The Blame Game

Much has been said in recent days about who is to blame for the current financial crisis. While there is certainly plenty of blame to go around between the borrowers who borrowed more than they could pay back and the lenders who lent to them, I would like to shine a little bit of light in the direction of the main culprits - Congress. Take a look at this video taken from a 2004 GSE Subcommittee meeting.



Note that it was the REPUBLICAN chair of the committee that was asking for MORE REGULATION of Fannie and Freddie and it was the DEMOCRATS (including Barney Frank and Maxine Waters) who spoke out against the additional regulations. Rep. Frank is important to this because at the time he had an undisclosed tie to Fannie Mae that would have (under normal circumstances) removed him from being in a position of power on the GSE subcommittee....his "lover" WAS AN EXECUTIVE at Fannie Mae!

The news media have covered the relationship in the past, but there have been no mentions since 2005, according to Nexis and despite the collapse of Fannie Mae. The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.

So the ranking Democrat on the GSE Subcommittee and the House Banking Committee had an intimate relationship with an executive of an organization that his committees had oversight over....and he remained on the committee....AND the media has blacked it out? And they say that the media is biased toward Conservatives? But wait - these are not the only ties to the ranking Democrats. The top 3 recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbying money are Democrats - number 3 is Senator Barack Obama the Dems Presidential nominee. In addition, Senator Obama has had three former Fannie Mae executives on his advisory staff - former CEO Franklin Raines (who is under federal investigation for his part in the Fannie/Freddie crisis), former Fannie CFO Tim Howard and another former Fannie CEO Jim Johnson. These three have held positions of influence in the Obama camp including Chief Economic Advisors (Raines and Howard) and the head of the Vice Presidential search Committee (Johnson). THIS is the "change we are looking for"?

As I said before - there is plenty of blame to go around. The misdeeds at Fannie and Freddie (which help Lehman Brothers fail) have been going on for years. Even President Clinton was thwarted on Fannie and Freddie reform back in 1994 - but he also said that Rep. Barney Frank led the anti-regulation charge! That is why I think that this current crop of Democrats (including candidates Bennion Spencer in Utah and Al Franken in MN) need to tread carefully here. They do not want to push the "blame Republicans for lack of oversight meme" or they could end up on the receiving end of this biting ad.

Missing The Point?

Or not even in the same zip code as the point! The SL Trib has a short little hit the 3rd CD Republicans.

A Congressional Quarterly study of partisan votes during the Bush years shows that Rep. Chris Cannon has voted with Republicans 97 percent of the time and supported the president 89 percent of the time, making him the most conservative member of Utah's delegation.
But maybe not conservative enough. Cannon recently lost the GOP primary in the 3rd District to Jason Chaffetz, who ran as a conservative alternative.
"For some reason his constituents could never focus on how loyal to the party he was, and it created this strange phenomenon with him always having to struggle," said Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. "Really because of one issue - immigration - people were able to define him as not being as conservative as the overall data would suggest."
Cannon had been dogged for his support of the Bush immigration plan, which would allow some undocumented residents to stay in the country and gain legal status.

What CQ, the SLTrib, Congressman Cannon AND the RNC just don't get is that the PARTY has drifted away from the party platform, core conservative principles AND the will of their voters. Illegal immigration, the "single issue" (according to beltway pundits) that shot Cannon down, is a classic case in point. The Republican Party is SUPPOSEDLY supportive of the rule of law. Our country's laws say that if you want to come here YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VISA, yet the "Republican Party" led by President Bush and Congressman Cannon, put the needs of special interests above the needs of citizens and pushed "amnesty". The Republican Party is SUPPOSEDLY about fiscal responsibility, yet President Bush signed legislation that Rep. Cannon voted for that spent record amounts of money. The Republican Party is SUPPOSEDLY for limited growth of government, yet President Bush signed legislation (voted for by Rep. Cannon) that grew government. The Republican Party is SUPPOSEDLY for personal responsibility yet President Bush signed (legislation supported by Rep. Cannon) that gave government more control over the individuals than ever. The Republicans of the 3rd District recognized that and voted appropriately. That earned them the scorn of the Salt Lake Tribune AND Rep. Chris Cannon - that should tell you all you need to know.

