There was a great exchange on Facebook today between three political activists: Angela Young Lash, Charley Dez Eilar, and me. If you're on Facebook, sign us up as friends. We are trying to explain how you actually win elections -- not just vent and blow smoke.
Angela Young Lash said: "People who practice scorched earth politics, who intentionally split the vote, and who refuse to get behind great candidates because they're pushing their own personal agenda will do nothing but ensure liberal victories in the fall. Patriots, we must work SMART and stop the insanity being pushed by some of the "patriot..." groups who are splitting the vote." [Note: Angela worked in the Tim Burns special election campaign in PA CD 12 and is working to get Tim elected in November. http://timburnsforcongress.com.
Stephen R. Maloney said: " Ideological purists make terrible political allies. They bolt whenever a candidate disagrees with them on anything. Usually, such purists are egomaniacs on their way to being solipsists. They mistake rigidity for 'principles.' Stephen is working on Christine O'Donnell for US Senate campaign: http://christine2010.com.
Charley Dez Eylar said: I totally agree with her. We are NEVER going to find a candidate that we all agree with on every point. We are working on a multi-tiered, long term strategy here. we will not take the house or senate with pure bred hard right types. To win either or both we need independents. Independents are not going to vote for the hard core right types. What's wrong with voting to repeal KEY elements of the Obama agenda...that's the ones we are worried about...the ones that will destroy our country. Quinn...the dems love us spitting the vote....they are counting on it, lets get at least a foot in the door...then we can work on the rest of the body...What did Obama do to get elected? He moved to the CENTER to get the independent and republican vote...we could learn from that...doesn't mean we aren't still on the right but we need to be in office first . . . "
If you're not on Facebook, well get over there and sign up. We're having fun, even in the Dark Age of Obama.
Angela Young Lash, Stephen R. Maloney, Charley Dez Eylar, Tim Burns, Facebook, Delaware US Senate
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Conservatives: Wake Up, Listen Up!
The Tim Burns loss in PA, a bad loss, shows we're NOT going to win just by showing up. I wish my fellow conservatives were not ideological purists to the point that NO candidate is acceptable. I wish my fellow conservatives would donate more money, a lot more, to truly conservative candidates (like Christine O'Donnell at http://christine2010.com/). I wish my fellow conservatives would spend less time expressing their "opinions" and more time writing checks, going door-to-door and making phone calls.
On Facebook these days, some "libertarians" and "conservatives" (who may be neither) are busily denouncing Scott Brown and Sarah Palin. The absurd basis for the denunciations is that "half-a-loaf is worse than no loaf at all." In other words, candidates who don't agree with us 100% of the time are beneath contempt. The nonsensical point is that Scott Brown is no better than his predecessor Teddy Kennedy, which is ridiculous. Brown is a major step forward for Massachusetts and the country.
I hear some people saying, "We need to throw all incumbents out, Republicans and Democrats." Gee, who are we supposed to vote for, since the only people seriously contending are Republicans . . . and Democrats? Some incumbents, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachman, Tom Coburn, Mike Pence, and others, are patriots and excellent legislators. Are we really supposed to vote them out? If so, why?
Yes, Scott Brown certainly is not perfect, and the same is true of Sarah Palin. But they are much better than the alternatives. Conservatives who don't recognize those simple realities are very suspect. They will be little or no help in the elections.
Christine O'Donnell, Scott Brown, Sarah Palin, Conservatives, Teddy Kennedy, Ideological Purists, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Tom Coburn
On Facebook these days, some "libertarians" and "conservatives" (who may be neither) are busily denouncing Scott Brown and Sarah Palin. The absurd basis for the denunciations is that "half-a-loaf is worse than no loaf at all." In other words, candidates who don't agree with us 100% of the time are beneath contempt. The nonsensical point is that Scott Brown is no better than his predecessor Teddy Kennedy, which is ridiculous. Brown is a major step forward for Massachusetts and the country.
I hear some people saying, "We need to throw all incumbents out, Republicans and Democrats." Gee, who are we supposed to vote for, since the only people seriously contending are Republicans . . . and Democrats? Some incumbents, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachman, Tom Coburn, Mike Pence, and others, are patriots and excellent legislators. Are we really supposed to vote them out? If so, why?
