Friday, November 30, 2012

Boehner Announces a Woman Committee Chair After All

Pay attention, Republicans: sometimes when enough of us speak up and let the leadership of the party know we are not happy about some decisions being made, they actually listen and respond.  Case in point - Speaker Boehner has appointed Rep Candice Miller, (R-MI) a woman, to head up the Committee on House Administration.  Well, it's a start.

What exactly is the Committee on House Administration? I looked it up. Here is the summary from the website:

The Committee on House Administration is charged with the oversight of federal elections and the day-to-day operations of the House of Representatives. With the 112th Congress, two subcommittees were added to the Committee's jurisdiction: the Subcommittee on Elections, which examines issues related to elections and voting systems, including the adoption of Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provisions at the state level, and the Subcommittee on Oversight which will focus on identifying and reducing wasteful spending within House operations and establish best practices to help improve services to the House community.
Sounds like a committee to keep everything organized.  I have no doubt that a woman will do this job with distinction.  Whether it is the public sector or the private sector, we all know that it is the women in the organization that are the ones keeping things running.

Speaker Boehner made the following statement as he made the announcement:

In a statement, Boehner said Miller “has a big job ahead” leading a committee responsible for the nuts and bolts of House operations — including orientation for new members and office assignments.

Do Democrats have more women serving in committee leadership? Yes. Do I care? No.  I only care about my party and how it is progressing with diversity in leadership.  I already know that the Democrats claim to be the party more favorable to women yet continue to act otherwise. I'm expecting better from my own party.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

What Conservatives are Doing Wrong with Hispanics and How to Fix It

Are you interested in expanding the Republican party by bringing in Latino voters? After the disturbing results in the 2012 presidential election were studied, Republicans clearly have a lot of work to do to persuade Latino voters to come back to the party. Remember, as recently as the 2004 election, George W. Bush received 40% of the Latino vote.

 My friend, Michelle Lancaster, is involved in a project to bring back Latino voters to the Republican party. A primer has been written and I want to encourage you to read it. Yes, it is a little lengthy but so what? Isn't understanding how to advance the conservative agenda worth a few minutes of your time? Of course it is.

Conservative Outreach to Hispanics - A Primer. 

What Conservatives are Doing Wrong with Hispanics, and How to Fix it
The 2012 elections were a wake-up call to Republicans and conservatives. Many were not expecting Obama to win reelection decisively, much less win at all. While the chorus of blame and finger-pointing ran rampant on television, radio, the blogosphere and social media, one underlying issue was being commonly accepted: the GOP and conservatives must reverse the devastating trend with the Hispanic vote.

  Since George W. Bush’s peak of receiving 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, the GOP has been hemorrhaging support from this key electorate, with Romney receiving an embarrassing 27% of the Hispanic vote in his defeat. Meanwhile, the Hispanic electorate is likely to double by 2030 to a potential 40 million Latinos eligible to vote. [1]

This is a primer not to place blame or say “I told you so.” This is a plan that is meant to be a comprehensive starting guide for GOP insiders, politicians, and grassroots conservatives to address the problems we face with earning Hispanic vote, while providing specific, targeted solutions. These are substantive strategies which can and should begin as soon as possible. There is no quick fix to this issue. It will take 4 years of dedication and hard work to win back what conservatives lost 8 years ago.
Please remember that we are promoting conservatism because it is best for everyone and not just for votes alone. When we operate to just win votes, it is obvious and this is how we lose people and communities. Although we are often criticized for not being compassionate, we are compassionate and we need to show it in our efforts. This will take four years in the short-run but our efforts should be continuous in the long-run.
For each issue/problem we highlight, we will point out whom among the movement needs to hear it the most; whether it be GOP elections insiders at the local, state, or national level, current GOP politicians, or the conservative grassroots movement.
I. Ground Game or Lack Thereof (Everyone) 
At its core, the biggest problem the GOP and conservatives have with Hispanics and minority groups in general is a lack of a ground game. The GOP lags behind the Democrats because for years, the middle-aged to elderly white voting class has been the most reliable voting bloc, and they have traditionally voted for Republicans. Therefore, conservatives and the GOP have never had the need for a major ground effort to bring them to the polls. The changing demographics in the United States necessitate a concerted ground effort with the GOP.
Ignoring Urban Outreach is No Longer an Option
A subset on the issue is the seeming fear of the urban outreach. The GOP and conservatives must accept they are going to have to do the hard work and reach out to Hispanics and other minority groups in what are generally Democrat strongholds: large cities and urban areas. Facts show more and more people are moving towards the cities, and the GOP is running out of rural and suburban voters to engage with. In addition, these urban areas are where the vast majority of Hispanics and other minorities live. If conservatives and the GOP do not begin to set up an infrastructure now, we will not win in 2016.
Redefining the “Likely Voter”
In addition to moving to the cities, the movement needs to break from the conventional wisdom of what a “likely voter” is among Hispanics. For whites, the “likely voter” is over 40 with a college education, and a middle class income or higher and who have voted previously. For Hispanics, the rules are different. The median age of the Hispanic voter in 2012 was 27. [2] Hispanics are disproportionately poor, attain less education, and because of their youth, many are either 1st or 2nd time voters. Focusing only on the number of Hispanics who match the “likely voter” makeup among whites will not be enough to make a dent in the Democrat’s steep majority. Therefore, in order to gain success in this unfamiliar territory, we must acknowledge the distinct cultural differences that exist and lay out a plan that reflects those distinctions.
Finally, there is an overwhelming distrust of Republicans among Latinos – especially Latino youth, many of which did not immigrate to this country but were born here. They don’t see conservatives in their communities, but they see liberals on a daily basis. How can this be fixed?
Show Up!
The simple answer is Republicans need to start showing up at events and in the community. The difficult answer is it requires investment of time, effort, and leg work. It would be wise for campaigns and local GOP offices to keep track of cultural festivals in the area and reserve a booth in order to disseminate information. These are perfect venues for voter registration drives!
GOP candidates need to be appearing at these events because we guarantee the Independent and Democrat candidates already do. There are plenty of websites that a Google search will turn up that list these local cultural events in your area. If you are unable to find these events in Google, you can also seek out towns or neighborhoods with large Hispanic populations and go
to the local town hall/community center/library to find calendars or flyers for events. Another option is to search for local Hispanic organizations. For example, there's a Puerto Rican Association in Dallas. Not only do these organizations hold their own events, you can ask to speak at group meetings.
Don’t just attend these events – hold them! If you are a GOP office or a local conservative group, hold cultural events or utilize Latino cultural celebrations to engage the community. For example, hold a family friendly 3 Kings Day Block Party at a local school with booths, food, dancing, and performances. For a more educational twist have an event promoting freedom on Jose Marti’s birthday. These are great ways to unite people while also having fun.
When phone banking and canvassing, go into the urban neighborhoods! One consistently sees liberal candidates going door to door in black and Latino neighborhoods but never conservatives. How can conservatives expect minorities to vote conservative if they are never exposed to conservative principles? Go to the bodega on the corner and explain how free market principles help his store. Go to the single mom working at Denny’s and tell her how ObamaCare is going to cost her the full time job there so she will have to get a second job. We guarantee you no one is saying these things to them right now.
How do we know? If you looked at GOP walk-books during the campaign they simply skip over certain neighborhoods. Instead their books and calls focus on getting the base out instead of possibly expanding it. Fine, in an election year that makes sense – but now is the time to lay down the groundwork so that in 2014 and 2016 more minorities will be part of that potential base.
Community Service
Have some free time on a Saturday? Take your family to do volunteer work or help a charity that focuses on the Latino community. This is a great way to give back, show compassion, stick to our cherished idea of private charity, and make connections in your local Latino communities. Hispanics are disproportionately affected by high unemployment, poverty rates similar to those in Latin America, and lack of quality education. [3]
Know Your Voter
With the success of the Obama campaign, it is now more important than ever that the party and grassroots organizations know who the potential voters are to the last detail. This realization is especially critical with the Hispanic population. Overall culture, traditions, political priorities, and even dialect of Spanish differ among Hispanic nationalities, so do your research prior to making those initial phone calls and setting up that first booth.
Also, realize that Hispanics are a young demographic and that Latino youth may not find ACDC cool – they may prefer artists like Jay-Z, and Wisin y Yandel, they may not. Turn to more creative mediums like spoken word, music, and dance when attempting to engage Latino youth. Become more culturally aware – pick up your local Hispanic newspaper and look through the events section, follow some conservative Latinos on twitter, and engage the Hispanics around you.
II. Stop Throwing Out Nothing But Spanish TV Ads and Start Engaging Spanish Media (GOP Insiders, Politicians)

