murtha and Altmire, no more 'Mr. Nice Steve'")
Note: Tomorrow (Saturday's column) will be: "Murtha, Altmire: Nancy's Boys"
It’s time for a political revolution in the districts, the 4th and 12th, of Democratic congressmen Jason Altmire and John Murtha. It will be a peaceful revolution that culminates in many voting booths next November. It will be a revolution against two Democratic politicians who treat their constituents like a huge crowd of dunces.
If you’re a Democratic candidate statewide or in a congressional district outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, how do you get elected? You run on the proposition that you’re a “conservative Democrat.” You’ll announce that you’re favor of the rights of the unborn and gun owners.
You’ll also say regularly that you “support the troops,” although you’ll be very vague about how you can do so without supporting their mission. You’ll talk about the need for fiscal restraint, but that won’t apply to Bridge-to-Nowhere-type projects supposedly benefiting either your district or a political ally’s.
In most cases, you’ll proudly note that you’re a Roman Catholic (like Congressmen John Murtha and Jason Altmire, as well as yours truly). However, you will under no circumstances talk about how your religious faith has affected your personal or political life. (I will, but they won't.)
When you cast a vote in Congress that your constituents might not like, you’ll remain silent about your reasoning on the subject. You’ll maintain extremely close relations with Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Party’s far-left leadership, and you’ll vote with them on critical issues. The exception occurs in cases where your vote isn’t needed, when they’ll let you cast a vote that appears to be “conservative.”
You’ll look at your elected office as a lifetime position, and you’ll do everything necessary to retain it. If you’re in Congress, you will never, ever do anything to offend John Murtha, who has a long memory and likes to exact revenge.
If you’re very old, you’ll take younger Democrats under your wing. In fact, during his race against Melissa Hart, Jason Altmire declared that Murtha was his “campaign manager.” Murtha’s Political Action Committee funded a good chunk of money to Altmire, which helped to ensure his vote for Murtha as Democratic Majority Leader.
On an important issue in Pennsylvania – the sanctity of life – Murtha and Altmire must assume their constituents don’t pay much attention. They are both “pro-life,” mainly in the sense that they talk a lot about being . . . pro-life. I call such people "Pro-Life, Inc."
It’s true that Murtha voted against the hideous process known as “partial-birth abortion.” If Altmire had been in Congress, he probably would have done the same.
However, when Congress considered a bill providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, pro-life Jack Murtha voted for it. So did “pro-life” Jason Altmire. The destruction of viable embryos was okay, as long it didn't come under the heading of "abortion."
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton called up John Murtha and asked him to vote for full funding of “family-planning” overseas. Murtha did so. In Congress, “family planning” is a euphemism for abortion.
It bothers me greatly that the 30 or so Democrat congressional representatives who claim to be pro-life seem to have absolutely no influence on the vast majority of Democrats in their Party. Frankly, it also bothers me that other Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, who list their religion as Roman Catholic can't even bring themselves to vote against something as objectionable as partial-birth abortion. To many Democrats, being "Catholic" is about equivalent to being in the Rotary Club.
On military matters: In his campaign against hawkish Rep. Melissa Hart, Altmire was a hawk. He proclaimed he was against a “timetable” Iraq. He said he would rely on “our commanders on the ground.”
When he got to Congress as a Democrat, Altmire found hawkishness was not exactly in vogue. Murtha voted for an Iraq War timetable, and so did Altmire.
In Franklin D Roosevelt’s era, there was an a humorous political saying: “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.” In Congress, "as Murtha goes, so goes Altmire."
The porcine Mr. Murtha and his increasingly rotund younger colleague deserve not offices in Congress, but rather places at the buffet table.
Isn’t it time send Melissa Hart, a superb human being, back to Congress in the 4th Congressional District? And isn’t it time to elect Lt. Col. William Russell to Congress in the 12th District. They both need your help.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
4th Congressional District
("For Murtha and Altmire, no more 'Mr. Nice Steve'")
Note: Tomorrow (Saturday's column) will be: "Murtha, Altmire: Nancy's Boys"
YOU Can Help Defeat Murtha
Note: What if you're not in Jack Murtha's district? Should you care about the race there? YOU SURE SHOULD! If Lt. Col. Russell can defeat "The Prince of Pork," it would be the race-heard-round the world.
It would have a tremendous -- positive -- effect in undermining al Qaida and other terrorists worldwide. It would let them know they can't play politics in the U.S.
Also, the principles and tactics that will lead to Murtha's defeat will work in many other districts around the nation. Murtha is widely -- and wrongly -- perceived as a "conservative" Democrat. That view of him is dead wrong.
As perhaps Nancy Pelosi's closest ally in Congress, Murtha is a critical component of the Democratic majority. If you don't like Pelosi, the worst way to express that is to vote for Murtha.
A loss by Murtha will send a message to all Democratic elected officials. It would show them that can't play "fast-and-loose" with the lives of American troops, as Murtha has done with his disgraceful comments on the Haditha Marines. I've advocated
Lt. Col. Russell deserves and needs your support. If you can make even a small contribution, it will be a factor in helping him defeat Murtha. Let's just do it!
(Please scroll down to see columns about Murtha and the myths he has tried to perpetuate.)
It would have a tremendous -- positive -- effect in undermining al Qaida and other terrorists worldwide. It would let them know they can't play politics in the U.S.
Also, the principles and tactics that will lead to Murtha's defeat will work in many other districts around the nation. Murtha is widely -- and wrongly -- perceived as a "conservative" Democrat. That view of him is dead wrong.
As perhaps Nancy Pelosi's closest ally in Congress, Murtha is a critical component of the Democratic majority. If you don't like Pelosi, the worst way to express that is to vote for Murtha.
A loss by Murtha will send a message to all Democratic elected officials. It would show them that can't play "fast-and-loose" with the lives of American troops, as Murtha has done with his disgraceful comments on the Haditha Marines. I've advocated
Lt. Col. Russell deserves and needs your support. If you can make even a small contribution, it will be a factor in helping him defeat Murtha. Let's just do it!
(Please scroll down to see columns about Murtha and the myths he has tried to perpetuate.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
