Saturday, November 25, 2006

RNC Reshuffling

Why is Mehlman out and Rove still in? I have not seen a shred of evidence that pointed out how Mehlman in anyway contributed to the loss. Just like in 2004 -Rove was the architect, Mehlman as campaign manager os BCO4 is the man who puts the plans to work.

For all that can be said about Rove's style which is squeeze out as many of our guys as possible to win, (contrast with Clinton/Reagan strategies of getting large swaths of the public) I would also classify the boy geniuses strategy as incrementally eating into groups of the Democrat Party's coalition. Rove tried to appease senior citizens with the prescription drug entitlement. He tried to win over hispanic voters with amnesty. In short, Rove tried to win over groups that just dont fit in the party's tent. And the tent collapsed on him.

Mehlman was an effective manager. He was extremely competent. He was good with the media, memorizing statistics and talking points.

Rove as the architect was the one who contributed to the reputation the GOP now has. Rove contributed to the political environment that realized the GOP defeat. If the GOP is looking for a head to cut off look for Rove. (figuratively of course)

Thursday, November 23, 2006

why does pop culture side with Liberals?

  • Charlie Rangel wants to draft me. Wasnt it George Bush that was supposed to do this? In fact its now been 672 days since the election and no plans have been drawn up for the draft. The White House must be moving slowly. So how is it that everyone that was my age that I talked to thought that if George W. Bush won re-election the draft would be brought back? Thats because pop culture has a bias towards Liberals. MTV, websites young people frequent, celebrities were all saying that you can either vote for John Kerry or go to Baghdad.

    Liberalism has an appeal to it. Its easier to argue. Its easier to argue for do-gooding Socialistic policies in the marketplace. Why not raise the minimum wage? It would be great to give those poor people a pay raise. Why not ban smoking in restaurants and bars? Those poor workers are at a health risk. Conservatives have to argue that these do-good attempts to help the masses dont help.

    It is always easier to call for more spending. Liberals always rationalize spending on programs because they would be great to have. Universal access to College for example. A Conservative argues that deficit spending cannot be afforded, and it is irresponsible to shirk the burden to the next generation. But the emotional appeals and the nice idea are often more appealing.

    It is easier to have a culture of "whatever" than to be responsible. It seems insensitive to have English as the legal language. What if Immigrants can not read signs or legal documents? The argument of emotion is easier than the argument of long-term consequences of immigrants that are not assimilated.

    The pop culture elite has always sided with Liberals. What can be done when pop-culture uses its ability to speak to mass audiences to wage a campaign of disinformation?
  • Sunday, November 19, 2006

    More With Less

    Cross posted from

    The night of November 8th was a rough one. My Nancy Pelosi hangover would not have been as bad if Republicans would have governed as Conservatives and ran as Conservatives. But they didn’t. Republicans were too timid to reform entitlements that are ticking time bombs; they forgot that their “budget” is money the IRS had to forcibly take in order to maintain a civil society, giving it away to their contributors, meanwhile
    funding bridges to nowhere. This is a party that cannot secure its own nations borders because the Chamber of Commerce wouldn’t let them. The ’06 GOP loss would never have happened without the degeneration of a party I once loved. To look forward to ’08 we have to find out what went so wrong. My argument is that it is because of a lack of a guiding philosophy.

    The philosophy that led the American Conservative movement was that of less Government. The questions that should be asked when approaching policy decisions are:
    What is the least we can do to solve the problem? Are we overreaching? Is it our role to solve this problem? This philosophy led the GOP to what I would say was their finest our: The class of 1994. That period in which a Democrat President was forced to proclaim the era of Big Government “over”. The philosophy of less Government led to the GOP unified in demanding the elimination of Government agencies, across the board tax-cuts, and balanced budgets. The absence of this philosophy resulted in less freedom and less prosperity. The Executive Branch has expanded its role, the Congress has banned online gambling, they even held back funds for Montana forcing it to have a speed limit. The list is endless and is a result of a Government that acts as a social worker. But the economy has grown and taxes were cut so how I can I say we are less prosperous? The reality is that the formerly Republican Congress facilitated no wealth creation, and cut no taxes, they merely passed the bill to the next generation. I will be footing the bill when Medicare and Social Security explode. I will be paying for the prescription-drug entitlement. And yes, for your bridges to nowhere.