Yes, Scott Brown certainly is not perfect, and the same is true of Sarah Palin. But they are much better than the alternatives. Conservatives who don't recognize those simple realities are very suspect. They will be little or no help in the elections.
Christine O'Donnell, Scott Brown, Sarah Palin, Conservatives, Teddy Kennedy, Ideological Purists, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Tom Coburn
Friday, May 21, 2010
BLOGGERS EXPOSE MIKE CASTLE'S LIES
Evan in Delaware recently blogged at http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com about the pack of lies liberal Rep. Mike Castle had on his web site. Right after the blog posts appeared, Castle immediately changed his web site. The whoppers he had up went down what George Orwell (of 1984 fame) called "the memory hole." I had also reprinted Evan's piece on my own blog (see below). Here are the comments Evan sent to his fellow Delaware bloggers:
"Make sure you screenshot Everything from here on out. I wrote the following blog (http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/mike-castle-fiscal-responsibility-fact.html) on Wednesday of this week and after that blog and my guest post on http://DelawarePolitics.net hit the air, the Castle website changed. Every quote there was absolutely on his website two days ago. They are doing as Obama did and rewriting their history."
Bloggers working together can change the world and help ensure that the truth about liberals like Mike Castle gets out. The MSM is in the tank; bloggers aren't.
Let's turn the feisty Delaware blogs into household names:
David Levi Anderson's DE blog: http://delawarepolitics.net
Frank Knotts's DE blog: http://politicallyfrank.wordpress.com
Jason C. O'Neill's DE blog: http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com
Scott's DE blog: http://marklevinfan.com
Diane Hernandez's, Evan's, Jason's site: http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com (DE)
Bill Miller's blog: http://teapartypapers.com/ (NJ)
Bill Miller blog (2): http://www.projectshiningcity.org/
Of course, Mike Castle has been conducting a campaign of falsehoods and innuendos against his conservative Republican opponent, Christine O'Donnell, in the US Senate race. In that effort to mislead voters, Castle has been assisted by his minions in the GOP Establishment and the local version of the MSM. Right now, the best way for Delawareans to get accurate information is through the blogs.
Mike Castle, Christine O'Donnell, David Levi Anderson, Frank Knotts, Jason C. O'Neill, Diane Hernandez, Mark Levin Fan, Bill Miller, Delaware Bloggers, BlueHenConservative, Delaware Politics, Delaware Republican, PoliticallyFrank, ProjectShiningCity
"Make sure you screenshot Everything from here on out. I wrote the following blog (http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/mike-castle-fiscal-responsibility-fact.html) on Wednesday of this week and after that blog and my guest post on http://DelawarePolitics.net hit the air, the Castle website changed. Every quote there was absolutely on his website two days ago. They are doing as Obama did and rewriting their history."
Bloggers working together can change the world and help ensure that the truth about liberals like Mike Castle gets out. The MSM is in the tank; bloggers aren't.
Let's turn the feisty Delaware blogs into household names:
David Levi Anderson's DE blog: http://delawarepolitics.net
Frank Knotts's DE blog: http://politicallyfrank.wordpress.com
Jason C. O'Neill's DE blog: http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com
Scott's DE blog: http://marklevinfan.com
Diane Hernandez's, Evan's, Jason's site: http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com (DE)
Bill Miller's blog: http://teapartypapers.com/ (NJ)
Bill Miller blog (2): http://www.projectshiningcity.org/
Of course, Mike Castle has been conducting a campaign of falsehoods and innuendos against his conservative Republican opponent, Christine O'Donnell, in the US Senate race. In that effort to mislead voters, Castle has been assisted by his minions in the GOP Establishment and the local version of the MSM. Right now, the best way for Delawareans to get accurate information is through the blogs.
