I recently wrote a piece about my thoughts on the 2012 Indiana primary. Now I want to follow up with some additional thoughts after yesterday’s primary. These primary results are absolutely a good sign, and help prove that in Indiana the Tea Party is indeed very much alive and well.

In all but one contest for the US House, more Republican votes than Democrat votes were cast. The exception is IN-1 and Democrat incumbent Peter Visclosky. In the Governor and US Senate contests more Republican votes than Democrat votes were cast by a very large margin. The Tea Party backed candidates for US Senate, IN-2, and IN-5 won, and the only Tea Party backed candidate defeat was in IN-8 where incumbent Republican Larry Bucshon defeated Kristi Risk.

Indiana has only elected one Republican woman to the US House, Cecil Harden, who served 5 terms from 1949 to 1959. 2012 is the year that Indiana will elect two Republican women to the US House, Jackie Walorski in IN-2 and Susan Brooks in IN-5. 2012 can also be the year that Indiana will elect a Hispanic for the very first time to the US House, Carlos May in IN-7.

Indianapolis is the 7th congressional district. While a Democrat is usually elected to this seat, I want to remind everyone that the voters in Indianapolis have usually elected a Republican to be their Mayor. This started with Richard Lugar in 1968, and continues with Greg Ballard today. In this year’s primary, Indianapolis cast 40,227 Republican votes and 38,421 Democrat votes. Indianapolis has a population of about 830,000 people, so the primary turnout was low, but the Republicans have proven they can turn out the vote in Indianapolis.

Carlos May is the underdog nominee against incumbent Andre Carson, but he can win. In recent years there has been a large influx of Hispanics residing in Indianapolis. I don’t know how many will vote, but it is a mistake to assume they all are going to vote for the Democrat. If you want to volunteer or contribute to Carlos May, then please visit his website. Below is an excerpt from his website.

Due to the recent decisions of Congress, Carlos says he feels compelled to stand up and take action. He believes the individual liberty that makes us American is under attack — infringed upon by unprecedented growth of government, higher taxes and intrusive laws and regulations into the lives of citizens. Currently, Carlos serves the City of Indianapolis, working as the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Latino Affairs. Prior to this Carlos served as a Mayor’s Neighborhood Liaison. Carlos takes great pride in helping the citizens of Indianapolis in his current role, but wants to do more — for the city and the nation.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

An analysis of vice-presidential choices over the past 50yrs. reveals some lessons and trends. Let’s list the VP selections made from 1960 thru 2008.

• 1960 John Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson who served his state and country for 12 years in the United States Senate and previously served 12 years in the United States House of Representatives. Nixon chose Henry Cabot Lodge who served his state and country for 7 years in the United States Senate.
• 1964 Lyndon Johnson chose Hubert Humphrey who served his state and country for 15 years in the United States Senate.
  Goldwater chose William E. Miller who served 12 years in the United States House of Representatives, and was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1961 to 1964.
• 1968 Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew, Maryland’s Governor for almost 2 years. Hubert Humphrey chose Edward Muskie who had served his state and country for 9 years in the United States Senate.
• 1972 George McGovern chose Sargent Shriver who had served as Director of the Peace Corps and United States Ambassador to France.
• 1976 Jimmy Carter chose Walter Mondale who had served his state and country for 12 years in the United States Senate. Jerry Ford chose Robert Dole who had served his state and country for 7 years in the United States Senate and previously served 8 years in the United States House of Representatives.
• 1980 Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush who had served in the United States House of Representatives for 4 years and was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1973 to 1975.
• 1984 Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro who had served 6 years in the United States House of Representatives.
• 1988 George H.W. Bush chose Dan Quayle who had served his state and country for 8 years in the United States Senate, and 4 years in the United States House of Representatives. Michael Dukakis chose Lloyd Bentsen who had served his state and country for 22 years in the United States Senate and previously served 7 years in the United States House of Representatives.
• 1992 Bill Clinton chose Al Gore who had served his state and country for 8 years in the United States Senate and previously 8 years in the United States House of Representatives.
• 1996 Bob Dole chose Jack Kemp who had served 16 years in the United States House of Representatives.
• 2000 George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney who had served 10 years in the United States House of Representatives. Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman who had served his state and country for 12 years in the United States Senate.
• 2004 John Kerry chose John Edwards who had served his state and country for 6 years in the United States Senate.
• 2008 Barack Obama chose Joe Biden who had served his state and country for 36 years in the United States Senate. John McCain chose Sarah Palin, Alaska’s Governor for almost 2 years.

Some of the lessons to be gleaned:

• There is no perfect candidate.
• The vice-presidential candidate helps reinforce what the presidential candidate is emphasizing. But if the top banana on the ballot isn’t getting it done, the running mate won’t be able to on his or her own.
• Choose the best person for the job. Leave the politics to the staff.

Some of the exceptions:

• What worked for John Kennedy in 1960 didn’t work for Michael Dukakis in 1988.
• What didn’t work for Barry Goldwater in 1964 worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
• What worked for Richard Nixon in 1968 didn’t work for John McCain in 2008.