Because of the lack of a ground operation, the GOP has left itself to overly rely upon television ads and indirect forms of communication to try and reach the Hispanic audience. The problem is that television ads in general don’t have a very good return on investment, and will reach only a limited audience, especially in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. The way you speak to and spread a message to Hispanics is through direct, personal communication. Not through external and relatively “easy” marketing like television and radio ads.
Furthermore, many of these ads are out of touch and seem out of place. Candidates or spokesmen for them never seem to appear on “black radio” or “Spanish radio” stations. Meanwhile Democrats are consistently giving interviews, talking about pop culture, and more. If any of you watch BET or Telemundo or Univision, you will constantly see liberal ads, speakers, and programs. Most of this is because all media trends heavily left, but this is also in part to lack of effort on our part. We need to be finding ways to tap into the audiences of these stations and getting our message out there.
It should be noted that Hispanics also watch less TV than overall population, but more streaming video online. Blacks watch more TV than any other demographic. Asians watch less traditional TV than any demographic, but more streaming video than anyone else. [4] Therefore, if you wanted to get the Hispanic vote – why weren’t there more web ads? You couldn’t click on YouTube without seeing an Obama ad, but a conservative ad was rare.
Understand the Culture
One of the reasons Marco Rubio has so much cross-over appeal is that not only is he relatable, but he engages the public like a normal person. He listens to 2pac and tweets about his sports teams. President Obama sings Al Green and his wife can dance “the Dougie.” Knowing these
things about the candidates make them more real as opposed to another name on a yard sign. No one is saying that candidates have to be rap connoisseurs to win – but it doesn’t hurt to show that you are engaged in pop culture and are human too.
Have a Consistent Media Presence
The solution here for the GOP is to embrace and engage Spanish and minority media outlets, don't just simply purchase airtime. Candidates should be doing interviews on radio and television and appear on the Sunday shows on Univision and Telemundo. Are they biased? Most likely. But has that stopped GOP politicians and pundits from appearing on MSNBC, NBC, etc.? Of course not. Bear in mind that it shouldn't just be Rubio, Martinez, or Labrador doing all this work in Spanish media. Non-Hispanic politicians should be willing and able to go on these venues as well.
III. Using and Speaking Spanish is a Must (Conservative Grassroots)

Going beyond the ads, it appears that there are many in the conservative movement who are antagonistic about the use of Spanish-language media or communication. We hate to break it to some, but while we and many others are of the agreement that English should be the language of government, many Hispanics prefer to speak Spanish within their community. Even those who are bilingual will speak Spanish with family and friends, as well as watch Spanish-language media. Since the end of the Mexican-American War, Spanish has been an integrated language in the United States. We say this only to address the hostilities some conservatives have towards the language. If you are going to reach out to the Hispanic community, Spanish must be a key component of it.
Don’t Assume
On the flip side, don’t assume all Hispanics speak Spanish and don’t assume you have to use the four words you do know in Spanish when speaking to Hispanics. If you only know a few broken phrases in Spanish, it comes off as awkward when you try to use them with someone you know speaks English. Just use common sense. If you knew someone spoke English fluently but was of a French background, would you feel compelled to speak broken French to them? No, so don’t do that to Hispanics either.
How and Where to Utilize Spanish
If you don't speak Spanish, find someone who does to help you out either at events or translations. For the love of everything stay away from Google Translate when transcribing printed materials! If you don't know someone who speaks Spanish, go to your local county
courthouse and see if you can find court-approved translators. Many work freelance and ask to hire them to do printed translations. Keep in mind that simple translations are better – they don’t have to be grandiloquent.
IV. The Conservative Grassroots Must Get Involved and Help (Conservative Grassroots)