    In ’08 I will be supporting candidates whose philosophy is guided by less Government. This governing philosophy identifies the few problems that Government has the ability to solve while preventing unintended consequences. Let me provide examples. National Security and fighting the War on Terror fit this test. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. The way to do that is to fight a robust War on Terror. In 2008 and slightly afterward we will be facing entitlement programs with insufficient funds. We should ask if they are necessary. We should ask what the most prudent way to fix them might be. Do we simply tax these programs into solvency shying away from the uncertainty of the market, or opt for less government and more freedom, finding ways for individuals to invest, create their own capital and become less dependent.

    I will be skeptical of candidates who say they will take a “practical” approach to the issues. I will not trust candidates who say they will solve all problems. Those who understand that less government brings more prosperity and more freedom deserve our support.

    Waste at WI Dept. of Corrections

    Phillip Trostel in the State Journal
  • points out
  • that Wisconsin's per inmate spending is 40% above the national average. Im not even saying this should be spent on education, or health care, frankly Im not sure what I would do with $300 million dollars. The State could begin to pay down its debt.

    I guess Im just sick of Legislative Republicans posing for holy pictures when it comes to waste at the University system which is far less than Corrections. Its easy to bash the University as elitist, far-left, and from (gasp!) Madison.To question unexpalained spending in the prisons would be soft on crime.

    Friday, November 17, 2006

    GOP Leadership Elections

  • Heh.

  • House GOPers elected John Boehner AND Roy Blunt to their leadership. It couldn't matter less to them that what is neccesary for the party is to send a message with change at the top. Youve got Blunt whose basically a Delay clone who just last week gave a spirited defense of earmarking. Then theres John Boehner who displayed a pure lack of leadership during the run up to the elections. In an election where voters had ethics on there minds and rightly or wrongly so thought the Republicans where worse on this issue, the GOP caucus elects its leader a man who passed out checks on the house floor on behalf of the tobbacco industry.

    Mike Pence and John Shadegg were a couple of bold Conservative reformers who have not forgotten why they are in Washington. These two congressmen are loved by the grassroots. I do not see a better articulator and leader of Conservatism than Mike Pence. Its a shame hes not in leadership.

    Basically, were still being spit on and I dont know how others feel but Im sick of it. Im not sure if theres anything anyone can do about it.

    Am I American?

    You Are 78% American

    You're as American as red meat and shooting ranges.
    Tough and independent, you think big.
    You love everything about the US, wrong or right.
    And anyone who criticizes your home better not do it in front of you!

    H/T Liberalism is a mental disorder

    Thursday, November 16, 2006


    I am done w/ the old content everything else will be new. This blog is getting off the ground

    Old Content (conspiracy theories)

    Im sure we've all seen the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. You can see it on Im sure we've all seen the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. You can see it on Judicial Watch

    Whats really righteous about this is that it debunks the conspiracy theories. To say that somebody other than the Islamofascists are responsable insults the victims and their families. Its the equivalent of Ward Churchill saying "little Eichmans".

    First of all, lets look at conspiracy theories generally. When somenone tells you that a various incident is a government do a little exercise. Imagine all the people that would have to know/be involved. If the CIA really did kill Kennedy and the Secret Service stood down, how many thousands would have to be complicit? No leaks? So when our kooky friends talk about the direction Kennedys head went and the hospital he was taken to, don't let them get down in the weeds! That goes for any theory.

    Back to the Pentagon. If it really was a missle of some sort that hit the Pentagon, what about all the passengers on board the flight that were killed? Were they taken out back and slaughtered? Why in the hell would the twin towers actually be attacked by terrorists (and the White House for that matter) but the Pentagon under fire by the Government?

    I love the fact that even the most mainstream liberals suggest through innuendo that Bush knew about 9/11. Not only is it hurtful, its just stupid.
    There was a time when the right was the black helicopter crowd.
    I for one, will never don the tin foil hat.