It didn’t work when a VP was chosen with the identity politics objective or winning a swing state strategy:

• Richard Nixon selecting Henry Cabot Lodge, former US Senator from Massachusetts in 1960
• Barry Goldwater selecting William E. Miller, US House member from New York in 1964.
• George McGovern selecting Sargent Shriver, former Director of the Peace Corps in 1972.
• Walter Mondale selecting Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.
• Bob Dole selecting Jack Kemp, US House member from New York in 1996.
• John Kerry selecting John Edwards, US Senator from North Carolina in 2004.
• John McCain selecting Sarah Palin in 2008.

It did work when the VP selections were seasoned veterans from states that were safe for the political party:

• Lyndon Johnson selecting Hubert Humphrey, US Senator from Minnesota in 1964.
• Jimmy Carter selecting Walter Mondale, US Senator from Minnesota in 1976.
• Ronald Reagan selecting George H.W.Bush from Texas in 1980.
• George H.W.Bush selecting Dan Quayle, US Senator from Indiana in 1988.
• George W.Bush selecting Dick Cheney from Wyoming in 2000.
• Barack Obama selecting Joe Biden, US Senator from Delaware.

For Mitt Romney to choose the best person for the VP slot, he needs to ask these questions:

• Do you have good judgment?
• Can you be counted on to give your unvarnished opinion?
• Are you loyal?
• Can you reinforce what I am emphasizing?
• Will the voters be trusting and confident you can govern if something happens to me?

Three people who fit the historical pattern for a winning ticket:

• Don Nickles
• Judd Gregg
• Jeff Sessions

Don Nickles
He was born December 6, 1948.
He served his state and the country for 24 years in the United States Senate. For more than a decade, he was a key member of the Senate Republican Leadership serving as Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee, Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, and as the Assistant Republican Leader. He was chairman of the Senate Budget Committee during his last two years in the Senate, and was a senior member of both the Senate Finance Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Judd Gregg
He was born February 14, 1947
He served his state and the country for 18 years in the United States Senate. He held several important positions when Republicans controlled the Senate, including chairmanships of the Senate Budget Committee and the Health, Education and Labor Committee.

Jeff Sessions
He was born December 24, 1946
He has been serving his state and the country for the past 15 years in the United States Senate. He is the ranking Republican member on the Senate Budget Committee, a former ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee. He also serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

A Table that compares ACU scores

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

In the next five months a lot of things may happen that have an impact on who wins the presidential contest. We’ve already seen biased analysis by political pundits with their own agenda of either striving for attention or scaring folks. I am not a political pundit, and the only reason I have for writing this piece is to provide a sane and reasonable perspective of the presidential contest. I do believe I am informed with respect to election trends recently and also over the last 20 years. First I will list the states that I believe Obama and Romney have from the start.

Obama starts with 205 electoral votes
1. DC
2. California
3. Colorado
4. Connecticut
5. Delaware
6. Hawaii
7. Illinois
8. Maine
9. Maryland
10. Massachusetts
11. Minnesota
12. New Jersey
13. New York
14. Oregon
15. Rhode Island
16. Vermont
17. Washinngton

Romney starts with 209 electoral votes
1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Georgia
6. Idaho
7. Indiana
8. Kansas
9. Kentucky
10. Louisiana
11. Mississippi
12. Montana
13. Nebraska
14. North Carolina
15. North Dakota
16. Oklahoma
17. South Carolina
18. South Dakota
19. Tennessee
20. Texas
21. Utah
22. Virginia
23. West Virginia
24. Wyoming

Romney needs 61 and Obama needs 65 of these 124 electoral votes
1. Florida
2. Iowa
3. Michigan
4. Missouri
5. Nevada
6. New Hampshire
7. New Mexico
8. Ohio
9. Pennsylvania
10. Wisconsin

Scenario 1

Romney gets the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win by winning these additional states
1. Florida
2. Missouri
3. New Hampshire
4. Ohio

Scenario 2

Obama gets the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win by winning these additional states
1. Florida
2. Michigan
3. Nevada
4. New Hampshire
5. Wisconsin

Scenario 3

It’s a 269-269 tie if Romney only wins these additional states
1. Florida
2. Iowa
3. Missouri
4. New Mexico
5. Wisconsin

Scenario 4

Romney wins in 1980 Reagan-like fashion if Obama only wins in these states
1. DC
2. California
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Illinois
6. Maryland
7. Oregon
8. Rhode Island
9. Vermont

God only knows what will be the final outcome of the 2012 presidential contest. I hope my assumptions about the District of Columbia and 16 states for Obama and the 24 states for Romney are not considered far-fetched. I also hope my assumption regarding the 10 toss-up states is fair. The states in Obama’s column have voted more than 50% of the time in the last 20 years for the Democrat nominee for president. Included in the Romney column are the three states that in 2008 Obama received just over 50% of the vote – Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. Missouri is the only one of the 10 toss-up states where Obama received slightly under 50% of the vote, and over the last 20 years Missouri has voted just over 50% of the time for the Democrat nominee.

It’s another four months before a decision for the VP is going to be announced. The conventional wisdom is the VP choice will be someone to help gain votes in a political demographic based on race, gender, or a key battleground state. The conventional wisdom is the VP will be one of the nominee’s 2012 primary rivals, and the selection helps unite the party and heal raw wounds inflicted during the primary process. Conventional wisdom is not always adhered to as a couple of former presidents with the same last name can attest. In April of 1988 and twelve years later in April of 2000, no one predicted a junior senator of Indiana, Dan Quayle or the CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney of Wyoming would be selected for VP. I think those were both excellent choices, and political conventional wisdom was not a major factor in either case.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush needed to shore up his governing deficits by choosing a social conservative voice. President Reagan could voice disagreement with Hollywood, universities. and national media portrayals of alternatives to the traditional family or women having abortions in a way that then Vice-President Bush could not. Dan Quayle provided a needed social conservative voice coming from the White House.