In addition to not having a presence on the ground, non-Hispanic conservatives have been woefully inadequate at assisting Hispanic conservatives in spreading the message and lending support. Speaking from anecdotal evidence, we and many other Hispanic conservatives have been consistently frustrated by the lack of support from the conservative grassroots and bloggers. When we try to promote an event that is meant to cater to Hispanic conservatives or spreading the conservative message to a Hispanic audience, support from non-Hispanic conservatives with large audiences (whether it be in the form of twitter followers, website audiences, or talk radio listeners) has been minimal at best, or met with hesitation.
This is a trend that must change. Because Hispanic conservatives are greatly outnumbered by Hispanic liberals, we desperately need the support of the grassroots movement help spread the message. At the moment, Hispanic conservatives do not have the infrastructure to communicate on our own.
Commit to Engaging the Community and Lending Your Voice
For talk radio and blogs: start having segments on Hispanics and the Hispanic vote! Bring on representatives from right leaning Hispanic organizations and promote them on your show and website. Offer to write for conservative Hispanic media outlets. We're not asking for every ounce of airtime or site space, we only ask for a committed voice that will support Hispanic engagement, and won't fizzle away when the election becomes a memory. Here is a list of organizations and outlets where you can get started right away:
Conservative or Free-Market Hispanic Organizations
1 The LIBRE Initiative (@LIBREInitiative)
LIBRE is a non-partisan, non-profit that promotes economic freedom to the US Hispanic community. LIBRE grassroots efforts include: small businesses, faith communities, women, and youth efforts. Read more or sign up to volunteer here:
2 The Hispanic Leadership Network (@HispanicLN)
An organization dedicated to promoting center-right issues to the Hispanic community.
3 The Latino Coalition (@LatinoCoalition)
4 Republican National Hispanic Assembly (@RNHA)
A Republican organization dedicated to promoting GOP platform and conservative ideas to the Hispanic population.

Conservative Hispanic Media/Advocacy/Communication Outlets
1 The Americano (@TheAmericano)
2 Heritage Libertad (@LibertadUSA)
3 Puentes Research and Communications, Inc.

Statistical Analysis of Hispanic Demographics
1 Pew Hispanic Center (@PewHispanic)
2 Latino Decisions (@LatinoDecisions)

Many of the organizations listed above also have volunteer opportunities, and not just in election time.

V. The Rhetoric Must Be Addressed - But the Policy Need Not Completely Change (Everyone)

Immigration Rhetoric
Immigration is an issue that must be addressed. There’s no going around it. And the biggest problem behind the immigration issue with the GOP and conservatives is the rhetoric used to advocate our position. The GOP/Conservative position has always been the rule of law. In other words, if one is to come to this country to live or work, they must adhere to the proper channels. But the rhetoric, whether or not it is accurately described by the mainstream media, has been among the primary reasons Hispanics are turned off by the GOP. Statements like, “self-deportation,” “deport them all!” and “speak English! English only!” are slogans that are instant turn offs with Hispanics, regardless of whether you try to explain your position or not. It is an instant non-starter.
We’re not saying those conservatives who support the hard line stance do not have a valid point or that they should cave into the “free and clear amnesty,” but that the manner in which they
articulate their position must change. In addition, the conservative position on immigration reform differs among the movement. This is an internal debate that conservatives all around must have.
Speaking of amnesty, this term needs to be defined. Our immigration system IS in fact broken, hence the reason we have over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. But calling ANY proposal that MAY allow a small segment of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status (not necessarily citizenship) "amnesty" is another nonstarter with Hispanics. For any reform to pass there will be a give and take, including that dreaded word, “compromise.” But there are issues in which the GOP can use as leverage at the negotiation table. Senators Rubio, Kyl, and Hutchison are some of the conservatives doing great work to find common ground and find a solution agreeable to both sides regarding immigration and the DREAM Act. Conservatives would be wise to throw weight behind them on the issue.
Conservatives must also shame out and shun any racist elements in our midst. Racists exist in all movements and to say conservatives don’t have any is a lie. Take a look at several of the threats that conservative minorities get from other “conservatives” and you will see what we mean. This racist and harmful rhetoric often includes terms like “anchor babies” and classless jokes about wanting a “free ride” or being janitors or criminals. These hateful people need to be publicly shamed lest they taint the entire movement.
In addition, embracing or tolerating truly “anti-immigrant” politicians and organizations needs to stop. We refer to has-been politicians like Tom Tancredo and organizations like NumbersUSA and FAIR. They may support the hard line stance like many conservatives, but they go even further: advocating a near full stoppage of ANY immigration to the USA, legal or otherwise. No matter how much you dress it up, the media will eat it alive, and even then, it’s a terrible policy to advocate to begin with. These politicians and groups must be condemned by conservatives and the GOP alike.
Hispanics are not Single Issue Voters
We must also note that not all Hispanics have immigration as their number one policy concern. Many are still concerned with issues that everyone else is regardless of ethnicity; the economy, education, healthcare, cost of food and taxes, etc. But immigration is an issue that must be addressed and cannot be ignored. The Democrats would prefer that we DID ignore it so that it can continue to be used as a political football with Hispanic voters.
Puerto Rico’s Status as an Initiative
One specific issue that the GOP can utilize and take the initiative on is the status of Puerto Rico. For the first time the island voted made clear the desire to obtain statehood. The ironic aspect of this issue is that the more prominent Hispanic Democrats in the House are hostile towards statehood. The GOP has the opportunity to be champion and advocate for what is a growing Hispanic demographic. The right to self-delineate has been supported for Puerto Rico in the GOP platform for years.
VI. The Success of Rubio, Labrador, and Martinez is a False Trophy of Hispanic Outreach (Everyone)