    Old Content (Immigration)

    I am tremendously supportive of english only laws. English is the common laguage that unifies our country. I fear if we continue down the path of bilingualism- part of the mushy-minded multicultural movement the Left is pushing on us we will become balkanized. There will be enclaves of Spanish speakers and english speakers and any language for that matter, the America I knew will be no more.

    Second of all, I am surprised that the Senate had the political will to do this. Im sure the charges of racism and cultural sensitivity will leveled faster than Teresa Heinz-Kerry can say "shove it"

    In many communities ballots are printed bilingually, road signs are bilingual, court interpereters are hired, all at the taxpayers expense. The tail is wagging the dog.

    Assimilation is important. Dont believe me? Look at Britain and France.

    Old Content (Abortion)

  • This
  • is what I mean by culture of death.

    After Roe V Wade the Pro-Abortion crowd laughed at those who said it would lead to aborting the mentally ill, or abortions because of a preferred gender. Apparently Great Britain is one step ahead of us:

    Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies
    had club feet, official figures show.
    Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.
    Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

    Disgusting. How anyone could support taking life because it is not perfect is beyond me.

    Don't let anyone tell you you're radical if you're pro-life. The Abortion on demand position is the one that is out of step. If you really believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason OF COURSE THAT WILL LEAD SOCIETY TO HAVE DEGENARATING VIEW OF LIFE.

    I really think abortion is one of the greatest stains on human history. 44 million deaths is holocaust. This continued devaluation of human life is truly Orwellian.

    Old Content (Gay Flagburning)er...

    It looks like the Senate will vote next week on the Constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no way this thing will get the votes needed. Team Frist is dragging it up anyway, it really is all politics.

    I really don't care if the definition of marriage is changed. If a gay or lesbian couple move down the street, it does nothing to affect me or my family. I am absolutely opposed to using the coercive power of government to deny tell law abiding citizens they cannot do something will only affect them.

    As someone who believes in federalism, I do not think this should be done at a federal level. If the states are worried about a gay or lesbian couple married in a state not barring same sex marriage moving into one without a ban, that state has the right to amend their constitution to pre-empt this from happening. The jurist Robert Bork supported federalism by once saying something like "thats the beauty of federalism- if a locality passes a stupid law they are the ones forced to live with it". I do support individual states rights to define marriage for themselves. This is basically the Dick Cheney position.

    Im not going to call anyone who disagrees with me a bigot. I've gotten into this debate in College (they all make no distinction and I often hear that the 60 million people in America who voted for George W. Bush are a bunch of Archie Bunkers) and I've defended those of you who are opposed to same sex marriage. Bigotry is part of any political coalition, I understand you have legitimate concerns. I don't think this is a 14th amendment issue, if it were we woud be guilty of discrimination if we were to ban beastiality. And I do not liken this to Civil Rights because it does people like my hero Martin Luther King injustice.

    However the biggest problem I have with this whole thing is that we are at war, Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, the cost of health care is exploding, we have an oppressive tax code, Social Security is soon to go bankrupt, American jobs are being sold to the lowest bidder, and we are talkiing about gay marriage. America's greatest problem today is not homosexuals. Two summers ago, the Republicans brought this amendment up before we had appropriations set for Homeland Security. There is no excuse for that. I see many of these social issues as distractions from the ones that matter, and I probably would not be so upset if the GOP had been on the ball the past year and a half.

    My position on same sex marriage is that I do not see a need to entitle homosexuals to it, or to ban it.