Mike Castle, Christine O'Donnell, David Levi Anderson, Frank Knotts, Jason C. O'Neill, Diane Hernandez, Mark Levin Fan, Bill Miller, Delaware Bloggers, BlueHenConservative, Delaware Politics, Delaware Republican, PoliticallyFrank, ProjectShiningCity
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Liberal Mike Castle: Congressional Slimeball
Congressman Mike Castle, a frail desperate career politician is waging a smear campaign -- one full of lies and innuendos -- against Christine O'Donnell, a fine young woman who has the temerity to challenge Castle for the Delaware US Senate seat. Castle is now running around Delaware pretending to be a fiscally responsible "conservative." This is a little like Madonna claiming to be a virgin. Castle is disgusting. He is an even uglier version of Arlen Specter.
The following piece about fiscal conservatism appeared in a fine Delaware blog: http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/. It tells the truth about Mike Castle, which is something he never wants voters to hear.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Mike Castle - Fiscal Responsibility Fact Check
On his website Mike Castle claims to be Fiscally Responsible. I decided to do some Fact checking. I thought, maybe I'm WRONG about Congressman Castle. Maybe he IS a budget hawk. This is what I found:
FACT - Castle voted for TARP (the $700 Billion bailout of the financial industry) in 2008
FACT - In 2008 the American Conservative Union and Club for Growth (Fiscal conservatism) rated Mike Castle at 28% and 26% respectively.
FACT - Castle voted FOR the Auto-bailout that resulted in GM being owned by the unions and taxpayers
FACT - American for Fair Taxation rated Mike Castle as a -1 against the FairTax measure
FACT - Castle Voted FOR permanently raising taxes on businesses
FACT - In 2008 the National Tax Payers Union gave Congressman Castle a D rating
FACT - AGAINST making the Bush tax cuts permanent, capping discretionary spending
at $973 billion and imposing a moratorium on earmarks
FACT - Congressman Castle supported the interests of the National Small Business Association 60 percent of the time from 2007-2008
FACT - Castle voted FOR the Obama Omnibus spending bill that increased spending 8% on TOP of the Stimulus packages
Castle's website states:
Economic Stimulus - Mike Castle has supported the federal initiative to return millions of taxpayer dollars back to individuals and families, spur business investment, and expand refinance options for homeowners.
The $787 Billion stimulus package (which is projected to cost $3.27 Trillion) has resulted in $514, 012, 482.38 in Delaware dollars or put another way 6 one hundredths of one percent of the total stimulus package (assuming $787 Billion is correct).
The Stimulus package has resulted in 1,174 jobs gained; however, by December of 2009 Delaware had lost 11,400 jobs which resulted in a net loss of 10,226 jobs. Home foreclosure filings are still averaging 13 per day.
The website also states:
Financial Services Committee: Mike Castle serves on the House Committee on
Financial Services, which has jurisdiction over banking and the securities and
insurance industries. In this capacity, he has worked to ensure the viability of
low income housing programs and has introduced legislation to shield consumers
from identity theft.
This committee failed to stop Fannie and Freddie from bringing down the entire national housing system, failed to properly regulate and evaluate the banking industry and is largely responsible for the financial services bailouts (which Castle voted for).
Finally, Castle's website states:
Budget Reform: One of the reasons Mike Castle first ran for the United States
Congress was to bring to the federal government the same principles of fiscal
responsibility that he practiced as Governor of Delaware. Castle has fought for
solid budget reforms in Washington, including a presidential line item veto,
rainy day accounts, pay as you go for both tax cuts and spending, and a
no-excuses balanced budget process.
Despite this statement, Mike Castle has voted against PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) amendments. The most recent of which was on February 14th 2010. He has a 2008 rating of 26% from the Club for Growth and has voted AGAINST making the Bush tax cuts permanent, capping discretionary spending and imposing a moratorium on earmarks 3 times since 2005.
He's also voted FOR Cap and Trade, the auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, the 2008 stimulus package, the Omnibus spending bill (increased federal spending 8% ABOVE stimulus package) and believes that Social Security works relatively well despite the fact that it owes more than $14 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities and is the second largest budget item in federal spending (2nd only to Medicare/Medicaid which he has also praised).