These and most of the other Hispanic Republican politicians were voted in not with Hispanic voters, but with white voters. Getting the Hispanic vote means more than having a Hispanic on the ballot, as recent elections have shown. Marco Rubio didn’t win the overall Hispanic vote in the 2010 election. He was aided with the Cuban vote, but for the more centrist (and growing) Puerto Rican and Dominican electorate, he didn’t get nearly the same amount of support. And in regards to Congressman Labrador, it doesn’t need to be said that he was not voted in with the aid of the “massive” Hispanic electorate in Idaho. In 2012, Ted Cruz did not win the majority of the Latino vote.
That is not to say that these politicians cannot be utilized in our mission. They can be the policy standard bearers for the GOP in their respective Congressional houses. Rubio has already started with his earlier modified-DREAM Act, and Raul Labrador, though of Puerto Rican descent was an immigration attorney for 15 years before winning his seat in Congress. The fact that they are both Tea Party candidates is also a plus.
Luis Fortuño Deserves Recognition
While Rubio and Labrador are just two examples of the many impressive Latinos in the GOP, there are also conservative minorities that are completely glossed over. One of, if not the most successful Governors of the past term was Luis Fortuño from Puerto Rico. He did more to advance fiscal conservatism than almost anyone in the past four years. However, it’s no surprise that most white conservatives don’t even know his name. While we can’t rely on just having Hispanic politicians, we must use them more efficiently as resources.
But this all gets away from the fact that it takes more than a Hispanic surname to sway Hispanic voters. No one politician or policy change is a quick fix to the serious problem the movement faces.
VII. The GOP Primary Schedule (GOP insiders)

One suggestion specifically for the GOP is to take a serious look at its primary schedule. While Florida is third in line with the primary dates and Nevada not far behind, the GOP should look to changing its primary schedule to bring in states with growing Hispanic populations front and center. Why is Texas, a reliably red state with a substantial Hispanic population holding its primary in March? States like Texas, Georgia, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Virginia should move their primaries towards the front of the pack, thereby requiring primary candidates to acknowledge and engage those growing Hispanic populations.

Trying to keep this as short yet comprehensive as possible, there are several problems with the GOP’s outreach to Hispanics. However, there are countless solutions. Start by realizing that your definition of outreach – may not be what is needed. Realize that not all of the pundits and talking heads have the answers and turn to people who are actually part of the demographic you are trying to reach. There are several conservative Latinos who should be on conservative radio, featured in conservative publications, and used as tools to engage the Latino community – but instead you see the same commentators regardless of the issue.
The Latino vote, regardless of what the media says, is an opportunity we can no longer ignore or approach half-heartedly. Latinos are hard-working people who gave up their lives in their home countries to risk everything for a piece of the American Dream. Appeal to that passion for life, the yearning for success, and the traditional values that celebrate family and community. Conservative principles are more beneficial for Latinos, and for everyone, than liberal ideology. We just need to put in the coordinated effort to make that crystal clear.

This piece is a collaboration from Brittney Morrett and Samuel Rosado, with contributions by Michelle Lancaster and Ben Domenech. The views expressed here are the personal views of the authors and do not speak for their employers or any organizations of which they may be affiliated. Brittney and Samuel live on the east coast. For more information on how to get involved in your city or help with Hispanic outreach, contact them at and You can also reach them via Twitter at @BMorrett and @SARosado.

[1] Pew Hispanic Center.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Pew Hispanic Center.
[4] Nielsen Wire.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Boehner Announces All Male House Leadership Appointees

What in the hell is Speaker John Boehner thinking? Is he thinking? Boehner has announced the leadership appointees for the upcoming session of the House of Representatives. Guess who he picked? A slate of solely white men. No women. No diversity. This is the face the Republican party in Congress wants to present to the American voter?

 This is how Republican leadership is spoken about over at the Huffington Post:

   I have to say this about that. The liberals are absolutely correct in mocking this disaster. I don't agree when they - all guys on this panel, too, I'll point out - say that maybe there is no pool of women from which to choose for leadership positions. That's nonsense. There are many and I can think of them off the top of my head. Granted, I may pay attention more closely of rising women leaders in the Republican party, but there is no shortage from which to choose. True, we need to grow our numbers on all levels of elected office, but we are there for the choosing.

 This is maddening. This is embarrassing. This has got to stop.


Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Senators Meet With Ambassador Rice

I read this on Twitter from Senator Lindsey Graham: :
"We are going to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi."  I guess he didn't get the memo that the lapdog media and liberal talking heads think that the cover-up over the Benghazi terrorist attacks is just a Republican political game being played against Barack Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice because we're racist misogynists who didn't want Obama to be re-elected to a second term.

Got that? Just move along already. There is nothing here.

Let's re-cap, shall we? On September 11, 2012, two separate attacks were carried out by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya - first against the American consulate and then against a building used by the CIA.  Our American ambassador and one of his staffers was killed in the consulate attack.  Two Marines were killed in the second building's attack.  Ambassador Stevens was the first American ambassador killed in several decades. Since this was so close to the American presidential election, the lapdogs in the mainstream media decided that this really wasn't a story that would be relevant to the president's re-election, thus it wasn't really a story worthy of investigation.  Only one cable news channel - Fox News Channel - bothered to investigate the glaring cover-up at play.  The lapdogs in the mainstream media and the liberal talking heads enjoy perpetuating that Fox is just a wing of the Republican National Committee because all sides of arguments are heard on that channel so Fox is easily dismissed.

Turns out Fox is to be credited with keeping the story alive. Along with writer Eli Lake, a contributor to The Daily Beast, some disturbing facts are coming forth on a regular basis. The Obama administration continues to stonewall on producing documents to the Senate and House committees holding hearings. Oh, did you fall for that whole "most transparent administration ever" nonsense from Team Obama? Sucker.

Ambassador Susan Rice is in quite a tangled web.  She is on tape promoting the administration's line that the terrorist attacks were all brought on by a crazy Internet video seen by no one, much less the Muslims in Libya who carried out the attacks.  We still don't even know why it was Rice who appeared on  five, count 'em, five Sunday morning shows parroting this theory.  Why wasn't it Secretary of State Clinton?  Why wasn't it President Obama himself?  I think we know why.  Rice agreed to be the fall person for this mess by agreeing to be the spokeswoman.

So, three Republican senators have come forward as the faces and voices of Americans demanding answers.  Senator Graham, Senator McCain and Senator Ayotte are to be commended for their efforts.  President Obama was counting on promoting the theory that al-Queda was vanquishing due to his stewardship of the War on Terror - now called an Overseas Contingency Plan.  Those four Americans murdered by men claiming allegiance to al-Queda is an embarrassment to Barack Obama's grand brag.

Rice is to be considered for promotion as Hillary Clinton is leaving the Obama administration.  She will have to get voted out of the Senate committee first, though, to receive a vote on the floor of the Senate.  She agreed to meet with Graham, McCain and Ayotte Tuesday morning to address their concerns.  Afterwards, none of the three senators were any closer to a warm and fuzzy feeling about the whole thing. Seems they were, in fact, even more concerned.