    Old Content (Nanny State)

    "Doctors will this week declare war on America's soft drinks industry by calling for a 'fat tax' to combat the nation's obesity epidemic. Delegates at the powerful American Medical Association's annual conference will demand a levy on the sweeteners put in sugary drinks to pay for a massive public health education campaign. They will also call for the amount of salt added to burgers and processed foods to be halved."I hardly see how what I eat is the government's business. Yes, people have grown obese by eating too many Big Macs or drinking sodas from the local gas station that offers cups so big that you can fall in and dround. Who's fault is that? YOUR OWN! You know darn well if something your eating is healthy or not. You do have the power to make the choice to eat in moderation and get a reasonable amount of excercise. (I say this as a teenager who is realizing he has lost his metabolism)

    The other big problem I have with the health police is that they want to punish (through higher taxes) those who choose to eat fatty foods. If someone has a lifestyle problem that is unfortunate, but Government is not a parent. Adult, law abiding citizens in our society should not have their privacy violated by a bunch of busy-bodies. You have no right to take more of our hard-earned money for your never-ending quest to socially engineer and perfect society. You also have no right to force fast food restaurants to change their formulas. The cost of doing so may not be significant relative to their total profit, but any monetary loss that accumulates that would not have in the natural market is theft as far as I'm concerned. The free-market is already dealing with the problem, as many are offering healthy alternatives at little extra cost.

    The most persuasive part of this piece is the argument about health-care costs. More operations = higher costs for all. Where does Government look to when it has budget shortfalls? Ciggarettes and alchohol of course. Doing this does not deter a significant amount of the population from smoking and drinking, and not to mention runs up costs on the poor. Taxes on food will do the same thing. The minor savings on health insurance premiums are not worth the cost in taxes, the cost in liberty, and the cost in American values.

    H/T Drudge (lost link)

    Old Content (Delay's farewell speech)

    I am a little late on this, but Tom Delay's farewell speech really struck me. What he says about partisanship is politically incorrect but it is important. I only heard excerpts from the speech previous to listening to it in its entirety on
    Here are a few of the lines that I thought were right on.

    ... "partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy's weakness but of its health and its strength, especially from the perspective of a political conservative."

    "You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny."

    "...partisanship is the worst means of settling fundamental political differences -- except for all the others."

    "It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle."

    "But we must never forget that compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles." Did you catch that? Means not ends. Your goal is not to have a watered down solution to a problem. You identify a problem, come up with a solution, and get a majority to go along with your solution. If that doesn't work then you compromise. You don't negotiate backwards in a fetish for bipartisanship.

    Partisanship is seen as bad, very bad. If there was not viscious, divisive, partisan debate I would be worried. That would mean free speech would be stifled. Like Delay said, debate moves both poles closer to the center, it is really a check on government. When I hear someone get all soft and say "its so unfortunate that political discourse gets so heated nowadays" I say, good! If we are having raucous debates that points to the health of our democracy and makes me prouder to be an American. Countries like North Korea don't have raucous debate and alas, have no liberty.

    My favorite quote, "And if given the chance to do it all again, there's only one thing I would change: I would fight even harder." Say what you want about Tom Delay. Im by no means romanticizing HIM. He has taken the Republican Party away from the spirit of Reagan, Goldwater and Gingrich in many ways, but that is not the point of this post. To say he would fight harder is uniquely American. It is American in the sense of liberties,free speech. It defies and sneers at the popular concept of bipartisanship. It is a line worthy of the Fourth of July.

    p.s.: If your looking to be patriotic this Fourth of July, join the marketplace of ideas. Start a blog, write a letter to the editor, become more informed. Be proud of your strong beliefs, dont let anyone frown upon that, because it makes you a good citizen.

    Old Content (School Choice)

    Education is extremely important. Its not just taxes that help you compete in the global marketplace. You will be bypassed if you have low-skill workers. This happened with a car plant that was planning to locate in South Carolina (bear with me I forget the details) but the workers couldn't read instruction manuals, so it would have been more expensive to train all of these workers. They then located in Canada - a less friendly tax and regulatory country. I care about education not because it is important not for altruistic purposes neccesarily, but because its good for the country, you will be dependent on those you educate when you are old.

    This is why I support school vouchers. Yes, being able to get out failing schools is important, but forcing schools to compete is the biggest advantage. The fact is too many public schools are in a shambles. The way you get schools to move into action is to create a marketplace. The idea that education is too important to be part of the market is ridiculous. Like this article says, education is too important to be a monopoly. I envision public schools competing with other public schools, competing with private religious schools, with charter schools, with virtual schools, with parochial schools. If we break the monopoly, and schools need enrollment as a means of survival they will improve. In Milwaukee test scores for the public schools after the choice program was started improved.