The problem (with the SLTrib column AND the RNC) is that they have bought into the consultancy classes "convention wisdom" that the electorate in this country has taken a "turn to the left". When push comes to shove (as we have seen on the energy debate) this country has much more common sense than the political class and their DC consultants ever dreamed of having. It is about time that the RNC (and by extension their state affiliates) quit listening to the consultants and started listening to the voters! I know - a radical thought, but hey....I can dream can't I?

The New Face of the Republican Party?

Those of you who subscribe to the Limbaugh Letter are in for a real treat this month. In it, Rush publishes a very in-depth interview with Bobby Jindal, the Governor elect of Lousiana. Those of us who don't get it, well....it's either a good opportunity to subscribe or make friends with someone who gets it because you have to read this interview. It is a lesson in principles first Conservatism that needs to be passed on far and wide. Thankfully, I have a friend who sent me a copy of it that I can exerpt here for you today.

RUSH:...First I want to congratulate you. I want to put your victory in perspective here. You won against 11 opponents. You won 60 out of 64 Louisana parishes. You won in the primary which has not happened before in Louisiana's history of open-primary elections. You got 54 percent of the vote; your nearest competitor got only 17 percent. And you ran as an unapologetic pro-life conservative. This isn't supposed to happen, according to the inside -the-Beltway conventional wisdom. Tell us why you think it happened and whether or not you think it is a bellweather.

I should add (before we get to the answer) that Mr. Jindal was the ONLY Republican/Conservative on the ticket. All of the other candidates were Democrats and 3rd party candidates.

JINDAL: Thank you Rush, for those nice comments. Two things. One, I think the people of Louisiana were saying strongly that they wanted change...Louisiana has a history of boom-and-bust cycles. We have oil booms. We're in the middle of another boom cycle, and I think the people are saying, "We don't want the politicians putting this money in their pocket. We don't want them just growing governemt. We don't want instant gratification. We want to see money put into roads. We want to see taxes cut. We want to see new jobs for our people." The Louisiana state budget went from $16 to $32 billion in six years. This last year alone, they added over 1,250 new state employees. There's a billion dollars of recurring spending funded with one-time money...You're exactly right - we were very clear where we stood on the issues...and that's the second message of this election. The reason Republicans did poorly in 2006 is not because the country became less conservative. The Republican candidates and Party became less conservative. You can't win an election by being a weaker version of your're opponent. You can't try to have power just for the sake of holding on to power. The Republican Party can't be in the business of defending corrupt elected officials, can't be in the business of defending wasteful earmark spending...The voters are tired of poll-tested messages. They want authenticity. When the Republican Party get's back to its conservative roots, we'll do well with the
voters.

The emphasis is mine. The points that Governor-elect Jindal made above (and continue to make throughout the interview) are points that many principles first Republicans have been making for the last two election cycles. We want our candidates to be authentic - true to the beliefs and principles of the Party. We are tired of the inside-the-Beltway way of thinking that seems to infect politics down to the local level. We want people who will be true to their principles.

Another comment that the Governor-elect made that is very refreshing indeed was this.

...Politics is a funny business. When you win, everybody's your friend. When you lose, people don't know you anymore. I thin it's so important for anyone considering getting into the political arena to think about what's important. What principles are you unwilling to violate? What transcends popularity polls? I'm a competitive person. I want to win. I know I can't make change unless I win. But there
are certain things you just don't do even for the sake of winning an
election or being successful from a worldly perspective...

Emphasis again mine. There ARE certain things that you don't do even to get elected. That is a lesson that many in DC and in St. Paul seem to have forgotten.

Interesting....