McCain:  “Senator Graham and I and Senator Ayotte had a very candid discussion with Ambassador Rice and with the deputy director of the CIA. We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn’t get, considering evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate, the tragic death — deaths of four brave Americans, and whether Ambassador Rice was prepared or informed sufficiently in order to give the American people a correct depiction of the events that took place.”
Graham: ”Bottom line, I’m more concerned now than I was before that the 16 September explanation [by Ambassador Rice] about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya… I think [her explanation] does not do justice to the reality at the time, and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. … All I can say is that the concerns I have are greater today than they were before, and we’re not even close to getting the basic answers.”
Ayotte:  “I want to say that I’m more troubled today… because it’s certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al-Qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. And clearly, the impression that was given — the information given to the American people was wrong.”
So, there you have it.  
Yesterday, on Fox News Channel, military "expert" Tom Ricks was able to lob a liberal attack on the channel as he was being interviewed.  He claimed that Fox News Channel was the only outlet all ramped up about the story and that it was solely for political reasons. He enjoyed saying that FNC is an arm of the RNC.  For an alleged expert, he such is sounding like a simpleton.
Since the investigation begun by FNC has produced such an unseemly story, and since the families of the dead are still waiting for answers, some of the other outlets in the lapdog media have been forced to do the occasional  story on the Benghazi attacks.
The story has now evolved that the blame must be placed on the intelligence community.  Odd. During the George W. Bush administrations, that excuse was not acceptable to the leftists suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. 
As a way to diminish the importance of speaking up, the lapdogs are on the attack with bared teeth on the three senators in the forefront - even referred to as The Three Amigos. Classy, right? The usual scenario has developed - the truth seekers are motivated by racism and misogyny. It is so predictably sad, really. Equal opportunity in the workplace means equal accountability. It's not racist to demand accountability of anyone in the workplace, especially one on the taxpayer's payroll.


Monday, November 26, 2012

I Support a Pledge Free World

At long last, some in Congress are finding some backbone to state some resistance to the silly practice of pledge signing by political candidates. We can only hope that this movement will grow.

Can you imagine anything sillier than grown men and women obediently allowing anyone to bully them into signing on to a promise to be loyal to one person or organization, at the expense of common sense legislation?  Sign this or we will primary you in the next election, candidates are told.  Sign this or we will not endorse your candidacy, they are told.  What is this, middle school?

Pledge signing is one step away from the utterly corrupt system of pay for play slates.  The county in which I reside has experienced this corruption and it has almost completely destroyed the county Republican party.  Pay up or you won't be endorsed is the way it's done in Harris County.  Three men run the game and we are now beginning to see new groups forming with the same plan in mind.  It is no less corrupt to demand a candidate sign a pledge than it is to demand a candidate sign a check for support.

Truth be told, I never understood the logic of someone like Grover Norquist being allowed to make a career out of such nonsense.  The pledge mentality dumbs down the process and discourages budding politicians. It's really a cowardly way to seek office, this caving to a silly demand.

In the news now, thanks to Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Lindsey Graham, and  Rep Peter King specifically, the big dog of the pledge bullies, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform pledge is under the microscope.  His pledge is called the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  I encourage you to read it. It is meant to stop any Republican office holder from voting for any tax rate hike on anything or anyone. In theory it sounds good, right? Generally speaking, yes. But that's the catch - it's so general and it doesn't allow for any change at all.

You'll find comments from Graham, Chambliss, and King HERE, HERE, and HERE. H/T to for putting it all together.

Times change, leadership changes, and the economy changes.  Just as it is unrealistic for President Obama to present Clinton-era economics as our salvation now, it is unrealistic for conservatives to expect a Republican to abide by a decades old pledge at the expense of our economic health.  Remember the phrase, "Country First"? You should. It's more than just a campaign slogan.

Compromise is not a bad word. It's a grown-up word. I'm not asking anyone to abandon core values and principles. All I ask - all that most Americans are asking now - is that the grown-ups take over and get serious about economic healing.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

America Began With The Mayflower Compact

Our country began as a nation of laws.  With The Mayflower Compact in 1620, the framework of the new experiment in freedom was cobbled together by grassroots activists with a desire for religious freedom in their native England.  The document is not long or windy.  It begins with acknowledgement of God and ends after laying out intentions to govern for the good of all.

The Mayflower Compact is a written agreement composed by a consensus of the new Settlers arriving at New Plymouth in November of 1620. They had traveled across the ocean on the ship Mayflower which was anchored in what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Mayflower Compact was drawn up with fair and equal laws, for the general good of the settlement and with the will of the majority. The Mayflower’s passengers knew that the New World’s earlier settlers failed due to a lack of government. They hashed out the content and eventually composed the Compact for the sake of their own survival. All 41 of the adult male members on the Mayflower signed the Compact. Being the first written laws for the new land, the Compact determined authority within the settlement and was the observed as such until 1691. This established that the colony (mostly persecuted Separatists), was to be free of English law. It was devised to set up a government from within themselves and was written by those to be governed.
This is it:
In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc. having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Codd the 11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our sovereigne lord, King James, of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.
John Carver, Edward Tilley, Degory Priest, William Bradford, John Tilley, Thomas Williams, Edward Winslow, Francis Cooke, Gilbert Winslow, William Brewster, Thomas Rogers, Edmund Margeson, Issac Allerton, Thomas Tinker, Peter Browne, Myles Standish, John Rigdale, Richard Britteridge, John Alden, Edward Fuller, George Soule, Samuel Fuller, John Turner, Richard Clarke, Christopher Martin, Francis Eaton, Richard Gardiner, William Mullins, James Chilton, John Allerton, William White, John Crackston, Thomas English, Richard Warren, John Billington, Edward Dotey, John Howland, Moses Fletcher, Edward Leister, Stephen Hopkins, and  John Goodman signed the document.

My ancestors trace back to names on this document.  During some reading about individuals listed above, I was struck by the fact that some were men of indeterminable religious affiliation.  Though supportive of the Christian faith, in general, one of my ancestors has provided fodder for debate from the beginning.  He was specifically hired by those fleeing England for his expertise in a specific area and thus was not expected to pass any litmus test on his faith. 