In 2000, George W. Bush needed to shore up his deficits with knowledge of how the inside Washington federal bureaucrats and legislators operate. Before Dick Cheney became Halliburton CEO he had served as White House Chief of Staff, US House Minority Whip, and as Secretary of Defense. This gave George W. Bush a reliable source of institutional knowledge of Washington.

One other factor is that both of these VP picks are people who had never lost a general election contest before. It is important to be someone who is relaxed, self-confident, and not in constant worry of saying something the wrong way.

So, my “thinking outside the box” VP choice is a social conservative white guy, who has never lost a general election contest, and is from a state with inconsequential electoral votes. My choice was not one of the nominee’s 2012 primary rivals. My choice won a US House seat in 1994, a US Senate seat in 1996, and won reelection to this US Senate seat in 1998 and 2004. My choice won a Governor’s seat in 2010. My choice may be helpful in getting votes for the ticket in nearby battleground states of Colorado and Iowa.

If you still have not figured out who I could possibly be talking about, then let me end the suspense. I am talking about Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. There are some who may strongly disagree with my “thinking outside the box” VP choice, and that does not bother me. In my opinion, contrary to how former campaign staffers to John McCain or John Kerry try to spin it, the running mate is not the reason one wins or loses a presidential election. The one at the top of the ticket is primarily responsible for winning or losing. Period.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

I lived the first 58 years of my life in Indiana. While I don’t claim to know all about Hoosiers, I’m not talking out of my hat or making things up as I go along. On Tuesday, May 8th, Indiana holds its open primary with the new redistricting in place. I applaud Indiana for improving on the previously drawn districts by putting together more compact districts and splitting up fewer cities and counties. You can judge for yourself with the side by side comparison below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

Let me first suggest what are the unimportant votes on May 8th, and my prediction for these offices on November 6th in Indiana.

• President- I predict Obama will lose Indiana’s electoral votes to the Republican nominee on November 6th. In my lifetime the only time the Democrats won Indiana was when the Republican nominee was from Arizona. Coincidence? Heh, maybe but in 2012 the Republican nominee is not from Arizona. On the night of November 6th the first state to be called for the Republican nominee will once again be Indiana.
• GovernorI predict Republican Mike Pence will be elected Governor, and he has no primary challenger.
• IN-1I predict Democrat incumbent Pete Visclosky will be reelected, and he has no primary challenger.
• IN-3I predict Republican Marlin Stutzman will be reelected, and he has no primary challenger.
• IN-4I predict Republican Todd Rokita will be reelected, and he has no primary challenger.
• IN-9 I predict Republican Todd Young will be reelected, and he has no primary challenger.

For those who are unfamiliar with the movie, Breaking Away, the rest of my political analysis is somewhat about this movie. The plot of the movie: four friends are snobbishly looked down upon by the Indiana University college students in their frat houses known as “cutters,” since they were born in Bloomington and their parents worked in the local limestone quarries that built the university. Dennis Christopher’s character Dave wants to be a champion bicycle racer and he idolizes the Italian racing team–so much so that he speaks, thinks, and acts Italian, all to his father’s (Paul Dooley) forlorn exasperation. Dave falls for a college girl (Robyn Douglass), but is ashamed to admit he is a cutter and poses as an Italian exchange student to impress her. Dave is particularly excited when his heroes–the Italian racers–come to town for a race. But they are even more snobbish than the college students and rely on dirty tricks to keep Dave from winning a race against them. After that ordeal, Dave throws away his false identity and convinces his friends to enter the University’s “Little 500″ bicycle race against the college students.
So with this movie in mind …

US Senate Treasurer Richard Mourdock is the local, and incumbent Republican Senator Richard Lugar is the snobbish frat. I am cheering for Mourdock. I just wish the 79 year old Lugar had chosen to retire after 36 years just like the 75 year old Dan Burton did after 30 years. No matter who wins the primary, either one of these Richards will win in November for a GOP hold. If Richard Mourdock does win the primary, then major shockwaves will be felt by the Washington establishment.

IN-2 This district is currently served by Democrat Joe Donnelly who is retiring to run for Governor. Jackie Walorski is more like the local cutter who enrolls at Indiana University and becomes a pledge to a sorority house. Many of my previous pieces read as if I only support the citizen legislator who had no previous elected public office experience – this is not true. It takes people from all across the spectrum to put together a winning team, and this includes those career politicians looking for an upgrade in serving the public. I predict Jackie will win both the primary and general election for a GOP gain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN-5 In this congressional district currently served by retiring Republican Dan Burton there are no local cutters running who have a shot at winning. Susan Brooks is like a pledge to a sorority, and David McIntosh is like an establishment fraternity snob. Susan Brooks has served as deputy mayor of Indianapolis and Pres. George W. Bush appointed her US district attorney of the Southern District of Indiana. David McIntosh served from 1995 until 2001 when he retired as a member of the US House. He was succeeded by Mike Pence. McIntosh ran for Governor in 2000 and lost to Democrat Frank O’Bannon. I am cheering for Susan Brooks. This congressional district includes a lot of wealthy Hoosiers living in Zionsville and Carmel. I believe this Carmel housewife (pictured above) can win the primary and the general election for a GOP hold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN-6 For this congressional district currently served by retiring Republican Mike Pence, the local cutter pictured on the left, Don Bates, is challenging the fraternity pledge pictured on the right, Luke Messer. Luke Messer is like Jackie Walorski in some respects. He nearly defeated Dan Burton in the 2010 primary. Don Bates has more tea party support, but I am cheering for Luke Messer to win the primary and the general election for a GOP hold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN-7 I am embarrassed to say that this is the last congressional district I lived in before I retired and escaped to a better place here in west Texas. The lady pictured above is the ultimate underdog local cutter and a complete political novice. I suspect she will not fare well, but how could I not like her name, Catherine “cat” Ping. Here is an excerpt from this website:

I am a long-time resident on the northeast side of Indianapolis. Me and my husband Jeff have been at our home for the past 24 years. I am the owner of a small IT company, Data Dudes of Indy, LLC., which my husband operates in my absence. I also served in the United States Army Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel.

I know what it means to serve my country and to dedicate myself to a cause…28 years and still going strong.

I know what it means to work hard to get ahead, even when it means working two jobs while putting myself through college and doing without some of the nice things in life…just to have good credit and a small retirement and savings account. I don’t know what it means to be rich, but I certainly know what it means to be poor.

I know what it means to take responsibility for my own actions and to own-up to mistakes that I make. I also realize that mistakes happen to the best of us and should be used as an opportunity to excel, not snivel excuses.

I know what it takes to be a leader. Someone who genuinely cares, has goals and objectives, and then works hard to make a positive difference, regardless of self sacrifices made to accomplish the mission. A leader always knows that they can’t do it alone, but that it takes the effort of others that follow their lead to get things done. And a leader knows that when things seem their darkest and the odds are overwhelming there is still one soul they can count on to help them carry on…and I give thanks to Him every day for blessing my life in so many ways.

The man pictured above is the ultimate snobbish member of the fraternity, Andre Carson. I despise the way he used his deceased grandmother’s political name to get this seat in the House. He has absolutely none of the political skills in retail politics and GOTV that his grandmother, Julia Carson possessed. He has three opponents challenging him in the Democrat primary. There are seven GOP candidates for this seat. The primary for this seat is worth watching just for comic relief. I am cheering for Cat Ping, but I am predicting that in the general this seat will be a Democrat hold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN-8 The lady pictured above on the left, Kristi Risk, is definitely the local cutter, and the man pictured above on the right is the snobbish fraternity member, incumbent Rep. Larry Bucshon. The 2012 primary is a repeat of the 2010 primary. Larry Bucshon, a Newburgh-based heart surgeon, survived the 2010 primary election with 16,262 votes to Risk’s 14,273. In 2012 the votes may favor Kristi Risk. The shockwaves felt in Washington by Risk defeating Bucshon will be slightly less intense than Mourdock defeating Lugar.

Kristi Risk and her husband, Dave Risk, live on their 12 acre farm in Owen County, Ind. The Risks and their four children eat food grown in a basketball court-sized garden and raise chickens, goats, pigs, turkeys and rabbits. “They’re 4-H projects,” Kristi Risk said with a chuckle.

Republican Rep. Steven LaTourette, an 18-year veteran of Congress from Ohio and close friend to House Speaker John Boehner, said

Many freshman lawmakers have “grown into the job,” and have become more than simply reflections of the Tea Party’s no-compromise argument.

Two-thirds of House Republican freshmen now realize you have to compromise to get things done. But there are about 20 who don’t have very little flexibility and that’s why we are having problems. If it smacks of spending, they will vote against it.

Larry Bucshon is the poster child of those who have “grown into the job.” They don’t call this district the “bloody eighth” for no reason. This congressional district more than any other in Indiana will vote the incumbent out of office if he is more responsive to the fraternity than he is to them.

Kristi Risk recently said:

There may be times where Larry needs to go against (Republican House Speaker John) Boehner. I don’t think that he would do that, but we need somebody that’s willing to go against the party if what the party is doing is not in the best interests of the nation.

I am cheering for Kristi Risk, and I predict that if she wins the primary she will win the general election for a GOP hold.

If my predictions come true this could make 2012 another “Year of the Woman.” Indiana is one of 20 states with no women in its congressional delegation, and the percentage of women serving in the U.S. House dropped after the 2010 elections, the first decline since 1978. The last and only Republican woman from Indiana to serve in Congress was Cecil Murray Harden. She served five terms starting in 1948, and she was defeated running for her 6th term.

Can you remember those heady days in November 2010 after the midterm elections? The GOP had won a majority in the US House, and changed the US Senate from the 2008 result of 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans to a more manageable 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans. The new freshmen congressmen did not expect a hero’s welcome from the Democrats or the national media when they showed up in January 2011, but they were not prepared for the fear and disdain from their own colleagues. They thought they would be welcomed instead of getting the bum’s rush. Michele Bachmann and Jim DeMint did welcome them, and just about no one else.

I remember the 2011 Republican presidential primary debate in South Carolina. Cain noted that he is proud of his lack of public office and political experience, and asked, (since America had consistently elected a politician to the nation’s highest office), “How’s that working for you?” The Frank Luntz focus group was very impressed with Herman Cain, and the fear and disdain by the Republican establishment grew larger. Anyone who has a lack of elected public office experience needed to be put down in their opinion.