The newest Rasmussen poll is out and oh my....(HT Captain Ed)

"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) remains on top, but his support has slipped to 23%. That’s down two points from a week ago and is his lowest level of support all year. Earlier, Giuliani had consistently enjoyed support in the mid-30s. That was before Thompson’s name was added to the mix and before Giuliani stumbled on the abortion issue in the first GOP debate of the season."

This is horrible news for the Guiliani campaign. Former Senator Thompson was within the margin of error (+/- 4%) and he is not even "officially" in the race. While I am not a fan of polls this early on, I will say that this is telling...

They polled likely Republican Primary voters....this is bad news for anyone who thinks that the reason for our losses in November had to do with Iraq. Simply put, this last election was about a lack of real conservative leadership both in St. Paul and DC. A lesson that both the State and the national party seem to be quite adept at ignoring.

Shame!!!!!

As most of you are aware, there is a campaign for the Minnesota State GOP Chairmanship. I have two very dear friends on both sides of the campaign and because of that, I have kept my preferences in the race to myself. Something I intend to continue to do. So far, the campaign had been positive with each candidate laying out, for the delegates, what he will do in the next two years to move the Minnesota Republican Party forward. However that ended yesterday when I got the most shameful letter in the mail.

"As the race for state party chairman begins to heat up, I feel compelled to urage a not of caution to the campaign of Joe Repya. Perhaps he and members of his campaign should remember our party's history..." (all emphasis is in the original)

The letter writer then goes on to talk about the 1966 campaign that led to Reagan's 11th commandment "thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". I shall come back to this.

"I was reminded of this recently when I rea a comment by Mr. Repya where he made the following statement.

"I turned down the offer because of the despicable condition the Minnesota Republican Party is in following a greatly mismanaged and poorly executed election in 2006." - Joe Repya May 23, 2007

Whipping out my handy dictionary/thesaurus I looked up the word "despicable" and found the defination of the word. "Despicable [dispikebl] adjective contemptable, worthless and deserving to be despised"."

OK - I don't know what dictionary the letter writer used, but according to Merriam Webster online the defination is "so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation . " I bring up this defination, not to quibble with the letter writer, but to give a broader concept of the word, for the letter writer does choose a very narrow defination of the word.

That said, there is certainly a lot going on in today's MNGOP that would lend itself to the Merriam Webster defination. The actions of certain people within the party HAS BEEN contemptable. What is going on right now (in the immigration debate) is indeed worthy of moral indignation! We have not (as a party) lived by our core beliefs of smaller government and personal responsibility. Instead we do "whatever it takes" to keep power and that is, to a majority of Americans, contemptable indeed.

"Friends, you and I are the Republican Party and our party is not in "despicable condition.

Here I will jump in. There is context to the Repya quote that the letter writer conveniently leaves out. Context that I am aware of as I have seen and heard Mr. Repya speak on this before. The context is that the leadership, not the activists, are the ones that have done things that left our party in the lurch. The grass roots did not put the party in this shape - the leadership did!

"The leaders of the Republican Part are not "despicable." the activists of the Republican Party are not "despicable". And frankly I don't believe anyone who wants to lead the Republican Party should call our Party "despicable".

Negativity, pessimism and these blatant violations of Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment do not represent the kind of vision and leadership our party needs. "

OK - back to the 11th Commandment thing....I have long had this discussion with my liberal friends...since when is commenting on a leaders record or voting record considered to be "negativity". It is NOT negative to comment on the elected officials record when you disagree with them. It is called laying out the lines of deliniation. Couple this with the the fact that the MNGOP's entire campaign strategy last year was to demonize Mike Hatch and every other liberal candidate on the ballot!

THAT is the thing that struck me (and disappointed me) about this letter. The entire letter is negative and it is the one thing that the letter writer harps on (vis a vis the Repya campaign) is negativity. That and violating Reagan's 11th Commandment - which the letter writer also does...