Sound familiar? After centuries, we are still squabbling over faith and leadership.  Just recently, a future potential presidential candidate, Senator Marco Rubio, has been the subject of ridicule from some in the Democratic party who seek to eliminate any religious reference in government.  These folks will ridicule people of faith if beliefs rival political ideology.  This is particularly ironic in the case of Senator Rubio.  His parents fled Cuba for personal freedom, too. 

Some on the Republican side demand leaders of expressed religious faith.  Some even go a step further and demand that leaders are of their faith.  Some real examination of such rigid expectations of politicians is long overdue. 


Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Clyburn Joins Fudge In Claims of GOP Racism, Misogyny

Sometimes, incompetency is simply incompetency.  Sometimes, lies are just lies.  Sometimes, covering up for an administration is simply covering up for an administration.  Incompetency, lying, and covering up have nothing to do with race or gender.  What is now unfolding in the defense of the Obama administration's deceitful and incompetent handling of the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya - including our American ambassador - on September 11, 2012, is the utterly bogus charge that U.N. ambassador Susan Rice is being held accountable for her false remarks on five, count 'em, five Sunday talk shows because she is a black woman.


Did Republicans lob that whine when National Security advisor and then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was regularly raked over the coals by the likes of Senator Barbara Boxer and called everything despicable under the sun by those tolerant (not) members of the Democratic Party during her years of service in the GWB administration?

No. No, we did not.

For the party of perpetual victimhood, every criticism over incompetency is viewed as a racial attack, if the person criticized is a person of color:
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Tuesday a letter from nearly 100 House Republicans urging President Obama not to appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State employed racially-charged "code words" to make its case.
The letter, signed by 97 House Republicans, says Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter" — language Clyburn saw as racially loaded.
"You know, these are code words," Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, told CNN. "We heard them during the campaign, during this recent campaign we heard Sen. Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent, these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives and we'd get insulted by them.

Sometimes, Rep Clyburn, incompetency is simply incompetency.  Sometimes lies are simply lies and sometimes cover-ups are cover-ups. As far as Sununu's remarks go, he repeated Obama's own words of self-criticism - that he was lazy in aspects of his academic career and that trait carries over into his political career, too.  And, yes, Republicans think that President Obama is incompetent in how he has led. The same was true on how Democrats felt about George W. Bush. It's politics.

Clyburn's cynical remarks come on the heels of a letter sent by Rep Marcia Fudge - a black woman who has been elected to head up the Congressional Black Caucus - accusing criticism of Rice as solely brought forward due to her race and gender.  She claims Rice is criticized because she is a black woman. A dozen women from the House signed on to that letter.

Here's the thing - Rice is being singled out because she is the one who was sent out by the White House to do its bidding.  She is the one who parroted the White House's line that it was a video that no one had seen which caused the mob to assemble and kill our ambassador and a member of his staff and then two more Americans in a second attack later that night.  She is the one now so dishonestly championed by Barack Obama after he admitted she knew nothing about the events, that she was just someone sent out to do his bidding as he campaigned for re-election.

The letter sent out by Fudge was a publicity seeking stunt to perpetuate the dishonest narrative that Republicans are racist and misogynist humans not to be taken seriously. 

Equality to most people would mean that a person in a powerful position is held accountable for his/her actions, regardless of that person's gender or race.  When Republicans voice an honest protest over promoting a member of the Obama administration to a higher position due to questions on her competency and displeasure of her comportment in her current position, Democrats cry foul.  How insincere.  President Obama stated he intends to nominate Rice to the office of Secretary of State when Hillary Clinton leaves the administration.  It is right to voice concerns. 

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Ayotte Moves Forward In BenghaziGate

Wednesday President Obama participated in his first news conference since winning re-election.  It was also his first news conference in eight months. The very first question was about BenghaziGate, the ever growing scandal surrounding the cover-up over the terrorist attacks at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Four Americans were killed, including the American ambassador to Libya.

Though an apparent concerted effort by the media to ignore the terrorist attacks in Benghazi was in play leading up to the American presidential election, the number of prominent players continues to grow and it is now no longer possible to be swept under the rug for the convenience of Barack Obama's second term. It is impossible to know at this point where it all leads but we do know this - it's not pretty.

Obviously, the Americans killed in the terrorist attacks must be first and foremost in the minds of all.  Unfortunately, the families of those killed are not receiving the peace that some obvious answers would bring to them.  Why, exactly, was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on September 11 in the first place? Threats were regular and frequent. Both Ambassador Stevens and specialist Sean Smith were said to have voiced concerns about the lack of security at that location. 

President Obama was asked about his responsibility in the scandal - did he do everything possible to protect those Americans? What was his opinion of Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations who was sent out to five, count them, five Sunday morning talk shows to parrot the line given to her by someone in the White House - that the attacks were brought about by an obscure video on the Internet. 

For the first time, President Obama admitted it was, in fact, the White House who sent Rice out to do their bidding.  It was always clear that that decision would have been made at the White House but no one had bothered to get that verification from the president himself. Thus, the question remains - who exactly asked her to be the whipping boy (girl) for the White House and who exactly wrote out her talking points?

President Obama made a point to declare that he referred to the attacks in Benghazi as terrorist attacks on September 12 during an exchange with Mitt Romney in the second debate between the two candidates.  It was a false claim, if you go and look at the video of his statement in the Rose Garden that day.  He referred to the broader reference of terrorist attacks, not specifically to the Benghazi attack as he spoke of terrorism, but that has been hashed out.  The question is now presented thus: why would Obama call the Benghazi attacks as terrorist attacks on September 12 - as he claims he did - yet send out Susan Rice on September 16 to claim the attacks were the result of a video on the Internet that insulted fringe Islamists? Who authorized the cover-up (lies) to begin?

The rumor is that President Obama would like to nominate Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State when she leaves her position, as she has stated she will do.  This is completely unacceptable to many in the U.S. Senate, who will have to confirm her nomination, while all of this hangs in the air.  Three Republican senators have come forward to voice their opposition to Rice's potential nomination as the scandal continues - Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham, and Senator Kelly Ayotte. 

During his rare news conference, Obama went all protecting-the-little-woman on the reporters asking questions about Rice's involvement.  He was asked about the senators voicing opposition to Rice's nomination and he declared that McCain and Graham and "anyone else" should come after him, not Ambassador Rice.  He couldn't bring himself to attack Ayotte personally by name as she, too, is a woman.  He was in pretend macho mode and had to remain in character at that moment.  So, he attacked the men folk.