    Using the Milwaukee program as an example, their is a an enrollment cap. Last year the business community launched a tv and radio campaign to get the Governor to lift the cap. Why would the business community care? Because they want educated, high-skilled employees. There is a shortage coming out of the Milwaukee public schools.

    Arguments we hear against choice are that schools will not provide special education. While I do think if you are cognitively disabled and not able to learn there is no obligation on behalf of the public to school you, this argument is nonsense. Most schools acting in the self-interest of profit will provide special ed. There is the argument that schools will deny troubled children who act out and misbehave. Again, same argument. They will still be provided for if schools are handed a voucher. We also commonly hear about how private schools are unnacountable because they don't have to be tested. Do you really think the teachers unions who argue this point care about testing students they don't teach? Why should they? They don't profit from them. The reason this argument is disingenuous is that out of all the schools who fail standardized tests, show me one principal who was fired. One administrater, one teacher for that matter. With schools competing, and parents having the option of voting with their feet, accreditation is not neccesary.

    How can the Democrats claim to be the party of education? How can the teachers unions claim to have the interests of the kids in mind? They don't want to allow parents to send kids to a school of their choice, they don't want to allow you to sign your kid up to go to a virtual school, they just want to keep their monopoly safe. Not only do public schools get better with choice but they get more efficient. They roll back salaries and ridiculous benefits and give it to the kids. The Democrats are able to sound good on education by talking about more funding which forces the Republicans to look like the bad the bad guy. The Democrats and the unions are not so consistent when it comes to choice. The Democrats are so beholden to the teachers unions they can not do anything about the public school monopoly. Really talking about school choice will give the GOP the issue of education. We can take it back. We can expose the Democrats for what they are. Want to hold on to the Congress? Start talking about school choice non-stop. Not only will you do that, you could create a long term Republican majority. The Democrats are standing in the school house door just like George Wallace did. Fellow Democrat.

    Old Content (Union Dues)

  • This
  • is a sleeper issue.

    The Supreme court is set to rule on whether or not unions can force workers to pay dues. Washington state tried to give workers the right to opt out thereby saying you cant be forced to subsidize union-friendly politics. The Washington Supreme Court in a terrible decision struck this law down on first amendment grounds.

    Unions are trying to make up for the fact that more and more workers realize that the free market is the best path to prosperity. I just think that a free country can not allow individuals to be forced to pay for politics.

    Think of the upside. In the 2004 presidential election cycle, organized labor raised a reported $199.5 million for their own political organizations. The AFL-CIO said it spent $44 million on voter mobilization; the Service Employees International Union spent $65 million. The National Education Association spent nearly $25 million on political activities and lobbying in 2005. When given a choice, union members overwhelmingly refuse to support the union's political activity. When Washington's law went into effect, voluntary political contributions by teachers dropped 85 percent. In Utah, where union membership is voluntary, a similar law resulted in a 90 percent dropoff in teacher contributions. Think about it. This would absolutely cripple the Democrat party! I guarantee you will a lot about this issue in the near future.

    Old Content (Terror +Democracy)

    A thought: Muslim youth are tought to believe that they will receive 72 virgins upon martyrdom and will have absolute bliss and freedom in heaven. A society that represses any sexuality and just about any kind of freedom generally is the type of society that hatred of ones life and hopelessness will flourish. What better environment is their to recruit suicide bombers?

    This brings you to the conclusion that Democracy is the long-term cure for terrorism. Democracy does not equal liberty but is certainly the best way to achieve it.

    Old Content (Un Treaty on Children)

  • WOW

  • I saw this being discussed on the all to happy-perky Fox News morning show today. This treaty would essentialy give children the right to sue their parents for being parents which would make them child abusers. Let me explain. The rights enumerated in this treaty include religion, privacy and expression. This sounds nice, but if your smart you will say "wait a second." Our constitution limits Government not parents. These rights are for law-abiding adults." If thats what comes into your mind your not only smart your a good Conservative. Wary of "group rights" you support the traditional structure of the family. Secondly lets look at the different rights that would be granted. Religion-meaning parents are criminals if they force their children to go to church. Privacy-Parents are criminals if they arbritrarily search a child's room. Expression-This means you can say things that violate the values of the family and your parents can't do a damn thing!