I believe the GOP has blown an opportunity that only happens about once every 60 years. Several individuals, who had had successful careers before entering politics, gave up those careers to become citizen legislators. They did not do it because it was an upgrade from a previously held political office, and they did not do it for the money. They stepped out of their comfortable careers because they had a sense of duty and honor to the nation, and they could remain silent no longer. Below are the pictures and bios of several of these men and women who had never before been elected to public office. You might be disappointed with some of these people who “failed” to change Washington, but I don’t share your disappointment – because I know that it is going to take more than one election cycle to get Washington moving in the right direction.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

Medical professionals

Rand Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993. He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing’s office. After his election to the U.S. Senate, Paul merged his practice with Downing’s medical practice. His medical work has been praised by Downing and Paul has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals. Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants. As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.

Paul Gosar earned his D.D.S. from Creighton Boyne School of Dentistry and owned his own dentistry practice for 25 years. He was the Arizona Dental Association’s “Dentist of the Year” in 2001, has been into the ADA Hall of Fame, and served as their President. He was also President of the Northern Arizona Dental Society and the Vice-Chair of the ADA Council on Governmental Affairs.

Dan Benishek was a general surgeon in the Dickinson County Healthcare System. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and received his medical degree at Wayne State University. Dr. Benishek resides in Iron County, Michigan.

Dr. Scott DesJarlais received his Doctor of Medicine from the University of South Dakota School of Medicine. He has been practicing medicine in Tennessee for almost two decades, seeing patients at the Grand View Medical Center in Jasper.

Nan Hayworth met her husband, Scott, at Princeton, and after marrying in 1981 they went through Cornell University Medical College together. They moved to Mount Kisco in 1988, and in 1989 Nan started her own small business, a solo practice in ophthalmology. In 1996 Nan became a partner at the Mount Kisco Medical Group, retiring from full-time practice in 2005 to spend more time with her sons.

For more than twenty-one years before being elected to Congress, Mrs. Renee Ellmers served as a registered nurse, focusing on surgical care as Clinical Director of the Trinity Wound Care Center and later helping to manage the family’s small medical practice with her husband Dr. Brent Ellmers, a licensed surgeon. Renee Ellmers is a graduate of Oakland University where she received her degree in nursing.

Business professionals

In 1979, Ron Johnson moved to Wisconsin with his wife, and both started working for PACUR, a custom sheet extruder company, with his wife’s brother, Patrick Curler, for whom the company is named. For nearly one year, Johnson worked as the accountant and as a machine operator, trading 12-hour shifts with his brother-in-law. The company later expanded into the area of medical device packaging which involved hiring salespeople and exporting products to other countries. Johnson managed the sales as well as the financial aspects of the business, and ultimately purchased the company outright in 1995.

Reid Ribble owned and operated one of the most successful roof construction and consulting companies in the United States. Volunteering his time for over two decades, Reid is a member of National Roofing Contractors Association, the Wisconsin Roofing Contractors Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fox Valley Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Home Builders as well as the Brown County and Outagamie County Home Builders Associations. Reid is actively involved in the local community and industry. In 2005, members of the National Roofing Contractors Association elected him to be president. Currently, he is serving as President of the Roofing Industry Alliance for Progress, the roofing industry’s national foundation.

In 1996 Bobby Schilling and his wife, Christie, opened Saint Giuseppe’s Heavenly Pizza in Moline. “I learned the pizza business from my little brother,” he says. Married 24 years and the father of ten Schilling is a staunchly pro-life Catholic who was motivated to run immediately following Barack Obama’s presidential election in November 2008. By the size of his family, it seems clear that Christie has been pretty busy at home and left most of the pizza business to Bobby and the kids as they became old enough to help out.

Bill Flores graduated from Texas A&M in 1972, and went to work for the KPMG accounting firm. Over three decades, Flores built a career as a financial manager for several large corporations, eventually settling in the oil-and-gas industry in Houston. He was the president and chief executive officer of Phoenix Exploration until late 2009, when he left the job to run for Congress.

Constitutional law professional

Mike Lee acquired his love for the Constitution early on while discussing everything from the Due Process Clause to the Second Amendment around the dinner table. Mike’s father, Rex Lee, served as Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and later as President of Brigham Young University. Mike attended most of his father’s arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, giving him a unique understanding of the government from an early age. As an attorney, he has acquired a more complete, practical understanding of why the Constitution is essential to the protection of life, liberty, and property.

After graduating from law school in 1997, he served as a law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. He then clerked for Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., who was serving at that time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court in Newark, New Jersey. After his second clerkship, he joined the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley & Austin, where he specialized in appellate and Supreme Court litigation. Several years later, Mike returned to Utah after being invited to serve as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Salt Lake City, preparing briefs and arguing cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He served as Governor Huntsman’s General Counsel from January 2005 until June 2006, when he returned to Washington for a one-year clerkship with Justice Alito at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mike returned to Utah (and to private practice) in the summer of 2007, joining the Salt Lake office of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Howrey LLP. Mike has earned a reputation as an outstanding lawyer based on his sound judgment, writing and courtroom advocacy skills, and thorough understanding of the Constitution.

Farmer

Stephen Fincher is a managing partner in Fincher Farms, a West Tennessee based business farming cotton, corn, soybeans and wheat. Stephen has been a farmer in the family business his entire life, and lives in the Frog Jump community of Crockett County beside his father and brother.