Congressman Castle is CLEARLY not fiscally responsible with the people's money. He has time and again voted in ways that go against what is "fiscally responsible". His votes tend to contradict his campaign promises in the area of fiscal responsibility.
Mike Castle, TARP, Bank Bailout, Christine O'Donnell, Unfunded Liabilities, Fiscal Responsibility
The following piece about fiscal conservatism appeared in a fine Delaware blog: http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/. It tells the truth about Mike Castle, which is something he never wants voters to hear.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Mike Castle - Fiscal Responsibility Fact Check
On his website Mike Castle claims to be Fiscally Responsible. I decided to do some Fact checking. I thought, maybe I'm WRONG about Congressman Castle. Maybe he IS a budget hawk. This is what I found:
FACT - Castle voted for TARP (the $700 Billion bailout of the financial industry) in 2008
FACT - In 2008 the American Conservative Union and Club for Growth (Fiscal conservatism) rated Mike Castle at 28% and 26% respectively.
FACT - Castle voted FOR the Auto-bailout that resulted in GM being owned by the unions and taxpayers
FACT - American for Fair Taxation rated Mike Castle as a -1 against the FairTax measure
FACT - Castle Voted FOR permanently raising taxes on businesses
FACT - In 2008 the National Tax Payers Union gave Congressman Castle a D rating
FACT - AGAINST making the Bush tax cuts permanent, capping discretionary spending
at $973 billion and imposing a moratorium on earmarks
FACT - Congressman Castle supported the interests of the National Small Business Association 60 percent of the time from 2007-2008
FACT - Castle voted FOR the Obama Omnibus spending bill that increased spending 8% on TOP of the Stimulus packages
Castle's website states:
Economic Stimulus - Mike Castle has supported the federal initiative to return millions of taxpayer dollars back to individuals and families, spur business investment, and expand refinance options for homeowners.
The $787 Billion stimulus package (which is projected to cost $3.27 Trillion) has resulted in $514, 012, 482.38 in Delaware dollars or put another way 6 one hundredths of one percent of the total stimulus package (assuming $787 Billion is correct).
The Stimulus package has resulted in 1,174 jobs gained; however, by December of 2009 Delaware had lost 11,400 jobs which resulted in a net loss of 10,226 jobs. Home foreclosure filings are still averaging 13 per day.
The website also states:
Financial Services Committee: Mike Castle serves on the House Committee on
Financial Services, which has jurisdiction over banking and the securities and
insurance industries. In this capacity, he has worked to ensure the viability of
low income housing programs and has introduced legislation to shield consumers
from identity theft.
This committee failed to stop Fannie and Freddie from bringing down the entire national housing system, failed to properly regulate and evaluate the banking industry and is largely responsible for the financial services bailouts (which Castle voted for).
Finally, Castle's website states:
Budget Reform: One of the reasons Mike Castle first ran for the United States
Congress was to bring to the federal government the same principles of fiscal
responsibility that he practiced as Governor of Delaware. Castle has fought for
solid budget reforms in Washington, including a presidential line item veto,
rainy day accounts, pay as you go for both tax cuts and spending, and a
no-excuses balanced budget process.
Despite this statement, Mike Castle has voted against PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) amendments. The most recent of which was on February 14th 2010. He has a 2008 rating of 26% from the Club for Growth and has voted AGAINST making the Bush tax cuts permanent, capping discretionary spending and imposing a moratorium on earmarks 3 times since 2005.
He's also voted FOR Cap and Trade, the auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, the 2008 stimulus package, the Omnibus spending bill (increased federal spending 8% ABOVE stimulus package) and believes that Social Security works relatively well despite the fact that it owes more than $14 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities and is the second largest budget item in federal spending (2nd only to Medicare/Medicaid which he has also praised).
Congressman Castle is CLEARLY not fiscally responsible with the people's money. He has time and again voted in ways that go against what is "fiscally responsible". His votes tend to contradict his campaign promises in the area of fiscal responsibility.
Mike Castle, TARP, Bank Bailout, Christine O'Donnell, Unfunded Liabilities, Fiscal Responsibility
Monday, May 17, 2010
Burns, Specter Looking Like Losers
I hope to goodness I'm wrong, but in tomorrow's special election, Tim Burns in the PA 12th CD is looking like a loser. Of less interest to me -- but a source of pleasure -- Arlen Specter is an almost certain loser.