Everything about this letter, when it came, struck me as "low". It came in a plain envelope with no return address or any indication as to what it was and who it was from. It could have been a solicitation for all I knew. It gave us no reason to vote FOR anyone - a hallmark (if you will) of the currently state and national party leadership. Then there is this gem from the final page.

"I'd ask that you keep in mind what has already come out from this campaign, and please take with a grain of salt and a skeptical eye whatever is sent out or worse yet, whatever half-truths or falsehoods are pushed to our "friends" in the media."

So they throw out this attack and then tell everyone who gets it not to take any response seriously? Sheesh - I thought the Republican Party was better than this!

UPDATE AND BUMP! Well that certainly didn't take long. Based on the single comment, the party already has a letter out disputing the Star Tribune's story. All I can say is it is going to be a wild and wooly week.

Fairness for all

Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently revived discussion of the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine (for those of you who are too young to remember it) was an FCC rule that dictated if you had 1 hour of programming from one side of the politicial spectrum, you MUST provide equal time to the other side. This was government interfering in business with a heavy hand and it lead to some really boring radio. Also it was really easy to cheat. A station could put all of it's "liberal" programming on during the day (for example) and all their "conservative" programming on overnight when no one was listening and they could still be in compliance with the law.

Rep. Kucinich says this is because liberal views are not getting "equal time" in talk radio and in the blogosphere (apparently he has not heard of the Daily Kos which has traffic that dwarfs what most conservative bloggers get but I digress). However, is that really the case?

As I discussed previously, scientists who deviate from the Al Gore "man made global warming is a reality" matra are routinely stripped of their jobs and their funding. However, it is not just the MMGW activists that use these tactics.

But the MMGW activists are entitled to their heartfelt opinions aren't they? Of course they are, and their opinions should be respected. Just as they respect the heartfelt opinions of conservatives right?????

"That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.
There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger. " (emphasis mine)

I do find it "enlightening" that this same group of people that "hate" the thought of anything conservative are the same ones that are advocating hate speech legislation! Some would say that there might be some historical parallels to be made here.

""Why don't you go f--- yourself?" That was how House Democrat Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel reportedly responded to a Politico reporter's request – made "in the effort for openness and disclosure" – to sit in on a caucus debate over the language of a lobbying bill. "

Now I will leave aside the snide remark about Vice President Cheney saying the same thing and getting in hot water for now. What I will say is that this reaction, to a member of the media's request to sit in on a caucus debate, just goes to show the elitist arrogance of the left. It is this kind of attitude that got the Republican Caucus in trouble last year. You would think that Rep. Emanuel - as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - would be well aware of that little fact.

The “Little” Minority that could.

The Star Tribune had a fluff piece in Sunday’s paper about the “little” Republican Minority and how they are holding their own in this session against a majority that has been adamant at getting “their way”. AAA touched on reasons why he thinks the minority has had success, but he missed what I think was one of the more important points.

“The turning point, Republicans say, came in early May, when DFLers trotted out an ample public works bill that used loans to pay for DFL projects and cash to pay for GOP items. Pawlenty had warned leaders not to augment the bonding bill with cash spending.
When DFLers did it anyway, said Rep. Michael Beard, R-Shakopee, it was the Republicans wet-rag-in-the-face moment. "We're not rocket scientists, but we realized real fast this was a pretty clever political move on their part."
If Pawlenty had used a line-item veto to trim the bill of its cash costs, he would have had to kill Republican projects.
Pawlenty went to the GOP House caucus that morning and asked for its help.
"We told him 'Veto the whole damn thing,' " Beard said. "He said 'What about your projects?' We said, 'We don't care, governor. We're in this together.' "
It turned out, Beard said, "their bonding bill bonded the wrong thing. We've held together ever since."

The bonding bill bonded the wrong thing alright. Take a look at what has happened since then. The governor has vetoed 7 bills now and the only one that they THOUGHT was veto proof now appears to going down to the same defeat that the rest has. What gets me though was the DFL's assertion that the tax bill actually provides "property tax relief".