Military professionals

In 2004, when it was time to retire from more than twenty years of service in the US Army, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West brought his wife and two young daughters to Broward County, Florida, where he taught high school for one year. He then returned to Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan army, an assignment he finished in November 2007. In his Army career, Col. West has been honored many times, including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals (one with Valor), and a Valorous Unit Award. He received his valor award as a Captain in Desert Shield/Storm, was the US Army ROTC Instructor of the Year in 1993, and was a Distinguished Honor Graduate III Corps Assault School. He proudly wears the Army Master parachutist badge, Air Assault badge, Navy/Marine Corps parachutist insignia, Italian parachutist wings, and German proficiency badge (Bronze award).

Rep. Chip Cravaack is a 24 year Navy veteran, and he is the third generation of his family to serve in the United States military. His experience as a Navy helicopter pilot and Northwest Airlines pilot gave him the opportunity to experience and live in multiple areas of the United States, as well as travel to many foreign countries.

During his Navy career, then Captain Cravaack was honored with several awards and citations, including a Joint Service Commendation Medal, two Navy Commendation Medals, two Navy Achievement Medals, and a Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation. Captain Cravaack proudly wears Naval Aviator Wings, Navy/Marine Corps Parachutist Wings, and Air Assault Badge as well as being a designated Navy Master Training Specialist.

In 2003, Adam Kinzinger joined the United States Air Force. He was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in November 2003 and later awarded his pilot wings. Captain Kinzinger has served in the Air Force Special Ops, Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, and Air National Guard.

Captain Kinzinger has been recognized for his efforts both in an out of uniform. In 2007, he received the United States Air Force Airman’s Medal for saving the life of a young woman who was violently attacked. Despite the likelihood that he too would be stabbed, Adam wrestled the knife away from the attacker and pinned him to the ground until the police arrived. He was also awarded the National Guard’s Valley Forge Cross for Heroism and was selected as the Southeastern Wisconsin American Red Cross Hero of the Year.

Over the course of his 24 year Army career Chris Gibson rose to the rank of Colonel and deployed 7 times; including 4 combat tours to Iraq, and separate deployments to Kosovo, the Southwestern US for a counter-drug operation, and most recently (just prior to his retirement) to Haiti where he commanded the 82nd Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team during the opening month of that humanitarian relief operation.

Among his military decorations are 2 Legions of Merit, 4 Bronze Star Medals, the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman’s Badge with Star, the Master Parachutist Badge and the Ranger Tab. For their actions in Mosul in support of the first national election in the new Iraq, his Battalion Task Force earned the Valorous Unit Award. For their actions in Tal Afar during the 2nd and 3rd national elections in Iraq his Battalion and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment were recognized for excellence by President George W. Bush and earned a 2nd Valorous Unit Award.

Tim Griffin is currently serving in his 16th year as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps, holds the rank of major, and is assigned to the Southeast Medical Area Readiness Support Group as the Command Judge Advocate.

In September 2005, Tim was mobilized to active duty to serve as an Army prosecutor at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the home of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). One of his cases, U.S. v. Mikel, drew national interest after Private Nicholas Mikel attempted to murder his platoon sergeant and fired upon his unit’s early morning formation. Mikel pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

In May 2006, Tim was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and sent to serve in Iraq. From May through August 2006, he served as an Army JAG in Mosul alongside the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), for which he was awarded the Combat Action Badge.

Sports and Entertainment professionals

Jon Runyan, former University of Michigan standout, has one Pro Bowl appearance on his resume. He is a strong blocker in the running game and plays with a nasty disposition, and his pass protection skills are dramatically better than they were early in his career.

Runyan has not missed a game since signing a six-year, $30.5 million contract with Philadelphia in 2000. In fact, Runyan has not missed a game since his second season in the league, after playing in 10 games as a rookie in 1996.

A fourth-round draft choice of the Houston Oilers in 1996, he played four seasons with the franchise before joining the Eagles as an unrestricted free agent in 2000, signing what was then one of the biggest contracts in league history for an offensive lineman.

As a lumberjack performer, Sean Duffy traveled all over the state and country performing in lumberjack sport competitions and exhibitions. At the age of 18, Sean won his first World Lumberjack Championship in the 60-foot speed climb. He went on to earn two more World Champion titles in this category. In 2004, Sean was named the Honorary Athlete of the Wisconsin Badger Games, a popular state wide multi-discipline amateur competition modeled after the Olympics.

Blake Farenthold attended Incarnate Word Academy, the University of Texas at Austin where he received a BS in Radio, Television, and Film, and St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio.

His diverse career includes working as a radio disc jockey in high school and college, seven years of practicing law at the Kleberg Law Firm in Corpus Christi and founding Farenthold Consulting LLC, a computer consulting and web design firm. Blake was also the co-host for Lago in the Morning, a top rated conservative talk radio program.

Blake is from a well-known political family. His grandmother, Annie Blake Morgan, was married to Hayden Head Sr., a longtime South Texas political power broker instrumental in the election of Republican U.S. Senator John Tower.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots
I agree with Sarah Palin’s analysis regarding her choice for VP. Here is a portion of what she told Sean Hannity:

Top of my list is Allen West. I love that he has that military experience. He is a public servant willing to serve for the right reasons. He understands the Constitution. He understands our national foreign policy issues that must be addressed. He has served. I really like him.

