OK Joe Scarbourough. I will "man up" for you and tell you something about your latest tome against former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
What you accuse her of doing, "tearing down" people is exactly what your column in Politico did.
You did not address one issue that you disagree with Mrs. Palin on.
I assume Joe, yeah I will call ya Joe, that you actually have policy disagreements with Mrs. Palin.
Funny, I just did not find one in your dismissal of Mrs. Palin.
I note that you start your column in a way that you would never think about if Mrs. Palin were, oh I do not know, maybe Sam Palin. Here is your condescending paragraph:
Everybody knows that Palin is a busy woman. The former half-term governor of Alaska stays so busy these days that one wonders how this mother of five manages to juggle her new reality show, follow her eldest daughter’s dancing career and launch her latest frenetic book tour while still finding the time to insult a slew of revered presidents and first ladies.
Would you have written that if Mrs. Palin was a man? Huh? I know that you would not.
Are you saying that a woman should not be as active as Mrs. Palin? Having any kind of career with a family? Have you thought this about the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? How about some Republican women. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas? Or the Maine sisters, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? Yeah, I don't think so.
But I will give you a little bit about the fact that Mrs. Palin did resign and did not finish her term as governor. I have commented that I would have liked to see her finish her term. But, unlike many in politics she did not have a slew of money lying around to pay mounting legal bills to fend off mindless political charges filed against her while she was governor. Sorry about that Joe.
You then go on to cite that her political resume is thin, the same as the Dear Leader, President Obama. Yet I do not know when you cited that as a commentator on MSNBC. I really would like to see your comments during the 2008 campaign that dissed then Sen. Messiah Barack. If there are, then I do stand corrected. But I doubt any would come up.
Joe, you go on to accuse Mrs. Palin of taking swipes at "Revered presidents and first ladies." and "Republican giants."
What has your panties in a bunch, Joe, is that Mrs. Palin answered a question about the fact that she is doing her show, Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC. Mrs. Palin pointed out that another person, Ronald Reagan, was an actual actor. Joe, you do not actually use the whole thing in your teardown of Mrs. Palin. Here, judge for yourself if Mrs. Palin is dismissing Mr. Reagan:
Rove, in an interview last week with London's Telegraph, said he thought it voters were unlikely to elect as president someone starring in a reality show.
"With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office,'" Rove said.
"Now look-it; I'm not in a reality show," she said on Fox News Sunday, according to the Huffington Post. "I have eight episodes documenting Alaska's resources, what it is that we can contribute to the rest of U.S. to economically and physically secure our union, and my family comes along for the ride because I am family, family is us, and my family comes along on the ride to document these eight episodes for The Learning Channel. ... So Karl is wrong right there in calling it a reality show."
Palin also took a tongue-in-cheek approach in pointing out that voters once elected an actor as president.
"You know, I agree with [Rove] that those standards have to be high for someone who would ever want to run for president, like, um, wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor?" Palin said. "Wasn't he in Bedtimes for Bonzo, Bozo or something? Ronald Reagan was an actor."
This was from The Hollywood Reporter. Not exactly conservative Republican central.
Yet, the way you put it, Joe, is that Mrs. Palin just dismissed Mr. Reagan as "an actor". She was not dismissive but rather simply making a valid point.
Another thing that got your panties tighter is Mrs. Palin reacting to former President George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush offering their opinions of the current crop of 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls.
Mr. H. W. Bush offered that he thought Mitt Romney would his candidate in '12. And he and Mrs. Bush did mention others. But not Mrs. Palin. And, Mrs Bush made a remark that could be seen as dismissive of Mrs. Palin suggesting that she should just stay in Alaska.
And Mrs. Palin responded that the Bushes are Blue Bloods. And that they want to dictate the winners.
And, Joe, she is right. And she was respectful of Mr. H. W. Bush as a former president.
But Joe, you went on to mention Mr. H. W. Bush and his heroic service to our nation during World War II. That does not take away from the fact that indeed Mr. H. W. Bush does come from a wealthy, establishment background. And we can not forget that indeed, it was the one thing that Mr. H. W. Bush promised he would not do that wrecked the economy even further.
Mr. H. W. Bush raised taxes. Can I point out that fact, Joe?
And on that note, it was people like the Bush family that Ronald Reagan ran against. Do you remember that? Remember that Mr. Reagan ran against then President Gerald Ford for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976? Mr. Ford, a decent man and patriot, reeked of being part of the Republican establishment.
Again, Joe, you wade into sexist commentary by trying to compare Mrs. Palin in her 20s to Mr. H. W. Bush and his service to our nation in war. You dismiss her because she-DA HORROR-ran as a contestant for Miss Alaska and finished third. Of course you fail to mention, Joe, that Mrs. Palin was married, raising a family and an active community volunteer. Also, she was working with husband Todd Palin on their commercial fishing business. Hey, Joe, maybe she should have donned some camoflouge and done a Rambo. Would that have changed your thinking on Mrs. Palin?
See, Joe, I would have liked to have seen something written by you that actually dealt with I S S U E S you and Mrs. Palin disagree on. You did not. You wasted a lot of words to pass on your buddies at MSNBC's talking points. That Mrs. Palin is dumb. That she is a quitter. That she should not be making money.
When people that claim to be on the conservative side spend more time dissing people on our side to prop up their own notions, then we do not win the battle of ideas.
And Joe, you did that with this column. And what you have done is solidified those of us that think there is a battle between the Republican establishment and the regular people. The conservatives. You, sir, represent the establishment.
Next time, Joe, please write a column about your policy disagreements with Sarah Palin. Not just some envy.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
R. I. P. Leslie Nielsen
Today, comedic actor Leslie Nielsen died at the age of 84. And he leaves behind a comedic legacy of work that will not be matched anytime soon.
I remember Mr. Nielsen as a bad guy in 1970s shows like Barnaby Jones, The Rockford Files and the like.
But it was his performance in the 1980 movie Airplane that led to a career transformation and revived a flagging career.
During the rest of the 80s, Mr. Nielsen starred in the trilogy of Naked Gun movies as the hapless detective, Frank Drebin.
It is how I will remember Mr. Nielsen.
It also showed that sometimes, many times, there are second chances in this life. And Mr. Nielsen got his with the infamous role of the bumbling doctor in Airplane.
Hopefully, Mr. Nielsen is giving the Almighty a good laugh right now.
I remember Mr. Nielsen as a bad guy in 1970s shows like Barnaby Jones, The Rockford Files and the like.
But it was his performance in the 1980 movie Airplane that led to a career transformation and revived a flagging career.
During the rest of the 80s, Mr. Nielsen starred in the trilogy of Naked Gun movies as the hapless detective, Frank Drebin.
It is how I will remember Mr. Nielsen.
It also showed that sometimes, many times, there are second chances in this life. And Mr. Nielsen got his with the infamous role of the bumbling doctor in Airplane.
Hopefully, Mr. Nielsen is giving the Almighty a good laugh right now.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
For Cali GOP, No Quick Fix
As we head into the Thanksgiving weekend, it is as good a time as any to revisit the subject of the California Republican party, the problems and the solutions.
First, the apparent sweep of constitutional offices by the Democrats, the majority in the congressional delegation and in the state legislature did not happen overnight.
The fact that the Republican registration is going the wrong way did not happen overnight.
The lack of development of future Republicans for higher offices did not happen overnight.
The battle between the conservatives and moderates, well that will go on no matter what.
And that battle will be who wants to revive the party at all levels or give up, cut deals and hope for the best.
So, lets go back a few years.
2000 to be exact.
The California Republican party had just went through the same thing that it is going through now. A repudiation of the party as a whole.
In 1998, the Democrats swept through almost all the constitutional offices. Only Bill Jones survived and continued as Secretary of State. The Democrats gained seats in the state assembly (lower house) and senate. And in the congressional delegation. In other words, it was a nasty loss for the Republican party statewide.
By 2000, the state GOP was broke and desperate.
So, the leadership, elected and party apparatus, brokered a deal with the Democrats.
Unlike previous years when the Democrats tried obscene gerrymandering, all sides agreed to protect each other. No contentious court fights. All sides would be happy.
And fast forward to the present and, well that did not work out so well for the Republicans.
At the start of the decade, here is the breakdown at the state and congressional level.
State Assembly 2000 2010
D 50 52
R 30 28
State Senate
D 26 26
R 14 14
Congressional Delegation
D 32 34
R 20 19
Here is the lesson that should have been learned.
Don't cut deals with Democrats. Period. It will and is never to the advantage of the Republicans.
Even gaining a congressional district did not help the Republicans. And in the state assembly, they lost two seats.
Bottom line is that all that happened is the Democrats used the 10 year period to solidify their advantage and then start picking off Republicans. In all ways.
In 2000, registered Republicans accounted for 35% of all voters.
In 2010, that figure declined to 31%.
For the Democrats, in 2000, it was at 46%.
The Democrats lost two percent but account for 44% of registered voters.
But, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have been able to leverage the decline-to-state voters to their advantage.
And the mild ebb and flow led to the Democrats keeping and or increasing their share in many areas of California.
So what about this redistricting.
Well, one of the few good things Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger did was get Prop 11 passed. It took the reapportionment out of the hands of the legislature and it is now in the hands of a citizens board. And with the passage of Prop 20 and the defeat of Prop 27, all reapportionment, state house and congress, will be in the hands of the board. The board will be drawing the districts to no distinct party advantage. It should increase seats competitiveness meaning this will be a chance for Republicans to make gains at all levels.
But, they will have to make a serious effort to reach beyond their base of Southern California outside of Los Angeles county, the Central Valley and inland Northern California.
It means that the first target needs to be Los Angeles county. There are some pockets of Republican strength. The northern part of the county and some areas in the east and south bay.
This is where the party needs to recruit and get people elected for city councils and or school boards. And while these are technically non-partisan offices, let it be known that the people running are conservatives and Republicans. The Democrats do all the time.
Why is it that few if any know that the mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, is a Republican? The mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearengin, also a Republican? And the former Republican speaker of the assembly, Curt Pringle, is the mayor of Anaheim? These are three of the largest cities in the state. Everyone knows that Antoinio Villar is a Dem. Same with soon-to-be Lt. Governor, Gavin Newsom. Same with Kevin Johnson, mayor of Sacramento.
The Republican party must run as the Republican party. It must present candidates that are not wishy-washy. Again, when faced with a moderate Republican or a Democrat, the voter usually pulls the lever for the Democrat. At least they know that is the real deal.
Which leads to a huge problem for the California Republican party.
Thankfully, he is leaving office.
That problem would be the current governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Gov. Benedict Arnold did not one thing to promote the party. He did not candidate recruitment. He never campaigned with lower-office Republicans when he had the chance. He talked of being "post-partisan". More like surrendered to the Democrat party.
Most of us that swallowed hard and voted for him not once, but twice, knew he was a moderate. Did not like to talk about "social issues" which means to the leftywhore media, abortion and same-sex marriage. Was very vague about many other issues.
In the end, as I have written many times, Gov. Benedict Arnold turned out to be former Gov. The Gray Era Davis. Only with a personality.
And, Gov. Benedict Arnold ended up supporting the very tax hike that ended the governorship of The Gray Era. That would be the hike in the car registration fee.
There is no point in electing one who claims to be a Republican and when one wins office, does nothing to help build the party.
That is the the legacy of one Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
We need to set out to explain to the voters that there really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We must be clear and articulate. We must not let the leftywhore media dictate the terms of debate. We must not get off on tangents.