Here's my suggestion: Republicans in the Senate should place Senator Ayotte front and center at every press opportunity during this process.  She should be the face of the opposition, as a Republican woman in the senate rising leadership, and that takes the sting out of any storyline that Team Obama might be trying to advance - Rice is being attacked because she is a woman.  We are continually told by Democrats that Republicans hate women, right? Putting Ayotte as the face of the opposition thwarts that nonsense.

Clearly Ayotte has a good rapport and support from McCain and Graham.  One lapdog journalist referred to the trio as the Three Amigos on Twitter.  Ayotte should take this opportunity and run with it.  For the sake of the country and for the sake of the Republican party.  It's a win-win.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Cornyn Elected as Minority Whip in U.S. Senate

Wednesday U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) issued the following statement after Senate Republicans elected him to serve as Whip for the 113th Congress:
“I’m honored to have been chosen by my colleagues to help lead our caucus during such a critical time for this country. Core Texas values like hard work, limited government, and individual liberty will continue to guide me in this new role. I look forward to working with the Conference to tackle the major hurdles before us, beginning with the looming fiscal cliff.

“This debate presents both an immense challenge and an historic opportunity to come together to do the right thing for the country. I am optimistic the urgency of the moment will bring members of both parties together to avert what would be an economic disaster. Now more than ever this nation needs leaders willing to step up and make the tough choices that are right for our country, not politically expedient for one party.”

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Suggestions as the GOP Moves Forward

We have to be about more than tax cuts. Frankly, those who do not pay any federal income taxes are not much interested in tax cuts. That's about half of the working age people now. Our message must be sharper, more concise and patient. We have to get much better at explaining the benefits of a smaller, more efficient government. 

We must be a welcoming party. I'll continue to preach this until the stubborn ones understand Politics 101.  There is no purity test in joining a political party.  If you think you are a Republican, you are a Republican. No one should be allowed to discourage a newly interested voter by trying to place hoops in front of the voter to jump through in the name of ideological purity. A party wins by growing the number of voters for their candidates, not shrinking the number of voters. A political party is not a private club.

We must stop the hate.  That sounds harsh but there is no other way to describe the way the GOP's attitude towards immigration issues comes off to voters.  Here is how one successful Republican woman of Hispanic heritage explains it:

So let me try to explain. First, even for someone like me whose family has been here for centuries, the tone of the debate on illegal immigration has been unsettling. Illegal immigration is down to historically low levels, the lowest in 40 years. Border security is higher than it has ever been in the nation's history, and deportations are at a modern high. Still, the GOP platform and Romney himself insisted that those illegal immigrants who are living here -- some of them for decades -- must self-deport.
Do we really expect families who have been here for years, decades even, to pick up and leave only to have to stand in the back of the line to re-enter a life in America?  Do we really want to sound as though we expect mothers and fathers to leave the country though they have children who are American citizens by the mere location of their births? Does anyone really think it is a worthy plan to round up millions of people and transport them out of our country?  How exactly would that even be done? Do you understand how silly a solution like self-deportation sounds, not to mention insulting?

We must rally around a common sense approach to immigration reform. For example, Senator Marco Rubio has a responsible plan that would not destroy families or place unattainable demands on those already here.  Yes, strict guidelines must be set.  Yes, demand payment of reasonable fines and abiding by our laws. Those are matters of basic human respect.  We must demand secure borders - to the south and to the north of us - and that alone would go a long way to head off much of the illegal crossings.

We must nurture and present intelligent, solidly conservative intellectuals as candidates.  The days of ignorant misogynist white men candidates has to be at its end.  Especially on the social issues, such as women's health issues and  the subject of rape, Republican candidates have been inexcusably advanced on single issue agendas. This has to stop.  Conservative women do not want to be represented by such out-of-touch men and neither do Independent or Democratic women. It is insulting and degrading to everyone.

This quote from Karen Hughes, advisor to former President George W. Bush sums it up:                                                                                                           

"If another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue. The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape."
And, finally, the Republican party has to stop the tradition of running the candidate believed to be the next in line to run.  It's killing us.  This mentality discourages fresh faces and much needed creative energy among the ranks of those willing to run for the big offices.  Especially for our presidential candidates, the next in line process doomed us in 2008 and 2012, just as it did in 1996 with Bob Dole, for example. 

Fortunately for the Republican party, we have a deep bench emerging of strong, intelligent, common sense driven leaders who will be our candidates in the next cycle.  Their faces are diverse and many more women will run.  Our country is no longer dominated by the leadership of older white men and our party must not be, either.

Friday, November 09, 2012

Obama Addresses Fiscal Cliff in Deep Denial

President Obama addressed staff and friends in the East Room Friday morning, claiming to have a mandate for raising taxes and continuing on with his big spending ways. It was an exercise in denial.  The man is in denial of the real election results.  Clearly the American voters went with the comfortable status quo and against real change this time around.  President Obama was the candidate of status quo in 2012 and Mitt Romney was the candidate promising change.

We are a nervous people, we Americans.  Our economic recovery from the Big Recession has been spotty at best, excruciatingly slow at worst. Nervous people stay with what they know, as a defensive move. The re-election of the incumbent was the more comfortable move than to go with a new guy and not know exactly what he would bring.

Obama, as his true narcissist self, spoke as though he is still the Messiah we are to believe he is. 

President Barack Obama, laying down his marker for grueling "fiscal cliff" negotiations, said Friday he won't accept any approach to federal deficit reduction that doesn't ask the wealthy to pay more in taxes.
"This was a central question during the election," Obama said in his first postelection comments on the economy. "The majority of Americans agree with my approach."
Following up, Obama's spokesman said later that the president would veto any legislation extending tax cuts for families making $250,000 or more.
The president, speaking in the White House East Room, said he wasn't wedded to every detail of the plans he outlined during the election, adding, "I'm open to compromise." But he offered no indication that he was willing to back down.
He neglected to mention that he has already raised taxes on the middle class and will continue to do so as Obamacare comes into play.  He neglected to say that he robbed $800 million from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, as he tweaked his opponent in the recent election.  He neglected to mention all the failures and loss of taxpayer monies brought about by his insistence of personally choosing winners and losers as he spreads around 'stimulus' money to try to produce jobs.