They’re going to get clobbered. The media will make things up about them and their record and their reputations and their families. So no matter who it is, so they might as well get someone who is passionate and strong, as I say, like about Allen West, understands the Constitution and wants to put government back on the side of the people.

There are several additional reasons that I have for liking Allen West. Mitt Romney needs to throw the tea party conservatives a bone, and turn a cold shoulder to the GOP establishment for a change. Once the primary season got underway, it became clear that the main goal of the GOP establishment was to make sure a tea party conservative did not win the nomination. They were not immediately trying to make sure that Romney won – they were willing to consider Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or even Paul Ryan as the final nominee – as long as it wasn’t a tea party conservative. There are significant trust issues separating the tea party conservatives from Mitt Romney. Thus far, Romney hasn’t been able to prove that his flipping on his previously held positions is permanent. While this turns off tea party conservatives, it does give the Bob Michel wing of the GOP comfort.

Mitt Romney can defeat Obama under the right set of circumstances, but he can also lose to Obama. The fear and loathing the establishment has for tea party conservatives must stop, and Mitt Romney is going to need to embrace tea party conservatives as well as the establishment in order to defeat Obama. Mitt is not going to win by running on his record and biography. He needs to speak to us, and assure us that he truly has changed and is not going to flop back to previously held positions. No surrogate can do this. He must. Choosing Allen West as his VP will have the calming effect of knowing that we have one of ours sitting at the table of his kitchen cabinet.

I put the word “could” in all caps because it is the key word of the title. If the 113th Congress looks like this, then it means that the GOP has a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. After seeing the vote in the Senate today, where the 16 Democrats running for reelection in 2012 voted to raise the cost of gas at the pump, I have more optimism. I now think that only 8 of these 16 Democrat incumbents can manage to hold onto their seat in 2012. When I add an independent from Maine, and a former House member from Connecticut, the Democrats end up with only 40 seats. The Republicans hold nine out of 10 seats and they pick up 14 additional seats for a grand total of 60 seats. This, of course,  is a very optimistic outlook before a lot of primaries have taken place, and the general election results may turn out to be less rosy.  Still, I have some good feelings today about what those results might be.

This would be as joyous an occasion as a traditional wedding. You’ve heard the expression …

Something old, something new
Something borrowed, something blue

Here is a look of how the 113th Congress Senate Freshman Class could turn out with that phrase in mind.

Something old

 

George Allen (VA)                 Tommy Thompson (WI)

 

Something new

 

  

Wil Cardon (AZ)    Josh Mandel (OH)            Sarah Steelman (MO)

 

  

Linda Lingle (HI)                     Steve Welch (PA)             Ted Cruz (TX)

 

  

John Raese (WV)                          Don Stenberg (NE)               Dan Severson (MN)

 

Something borrowed

 

  

Connie Mack IV (FL)          Pete Hoekstra (MI)                               Dennis Rehberg (MT)

 

  

Heather Wilson (NM)                   Rick Berg (ND)

 

Something blue

 

   

Chris Murphy (CT)         Angus King (ME)

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots
Lately, there has been a lot of attention given to Obama’s domestic policies, and the successes he has had in waging war against Christians, energy producers, health insurers, and car manufacturers. I’ve compiled some of his quotes from his current term in office to remind everyone of the successes he has made in the foreign policy arena. Remember, his goal was to diminish the influence of the United States and its power on the world stage.

Obama:

On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev:

Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you … .

Obama:

This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev:

I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Obama:

We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections.

Hilary Clinton:

Despite Obama’s comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now, a step that would force a cut-off of most U.S. aid to Honduras.

Iran Green Party:

So now, at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western interests and world peace.

Obama:

I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.

Ortega:

Ortega denounced the U.S.-backed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s new Communist government in Cuba in 1961, a history of US racism and what he called suffocating U.S. economic policies in the region.

Obama:

I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.

Obama:

At the commencement of a plenary session later this morning, Obama was asked by reporters about the book. “I thought it was one of Chavez’s books,” he said. “I was going to give him one of mine.”

Chavez:

You are a clown, a clown. Leave us in peace … Go after your votes by fulfilling that which you promised your people. Focus on governing your country, which you’ve turned into a disaster.

Barack Obama and Dilma Rousseff:

Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff and President Obama have released a joint statement detailing ongoing commitments between Brazil and the United States. They agreed to cooperate in advancing democracy, human rights and freedom for all people bilaterally and through the United Nations and other multilateral fora, including ensuring respect for human rights in the context of the democratic movements and transitions; strengthening the UN Human Rights Council as recently demonstrated in the case of the creation of the Commission of Inquiry on Libya; promoting respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals through the establishment of a Special Rapporteur at the OAS; and improving the conduct of free and fair elections regionally and globally, including through the promotion of human rights in the context of elections and increasing their accessibility to disabled persons.

China:

It is little wonder that Chinese leaders now question not only America’s grip on its own economy, but its grip on international politics as well. This U.S. implosion is mirrored in Obama’s fascination with the multilateral regulatory regimes favored by the Kyoto/Copenhagen global-warming negotiating process. Assuming both the seriousness of global warming, and its anthropogenic causation, however, does not dictate self-evident solutions. In fact, many Copenhagen advocates would favor the same government-imposed solutions even if the problem were global cooling, or if there were no earth-temperature issue at all. Ironically, China is the world’s one large economy that could easily adopt the near-authoritarian, command-and-control economics favored by the Copenhagen crowd, and yet it refuses to do so. Beijing argues that drastic limitations on carbon emissions will thwart its plans for economic growth, which it simply has no intention of doing. China must also wonder why a purportedly free-market country like America is following this decidedly statist path.