The California Republican party and it candidates need to say that we stand for smaller, efficient government. Less regulation. Less control of people's lives. Lower taxes. Hell, to reform the whole tax structure of California. That we believe in law and order. That we believe in creating opportunities for every citizen of California to move up the ladder. That we respect the dignity of every person as an individual. That "group think" is not the way to go. Except it be as a Californian and or an American. That legal immigrants are beyond more than welcome. That we need massive overhaul of education in this state. Promote merit pay for teachers. Increase charter schools. Provide vouchers for low-income families to help them send their children to successful private schools.
In other words, as a former governor once said,
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
That was then-former governor Ronald Reagan speaking to the 1975 gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee.
He was right then and is right now.
If the California Republican party wants to be serious, it is going to have to make clear why people should register and vote for them. It can not be because we are not the Democrats. Or we are not as bad as the Democrats. Or that we only want to raise some taxes. Or slow down the size of state government.
It needs to stop looking for the quick fix. Whether it be Bill Simon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman. It needs to start fresh and new.
There are real opportunities if the party is smart. It looks like there is hope in Tom del Baccaro becoming the chair of the state party.
Mr. del Baccaro hails from Contra Costa county. And he has led getting Republican voters out over many larger county parties. He is the proprietor of The Political Vanguard. He also is a solid conservative.
We have to start somewhere and that will be in leadership.
And we all have to know that there is not a quick fix. It could take the decade or less, depending on what we do as a party to be a real alternative to the Democrat behemoth now in control in Sacramento.
First, the apparent sweep of constitutional offices by the Democrats, the majority in the congressional delegation and in the state legislature did not happen overnight.
The fact that the Republican registration is going the wrong way did not happen overnight.
The lack of development of future Republicans for higher offices did not happen overnight.
The battle between the conservatives and moderates, well that will go on no matter what.
And that battle will be who wants to revive the party at all levels or give up, cut deals and hope for the best.
So, lets go back a few years.
2000 to be exact.
The California Republican party had just went through the same thing that it is going through now. A repudiation of the party as a whole.
In 1998, the Democrats swept through almost all the constitutional offices. Only Bill Jones survived and continued as Secretary of State. The Democrats gained seats in the state assembly (lower house) and senate. And in the congressional delegation. In other words, it was a nasty loss for the Republican party statewide.
By 2000, the state GOP was broke and desperate.
So, the leadership, elected and party apparatus, brokered a deal with the Democrats.
Unlike previous years when the Democrats tried obscene gerrymandering, all sides agreed to protect each other. No contentious court fights. All sides would be happy.
And fast forward to the present and, well that did not work out so well for the Republicans.
At the start of the decade, here is the breakdown at the state and congressional level.
State Assembly 2000 2010
D 50 52
R 30 28
State Senate
D 26 26
R 14 14
Congressional Delegation
D 32 34
R 20 19
Here is the lesson that should have been learned.
Don't cut deals with Democrats. Period. It will and is never to the advantage of the Republicans.
Even gaining a congressional district did not help the Republicans. And in the state assembly, they lost two seats.
Bottom line is that all that happened is the Democrats used the 10 year period to solidify their advantage and then start picking off Republicans. In all ways.
In 2000, registered Republicans accounted for 35% of all voters.
In 2010, that figure declined to 31%.
For the Democrats, in 2000, it was at 46%.
The Democrats lost two percent but account for 44% of registered voters.
But, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have been able to leverage the decline-to-state voters to their advantage.
And the mild ebb and flow led to the Democrats keeping and or increasing their share in many areas of California.
So what about this redistricting.
Well, one of the few good things Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger did was get Prop 11 passed. It took the reapportionment out of the hands of the legislature and it is now in the hands of a citizens board. And with the passage of Prop 20 and the defeat of Prop 27, all reapportionment, state house and congress, will be in the hands of the board. The board will be drawing the districts to no distinct party advantage. It should increase seats competitiveness meaning this will be a chance for Republicans to make gains at all levels.
But, they will have to make a serious effort to reach beyond their base of Southern California outside of Los Angeles county, the Central Valley and inland Northern California.
It means that the first target needs to be Los Angeles county. There are some pockets of Republican strength. The northern part of the county and some areas in the east and south bay.
This is where the party needs to recruit and get people elected for city councils and or school boards. And while these are technically non-partisan offices, let it be known that the people running are conservatives and Republicans. The Democrats do all the time.
Why is it that few if any know that the mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, is a Republican? The mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearengin, also a Republican? And the former Republican speaker of the assembly, Curt Pringle, is the mayor of Anaheim? These are three of the largest cities in the state. Everyone knows that Antoinio Villar is a Dem. Same with soon-to-be Lt. Governor, Gavin Newsom. Same with Kevin Johnson, mayor of Sacramento.
The Republican party must run as the Republican party. It must present candidates that are not wishy-washy. Again, when faced with a moderate Republican or a Democrat, the voter usually pulls the lever for the Democrat. At least they know that is the real deal.
Which leads to a huge problem for the California Republican party.
Thankfully, he is leaving office.
That problem would be the current governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Gov. Benedict Arnold did not one thing to promote the party. He did not candidate recruitment. He never campaigned with lower-office Republicans when he had the chance. He talked of being "post-partisan". More like surrendered to the Democrat party.
Most of us that swallowed hard and voted for him not once, but twice, knew he was a moderate. Did not like to talk about "social issues" which means to the leftywhore media, abortion and same-sex marriage. Was very vague about many other issues.
In the end, as I have written many times, Gov. Benedict Arnold turned out to be former Gov. The Gray Era Davis. Only with a personality.
And, Gov. Benedict Arnold ended up supporting the very tax hike that ended the governorship of The Gray Era. That would be the hike in the car registration fee.
There is no point in electing one who claims to be a Republican and when one wins office, does nothing to help build the party.
That is the the legacy of one Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
We need to set out to explain to the voters that there really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We must be clear and articulate. We must not let the leftywhore media dictate the terms of debate. We must not get off on tangents.
The California Republican party and it candidates need to say that we stand for smaller, efficient government. Less regulation. Less control of people's lives. Lower taxes. Hell, to reform the whole tax structure of California. That we believe in law and order. That we believe in creating opportunities for every citizen of California to move up the ladder. That we respect the dignity of every person as an individual. That "group think" is not the way to go. Except it be as a Californian and or an American. That legal immigrants are beyond more than welcome. That we need massive overhaul of education in this state. Promote merit pay for teachers. Increase charter schools. Provide vouchers for low-income families to help them send their children to successful private schools.
In other words, as a former governor once said,
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
That was then-former governor Ronald Reagan speaking to the 1975 gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee.
He was right then and is right now.
If the California Republican party wants to be serious, it is going to have to make clear why people should register and vote for them. It can not be because we are not the Democrats. Or we are not as bad as the Democrats. Or that we only want to raise some taxes. Or slow down the size of state government.
It needs to stop looking for the quick fix. Whether it be Bill Simon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman. It needs to start fresh and new.
There are real opportunities if the party is smart. It looks like there is hope in Tom del Baccaro becoming the chair of the state party.
Mr. del Baccaro hails from Contra Costa county. And he has led getting Republican voters out over many larger county parties. He is the proprietor of The Political Vanguard. He also is a solid conservative.
We have to start somewhere and that will be in leadership.
And we all have to know that there is not a quick fix. It could take the decade or less, depending on what we do as a party to be a real alternative to the Democrat behemoth now in control in Sacramento.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Young Entrepreneurs Learn Harsh Reality Of Anti-Business Police State
Many had not heard the names of Andrew DeMarchis, Kevin Graff, Zachary Bass and Daniel Katz before some busy-body town councilman went after them.
The four boys are middle-school kids in New Castle, New York.
The youngsters had an idea to make some cash.
Not one thing wrong with that.
What the youngsters came up with was selling cupcakes. Cupcakes that they made themselves. The cupcakes were sold along side brownies, cookies and Rice Krispies treats.
Two of the youngsters, Masters. DeMarchis and Graff, were selling the treats at the local park. Gedney Park to be exact.
The boys were having a pretty good day of sales. The first day the budding entrepreneurs made a cool $120 bucks. It was enough that they were able to buy a cart for $60 at the local Target. They even were able to add Gatorade and water along with the treats.
The next day, they had about a $30 haul when the local constabulary came upon them and told them they had to shut down their enterprise.
Why, you may ask?
Because you have to have a permit to sell in a park in this town. And a local town councilman thought what these boys were doing was such a horrific crime, he called down the constabulary.
Incredibly, town councilman Michael Wolfensohn went to the kids, asked them about their budding business and then whether they were raising funds for charity. The boys were honest and said no.
OMG! ! !
Mr. Wolfsensohn then made a beeline and called the cops.
And the police officer was pleasant but had to shut the budding entrepreneurs operation because he was following up on a complaint.
Needless to say it was a rather traumatic experience for these youngsters who are all classmates at Seven Bridges Middle School in nearby Chappaqua.
But, the story does not end there.
Friends of the DeMarcis family asked the local newspaper, The Journal-News, asked the newspaper to file a New York state Freedom of Information request and found that the complainant was Mr. Wolfensohn.
When asked, Mrs. Wolfensohn said that he could have handled the situation better. Mr Wolfensohn said the following:
"In hindsight, maybe I should have done that, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed to do that. The police are trained to deal with these sorts of issues."
Really? Wolfie, you could not have simply found out who the parents were and told them the situation? Did ya think the boys might have been packing heat?
And it gets worse for poor ol' Wolfie.
Wolfie tries to pin the blame for his actions on the town supervisor, Barbara Gerrard.
Really? Are you that much of a chicken s--- that you had to blame someone else for your over zealousness?
In the end, Wolfie had to admit that he was the one who called the cops and it was his action alone.
Now, there is no question that there are rules to selling in the park. The boys nor the parents did not know that. All that had to be done was a call placed to the parents and this would have never gotten out of hand.
Oh, did I mention that Wolfie is a Democrat?
Now you may wonder, what does that have to do with the price of tea in Red China?
Because I firmly believe that it goes into the mindset of this kind of Democrat.
What are these boys doing? WHAT! Not raising money for charity? For themselves?! I'll show them! I'll sick the coppers on them. That will teach em!
This is not the first time this has happened to a youngster trying to earn a buck.
Julie Murphy is a seven-year old in Oregon City, Oregon.
She was trying to earn extra money selling lemonade at a monthly art fair in Portland. People were buying before she even finished her first batch.
Until the lady with the clipboard came by.
The lady with the clipboard was asking about their licence. Where was their damn licence! Of course, they did not have one and did not know that they had to have one.
Ah, but to live in libertard utopia.
It appears that Oregon law says anyone selling lemonade must have a license under state law.
It does not matter if you sell it at the art fair or on your own front lawn.
What is happening is busy-body adults are once again ruining things for children and things that many of us did as kids. And we are alive to tell about it!
These young people should not be punished but commended.
They are trying to actually earn money on their own. They are not asking their parents to give them allowance. They have bigger ideas and aspirations. These are the future potential business leaders.
But their dreams are shot down by elected and unelected bureaucrats.
Policemen and women have become nothing more than glorified tax collectors for the government leviathan. One that has grown so large that common sense flies out the window.
But for both stories there is a good ending.