Despite absolutely no record of listening to others and taking advice outside his inner circle and despite no record of working with the GOP, today again Obama tried to sound like the guy who would do all of that in his second term.  He also spoke of creating more jobs for military veterans, which is ironic as he did all he could to suppress the military vote this cycle.  The military was strongly favorable to Mitt Romney, as polls showed.

I strongly urge you to read "The Price of Politics" by Bob Woodward, if you have not done so already.  It will open your eyes to the behind the scenes negotiations during the last drama of the fiscal cliff facing Congress and how Team Obama botched it all up.  There is no indication that anything has changed to stop the same train wreck this time around.

The Demise of the GOP is Greatly Exaggerated

Contrary to the naysayers, the demise of the Republican party is being greatly exaggerated.  Mostly by those with a grudge to bear, all kinds of demands are being made of the Grand Old Party after the defeat of our candidate Tuesday night.  Let's step back and take a breath, shall we?

Despite what the left and probably President Obama himself want you to believe, there is no second term Obama mandate after such a slim victory.  Obama ran for re-election with one campaign weapon - a superior ground game.  The man and his supporting organizations never stopped running after the 2008 victory and it served them well. The perpetual campaign cobbled together a coalition of voters that pushed them to the finish line.

As summarized in The Wall Street Journal:
President Obama won one of the narrower re-elections in modern times Tuesday, eking out a second term with a fraction of his 7.3% margin of 2008, in a polarized country with the opposition GOP retaining and still dominating the House. Given that second Presidential terms are rarely better than the first, this is best described as the voters doubling down on hope over experience. Mr. Obama's campaign stitched together a shrunken but still decisive version of his 2008 coalition—single women, the young and culturally liberal, government and other unions workers, and especially minority voters.
As Rich Galen writes in his piece, the hard facts of the 2012 election results boil down to one glaring bit:
A larger and larger share of a smaller and smaller market is no way to win an election, much less win the future.
You can assess the results by votes in each state here:

The glaring failure in the election results is that of the Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort in four key states:
The answer is pretty simple: the Republican party establishment’s micro-targeting of voters, from surveying voters to a get-out-the-vote, or GOTV, operation — if you can even call it an operation — was a joke. Take Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, for example. Had Romney won those states, he would be celebrating victory today. The media would have you believe that he was trounced there. That’s not the case. Romney lost all four states — and the presidency — by less than 400,000 votes. He lost Colorado by 111,000, Florida by 47,000, Ohio by 100,000, and Virginia by 108,000. That’s it. Romney was locked out of the White House by about 366,000 votes.
Will this strategy work in 2016?  Probably.  Our nation has changed since the days of the Reagan candidacy when the winning strategy was to convince enough working class Democrats of the wisdom in Republican economic and social policies. Politics is the art of persuasion.  Our candidate, Mitt Romney, though a good man and a solid Republican, was simply unable to connect with the average Joe and Jane in swing states.  For too long, the campaign allowed Team Obama to define him and Romney never went into street fighter mode in retaliation.  In politics, unfortunately, the nice guy's campaign loses. The candidate has to have a fire in his/her belly that responds to attacks by the opponent's campaign.  And, the candidate has to surround himself/herself with people willing to speak truthfully on the ground. We have to accept the winning strategy and make it our own.

Now is the time to get busy. It is human nature to go into the fetal position and declare "that's it, I'm done" when the battle is lost. Now, however, is the worst time to do that. Politics is brutal. It never gets easier. The fact of the matter is that most people don't get involved, other than to go vote on election day, if that. Most people don't have the stomach for the day to day tedious back and forth between those in opposing parties. And, to speak frankly here, most people don't understand politics.

Now is the time to begin the hard work of improving the party, beginning locally and extending it all the way to the top. If you are reading political blogs, you are capable of playing a greater role in local politics. Get out and join groups of like minded people. Whether it is Republican women groups, co-ed Republican groups, Tea Party groups, discussion groups, whatever, all have a place and worth.  Strength in numbers is the key to winning.  Take the first step - simply attend a meeting or gathering.  You will be pleasantly surprised how grateful those in attendance are to see you there. 

In the next few blog posts, I'll talk about what the party needs to do to grow and win.  After I encourage you to get active, to stay in the fight, then I'll toss in my two cents on how we need to move forward. 

Please don't give up.  If you read nothing else here, read those four words. We need you.  America needs you.  No one said this would be easy.

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Voting For Love Of Country, Not Revenge

President Obama is a man who relies on a teleprompter to deliver a speech.  We all have enjoyed ridiculing him about his dependency on the tool.  When he went off teleprompter recently, he actually told voters that voting could be an act of revenge. Then his staff had to try to play defense as Team Romney quickly took that remark and starkly contrasted that anger with patriotic optimism.

Aides to Barack Obama are defending his remark that ‘voting is the best revenge’ by saying it was made in the context of Mitt Romney’s ads about Jeep jobs - even though the transcript shows the president had not mentioned the ads. Speaking at Springfield High School in Ohio on Friday, Obama hailed former President Bill Clinton, saying that ‘his economic plan asked the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more so we could continue to invest in our people, continue to invest in ideas and innovation, invest in our infrastructure’. When he added: ‘And at the time the Republican Congress and a Senate candidate by the name of Mitt Romney’ the audience of some 2,800 began to boo. Obama responded with the standard ad lib he uses when crowds boo Romney on Republicans: ‘No, no, no. Don’t boo – vote. Vote!’ Then he added: ‘Voting is the best revenge.’ In just five words, Obama handed Romney a potentially significant opportunity in the waning days of the campaign.

His spokeswoman tried to say that "revenge" was for "lies" from a Romney ad. This, however, was not even referenced in his speech. The boos from the audience had nothing to do with that.
But a transcript posted on the White House shows that Obama was not speaking in the context of Romney’s controversial ads about Chrysler, bailed out by the U.S. government, adding production of Jeeps in China.

I prefer Mitt Romney's optimism to the sitting president's anger.  Mitt Romney told a large crowd in Colorado Springs, CO on Saturday that "I won't repreent one party, I'll represent one nation".  He asked for their vote "for love of country" not for revenge.