If (key word), I'm right about Burns, this is a race he could have -- should have -- won. As for Specter, former Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat, he's been an embarrassment for a long time, and he will have gotten his defeat the old-fashioned way -- i.e., he earned it. At age 79, Arlen has the charisma of a salamander, coupled with a Godzilla-sized ego.
Whoever ran the Burns campaign should seek another field of "expertise." Poorly run Republican campaigns (remember Jim Tedisco in a New York special election?) are becoming almost a fact of life. The Democrats ceaselessly attack -- and the Republicans respond with hurt feelings and lame commercials. A candidate who becomes a punching bag for Democrats is not a happy sight.
Tim Burns should have won in a walk. He was ahead in the polls (but not by much) several weeks ago. I hear that the polls (I hate the things) have gone South for Burns -- and no wonder. This is supposed to be a Republican year, right?
Burns's opponent is a guy, Mark Critz, I'd never heard of until recently. As Jim Geraghty pointed out in a National Review article, Critz was John Murtha's bagman. He was the guy who worked out the earmarks deals, figuring out who would get the tax-dollar handouts -- and how much Murtha would get in campaign "donations." In short, Critz is a petty crook. (Here's the link to Geraghty's article: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZWEzZmYyNWI1YWYxNmE2MjI4YTcwMmNmOTZlZDA4YTE=)
In speeches and in (endless, expensive) ads Burns started out with happy talk -- "hey, I'm a hockey dad -- get it?" Meanwhile, Critz, led by the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC), was hitting Burns both in the jaw and the solar plexus. He branded Burns as a millionaire (not a good thing in PA, or most places), a job outsourceer, and "not one of US." In western PA, if you're not one of us, you're not going to win elections. John Murtha, even when he was calling us "rednecks" and "racists," remained -- somehow -- "one of us."
Thus, Burns, born in Johnstown and pretty much a lifetime resident of the district, came across as the (dreaded) . . . outsider. Critz, a Washington insider, is about as much a part of the district as Mt. Rushmore, but he -- in commercials -- became "the hometown boy." Critz talked with emotion about how he, through Murtha's earmarks, had "created thousands of jobs." He forgot to mention that the 12th is a place of chronic unemployment, rapid population loss, and low per-capita income. Tim Burns forgot to mention that either.
It's a mess. Tim Burns is a good guy. But he's rich (less rich now, after having spent one of his millions on this campaign), and rich people sometimes have a false sense of invulnerability. For all the money he and the national Republican entities spent, this was a campaign that almost always gave off the scent of a loser. Tim listened to the experts, and they gave him a steady stream of bad advice.
I'm in western Pennsylvania, and I got to see the train wreck happen. I'm not saying everything Burns did was wrong, but he always seemed at least a step behind the opposition. In politics, being a step behind means the other guy wins the race. A campaign needs A PLAN TO WIN. If Tim's did, it was undetectible by ordinary mortals.
Admittedly, Critz is a good liar. He proclaimed that he was "pro-life" and "would have voted against the health care bill" (that Murtha voted for). He was "against the Medicare cuts" in the health bill. These comments were all incredible, but he said them with a straight face. Pelosi, whom Critz will worship as he once did "Mr. Murtha," will tell Critz what to do, and he'll salute and stand at attention.
Let me say it: if I'd managed this campaign, maybe we still would have lost, but we would never have allowed ourselves to be beaten senseless day-after-day, week-after-week. We would have turned Mark Critz into a four-letter word that also begins with "cr" and ends with "p." Everybody in the district would have gotten a free copy of the Geraghty article.
As for Arlen Specter, I have only four words: goodbye and good riddance. Sestak will be the favorite in the race against Republican Pat Toomey. "Republican year?" Hmmm.