In the case of the New Castle Four, Lev Ekster who has his own gourmet cupcake shop in New York City, is going to help the boys out by selling their cupcakes out of his food truck in the big city. And they will be able to use his bakery to boot.
In the case of Julie, she got an apology from the chair of the Multnomah county board of supervisors, Jeff Cogen. Mr. Cogen himself said that he was a lemonade entrepreneur in youth. And a radio station wants to sponsor Julie and her lemonade stand.
In a clear anti-business climate that stems from the top down in the United States in 2010, these youths became victims of an over-active government.
What better way to turn young people into future conservative Republicans!
The four boys are middle-school kids in New Castle, New York.
The youngsters had an idea to make some cash.
Not one thing wrong with that.
What the youngsters came up with was selling cupcakes. Cupcakes that they made themselves. The cupcakes were sold along side brownies, cookies and Rice Krispies treats.
Two of the youngsters, Masters. DeMarchis and Graff, were selling the treats at the local park. Gedney Park to be exact.
The boys were having a pretty good day of sales. The first day the budding entrepreneurs made a cool $120 bucks. It was enough that they were able to buy a cart for $60 at the local Target. They even were able to add Gatorade and water along with the treats.
The next day, they had about a $30 haul when the local constabulary came upon them and told them they had to shut down their enterprise.
Why, you may ask?
Because you have to have a permit to sell in a park in this town. And a local town councilman thought what these boys were doing was such a horrific crime, he called down the constabulary.
Incredibly, town councilman Michael Wolfensohn went to the kids, asked them about their budding business and then whether they were raising funds for charity. The boys were honest and said no.
OMG! ! !
Mr. Wolfsensohn then made a beeline and called the cops.
And the police officer was pleasant but had to shut the budding entrepreneurs operation because he was following up on a complaint.
Needless to say it was a rather traumatic experience for these youngsters who are all classmates at Seven Bridges Middle School in nearby Chappaqua.
But, the story does not end there.
Friends of the DeMarcis family asked the local newspaper, The Journal-News, asked the newspaper to file a New York state Freedom of Information request and found that the complainant was Mr. Wolfensohn.
When asked, Mrs. Wolfensohn said that he could have handled the situation better. Mr Wolfensohn said the following:
"In hindsight, maybe I should have done that, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed to do that. The police are trained to deal with these sorts of issues."
Really? Wolfie, you could not have simply found out who the parents were and told them the situation? Did ya think the boys might have been packing heat?
And it gets worse for poor ol' Wolfie.
Wolfie tries to pin the blame for his actions on the town supervisor, Barbara Gerrard.
Really? Are you that much of a chicken s--- that you had to blame someone else for your over zealousness?
In the end, Wolfie had to admit that he was the one who called the cops and it was his action alone.
Now, there is no question that there are rules to selling in the park. The boys nor the parents did not know that. All that had to be done was a call placed to the parents and this would have never gotten out of hand.
Oh, did I mention that Wolfie is a Democrat?
Now you may wonder, what does that have to do with the price of tea in Red China?
Because I firmly believe that it goes into the mindset of this kind of Democrat.
What are these boys doing? WHAT! Not raising money for charity? For themselves?! I'll show them! I'll sick the coppers on them. That will teach em!
This is not the first time this has happened to a youngster trying to earn a buck.
Julie Murphy is a seven-year old in Oregon City, Oregon.
She was trying to earn extra money selling lemonade at a monthly art fair in Portland. People were buying before she even finished her first batch.
Until the lady with the clipboard came by.
The lady with the clipboard was asking about their licence. Where was their damn licence! Of course, they did not have one and did not know that they had to have one.
Ah, but to live in libertard utopia.
It appears that Oregon law says anyone selling lemonade must have a license under state law.
It does not matter if you sell it at the art fair or on your own front lawn.
What is happening is busy-body adults are once again ruining things for children and things that many of us did as kids. And we are alive to tell about it!
These young people should not be punished but commended.
They are trying to actually earn money on their own. They are not asking their parents to give them allowance. They have bigger ideas and aspirations. These are the future potential business leaders.
But their dreams are shot down by elected and unelected bureaucrats.
Policemen and women have become nothing more than glorified tax collectors for the government leviathan. One that has grown so large that common sense flies out the window.
But for both stories there is a good ending.
In the case of the New Castle Four, Lev Ekster who has his own gourmet cupcake shop in New York City, is going to help the boys out by selling their cupcakes out of his food truck in the big city. And they will be able to use his bakery to boot.
In the case of Julie, she got an apology from the chair of the Multnomah county board of supervisors, Jeff Cogen. Mr. Cogen himself said that he was a lemonade entrepreneur in youth. And a radio station wants to sponsor Julie and her lemonade stand.
In a clear anti-business climate that stems from the top down in the United States in 2010, these youths became victims of an over-active government.
What better way to turn young people into future conservative Republicans!
Friday, November 19, 2010
The End Of Harry Pothead, Er POTTER, Is Nigh! Thank God Almighty! Thank God Almighty!
There, I said it!
Someone has to say it.
Today is the next to last of the Harry Pothead, er POTTER, flicks and it can not come soon enough.
Personally, I do not know why Harry's mommy, author J. K. Rowling, does not just kill this guy and his friends off already.
OK, confession time.
I have not read one Harry Pothead, dammit, POTTER, book. I have not seen one movie. I have not wanted to read one book nor see one movie.
In and of itself, I think these books and movies are fine for children.
It is the damn adults that turned me off.
What do I mean?
It is the freakish adults that seem to want to live the Harry lifestyle. They play dress-up. Have Harry Pothead, OK, I am really sorry, POTTER, parties. Stay up all night to catch the latest flick at some midnight showing. In full regalia.
The adults have ruined something that should be for the kiddies.
Now I am not a scrooge in general. I am kind of the type that cracks many jokes. Many not all that funny. Some pretty funny. Some zingers. I like to have fun. But I do not feel the need to live in an alternate universe. It is enough being the only member of my family, living or dead, to be a conservative and Republican. To them, I am in the alternate universe. And to me, they might as well be Harry P O T T E R. There, I got the name right!
But this is not a political post. It is a cultural post.
And what is disturbing about this, to me, is how many adults are hungering to find something to believe in.
And these people believe in Harry and his friends.
But what happens is the same thing that happens to Trekkies. Star Wars fanatics.
People get lost in the characters and lose any sense of reality.
And what are the children who like the books and movies to think of adults that become, well, kind of weird?
Probably the same as I do.
That these people need to get a life.
Everyone needs to have some kind of diversion in life.
I do.
Mine are sports.
I love to go to baseball games. Ice hockey games. Yes, I wear team clothing. I follow the teams I like pretty well. But let me be the first to say that at 46, my baseball and ice hockey days are long behind me. I am a spectator.
It is when people stop being spectators and jump into this head first that I find disturbing. Especially when it comes to this kind of stuff.
I have to admit. I admire that Mrs. Rowling did not just sit on her rear end and collect a welfare check from the British government. She created this Potter and his world while on government assistance. And she is now a billionaire. A freaking billionaire! Now, that is something to admire.
I can not help but wonder if Mrs. Rowling is not a wee bit embarrassed at the adults and how they act about Harry and company.
All I ask is that adults take it easy on Harry and his compadres. Realize that it is a fantasy. Not real life. It is why I can not stand this whole franchise.
In other words, let the kids enjoy Harry Potter and find something else as a diversion.
And please, let Harry die already!
Someone has to say it.
Today is the next to last of the Harry Pothead, er POTTER, flicks and it can not come soon enough.
Personally, I do not know why Harry's mommy, author J. K. Rowling, does not just kill this guy and his friends off already.
OK, confession time.
I have not read one Harry Pothead, dammit, POTTER, book. I have not seen one movie. I have not wanted to read one book nor see one movie.
In and of itself, I think these books and movies are fine for children.
It is the damn adults that turned me off.
What do I mean?
It is the freakish adults that seem to want to live the Harry lifestyle. They play dress-up. Have Harry Pothead, OK, I am really sorry, POTTER, parties. Stay up all night to catch the latest flick at some midnight showing. In full regalia.
The adults have ruined something that should be for the kiddies.
Now I am not a scrooge in general. I am kind of the type that cracks many jokes. Many not all that funny. Some pretty funny. Some zingers. I like to have fun. But I do not feel the need to live in an alternate universe. It is enough being the only member of my family, living or dead, to be a conservative and Republican. To them, I am in the alternate universe. And to me, they might as well be Harry P O T T E R. There, I got the name right!
But this is not a political post. It is a cultural post.
And what is disturbing about this, to me, is how many adults are hungering to find something to believe in.
And these people believe in Harry and his friends.
But what happens is the same thing that happens to Trekkies. Star Wars fanatics.
People get lost in the characters and lose any sense of reality.
And what are the children who like the books and movies to think of adults that become, well, kind of weird?
Probably the same as I do.
That these people need to get a life.
Everyone needs to have some kind of diversion in life.
I do.
Mine are sports.
I love to go to baseball games. Ice hockey games. Yes, I wear team clothing. I follow the teams I like pretty well. But let me be the first to say that at 46, my baseball and ice hockey days are long behind me. I am a spectator.
It is when people stop being spectators and jump into this head first that I find disturbing. Especially when it comes to this kind of stuff.
I have to admit. I admire that Mrs. Rowling did not just sit on her rear end and collect a welfare check from the British government. She created this Potter and his world while on government assistance. And she is now a billionaire. A freaking billionaire! Now, that is something to admire.
I can not help but wonder if Mrs. Rowling is not a wee bit embarrassed at the adults and how they act about Harry and company.
All I ask is that adults take it easy on Harry and his compadres. Realize that it is a fantasy. Not real life. It is why I can not stand this whole franchise.
In other words, let the kids enjoy Harry Potter and find something else as a diversion.
And please, let Harry die already!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Hispanic Republicans Make Historic Gains In The Southwest
An under reported story of the 2010 mid term election has been the rise of the Hispanic Republican.
Yes, I know, that is not the case here in the once Golden State, but in surrounding states as diverse as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas. Hispanic Republicans made very large gains and now are governors in two of the above mentioned states.
Starting in the Lone Star state of Texas, Hispanic Republicans are now in the state House of Representatives, a state supreme court justice and two members of congress.
Imagine going from no Hispanic Republicans in the lower house of the state legislature to five. And winning a state supreme court justice seat. And seeing two members of the House of Representatives be elected. It is amazing that in a state like Texas with a large and growing Hispanic population, they are managing to get anywhere from 35% of that vote on up.
From this emerging group can be a future governor or United States senator. It is very important to build from this success and continue to reach out to Hispanics without losing basic Republican ideas.
And going west, New Mexico elected a Hispanic and woman to be their next governor.
Susana Martinez is the governor-elect of New Mexico and the first woman to be elected governor in the Land of Enchantment. Again, another state with a large and growing Hispanic population and she easily beat back the challenge of the current governor, Hispanic Democrat Bill Richardson's hand-picked successor, Diane Denish.
While the gains are historic in Texas, it is even more so in New Mexico because Mrs. Martinez is now the face of the Republican party in New Mexico. She will bring many more Hispanics to the Republican side by her sheer presence.
Now to throw a monkey wrench in this is Arizona.
Arizona, land of Senate Bill 1070. Strongly supported by the current governor, Jan Brewer, she not only supported it but signed it into law. That should have been the kiss of death and she would have lost her election for a full term as governor.
Wrong!
Mrs. Brewer easily won a full term outright defeating Democrat candidate Terry Goddard by a 55% to 42% margin.