"Property tax relief is not really on the way," said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis. Pawlenty, he said, "has roadblocked significant property tax relief, and that is a big disappointment."

The bill presented to Governor Pawlenty was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It provided (based on my understanding of the bill - correct me if I am wrong) a one time payment to property owners. However, until Senator Pogemiller and his mates in the House can do something to stop runaway county and city and school district spending, there will be no property tax relief. The only thing that the state government can do is to pass Proposition 13 type legislation that caps property taxes. Don't hold your breath on that happening anytime soon - that is unless the taxpayers of Minnesota finally get fed up and rebel against the taxes.

Tea, anyone?????

Dialog

AAA has a post up today that really caught my eye. He linked to a City Journal diary that summarizes a problem that Conservatives face on a daily basis.

"The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.
Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are."

He also nails liberalism with the cold hard truth.

"This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.
This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN.
It’s a rotten feeling. I sometimes think that I’d rather be deemed evil than a boor. Wickedness has some flair to it, even a whiff of radicalism. If you molest a child, there’s always a chance that you can get the ACLU to defend you as a cultural innovator. But if you make a remark at table about the destructive social effects of broken homes and then discover that your dinner partner is a divorcée—trust me, you feel like a real louse. It’s manners, not morals, that lay the borderlines of our behavior."

This is where AAA steps in.

"Far too often we back down for fear of ruining the party or conversation. Far too often our leaders and officials don’t want to be seen as mean or uncaring.
Is it better to give a man a fish, or teach him how to fish so he will never need your handouts again?
Liberals will give the man someone else’s fish, and then tax the other fishermen.
I’m tired of watching leading Republicans turn spineless in the face of elections. I’m tired of Republicans backing away from the ideological battle we are in. I am tired of being “nice” at dinners abnd parties, just because.
Until we conservatives and Republicans are willing to speak our minds and argue on behalf of our values, we will never win the hearts and minds of the average voters. The DFL could care less where and when they aspouse their liberal agenda. So why are we?"

I certainly agree - conservatives need to step up the defense of the philosophy. We need to be able to stand up and defend what we believe and why - but that does not mean that we have to be mean, confrontational or rude about it. When debating issues, I have always let the words of a wise philosoper guide me - I speak the truth in love. My experience has been that when I do speak the truth of conservatism in a loving, gentle manner, I get one of two possible responses. I either get a thoughtfull "I hadn't thought of it that way" or I get "YOU BEOTCH". Sadly, too many liberals, when presented with a calm, factual argument resort to name calling in response. It does not need to be that way, but it is. However, I will not back away from a rational defense of my ideals. Our leaders need to start doing the same.

Solutions

OK - I set the ideals and I laid out what the base is saying is wrong with the Republican Party. Now is the time for solutions. I think it's really pretty simple.

1) Along with identifying the RINO's we need to identify and encourage those Republicans that are sticking to their principles! When you find the RINO's, chastise them. Let them know where they have strayed, but when you find the ones that are sticking to their principles, encourage them. The more the ones that stick to their principles hear from those of us who appreciate them, the more that they stick to their princples. It IS a self fulfilling prophecy!

2) The party activists look to the state party (and it's sub-divisions in the Congressional Districts and the BPOUs) for direction. GIVE IT TO THEM!!!! Give them something to believe in, something that they can share with their friends and neighbors.

3) When you do communicate with the activists - give them a positive message! The line that we got over the last two years - "you don't want the Democrats in charge do you?" does not jazz up the volunteers and donors. They want IDEAS - ideas like tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. Once they latch on to the ideas and put you in power - do everything you can to impliment those ideas. Don't listen to the lobbyists and the press tell you it can't be done.....do the right thing and JUST DO IT!!!!

4) Give the rest of the world a simple message - one that is easy to understand. The MNGOP Party platform is a cumbersome beast! Boil it down to 10 simple points. The family knows best - whether it is abortion, health care, school choice, charitable giving or spending....THE FAMILY KNOWS BEST. You can cover multiple planks in a simple sentence! Go back and read my post "Why I am a Republican." and turn the plank into something that simple!