    This treaty gives an unfunded mandate of some form of secondary education to governmnents. The treaty contains this (States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.) which is impossible to achieve without universal health care. I can go down the list of problems with this treaty but the point is that it does not square with our values, mandates unreasonable standards, and tells parents they can not raise their children the best way they see fit.

    The treaty bans things like torture, and cruel punishment all perfectly honorable. But would any of the nations that sign on to this already allow these injustices? Probably not. This is what makes most a lot of international law pointless. The thugs never sign on.

    Old Content (FCC)

  • This
  • shouldn't be happening in America.

    This 9/11 documentary will be censored at the threat of a fine. I have seen this fantastic documentary before. Making this film politically correct is going to do injustice to events on 9/11.

    Any station that shows this documentary in its pure form before 10pm, this film which so well portrays the events of 9/11, will have $325,000 stolen from them. The FCC is stomping out free speech rights. The FCC is a pork-barrel project for modern day puritans. They may not like "bad words" but in America they should have to butt out of everyone elses life and turn off the TV. Monitor your kids. Lets do something Conservative and eliminate this god-awful, useless federal agency.

    Old Content (Iraq-Al-Qaida)

    I will posting my content from GenR in the next few posts. I have cherrypicked my favorite.

    The Senate Intel Commitee concludes that there was not an Al-Qaida-Iraq connection. If you read the report the claim isnt even thoroghly researched. The argument that Saddam saw Bin Laden as a threat is not new and something nobody disputes.
    The Clinton administration saw a connection. The Clinton Administration made two indictments detailing Iraq’s ties to Al-Qaida. One is anindictment of Al-Qaida for the embassy bombings in Africa. It said that there was a close relationship between the two parties. Iraq had provided specialists on explosives to work with the terror network. Another indictment was to justify the U.S. bombing of a supposed Sudanesechemical weapons facility. The plant manager had traveled to Baghdad to meet with scientists provided for by the regime.
    The idea that Iraq did not have ties to Al-Qaida is just not true.

    Milton Friedman dies

    Milton Friedman has passed away. He was an amazing man and one of history's greatest intellectuals. I am not familiar enough with Dr. Friedman, I am still reading and watching his stuff, so I'll refer you to Larry Kudlow.

    Ideas matter.
    So it is with great sadness to report and mourn the passing of Milton Friedman, whose lifelong writings on the paramount significance of freedom, free-market capitalism, and liberty helped overturn the evil tide of communism and socialism in the 20th century.
    His great books Capitalism and Freedom in 1962, which was morphed into Free to Choose in 1980, and subsequently serialized on public television, reached literally tens of millions of people and influenced events in the U.S. and across the world.
    He explained to us the failures and flaws in government interference in the economy through overspending, over-regulation and over-taxation.
    He extolled the virtues of free trade.
    He explained that the root cause of inflation is excess money creation.
    Rather than Keynesian state planning, Milton’s mantra of free markets, free prices, consumer choice and economic liberty is responsible for the global prosperity we enjoy today.
    In fact, we take it for granted nowadays, but Friedman’s was a long, uphill battle, fought over decades to persuade politicians and business people that government is the problem, not the solution.
    He was a senior advisor to President Ronald Reagan who put these ideas into play during his transformative presidency.
    When you look around the world, at newly capitalist economies sprouting up in Russia, Eastern Europe, China and India, you can’t help but see the hand of Friedman.
    When you review twenty-five years of virtually uninterrupted prosperity and near zero inflation in the U.S, you can't help but see the hand of Friedman.
    Milton Friedman is one of those few people about whom it can be said that he truly left the world a better place.
    May he rest in peace.

    Well said. I am very saddened by this. He was ageing, but never lost his sharpness. H/T Kudlow @ The Corner


    I have joined a site called This is a site dedicated to supporting Conservative candidates for the '08 elections. The launch date for that site is the 20th