Again, Mrs. Brewer could not win this election without some support from Hispanic voters. Remember, polling data only goes so far when one walks into the election booth and votes. It is only as accurate as the person answering it gives their answer.
But, more on the good news front.
In Nevada, while the senate race between Sen. Harry Reid and Sharron Angle took up most of the news, another Reid was going to defeat for governor.
Rory Reid was trying to become the next governor of Nevada. With the old man, Harry, running for the senate, it should have been a shoo-in for Rory, right?
Once again, wrong!
Brian Sandoval defeated Mr. Reid by a handy margin, 53% to 42% for the Son of Harry.
Mr Sandoval in a man of great accomplishment in his own right. Mr. Sandoval served as a federal judge appointed by former President George W. Bush as well as a state legislator and attorney general.
Again, Mr. Sandoval is a new face for politics and a Hispanic Republican. And again, many more Hispanics will at the very least look at the Republican party a second time rather than voting for Democrats the way their families have for generations.
And one more race where Hispanic Republicans made a gain was way up in the Pacific Northwest in a congressional race.
Jamie Herrera won the Washington state 3rd congressional district race over Democrat Denny Heck, 53% to 47%.
To me, it is even more of an accomplishment to win in an area of the United States not known for having a large Hispanic population. And to do so with ease. In a district that was just represented by a Democrat, Brian Baird.
It is heartening to see Hispanics gain their rightful place in the party of Lincoln. It is a chance to finally have a healthy competition between both parties for this increasingly important vote. The Democrats should not take the Hispanic vote for granted.
And this brings me to my state, California, and the disaster that our state party has become in reaching out to non-White groups. There is no game plan. There is no attempt to get Republicans to go to events important to these groups. To be more aggressive in voter education and registration. Again, the California Republican party has to make a serious push to gain a growing middle class Hispanic voter. They just want to be asked to be a part of the Grand Old Party.
If these other states can do it, so can California.
Hispanics are now a real part of the Republican party and there needs to be more in elected office. The Southwest is leading the parade on that front. Can California follow suit?
Yes, I know, that is not the case here in the once Golden State, but in surrounding states as diverse as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas. Hispanic Republicans made very large gains and now are governors in two of the above mentioned states.
Starting in the Lone Star state of Texas, Hispanic Republicans are now in the state House of Representatives, a state supreme court justice and two members of congress.
Imagine going from no Hispanic Republicans in the lower house of the state legislature to five. And winning a state supreme court justice seat. And seeing two members of the House of Representatives be elected. It is amazing that in a state like Texas with a large and growing Hispanic population, they are managing to get anywhere from 35% of that vote on up.
From this emerging group can be a future governor or United States senator. It is very important to build from this success and continue to reach out to Hispanics without losing basic Republican ideas.
And going west, New Mexico elected a Hispanic and woman to be their next governor.
Susana Martinez is the governor-elect of New Mexico and the first woman to be elected governor in the Land of Enchantment. Again, another state with a large and growing Hispanic population and she easily beat back the challenge of the current governor, Hispanic Democrat Bill Richardson's hand-picked successor, Diane Denish.
While the gains are historic in Texas, it is even more so in New Mexico because Mrs. Martinez is now the face of the Republican party in New Mexico. She will bring many more Hispanics to the Republican side by her sheer presence.
Now to throw a monkey wrench in this is Arizona.
Arizona, land of Senate Bill 1070. Strongly supported by the current governor, Jan Brewer, she not only supported it but signed it into law. That should have been the kiss of death and she would have lost her election for a full term as governor.
Wrong!
Mrs. Brewer easily won a full term outright defeating Democrat candidate Terry Goddard by a 55% to 42% margin.
Again, Mrs. Brewer could not win this election without some support from Hispanic voters. Remember, polling data only goes so far when one walks into the election booth and votes. It is only as accurate as the person answering it gives their answer.
But, more on the good news front.
In Nevada, while the senate race between Sen. Harry Reid and Sharron Angle took up most of the news, another Reid was going to defeat for governor.
Rory Reid was trying to become the next governor of Nevada. With the old man, Harry, running for the senate, it should have been a shoo-in for Rory, right?
Once again, wrong!
Brian Sandoval defeated Mr. Reid by a handy margin, 53% to 42% for the Son of Harry.
Mr Sandoval in a man of great accomplishment in his own right. Mr. Sandoval served as a federal judge appointed by former President George W. Bush as well as a state legislator and attorney general.
Again, Mr. Sandoval is a new face for politics and a Hispanic Republican. And again, many more Hispanics will at the very least look at the Republican party a second time rather than voting for Democrats the way their families have for generations.
And one more race where Hispanic Republicans made a gain was way up in the Pacific Northwest in a congressional race.
Jamie Herrera won the Washington state 3rd congressional district race over Democrat Denny Heck, 53% to 47%.
To me, it is even more of an accomplishment to win in an area of the United States not known for having a large Hispanic population. And to do so with ease. In a district that was just represented by a Democrat, Brian Baird.
It is heartening to see Hispanics gain their rightful place in the party of Lincoln. It is a chance to finally have a healthy competition between both parties for this increasingly important vote. The Democrats should not take the Hispanic vote for granted.
And this brings me to my state, California, and the disaster that our state party has become in reaching out to non-White groups. There is no game plan. There is no attempt to get Republicans to go to events important to these groups. To be more aggressive in voter education and registration. Again, the California Republican party has to make a serious push to gain a growing middle class Hispanic voter. They just want to be asked to be a part of the Grand Old Party.
If these other states can do it, so can California.
Hispanics are now a real part of the Republican party and there needs to be more in elected office. The Southwest is leading the parade on that front. Can California follow suit?
Friday, November 12, 2010
When Will The Blaming Palin For Losing GOP The Senate Come To An End?
UPDATE:
Welcome Texas4Palin readers! Please continue to read the blog and realize this. We are are not all crazy in California!
I am afraid not anytime soon.
It is not enough when those out of the political arena like Karl Rove, and people like Michael Gerson dump on the former Alaska governor.
But when an elected official that just won reelection joins the chorus of "Let's blame Sarah" for the Republicans not gaining control of the senate, it shows real stupidity.
Meet Spencer Bachus, Republican congressman from Alabama. He had a really tough fight for reelection. Oops! My bad! Congressman Bachus had no reelection fight as he ran unopposed for reelection.
But that did not stop him from beating the Blame Sarah drum:
“The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.”
Again, Spence. May I call you Spence? You are flat out wrong.
Is the reason that Carly Fiorina lost her senate bid in California the fault of Mrs. Palin? And in Colorado. What about Ken Buck? I mean, maybe you should blame the fact that Colorado Republicans did not just vote for Tom Tancredo to be the nominee instead of choosing between a plagiarist and a liar. Maybe that would have helped pull Mr. Buck over the top. Oh, how about the New York state Republican party being is such bad shape that they had two chances at a senate seat and lost both by over 20 points?
Good Lord, man! You have got to get off the Karl Rove/Michael Gerson talking points.
Endorsements are only as good as the candidates themselves.
I did not vote for Carly Fiorina in the California primary. I voted for Chuck DeVore. I really thought that he was a better candidate. But he did not win. And I supported Mrs. Fiorina as she won fair and square. But she was not that great a general election candidate. Is that Sarah Palin's fault?
NO! NO! NO!
Maybe we just were so positive about getting control of the senate and we should not have been.
But gaining six or seven seats is amazing in and of itself. Many of the Dems that won had to fight for their political lives. And the 47+ Republicans in the senate are taking the body rightward. No, not enough, but will make it less likely that the craziness coming from the White House will ever see the light of day.
I think that Mr. Bachus makes some good points after the Palin bashing. That the election is owed to independent voters turning to the Republican party. But, in a contradiction, Congressman Bachus seems to argue that a senate in Republican hands would not make that much of a difference:
“If you think Republicans are in charge in Washington, you can wipe that thought from your mind. Democrats are in control of the presidency and the Senate. It would take 67 votes to override any veto.”
True that. But then why does it really matter had the Republicans ran the tables and had 51 seats and control of the senate? That was not expounded on in the linked article.
Look, the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives. In a year in which the congressional lines will be redrawn as a result of the 2010 census. More than likely, it will ensure that the Republicans will still be in control when we have the presidential election in 2012.
The Republicans have made it impossible by winning seats in the senate for any more big expansion of government. No, they do not control the calendar and committees and the like, but there is no longer the magic 60 votes that the Dems had to run roughshod in the upper chamber.
And, very importantly, the Republicans won more state legislative seats since 1928. Nineteen friggin twenty-eight! And the Republican party controls the majority of governors for the first time since the early part of the 21st century.
It was a damn good election for us conservatives and Republicans!
No, we could not win them all.
But we came way out on top.
And some of that success can be at the feet of Sarah Palin and her willingness to go out on the limb and support some candidates that won and some that lost. Not all were Tea Party folks. But she is in the arena fighting hard. Again, at the end of the day, it is the C A N D I D A T E that makes the difference.
So, stop blaming an endorser over a candidate. Stop blaming Sarah Palin. She did a great job in energizing the base.
Where were you, Spence?
Welcome Texas4Palin readers! Please continue to read the blog and realize this. We are are not all crazy in California!
I am afraid not anytime soon.
It is not enough when those out of the political arena like Karl Rove, and people like Michael Gerson dump on the former Alaska governor.
But when an elected official that just won reelection joins the chorus of "Let's blame Sarah" for the Republicans not gaining control of the senate, it shows real stupidity.
Meet Spencer Bachus, Republican congressman from Alabama. He had a really tough fight for reelection. Oops! My bad! Congressman Bachus had no reelection fight as he ran unopposed for reelection.
But that did not stop him from beating the Blame Sarah drum:
“The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.”
Again, Spence. May I call you Spence? You are flat out wrong.
Is the reason that Carly Fiorina lost her senate bid in California the fault of Mrs. Palin? And in Colorado. What about Ken Buck? I mean, maybe you should blame the fact that Colorado Republicans did not just vote for Tom Tancredo to be the nominee instead of choosing between a plagiarist and a liar. Maybe that would have helped pull Mr. Buck over the top. Oh, how about the New York state Republican party being is such bad shape that they had two chances at a senate seat and lost both by over 20 points?
Good Lord, man! You have got to get off the Karl Rove/Michael Gerson talking points.
Endorsements are only as good as the candidates themselves.
I did not vote for Carly Fiorina in the California primary. I voted for Chuck DeVore. I really thought that he was a better candidate. But he did not win. And I supported Mrs. Fiorina as she won fair and square. But she was not that great a general election candidate. Is that Sarah Palin's fault?
NO! NO! NO!
Maybe we just were so positive about getting control of the senate and we should not have been.
But gaining six or seven seats is amazing in and of itself. Many of the Dems that won had to fight for their political lives. And the 47+ Republicans in the senate are taking the body rightward. No, not enough, but will make it less likely that the craziness coming from the White House will ever see the light of day.
I think that Mr. Bachus makes some good points after the Palin bashing. That the election is owed to independent voters turning to the Republican party. But, in a contradiction, Congressman Bachus seems to argue that a senate in Republican hands would not make that much of a difference:
“If you think Republicans are in charge in Washington, you can wipe that thought from your mind. Democrats are in control of the presidency and the Senate. It would take 67 votes to override any veto.”