5) Listen to the your base. When your base is happy, share the joy. When they are dis-satisfied, listen to them. Don't tell them to just shut up and come vote, because if they do shut up, they will NOT come out and vote for you on election day. Don't believe me - go back and look at the last election! Don't rely on pollsters and outside advisors.

6) You can not rely on the middle to win elections for you alone. You still need to court your base.

Now it's your turn, fellow Republicans. We have one month to decide the direction of the Republican Party of Minnesota. What do YOU think they should do to move the party forward?

Where it went wrong.

First sorry for the delay in getting this out. Sadly, life got in the way of blogging.....darned responsibilities....

In my previous post, I outlined why I am a Republican. However, one can certainly say that the Republican Party (both nationally and in Minnesota) seem to have strayed from those basic core priniples.

During the 2006 election, I volunteered to work on a campaign. One of the things that I did was to set up phone banks and door knocking campaigns. All I had to do was contact people (on a list that was given to my by the state party) who had worked phone banks and door knocking campaigns before and ask them when they could help. The vast majority of those that I contacted said "I love X but I can not in good conscience work for a party that has abandoned it's principles." WOW what an eye opener! Since I knew a few of these people from activites other than politics so I asked what specifically had upset them. In no particular order they said:

1) Spending like Democrats (given that our governor proposed spending a $2+b surplus you can't argue with that)
2) Failure to secure the border
3) Encouraging government growth (Medicare part D, No Child Left Behind...need I go on?)
4) Lack of a message (no we don't consider "you don't want the Democrats to be in charge do you?" to be a "message"!)
5) Drilling in ANWR and the high cost of gasoline.
6) Undercutting the President on judges and the war (HELLO SENATOR COLEMAN?????)
7) There is much much more but you get the idea.....

Now I live in a strongly Republican county, but it was not that long ago that we were represented by Democrats (David Minge) in the US House and the State House (Becky Otto for one and I can not remember the others for the life of me)! When I talked to my friends and neighbors and people at the soccer fields and school events all said the same thing "There is no difference between the two parties anymore." and to a great extent these people were right. If you looked at the actions of the people at the top of the ticket (President, Governor and Senator) there was little distinguishable difference. That perception hurt a lot of good people further down on the ticket.

Then in March, the BPOU (Basic Political Operating Unit - the grassroots level) convention and people who had long served on the BPOU committee walked away - saying that the party no longer "represented" their beliefs.

This is the crossroads that Minnesota GOP is facing! What the party does in the next 45 days will determine to long term fate of the Minnesota Republican Party. It could either move forward and retake the House and maybe even the Senate or it will whither away into obscurity. What is the answer? Based on my discussions with the activists that stepped away and the average "Joe and Jane" voter, there are a few things that can save the party.

And that is the topic of the next post.....

Why I am a Republican

This was something I got from an RNC publication. It sums up why I am a Republican.

I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless or race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I believe free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I believe Americans value and should preserve out national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideas into positive and successful principles of government.

This is what Ronald Reagan believed and why I became a Republican. It is the promise of this nation that I love and believe in. This is also why (in upcoming posts) I will attempt to explain why I feel that the Republican Party, nationally and in Minnesota, are worth fighting for.

Ch-ch-ch-changes

Several states are exploring the idea of moving their primaries up in 2008 (in a bid to be "relevant" to the Presidential process) including Minnesota. However, one state is already finding this change may put them at odds with the Voting Rights Act of 1995.