Tim Burns, Mark Critz, 12th congressional district, Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Johnstown, PA, Pat Toomey
If (key word), I'm right about Burns, this is a race he could have -- should have -- won. As for Specter, former Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat, he's been an embarrassment for a long time, and he will have gotten his defeat the old-fashioned way -- i.e., he earned it. At age 79, Arlen has the charisma of a salamander, coupled with a Godzilla-sized ego.
Whoever ran the Burns campaign should seek another field of "expertise." Poorly run Republican campaigns (remember Jim Tedisco in a New York special election?) are becoming almost a fact of life. The Democrats ceaselessly attack -- and the Republicans respond with hurt feelings and lame commercials. A candidate who becomes a punching bag for Democrats is not a happy sight.
Tim Burns should have won in a walk. He was ahead in the polls (but not by much) several weeks ago. I hear that the polls (I hate the things) have gone South for Burns -- and no wonder. This is supposed to be a Republican year, right?
Burns's opponent is a guy, Mark Critz, I'd never heard of until recently. As Jim Geraghty pointed out in a National Review article, Critz was John Murtha's bagman. He was the guy who worked out the earmarks deals, figuring out who would get the tax-dollar handouts -- and how much Murtha would get in campaign "donations." In short, Critz is a petty crook. (Here's the link to Geraghty's article: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZWEzZmYyNWI1YWYxNmE2MjI4YTcwMmNmOTZlZDA4YTE=)
In speeches and in (endless, expensive) ads Burns started out with happy talk -- "hey, I'm a hockey dad -- get it?" Meanwhile, Critz, led by the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC), was hitting Burns both in the jaw and the solar plexus. He branded Burns as a millionaire (not a good thing in PA, or most places), a job outsourceer, and "not one of US." In western PA, if you're not one of us, you're not going to win elections. John Murtha, even when he was calling us "rednecks" and "racists," remained -- somehow -- "one of us."
Thus, Burns, born in Johnstown and pretty much a lifetime resident of the district, came across as the (dreaded) . . . outsider. Critz, a Washington insider, is about as much a part of the district as Mt. Rushmore, but he -- in commercials -- became "the hometown boy." Critz talked with emotion about how he, through Murtha's earmarks, had "created thousands of jobs." He forgot to mention that the 12th is a place of chronic unemployment, rapid population loss, and low per-capita income. Tim Burns forgot to mention that either.
It's a mess. Tim Burns is a good guy. But he's rich (less rich now, after having spent one of his millions on this campaign), and rich people sometimes have a false sense of invulnerability. For all the money he and the national Republican entities spent, this was a campaign that almost always gave off the scent of a loser. Tim listened to the experts, and they gave him a steady stream of bad advice.
I'm in western Pennsylvania, and I got to see the train wreck happen. I'm not saying everything Burns did was wrong, but he always seemed at least a step behind the opposition. In politics, being a step behind means the other guy wins the race. A campaign needs A PLAN TO WIN. If Tim's did, it was undetectible by ordinary mortals.
Admittedly, Critz is a good liar. He proclaimed that he was "pro-life" and "would have voted against the health care bill" (that Murtha voted for). He was "against the Medicare cuts" in the health bill. These comments were all incredible, but he said them with a straight face. Pelosi, whom Critz will worship as he once did "Mr. Murtha," will tell Critz what to do, and he'll salute and stand at attention.
Let me say it: if I'd managed this campaign, maybe we still would have lost, but we would never have allowed ourselves to be beaten senseless day-after-day, week-after-week. We would have turned Mark Critz into a four-letter word that also begins with "cr" and ends with "p." Everybody in the district would have gotten a free copy of the Geraghty article.
As for Arlen Specter, I have only four words: goodbye and good riddance. Sestak will be the favorite in the race against Republican Pat Toomey. "Republican year?" Hmmm.
Tim Burns, Mark Critz, 12th congressional district, Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Johnstown, PA, Pat Toomey
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Delaware Area Blogs Worth Following
Christine O'Donnell, conservative candidate for US Senate from DelawareThe battle for an open Senate seat in Delaware this year will be a barn-burner. The Republican Primary pits career politician -- and liberal -- Mike Castle against conservative Christine O'Donnell. In a small state, bloggers play a critical role in getting out information. I've written several pieces on Christine and her race, and you can find them by scrolling down.