True that. But then why does it really matter had the Republicans ran the tables and had 51 seats and control of the senate? That was not expounded on in the linked article.
Look, the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives. In a year in which the congressional lines will be redrawn as a result of the 2010 census. More than likely, it will ensure that the Republicans will still be in control when we have the presidential election in 2012.
The Republicans have made it impossible by winning seats in the senate for any more big expansion of government. No, they do not control the calendar and committees and the like, but there is no longer the magic 60 votes that the Dems had to run roughshod in the upper chamber.
And, very importantly, the Republicans won more state legislative seats since 1928. Nineteen friggin twenty-eight! And the Republican party controls the majority of governors for the first time since the early part of the 21st century.
It was a damn good election for us conservatives and Republicans!
No, we could not win them all.
But we came way out on top.
And some of that success can be at the feet of Sarah Palin and her willingness to go out on the limb and support some candidates that won and some that lost. Not all were Tea Party folks. But she is in the arena fighting hard. Again, at the end of the day, it is the C A N D I D A T E that makes the difference.
So, stop blaming an endorser over a candidate. Stop blaming Sarah Palin. She did a great job in energizing the base.
Where were you, Spence?
Er, I Think Republicans Had A Good Election Night
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Republicans win control of the House of Representatives this past election night? Gain at least six senate seats? Take control of many statehouses and governorships?
But reading around the blogosphere and listening to many an analysis, one would think that the GOP had a lousy night.
OK, the GOP did not win enough seats to take control of the senate. Yes, it is disapointing. But is taking six or seven seats a bad thing? Of course not. The Republicans will either wind up with 46 or 48 seats. The Democrats have 50 but the two "independents", Joe Lieberman and Bernie Saunders side with the Democrats creating 52 seats. The 60-seat "super majority" is gone for the Dems. This is a good thing, right? They will not be able to pass the more radical elements of the Dear Leader, President Obama's agenda. Again, this is a good thing, right?
But, as I have noted, some long knives have come out. Some against the Tea Party folks in general. Some against perceived leaders of the said movement. Again, I submit that at the end of the day, candidates are the ones that make the difference. In other words, Christine O'Donnell was not a great candidate. So Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and a lot of other folks supported her. But she needed to deliver. For what ever reason, Miss O'Donnell did not win. It is not the fault of the Tea Party folks or conservatives that endorsed her. Period.
And one can insert the following names, Carly Fiorina, Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Dino Rossi. See, it is the candidate and events on the ground. Period.
And as I noted in a previous post, the Republican party is at a level not seen since 1928. The Republican party will control more governors and state legislatures than any point in recent history. The GOP gained in such diverse states as Maine (control of both Houses and the governor's mansion), Alabama (also control of both Houses and the governor's mansion), Oregon (at least a split in the lower house). The GOP solidified their control of the South. There are only three Democrat governors in what is called the Old Confederacy. And the gains made in the Midwest are huge. The governor's office in Ohio, Wisconsin, and possibly Minnesota. Amazing.
And let us not forget the biggest gains of all in the House of Representatives.
No less than 63 seats, making it over 240 seats. Remember, the Democrats had 258 seats in the last congress. An absolutely huge gain. And couple that with redistricting, this should solidify Republican gains. Yes, they can afford to lose some seats in the next election but it is more likely they will maintain their advantage. And most important, it forces the Dear Leader, President Obama, to deal less radically than I am certain he would like.
I do not know about you, but I call it a good night.
Yes, before one gets excited, I know that the left coast was not all that good for the GOP. Especially in my state of California.
But I address the reason in this post. It is not as easy as some pundits would like to make it.
And it should be noted that many Republican parties in deep Blue states have their own unique problems.
But I will take what has happened. That the Republican party is on the rise. And it is very possible that the party will keep going up so long as they follow through on their promises. That is the key to success for the GOP.
And the gains they made can not nor should not be squandered.
But reading around the blogosphere and listening to many an analysis, one would think that the GOP had a lousy night.
OK, the GOP did not win enough seats to take control of the senate. Yes, it is disapointing. But is taking six or seven seats a bad thing? Of course not. The Republicans will either wind up with 46 or 48 seats. The Democrats have 50 but the two "independents", Joe Lieberman and Bernie Saunders side with the Democrats creating 52 seats. The 60-seat "super majority" is gone for the Dems. This is a good thing, right? They will not be able to pass the more radical elements of the Dear Leader, President Obama's agenda. Again, this is a good thing, right?
But, as I have noted, some long knives have come out. Some against the Tea Party folks in general. Some against perceived leaders of the said movement. Again, I submit that at the end of the day, candidates are the ones that make the difference. In other words, Christine O'Donnell was not a great candidate. So Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and a lot of other folks supported her. But she needed to deliver. For what ever reason, Miss O'Donnell did not win. It is not the fault of the Tea Party folks or conservatives that endorsed her. Period.
And one can insert the following names, Carly Fiorina, Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Dino Rossi. See, it is the candidate and events on the ground. Period.
And as I noted in a previous post, the Republican party is at a level not seen since 1928. The Republican party will control more governors and state legislatures than any point in recent history. The GOP gained in such diverse states as Maine (control of both Houses and the governor's mansion), Alabama (also control of both Houses and the governor's mansion), Oregon (at least a split in the lower house). The GOP solidified their control of the South. There are only three Democrat governors in what is called the Old Confederacy. And the gains made in the Midwest are huge. The governor's office in Ohio, Wisconsin, and possibly Minnesota. Amazing.
And let us not forget the biggest gains of all in the House of Representatives.
No less than 63 seats, making it over 240 seats. Remember, the Democrats had 258 seats in the last congress. An absolutely huge gain. And couple that with redistricting, this should solidify Republican gains. Yes, they can afford to lose some seats in the next election but it is more likely they will maintain their advantage. And most important, it forces the Dear Leader, President Obama, to deal less radically than I am certain he would like.
I do not know about you, but I call it a good night.
Yes, before one gets excited, I know that the left coast was not all that good for the GOP. Especially in my state of California.
But I address the reason in this post. It is not as easy as some pundits would like to make it.
And it should be noted that many Republican parties in deep Blue states have their own unique problems.
But I will take what has happened. That the Republican party is on the rise. And it is very possible that the party will keep going up so long as they follow through on their promises. That is the key to success for the GOP.
And the gains they made can not nor should not be squandered.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Michael Gerson's Latest Attempt To Hump David Frum's Leg
Yes, it is harsh what I have to write about Michael Gerson, the former White House speechwriter under former president George W. Bush.
But it is true.
Not unlike another former White House speechwriter, by sheer coinkidink also under Mr. Bush, David Frum, Mr. Gerson thinks it is his job to go after conservatives within the Republican party.
Of course, not unlike Mr. Frum, Mr. Gerson takes out his hate on the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin.
In this latest tome, Mr. Gerson thinks that she backed "extremist" candidates and kind of embaressed the conservative movement.
Really, Mr. Gerson?
While you heap righteous praise on Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), you make it out that Mrs. Palin made a couple of endorsements that cost the Republicans control of the senate.
The usual canard from establishment types.
That if Christine O'Donnell was not the Republican nominee for the senate in Delaware and former congressman Mike Castle was, we would have that seat now.
That if Sharron Angle was not the Republican for the senate in Nevada, and either Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian were, we would have that seat now.
Mr. Gerson, that is just unmitigated crap, pure and simple.
In the column, Mr. Gerson says this about the primary process:
Weak, poorly vetted Senate candidates were the main reason that while Republican gains in the House were historic - the largest in 72 years - gains in the Senate were not.
Mr. Gerson, that is what the primaries are all about.
Or to put it this way.
The establishment wanted Carly Fiorina to win in California because they thought she would be a stronger candidate against Sen. Ma'am Boxer. Well, that did not work out to well. To use Mr. Gerson's so-called logic, did we, the California Republican voter not "vet" her well?
Was Miss O'Donnell the best of the two candidate in Delaware? On the issues, yes. Being able to win a general election, no. But the fact that Mr. Castle could not win the primary throws the whole theory of his electability in question. Ditto Mrs. Lowden and Mr. Tarkanian in Nevada in the case of Mrs. Angle.
And then Mr. Gerson dumps on Mrs. Palin for a last-minute endorsement of Tom Tancredo in his race for Colorado governor.
What Mr. Gerson does not point out is that the Republican race for governor was a train wreck in which the establishment candidate, former congressman Scott McInness was accused of plagiarism. And the guy who came from behind to win the Republican nomination for governor, a state senator named Dan Maes turned out to be a big liar.
Great. A plagiarist known at the time of the election and a liar that won the primary.
Many Colorado voters started migrating to the Tancredo third-party run leaving Mr. Maes behind. Most of the Republican establishment quietly put support behind Mr. Tancredo. And he did come close to an upset.
But, Mr. Gerson is an amnesty first person on the illegal immigration question. He does not like that Mr. Tancredo is a hard-liner against illegal immigration.
Funny how Mr. Gerson points out these three that lost in their general election campaigns.
How about candidates that Mrs. Palin did support that won.
People like Sen.-elect Rubio. Or Sen.-elect Rand Paul. Or Sen-elect Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.
And let us not forget that Mrs. Palin endorsed Mrs. Fiorina and that ticked off many Tea Party folks here in California.
See, Mrs. Palin endorsed many candidates. Some were really great. Some were so-so. Some she probably would have done best to stay away from.
But to focus on these three shows the elitism of Mr. Gerson.
Again, to say other candidates might have won is all conjecture. If one can not win the respective primaries, it all becomes Monday morning quarterbacking.
This is a pattern of this Gerson fellow. Dump on conservatives. Not unlike your friend, Mr. Frum.
That is why I wonder if you are trying to get a gig over at what ever he is calling his website now.
But while you do that, stop dragging conservatives down with you.
It is one thing to write the words that politicians say. It is another to actually run in the arena. And that Mrs. Palin has all over you, Mr. Gerson.
So Mr. Gerson, stop using conservatives in humping Mr. Frum's leg.
But it is true.
Not unlike another former White House speechwriter, by sheer coinkidink also under Mr. Bush, David Frum, Mr. Gerson thinks it is his job to go after conservatives within the Republican party.
Of course, not unlike Mr. Frum, Mr. Gerson takes out his hate on the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin.
In this latest tome, Mr. Gerson thinks that she backed "extremist" candidates and kind of embaressed the conservative movement.
Really, Mr. Gerson?
While you heap righteous praise on Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), you make it out that Mrs. Palin made a couple of endorsements that cost the Republicans control of the senate.
The usual canard from establishment types.
That if Christine O'Donnell was not the Republican nominee for the senate in Delaware and former congressman Mike Castle was, we would have that seat now.
That if Sharron Angle was not the Republican for the senate in Nevada, and either Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian were, we would have that seat now.
Mr. Gerson, that is just unmitigated crap, pure and simple.
In the column, Mr. Gerson says this about the primary process:
Weak, poorly vetted Senate candidates were the main reason that while Republican gains in the House were historic - the largest in 72 years - gains in the Senate were not.
Mr. Gerson, that is what the primaries are all about.
Or to put it this way.
The establishment wanted Carly Fiorina to win in California because they thought she would be a stronger candidate against Sen. Ma'am Boxer. Well, that did not work out to well. To use Mr. Gerson's so-called logic, did we, the California Republican voter not "vet" her well?
Was Miss O'Donnell the best of the two candidate in Delaware? On the issues, yes. Being able to win a general election, no. But the fact that Mr. Castle could not win the primary throws the whole theory of his electability in question. Ditto Mrs. Lowden and Mr. Tarkanian in Nevada in the case of Mrs. Angle.