"Last year, Alabama's Legislature voted to move the state's presidential primary from early June to the first Tuesday in February in order to make the state a more enticing campaign stop for national politicians.
That created a conflict for 2008, as both the primary and Fat Tuesday are scheduled for Feb. 5.
Fat Tuesday parades run through three Mobile voting precincts, all of which are majority black, according to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2000:
Precinct 14, which votes at Bishop State Community College and includes land north of Beauregard Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard, has 5,360 residents, 5,266 of whom are black.
Precinct 16, which votes at the Springhill Avenue Recreation Center and includes the downtown loop and parts of Midtown, has 3,832 residents, 2,086 of whom are black.
Precinct 18, which votes at the Mobile Civic Center and includes the Down the Bay community, has 2,752 residents, 2,169 of whom were black. "

That is the problem with reactionary legislation. You end up shooting yourself in the foot. It would be better, albeit slower, to take a more deliberate pace and finding out all of the potential problems before you enact legislation. It's just logical...

Just a couple of quick thoughts

I've been rather busy lately, helping out friends with a couple of projects and that has really cut into the blogging time. However, I wanted to start the day with a couple of quick items that I hope will spark discussion.

First - why is it when an Evangelical Church makes available a voters guide (that is published by an outside interest like the League of Women Voters) to their congregants, they get into trouble with church/state watchdog groups. Yet Democratic candidates can get away with campaigning in the pulpit? Can you say double standard?

Second, am I the only one wondering if John Edwards has figured out the brouhaha over Amanda Marcotte yet? I mean he hires a woman who calls Christians "godbags" and now he is miffed when Ann Coulter returns the "compliment". Don't get me wrong...I think Ann stepped way over the line. I thought what she said at CPAC was in extremely poor taste. I have heard Ann's defenders and I think their excuses ring as hollow as Amanada Marcotte's lefty defenders excuses did. However, for Edwards to so vocally express his indignation when it took him a week to even respond to L'Affaire Marcotte seems just a wee bit hypocritical to me.

But then again, I just a right wing "godbag". Obviously I'm just not as smart as our friends on the left are.

Not what they expected.

Surprise, surprise...now that the Dems are in control of the House and the Senate, they are backing away from the crown jewel of their campaign promises.

"CHICAGO - In Washington, Democrats are blaming Republicans for the Senate's failure so far to vote on a resolution opposing a troop increase in Iraq.
But in the heartland, some voters say such excuses no longer are good enough.
Having banked on the promise that Democrats would force a change of course in Iraq if they won control of Congress, some of the people who helped the Democrats get there are growing impatient.
They're frustrated that Democrats sank so much energy into a nonbinding resolution then dropped the bipartisan plan of Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., like a hot potato when Republican leaders who support President Bush maneuvered them into a corner. "

"They're being overly cautious, to the point of really not accomplishing anything," said Lisa Rone, a psychiatrist from Oak Park, Ill. "I thought the Democrats would be much more clear about that vote and be much more active." "

Of course, if you ask Senator Harry Reid...

"I think the American public's very satisfied with what's happening," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We're on the right side of the angels here."

They couldn't get their weak "non-binding" resolutions passed, they couldn't get Rep Murtha's "slow bleed" plan even into committee and even here in Minnesota, the Dems are backing away from their promises to their base. They realize that if they keep those promises, their days in power are limited!

Welcome to the club guys. Now you know how the Republican base feels.

Cleaning up the "culture of corruption"

One of the campaign promises that the national Democrats made was that they would clean up the "culture of corruption". Of course once they got into the majority, that promise - like their promise to get the US out of Iraq - quickly slipped away. Well, now at least one Republican lawmaker in DC wants to actually clean things up....

"Republicans plan to force a floor vote on Rep. William Jefferson's move to the Homeland Security Committee in an unprecedented maneuver to force Democrats to go on the record supporting their embattled colleague who is the target of a federal bribery investigation.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) pledged to call for a recorded vote on the House floor when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) introduces a resolution to make the Jefferson move official."

Well that is indeed a start. Let's force them to defend the move. Says Rep Blunt:

"The idea that Homeland Security is less important than the tax-writing committee is ludicrous," Blunt said Wednesday."

He has a point.

It is sad though, that the Rep. Blunt and his collegues couldn't develop this kind of a spine BEFORE last Novembers elections. Things might have gone differently if they had.