David Levi Anderson’s DE blog: http://delawarepolitics.net/ [non-partisan]
Frank Knotts’s DE blog: http://politicallyfrank.wordpress.com/
Jason C. O’Neill’s DE blog: http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com/
Scott’s DE blog: http://marklevinfan.com/
Diane Hernandez’s site: http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/ (DE)
Bill Miller’s blog: http://teapartypapers.com/ (NJ)
Bill Miller blog (2): http://www.projectshiningcity.org/
Frank Knotts’s DE blog: http://politicallyfrank.wordpress.com/
Jason C. O’Neill’s DE blog: http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com/
Scott’s DE blog: http://marklevinfan.com/
Diane Hernandez’s site: http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/ (DE)
Bill Miller’s blog: http://teapartypapers.com/ (NJ)
Bill Miller blog (2): http://www.projectshiningcity.org/
Bill Miller is in NJ but is also very worth reading.
Mike Castle, Christine O'Donnell, Delaware, US Senate, David Levi Anderson, Frank Knotts, Jason C. O'Neill, Diane Hernandez, Bill Miller
Saturday, May 15, 2010
America's Agony: "Burn, Baby, Burn"
Super-blogger Nancy Hayhurst ("ChicagoBluesGirl") asked me to comment on a superb American Thinker article that says America is in much worse trouble that even ardent Tea Partiers believe. Here's the link to the article, followed by my response.
"American Thinker: Let It Burn"
Here are two excerpts from this profoundly important article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/let_it_burn.html
"Passage of the health care bill has sparked a revival of small-government thinking, causing many to predict significant Republican gains in Congress this fall. But despite some short-term success, this small-government revival is doomed to fail. The depressing truth is that the only way to regain the full measure of those freedoms proclaimed in our Founding Documents is for our current federal government to completely collapse under the weight of its own excesses."
"'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.' This quote by Ben Franklin is often used by civil libertarians in opposition to government security programs such as the Patriot Act. But this sentiment is equally applicable to those who would give up economic liberty to obtain economic safety. The economic attitude of the nation has shifted. We are no longer a nation of self-sufficient, rugged individualists; we are now a nation of addicts, hooked on a politician's promises of economic safety."
In general, I agree with the article's thesis on our addiction to Big Government. I say that with sadness, Nancy.
One solution to our spending problems would be to put a cap on Social Security, perhaps for at least five years. I am on Soc. Sec. and so is my wife. It would hurt us, but not kill us. Any politician who recommended such a thing would probably be defeated.
On Medicare, my wife has been disabled since 1991 and has been on Medicare since 1994. In all but two of those years, she has "paid" more into Medicare than she's taken out. She's taken great care to make sure she's not raiding Medicare. But she's the exception. There are zero incentives to encourage people to take good care of themselves (as my wife does). She does so because she's responsible and, to the degree possible, self-reliant.
I've been on Medicare for several years now, and I have NEVER spent more in a year than I've paid in premiums. We need a national commitment from people not to overuse Medicare. But that won't happen if most Americans remain clueless about the economic dynamics of the nation.
I believe we MIGHT be approaching a revolutionary situation. So many people want, want, and want, but the "government" (taxpayers) are running out of money to pay, pay, pay for those wants. A demagogue like Obama is making promises it will be financially impossible for the nation to meet.
Nancy, one reason I support Christine O'Donnell so strongly -- and hope you will also -- is that she tells the truth, as I'm trying to do in this piece. Maybe there's little room nowadays for truth-tellers, but I'm more optimistic than I was in 2006 and 2008 that there MAY be a market for truth-tellers.
Christine's point is that the government has been "stealing" (and using) the payments Americans have made into Social Security. And she's absolutely right. The feds have been stealing the money and using the money to make people more dependent. It's shameful. Obscene.
Will people, activists of modest means, contribute enough to ensure that Christine O'Donnell wins? I sure hope so. "Attagirls" for Christine will not be enough. If we don't provide financial support to people like Christine, we're just kidding ourselves.