And then Mr. Gerson dumps on Mrs. Palin for a last-minute endorsement of Tom Tancredo in his race for Colorado governor.
What Mr. Gerson does not point out is that the Republican race for governor was a train wreck in which the establishment candidate, former congressman Scott McInness was accused of plagiarism. And the guy who came from behind to win the Republican nomination for governor, a state senator named Dan Maes turned out to be a big liar.
Great. A plagiarist known at the time of the election and a liar that won the primary.
Many Colorado voters started migrating to the Tancredo third-party run leaving Mr. Maes behind. Most of the Republican establishment quietly put support behind Mr. Tancredo. And he did come close to an upset.
But, Mr. Gerson is an amnesty first person on the illegal immigration question. He does not like that Mr. Tancredo is a hard-liner against illegal immigration.
Funny how Mr. Gerson points out these three that lost in their general election campaigns.
How about candidates that Mrs. Palin did support that won.
People like Sen.-elect Rubio. Or Sen.-elect Rand Paul. Or Sen-elect Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.
And let us not forget that Mrs. Palin endorsed Mrs. Fiorina and that ticked off many Tea Party folks here in California.
See, Mrs. Palin endorsed many candidates. Some were really great. Some were so-so. Some she probably would have done best to stay away from.
But to focus on these three shows the elitism of Mr. Gerson.
Again, to say other candidates might have won is all conjecture. If one can not win the respective primaries, it all becomes Monday morning quarterbacking.
This is a pattern of this Gerson fellow. Dump on conservatives. Not unlike your friend, Mr. Frum.
That is why I wonder if you are trying to get a gig over at what ever he is calling his website now.
But while you do that, stop dragging conservatives down with you.
It is one thing to write the words that politicians say. It is another to actually run in the arena. And that Mrs. Palin has all over you, Mr. Gerson.
So Mr. Gerson, stop using conservatives in humping Mr. Frum's leg.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Why Did Californian's Vote For Tax-And-Spend Democrats AND Against Higher Taxes?
One of the dichotomies of the past election here in California is this.
The voters elected some of the most tax-and-spend leftists in the United States. From the legislature, to the halls of congress, to the governor's office. It would seem to be alright except for one thing.
On the nine ballot propositions, all tax and fee increases went to defeat.
In fact, one that passed makes it harder to pass "fees", which are really hidden taxes. Now, a 2/3rd vote has to happen to pass fees.
While this post will discuss the tax and fee initiatives more in detail, a look at the outcome of the propositions on the ballots shows that the California electorates is still, for a lack of a better words, conservative enough on many issues.
So, here is the order of propositions and how your humble blogger recommended the vote
Proposition 19 (Marijuana legalization)
Yes 46% No 54% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Proposition 20 (Congressional redistricting)
Yes 61% No 38% RVFTLC recommendation YES and YES won.
Proposition 21 ($18 Hike in auto registration fees for state parks)
Yes 42% No 58% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Proposition 22 (Prohibit state to raid local funds)
Yes 61% No 39% RVFTLC recommendation YES and YES won.
Proposition 23 (Suspending Globaloney Warming act)
Yes 39% No 61% RVFTLC recommendation YES and NO won.
Proposition 24 (Repeal business tax break)
Yes 41% No 59% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Proposition 25 (Eliminates 2/3rd requirement for budget passage)
Yes 55% No 45% RVFTLC recommendation NO and YES won.
Proposition 26 (2/3rd Vote on some fees)
Yes 53% No 47% RVFTLC recommendation YES and YES won.
Proposition 27 (Eliminate citizen commission to redraw legislative lines)
Yes 40% No 60% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Clearly, I did better on the public's read on these propositions. And on these, the California public voted with a definite conservative, anti-government bent.
Look at Prop. 20. It was to add the congressional redistricting to the citizen's commission. And it passed overwhelmingly. And it's evil sister, Prop. 27 failed. It would have eliminated the citizen's commission before it even begins. Clearly, the public has a strong mistrust of government in those two the way they turned out.
And I was surprised how lopsided the vote was against legalizing marijuana. Maybe the whole regulate and tax scam aspect the voters realized could not really solve the problems of the state simply over spending like drunken sailors.
And yes, I was disappointed on the failure of Prop. 23. It was the only real victory the left could claim in the referendum voting.
But look at Props. 21, 22, 24 and 26.
All of these measures were either to impose a new tax, continue to allow the state to raid local taxes, repeal a tax cut and to force the state to vote by a 2/3rd majority to raise said fees.
And the voters hamstrung the very left-wing Democrats that they elected at the same time.
HUH?!
It goes back to the fact that I wrote in this post. Here is the following:
We California voters are a dyslexic bunch. We vote for Democrats yet want Republican governance.
It is not just on taxes and the size of government.
Look at Prop. 187. That would have denied government services to illegal aliens. It passed by a very wide margin, 59%-41% in 1994. And I believe that if the exact same measure came to the voters today, it would also pass. But probably narrower numbers. Also, Proposition 8, which restored the state recognizing legal marriage to be between one and and one woman passed by a 52%-48% margin. Both measures were heavily opposed by a variety of special interests.
The point is that California is seen as a lost cause by many Republicans. And yes, many conservatives. But, I believe that the problem is that we do not put up candidates in primaries and or general election campaigns that articulate a solid, conservative message.
How can all these propositions pass that a clearly conservative in nature? Because they are clear in their message and what they would and would not do.
Is it that impossible for someone in the Republican party in California to articulate a conservative message? Is is possible for that candidate to not get bogged down in what the leftywhore media wants to talk about? You know, just those two social issues they want to talk about. Abortion and same-sex marriage. Is there not someone out there who can "speak truth to power" and admit that to keep putting so-called moderates is not the answer to what ails our once Golden State?
I can not imagine that we have to wait another 44 years for a man or woman like Ronald Reagan. As I wrote in the above linked post about the dyslexia of the California voter, I also wrote that the voting Democrat for Republican governance can not continue.
As evidenced by the results on our propositions, there are a lot of people that get that we spend too much, tax too much and that the only people the politicians are interested in are themselves and their interests.
We need to find the way to merge the ideas behind a party that will carry those ideas out. And that has to be a rejuvenated and renewed California Republican Party.
The voters elected some of the most tax-and-spend leftists in the United States. From the legislature, to the halls of congress, to the governor's office. It would seem to be alright except for one thing.
On the nine ballot propositions, all tax and fee increases went to defeat.
In fact, one that passed makes it harder to pass "fees", which are really hidden taxes. Now, a 2/3rd vote has to happen to pass fees.
While this post will discuss the tax and fee initiatives more in detail, a look at the outcome of the propositions on the ballots shows that the California electorates is still, for a lack of a better words, conservative enough on many issues.
So, here is the order of propositions and how your humble blogger recommended the vote
Proposition 19 (Marijuana legalization)
Yes 46% No 54% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Proposition 20 (Congressional redistricting)
Yes 61% No 38% RVFTLC recommendation YES and YES won.
Proposition 21 ($18 Hike in auto registration fees for state parks)
Yes 42% No 58% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Proposition 22 (Prohibit state to raid local funds)
Yes 61% No 39% RVFTLC recommendation YES and YES won.
Proposition 23 (Suspending Globaloney Warming act)
Yes 39% No 61% RVFTLC recommendation YES and NO won.
Proposition 24 (Repeal business tax break)
Yes 41% No 59% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Proposition 25 (Eliminates 2/3rd requirement for budget passage)
Yes 55% No 45% RVFTLC recommendation NO and YES won.
Proposition 26 (2/3rd Vote on some fees)
Yes 53% No 47% RVFTLC recommendation YES and YES won.
Proposition 27 (Eliminate citizen commission to redraw legislative lines)
Yes 40% No 60% RVFTLC recommendation NO and NO won.
Clearly, I did better on the public's read on these propositions. And on these, the California public voted with a definite conservative, anti-government bent.
Look at Prop. 20. It was to add the congressional redistricting to the citizen's commission. And it passed overwhelmingly. And it's evil sister, Prop. 27 failed. It would have eliminated the citizen's commission before it even begins. Clearly, the public has a strong mistrust of government in those two the way they turned out.
And I was surprised how lopsided the vote was against legalizing marijuana. Maybe the whole regulate and tax scam aspect the voters realized could not really solve the problems of the state simply over spending like drunken sailors.
And yes, I was disappointed on the failure of Prop. 23. It was the only real victory the left could claim in the referendum voting.
But look at Props. 21, 22, 24 and 26.
All of these measures were either to impose a new tax, continue to allow the state to raid local taxes, repeal a tax cut and to force the state to vote by a 2/3rd majority to raise said fees.
And the voters hamstrung the very left-wing Democrats that they elected at the same time.
HUH?!
It goes back to the fact that I wrote in this post. Here is the following:
We California voters are a dyslexic bunch. We vote for Democrats yet want Republican governance.
It is not just on taxes and the size of government.
Look at Prop. 187. That would have denied government services to illegal aliens. It passed by a very wide margin, 59%-41% in 1994. And I believe that if the exact same measure came to the voters today, it would also pass. But probably narrower numbers. Also, Proposition 8, which restored the state recognizing legal marriage to be between one and and one woman passed by a 52%-48% margin. Both measures were heavily opposed by a variety of special interests.
The point is that California is seen as a lost cause by many Republicans. And yes, many conservatives. But, I believe that the problem is that we do not put up candidates in primaries and or general election campaigns that articulate a solid, conservative message.
How can all these propositions pass that a clearly conservative in nature? Because they are clear in their message and what they would and would not do.
Is it that impossible for someone in the Republican party in California to articulate a conservative message? Is is possible for that candidate to not get bogged down in what the leftywhore media wants to talk about? You know, just those two social issues they want to talk about. Abortion and same-sex marriage. Is there not someone out there who can "speak truth to power" and admit that to keep putting so-called moderates is not the answer to what ails our once Golden State?
I can not imagine that we have to wait another 44 years for a man or woman like Ronald Reagan. As I wrote in the above linked post about the dyslexia of the California voter, I also wrote that the voting Democrat for Republican governance can not continue.
As evidenced by the results on our propositions, there are a lot of people that get that we spend too much, tax too much and that the only people the politicians are interested in are themselves and their interests.
We need to find the way to merge the ideas behind a party that will carry those ideas out. And that has to be a rejuvenated and renewed California Republican Party.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
The Bad News First In California
OK, I have to give the bad news that California Republicans just plain sucked in this election cycle. We had barely adequate candidates and it is the one case that the Democrats were right. That there was an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate in this once Golden State.
Some of what made it bad is the trying to look at the mood in the rest of the country, clearly anti-Democrat, and transfer it here. It could not happen as it turns out because the incumbent was a Republican, Governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Let me be very clear. The so-called "post-partisan" governor did nothing to improve the lot of the Republican party in this state. Much as Benedict Arnold's hero, former president Richard Nixon, nearly destroyed the Republican party, Benedict Arnold and his lack of focus or sense of ideology has nearly done so here.
There is no real bench in the California Republican party. Sure, we have great national folks in congress like David Dreier, the up-and-coming Kevin McCarthy and veterans like Dan Lungren and the always for the tax payer Tom McClintock. But that is it as far as I can see. Who knows any of the reduced Republicans in the assembly? In the state senate? Who is open about being a Republican in California these days?
But, let me focus on the election and what went wrong there.
Let me be clear about the governor's race. I did vote for Meg Whitman once she became the nominee. But I just did not think she was the best candidate for Republicans in this environment. And I was proved right. So, I will say 'Don't blame me-I voted for Poizner'. I was proven right.
Mrs. Whitman gave no real rationale as the why she wanted to be governor. She did not seem to have a real focus. Any serious ideology. And we know why.
Mrs. Whitman spent $175,000,000 and still lost by about 12% to a has been, Gov-elect Jerry Brown. Well, some of that money, well over $1,200,000 went to incessant polling that proved to be totally wrong. And, paying a political consultant, Republican squish Mike Murphy over $90,000 a month for lousy advice. In other words, Meg Whitman was on her way to being an extension of Gov. Benedict Arnold. And if one does not have a clear vision, this is the end result. And, I have to be honest. Jerry Brown ran a helluva campaign on a lot less money and much more passion. And voters saw that. It also hurt Mrs. Whitman that his team produced a devastating comparison television commercial that put Mrs. Whitman and Gov. Benedict Arnold side by side seemingly saying the same things.
In the case of Meg Whitman, she just thought she could buy an election. And in California, whether one is a Democrat with a lot of money or a Republican, it just does not fly. In the end, Meg Whitman could not buy an election.
And because Mrs. Whitman did not do what she needed to do-run against Gov. Benedict Arnold and his "brand" of Republicanism, she lost.
And that dragged down the whole Republican ticket.
Carly Fiorina did not spend nearly as much to lose, I can not believe I am writing this, to Sen. Ma'am Boxer. And in her defense, she was much more comfortable expressing conservative ideas than Mrs. Whitman. But, again it was the issue I brought up long ago. The 30,000 people laid off at Hewlett-Packard under her leadership. And the fact that she was fired in the end. Yes, Mrs. Fiorina had to make tough decisions as the HP CEO, and in the long run they may have been the right ones. But, it was where Sen. Ma'am Boxer was able to slam Mrs. Fiorina and I think end up the beneficiary of Gov.-elect Brown's win. As all the Democrats in California.
And because California voters were upset with Gov. Benedict Arnold and the fact that, whether he liked it or not, he identified himself as a Republican, the whole party suffered.
And I want to recommend this two part interview with long time California Republican activist and strategist Arnold Steinberg as to what happened in this past election in California.
Part one is mostly a national analysis. But a nugget or two are these points:
FR: Fiorina versus Boxer? Other statewide?
AS: A sad loss. I wish the candidate could have made more news and relied less on paid advertising. How odd to see Sen. Boxer proclaim victory last night and talk about negative campaigning against her. The ads against Fiorina, taking her words out of context on American jobs going abroad, were unfair. Some of the ads against Boxer were overdrawn and not believable, suggesting that all our problems relating to her many years of incumbency. Well, the Attorney General race is close, mainly because Steve Cooley didn’t run much of a campaign. Mediocre television ads. And, if he loses, it’s the pension issue. This should have been a walk.
FR: What about Congressionals? Tran versus Sanchez?
AS: Next to Boxer, I wanted to see Sanchez go. Van Tran was an excellent candidate. I can’t understand why they made it such a Republican campaign, bringing Sarah Palin and party officials into Orange County for a rally. I don’t believe the Republicans in Washington understood this district.
The second part of the interview with Mr. Steinberg was overall a critique of the failed Whitman campaign. And one of the things that Mr. Steinberg says here is what your humble blogger has said all along:
But, she needed to separate herself from Schwarzenegger early-on.
She was adopting the Schwarzenegger rationale for her candidacy, and, once he was in office, he had discredited his own rationale.
Instead of separating herself, she had given the same pitch he had, to be elected.
And as Metallica sung, 'you know its sad but true'!
And I will add that this should send a clear message to California Republicans. Stop going back to the well of former governor Pete Wilson. He is just as much to blame for the overall problems of California as the Gray Era, former governor Gray Davis, and current governor Benedict Arnold.
Now, here is some advice to California Republicans. And one is where I will try to take a personnel role.
People need to stop the damn whining and get involved in the nuts and bolts. You know, party central committees. In California there is assembly district, county committees and state committees. Conservatives need to get in and get dirty. Many do but not enough.
We need to get the Republican party into the very places that we do not get votes but really can. I do not mean, oh like San Francisco. I mean areas that are say Hispanic but middle-class. Black and middle-class. Asian and middle-class. There are so many of these places that the party writes off before election campaigns ever begin. These are where the voters are. These are people that do not know the truth about the real principles of the Republican party. They get their info from their 861st generation Democrat relatives. And a media that is not wanting to be down the middle but sycophants for the liberal Democrat establishment that overwhelms the party at all levels. We can not keep thinking Orange County will save the state GOP. It can only get so large in a county that is under 1,000 square miles. Nor a Central Valley that continues economic hemorrhaging and thus flight. And yes, it is a long-term project. It will take several election cycles. But it needs to be done and yesterday.
Those that ran like Mrs. Whitman, Mrs. Fiorina, and others like John Colbert for the California 29th congressional district and Alvaro Day for the California assembly 44th district need to stay in the game. They need to write op-eds, give speeches, be a shadow on the Democrat party. They can not just slither off into the night. While I have my qualms with Mrs. Whitman, she can build up cred and run for office again. Maybe not governor or senator but a lower-level office like controller or treasurer. I have grown to like Mrs. Fiorina and think that if she stays involved in the arena, she may be able to make another big run. And for Messrs Colbert and Day, they are what is needed to create a bench in the California Republican party. Maybe one or both can run for a city council or a school board. It is a great way to get involved and put ideas in practicality. And in California, those offices are non-partisan. And with the new way primaries will be run, the top two go to the general, it may be a way forward for men like these. And women too.
Our party must stand in contrast and yes, conflict with the Democrat party. If we do not agree with their ideas, we have to say so and run on the principles of less government, true individual freedom, personal responsibility, lower taxes, creative ideas not tried and true failures.
To go back a few years, Ronald Reagan ran that way against Pat Brown, Jerry's father. He won. And yes, he was forced to raise taxes. But he ended up getting the first welfare reform of any consequence in the United States at the time. Mr. Reagan did not waver from the principles of what he believed. He had to meander off the trail every now and then, but it was always focused on the long term. Oh yes, and he became president and governed there the same way.
It can and must be done.
We can not listen to the consultants and the pundits. Look at what happened across the United States. And yes, despite Republican losses here in California, conservative ideas won. We have to connect the two. We can not end up being like the Republican party in Massachusetts or New York state. We must work hard, yet smart. We must have people become part of our party and ideas that never thought they were before. There is no magic wand. Or all the money in the world to make that happen.
Just ask Meg Whitman.
Some of what made it bad is the trying to look at the mood in the rest of the country, clearly anti-Democrat, and transfer it here. It could not happen as it turns out because the incumbent was a Republican, Governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Let me be very clear. The so-called "post-partisan" governor did nothing to improve the lot of the Republican party in this state. Much as Benedict Arnold's hero, former president Richard Nixon, nearly destroyed the Republican party, Benedict Arnold and his lack of focus or sense of ideology has nearly done so here.
There is no real bench in the California Republican party. Sure, we have great national folks in congress like David Dreier, the up-and-coming Kevin McCarthy and veterans like Dan Lungren and the always for the tax payer Tom McClintock. But that is it as far as I can see. Who knows any of the reduced Republicans in the assembly? In the state senate? Who is open about being a Republican in California these days?
But, let me focus on the election and what went wrong there.
Let me be clear about the governor's race. I did vote for Meg Whitman once she became the nominee. But I just did not think she was the best candidate for Republicans in this environment. And I was proved right. So, I will say 'Don't blame me-I voted for Poizner'. I was proven right.
Mrs. Whitman gave no real rationale as the why she wanted to be governor. She did not seem to have a real focus. Any serious ideology. And we know why.
Mrs. Whitman spent $175,000,000 and still lost by about 12% to a has been, Gov-elect Jerry Brown. Well, some of that money, well over $1,200,000 went to incessant polling that proved to be totally wrong. And, paying a political consultant, Republican squish Mike Murphy over $90,000 a month for lousy advice. In other words, Meg Whitman was on her way to being an extension of Gov. Benedict Arnold. And if one does not have a clear vision, this is the end result. And, I have to be honest. Jerry Brown ran a helluva campaign on a lot less money and much more passion. And voters saw that. It also hurt Mrs. Whitman that his team produced a devastating comparison television commercial that put Mrs. Whitman and Gov. Benedict Arnold side by side seemingly saying the same things.
In the case of Meg Whitman, she just thought she could buy an election. And in California, whether one is a Democrat with a lot of money or a Republican, it just does not fly. In the end, Meg Whitman could not buy an election.
And because Mrs. Whitman did not do what she needed to do-run against Gov. Benedict Arnold and his "brand" of Republicanism, she lost.
And that dragged down the whole Republican ticket.
Carly Fiorina did not spend nearly as much to lose, I can not believe I am writing this, to Sen. Ma'am Boxer. And in her defense, she was much more comfortable expressing conservative ideas than Mrs. Whitman. But, again it was the issue I brought up long ago. The 30,000 people laid off at Hewlett-Packard under her leadership. And the fact that she was fired in the end. Yes, Mrs. Fiorina had to make tough decisions as the HP CEO, and in the long run they may have been the right ones. But, it was where Sen. Ma'am Boxer was able to slam Mrs. Fiorina and I think end up the beneficiary of Gov.-elect Brown's win. As all the Democrats in California.
And because California voters were upset with Gov. Benedict Arnold and the fact that, whether he liked it or not, he identified himself as a Republican, the whole party suffered.
And I want to recommend this two part interview with long time California Republican activist and strategist Arnold Steinberg as to what happened in this past election in California.
Part one is mostly a national analysis. But a nugget or two are these points:
FR: Fiorina versus Boxer? Other statewide?
AS: A sad loss. I wish the candidate could have made more news and relied less on paid advertising. How odd to see Sen. Boxer proclaim victory last night and talk about negative campaigning against her. The ads against Fiorina, taking her words out of context on American jobs going abroad, were unfair. Some of the ads against Boxer were overdrawn and not believable, suggesting that all our problems relating to her many years of incumbency. Well, the Attorney General race is close, mainly because Steve Cooley didn’t run much of a campaign. Mediocre television ads. And, if he loses, it’s the pension issue. This should have been a walk.
FR: What about Congressionals? Tran versus Sanchez?
AS: Next to Boxer, I wanted to see Sanchez go. Van Tran was an excellent candidate. I can’t understand why they made it such a Republican campaign, bringing Sarah Palin and party officials into Orange County for a rally. I don’t believe the Republicans in Washington understood this district.
The second part of the interview with Mr. Steinberg was overall a critique of the failed Whitman campaign. And one of the things that Mr. Steinberg says here is what your humble blogger has said all along:
But, she needed to separate herself from Schwarzenegger early-on.
She was adopting the Schwarzenegger rationale for her candidacy, and, once he was in office, he had discredited his own rationale.
Instead of separating herself, she had given the same pitch he had, to be elected.
And as Metallica sung, 'you know its sad but true'!
And I will add that this should send a clear message to California Republicans. Stop going back to the well of former governor Pete Wilson. He is just as much to blame for the overall problems of California as the Gray Era, former governor Gray Davis, and current governor Benedict Arnold.