Somebody told me this week that he can't contribute to Christine because he's "saving every cent for [his] family." He's living in fantasyland. All the money he's saving will be taken (literally or through inflation) by Obama and friends. It will be "redistributed" to those who didn't save a nickel.
The TeaParty and 912 movements are a sign of hope. But even they may not have grasped (Glenn Beck does) how dire our situation is. This may be the first time in history that we've experienced both deflation and inflation. It's like somehow getting fat and thin at the same time.
P.S. I hope you'll pass this e-mail on to as many friends as possible. Also, put it up on your blog(s). Let the life-and-death debate begin! Love to hear your thoughts . . .
American Thinker, Christine O'Donnell, Glenn Beck, TeaParty, 912 Movement, Barack Obama, Nancy Hayhurst
"American Thinker: Let It Burn"
Here are two excerpts from this profoundly important article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/let_it_burn.html
"Passage of the health care bill has sparked a revival of small-government thinking, causing many to predict significant Republican gains in Congress this fall. But despite some short-term success, this small-government revival is doomed to fail. The depressing truth is that the only way to regain the full measure of those freedoms proclaimed in our Founding Documents is for our current federal government to completely collapse under the weight of its own excesses."
"'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.' This quote by Ben Franklin is often used by civil libertarians in opposition to government security programs such as the Patriot Act. But this sentiment is equally applicable to those who would give up economic liberty to obtain economic safety. The economic attitude of the nation has shifted. We are no longer a nation of self-sufficient, rugged individualists; we are now a nation of addicts, hooked on a politician's promises of economic safety."
In general, I agree with the article's thesis on our addiction to Big Government. I say that with sadness, Nancy.
One solution to our spending problems would be to put a cap on Social Security, perhaps for at least five years. I am on Soc. Sec. and so is my wife. It would hurt us, but not kill us. Any politician who recommended such a thing would probably be defeated.
On Medicare, my wife has been disabled since 1991 and has been on Medicare since 1994. In all but two of those years, she has "paid" more into Medicare than she's taken out. She's taken great care to make sure she's not raiding Medicare. But she's the exception. There are zero incentives to encourage people to take good care of themselves (as my wife does). She does so because she's responsible and, to the degree possible, self-reliant.
I've been on Medicare for several years now, and I have NEVER spent more in a year than I've paid in premiums. We need a national commitment from people not to overuse Medicare. But that won't happen if most Americans remain clueless about the economic dynamics of the nation.
I believe we MIGHT be approaching a revolutionary situation. So many people want, want, and want, but the "government" (taxpayers) are running out of money to pay, pay, pay for those wants. A demagogue like Obama is making promises it will be financially impossible for the nation to meet.
Nancy, one reason I support Christine O'Donnell so strongly -- and hope you will also -- is that she tells the truth, as I'm trying to do in this piece. Maybe there's little room nowadays for truth-tellers, but I'm more optimistic than I was in 2006 and 2008 that there MAY be a market for truth-tellers.
Christine's point is that the government has been "stealing" (and using) the payments Americans have made into Social Security. And she's absolutely right. The feds have been stealing the money and using the money to make people more dependent. It's shameful. Obscene.
Will people, activists of modest means, contribute enough to ensure that Christine O'Donnell wins? I sure hope so. "Attagirls" for Christine will not be enough. If we don't provide financial support to people like Christine, we're just kidding ourselves.
Somebody told me this week that he can't contribute to Christine because he's "saving every cent for [his] family." He's living in fantasyland. All the money he's saving will be taken (literally or through inflation) by Obama and friends. It will be "redistributed" to those who didn't save a nickel.
The TeaParty and 912 movements are a sign of hope. But even they may not have grasped (Glenn Beck does) how dire our situation is. This may be the first time in history that we've experienced both deflation and inflation. It's like somehow getting fat and thin at the same time.
P.S. I hope you'll pass this e-mail on to as many friends as possible. Also, put it up on your blog(s). Let the life-and-death debate begin! Love to hear your thoughts . . .
American Thinker, Christine O'Donnell, Glenn Beck, TeaParty, 912 Movement, Barack Obama, Nancy Hayhurst
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