Now, here is some advice to California Republicans. And one is where I will try to take a personnel role.
People need to stop the damn whining and get involved in the nuts and bolts. You know, party central committees. In California there is assembly district, county committees and state committees. Conservatives need to get in and get dirty. Many do but not enough.
We need to get the Republican party into the very places that we do not get votes but really can. I do not mean, oh like San Francisco. I mean areas that are say Hispanic but middle-class. Black and middle-class. Asian and middle-class. There are so many of these places that the party writes off before election campaigns ever begin. These are where the voters are. These are people that do not know the truth about the real principles of the Republican party. They get their info from their 861st generation Democrat relatives. And a media that is not wanting to be down the middle but sycophants for the liberal Democrat establishment that overwhelms the party at all levels. We can not keep thinking Orange County will save the state GOP. It can only get so large in a county that is under 1,000 square miles. Nor a Central Valley that continues economic hemorrhaging and thus flight. And yes, it is a long-term project. It will take several election cycles. But it needs to be done and yesterday.
Those that ran like Mrs. Whitman, Mrs. Fiorina, and others like John Colbert for the California 29th congressional district and Alvaro Day for the California assembly 44th district need to stay in the game. They need to write op-eds, give speeches, be a shadow on the Democrat party. They can not just slither off into the night. While I have my qualms with Mrs. Whitman, she can build up cred and run for office again. Maybe not governor or senator but a lower-level office like controller or treasurer. I have grown to like Mrs. Fiorina and think that if she stays involved in the arena, she may be able to make another big run. And for Messrs Colbert and Day, they are what is needed to create a bench in the California Republican party. Maybe one or both can run for a city council or a school board. It is a great way to get involved and put ideas in practicality. And in California, those offices are non-partisan. And with the new way primaries will be run, the top two go to the general, it may be a way forward for men like these. And women too.
Our party must stand in contrast and yes, conflict with the Democrat party. If we do not agree with their ideas, we have to say so and run on the principles of less government, true individual freedom, personal responsibility, lower taxes, creative ideas not tried and true failures.
To go back a few years, Ronald Reagan ran that way against Pat Brown, Jerry's father. He won. And yes, he was forced to raise taxes. But he ended up getting the first welfare reform of any consequence in the United States at the time. Mr. Reagan did not waver from the principles of what he believed. He had to meander off the trail every now and then, but it was always focused on the long term. Oh yes, and he became president and governed there the same way.
It can and must be done.
We can not listen to the consultants and the pundits. Look at what happened across the United States. And yes, despite Republican losses here in California, conservative ideas won. We have to connect the two. We can not end up being like the Republican party in Massachusetts or New York state. We must work hard, yet smart. We must have people become part of our party and ideas that never thought they were before. There is no magic wand. Or all the money in the world to make that happen.
Just ask Meg Whitman.
The Post-Election Hangover
I admit it. I am hungover from the great mid-term election just concluded this past Tuesday.
There were many great victories. And some defeats. And one case election, of course California, in which the theory of anti-incumbency played out.
The next few posts will deal with that reality. Where the United States now goes as the House of Representatives is in Republican hands. Republicans nibbled at the senate to have a more or less working majority. And especially here in California as the Republican party could not take advantage of the mood of the rest of the United States.
But it is sweet to see our Dear Leader, President Obama, hemming and hawing. Not knowing what to say or do. To see the soon to be ex Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, run for minority leader. For Harry Reid-a big UGH!-to figure out what to do with a seriously reduced majority and some that got there running against the Democrat agenda.
Folks, the fun is just beginning. Get some popcorn and enjoy the playing out of the events.
There were many great victories. And some defeats. And one case election, of course California, in which the theory of anti-incumbency played out.
The next few posts will deal with that reality. Where the United States now goes as the House of Representatives is in Republican hands. Republicans nibbled at the senate to have a more or less working majority. And especially here in California as the Republican party could not take advantage of the mood of the rest of the United States.
But it is sweet to see our Dear Leader, President Obama, hemming and hawing. Not knowing what to say or do. To see the soon to be ex Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, run for minority leader. For Harry Reid-a big UGH!-to figure out what to do with a seriously reduced majority and some that got there running against the Democrat agenda.
Folks, the fun is just beginning. Get some popcorn and enjoy the playing out of the events.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Why We Will See A Sen.-Elect Carly (And Maybe A Gov.-Elect Meg)
I have been wondering why the polling for the top two races in California seem to be favoring the Democrats. I mean, it is not like this state is an island in a sea of people wanting to send the Dear Leader, President Obama a message.
So, I have long believed that most pollsters have been using what maybe outdated models as to turnout here in the once Golden State.
And lo and behold, someone else is thinking the same thing.
Sean Trende over at Real Clear Politics has a short but sweet column about the way California is being polled and how that is directly giving Democrats a false sense of security.
Take the senate race between Sen. Ma'am Boxer and Carly Fiorina.
The latest Rasmussen Poll essentially shows a dead heat with Sen. Ma'am ahead 49% to 46% as an example.
The problem is if you take a look at this chart, you see that the partisan breakdown is essentially the partisan makeup of the California electorate.
FTR, the California partisan breakdown is about 44% Democrat, 31% Republican and about 23% decline-to-state.
What the chart shows is a laziness on the part of most pollsters. Thus, the assumption is that more Democrats are going to vote in numbers similar to the last election, in 2008. And Republicans will vote in similar numbers of the same year.
And that is the rub.
All I can write to you is that in this rather Blue town of Pasadena, where the Dear Leader, President Obama, won 70% of the vote in 2008, the enthusiasm is on the other side this time. It is Republicans and Republican-leaning decline-to-state voters that have the energy.
I have seen more signs for the Republican congressional candidate, John Colbert, than for the incumbent congressman, Adam Schiff. Same in the governor's race for Meg Whitman over Jerry Brown. For senator, much more Carly signs over Boxer signs. A general feeling of Republican excitement and Democrat playing by-the-numbers.
Really, it is not too hard to get a fair number of interest-group people to do grunt work. Which is an advantage to the Democrats usually. But not this year.
It also is going to matter where the turnout will be statewide.
I think that numbers will be much lower in Los Angeles county than average for a mid-term election. The Bay Area about the same or also lower than midterm average. This is the Democrat base, by and large. The rest of the state, will see a stronger turnout. Especially in the rest of Southern California. In Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino, the strong Republican areas of So Cal will see a surge of voters. And they ain't gonna be for the Dems.
Ditto for the economically depressed Central Valley. And the rest of Northern California outside the Bay Area and Sacramento.
And yes, because of the sheer number of registered Democrats, they are turning in their absentee ballots more than Republicans. But, as a share of the electorate, it is stronger among Republicans and decline-to-state over Democrats.
One last thing.
Once the six o'clock hour arrives in California, many states will have their polls closed. More than likely, by that time control of the House of Representatives will already be determined. More than likely, Democrat voters in California will see no real reason to go to vote. Republicans and Republican-leaning decline-to-state will be more inclined to insure that Republican candidates win.
And that should help both Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. And it could be the difference come tomorrow night at this time.
And that should help both Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. And it could be the difference come tomorrow night at this time.
It will not be anything like the electorate in California that was in 2008. And a new model will be formed for pollsters.
Voters Of Alaska, VOTE FOR JOE MILLER FOR SENATE!
As the midterm election season nears its climax and Republican resurgence, one race needs to be discussed and the voters must vote the right way.
In the 49th state, the great state of Alaska, there are two major party candidates, a spoiler, and a lot of people trying to make sure the spoiler does not keep her senate seat.
There is the political crack whore and senate incumbent, Lucy Mooseheadsky*. And the legitimate challengers, Democrat nominee Scott McAdams and Republican nominee Joe Miller.
Now, "Sen." Mooseheadsky* lost the Republican primary to Mr. Miller. Then days later she just could not accept that the Republican voters of Alaska would just say no to her and her proclivity to bring the pork home.
No, sir!
"Sen." Mooseheadsky* decided that she just had to still be the senior senator from Alaska. And she launched a write-in bid to keep her seat. Hence, she earns the Right View From The Left Coast honor of being the United States' senate political crack whore.
And it seemed like she just might pull it off.
Hell, she even got a helping hand from the Alaska state supreme court. The court ruled that poll workers can assist people wanting to write in "Sen." Lucy's* name and could show how it should look. Already written out, of course. Little did the court know that would send over 100 people pursing their own write-in campaign to blunt the assault of "Sen." Mooseheadsky*
Well, it does appear from the latest polling that the good people of Alaska have had enough of "Sen." Mosseheadsky and her family and are poised to elect Mr. Miller to the senate seat.
My plea is this.
Do NOT write in "Sen." Mooseheadsky* as your vote for senator from Alaska. You must vote for Mr. Miller to be the next senator from Alaska. This may turn out to be a huge one for the Republicans to win tomorrow night. The fact that there are many people willing to blunt the write-in attempt by "Sen." Mooseheadsky* is enough. And, if that is not enough, consider that "Sen." Lucy* is hedging her bets on whether or not she will caucus with the Republicans or the Democrats.
Look, the gal lost fair and square. She needs a vacation. She needs to get back home. Remember her roots. Think about a possible run for the other senate seat. Maybe governor. But, please Alaska, remember this.
A vote for Joe Miller is a vote to send "Sen." Lucy Mooseheadsky* back home for a well deserved rest.
*It is the correct way to spell the senator's name for write-in purposes!
In the 49th state, the great state of Alaska, there are two major party candidates, a spoiler, and a lot of people trying to make sure the spoiler does not keep her senate seat.
There is the political crack whore and senate incumbent, Lucy Mooseheadsky*. And the legitimate challengers, Democrat nominee Scott McAdams and Republican nominee Joe Miller.
Now, "Sen." Mooseheadsky* lost the Republican primary to Mr. Miller. Then days later she just could not accept that the Republican voters of Alaska would just say no to her and her proclivity to bring the pork home.
No, sir!
"Sen." Mooseheadsky* decided that she just had to still be the senior senator from Alaska. And she launched a write-in bid to keep her seat. Hence, she earns the Right View From The Left Coast honor of being the United States' senate political crack whore.
And it seemed like she just might pull it off.
Hell, she even got a helping hand from the Alaska state supreme court. The court ruled that poll workers can assist people wanting to write in "Sen." Lucy's* name and could show how it should look. Already written out, of course. Little did the court know that would send over 100 people pursing their own write-in campaign to blunt the assault of "Sen." Mooseheadsky*
Well, it does appear from the latest polling that the good people of Alaska have had enough of "Sen." Mosseheadsky and her family and are poised to elect Mr. Miller to the senate seat.
My plea is this.
Do NOT write in "Sen." Mooseheadsky* as your vote for senator from Alaska. You must vote for Mr. Miller to be the next senator from Alaska. This may turn out to be a huge one for the Republicans to win tomorrow night. The fact that there are many people willing to blunt the write-in attempt by "Sen." Mooseheadsky* is enough. And, if that is not enough, consider that "Sen." Lucy* is hedging her bets on whether or not she will caucus with the Republicans or the Democrats.
Look, the gal lost fair and square. She needs a vacation. She needs to get back home. Remember her roots. Think about a possible run for the other senate seat. Maybe governor. But, please Alaska, remember this.
A vote for Joe Miller is a vote to send "Sen." Lucy Mooseheadsky* back home for a well deserved rest.
*It is the correct way to spell the senator's name for write-in purposes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)