Hilary Clinton:

Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.

Assad:

Assad, in an internationally televised speech, portrayed himself Wednesday as a reformer eager to respond to complaints from Syria’s 23 million citizens. But the demonstrations that have broken out in Damascus, Daraa, Hama and other Syrian cities since March 18 represent chaos, he said, and cannot be tolerated if the country is to remain strong in the struggle against Israeli occupation of Arab land. We are all reformers. Some demands of the people have not been met. But people were duped into taking to the streets.

Obama Doctrine:

He said that first, he remains intent on telling the world that the United States is a powerful and wealthy nation that realizes it is just one country among many. Obama said he believes that other countries have good ideas and interests that cannot be ignored.

Second, while the United States best represents itself by living up to its universal values and ideas, Obama said it must also respect the variety of cultures and perspectives that guide both American foes and friends.

Bush Doctrine:

The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

Speaker of the House

Paul Ryan, Wisconsin 1st District

Age: 42 (born January 29, 1970)

Time in Office: 12 years

Scores: Heritage 76% CFG 2011 73% CFG Lifetime 88%

 

 

 

 

Majority Leader

Jim Jordan Ohio, 4th District

Age: 47 (born February 17, 1964)

Time in Office: 6 years

Scores: Heritage 96% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 99%

 

 

 

Majority Whip

Jeb Hensarling Texas, 5th District

Age: 54 (born May 29, 1957)

Time in Office: 10 years

Scores: Heritage 83% CFG 2011 87% CFG Lifetime 98%

 

 

 

Republican Conference Chairman

Trent Franks Arizona, 2nd District

Age: 54 (born June 19, 1957)

Time in Office: 10 years

Scores: Heritage 98% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 98%

 

 

 

Republican Policy Committee Chairman

Tom McClintock California, 4th District House

Age: 55 (born July 10, 1956)

Time in Office: 4 years

Scores: Heritage 86% CFG 2011 94% CFG Lifetime 98%

 

 

 

Republican Policy Committee Vice-Chairman

Ann Marie Buerkle New York, 25th District House

Age: 60 (born May 8, 1951)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 82% CFG 2011 92% CFG Lifetime 92%

 

 

 

Budget Chairman

Justin Amash Michigan, 3rd District

Age: 31 (born April 18, 1980)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 94% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 100%

 

 

 

Appropriations Chairman

Tom Graves Georgia, 9th District

Age: 42 (born February 3, 1970)

Time in Office: 3 years

Scores: Heritage 94% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 100%

 

 

 

Ways and Means Chairman

Tom Price Georgia, 6th District

Age: 57 (born October 8, 1954)

Time in Office: 8 years

Scores: Heritage 76% CFG 2011 86% CFG Lifetime 95%

 

 

 

Financial Services Chairman

Scott Garrett New Jersey, 5th District

Age: 52 (born July 9, 1959)

Time in Office: 10 years

Scores: Heritage 91% CFG 2011 99% CFG Lifetime 96%

 

 

 

Armed Services Chairman

Doug Lamborn Colorado, 5th District

Age: 57 (born May 24, 1954)

Time in Office: 6 years

Scores: Heritage 94% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 100%

 

 

 

Agriculture Chairman

Tim Huelskamp Kansas, 1st District

Age: 43 (born November 11, 1968)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 93% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 100%

 

 

 Oversight Chairman

Jason Chaffetz Utah, 3rd District

Age: 44 (born March 26, 1967)

Time in Office: 4 years

Scores: Heritage 97% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 99%

 

 

 

Transportation Chairman

Tim Scott South Carolina, 1st District

Age: 46 (born September 19, 1965)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 87% CFG 2011 92% CFG Lifetime 92%

 

 

 

Energy and Commerce Chairman

Phil Gingrey Georgia, 11th District

Age: 69 (born July 10, 1942)

Time in Office: 10 years

Scores: Heritage 84% CFG 2011 92% CFG Lifetime 85%

 

 

 

Intelligence Chairman

Michele Bachmann Minnesota, 6th District

Age: 55 (born April 6, 1956)

Time in Office: 6 years

Scores: Heritage 90% CFG 2011 89% CFG Lifetime 93%

 

 

 

Education and Workforce Chairman

Dennis Ross Florida, 12th District

Age: 52 (born October 18, 1959)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 91% CFG 2011 96% CFG Lifetime 96%

 

 

 

Natural Resources Chairman

Raul Labrador Idaho, 1st District

Age: 44 (born December 8, 1967)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 87% CFG 2011 100% CFG Lifetime 100%

 

 

 

Homeland Security Chairman

Joe Walsh Illinois, 8th District

Age: 40 (born December 27, 1961)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 96% CFG 2011 99% CFG Lifetime 99%

 

 

 

Judiciary Chairman

Trey Gowdy South Carolina, 4th District

Age: 47 (born August 22, 1964)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 96% CFG 2011 97% CFG Lifetime 97%

 

 

 

Foreign Affairs Chairman

Jeffrey Duncan South Carolina, 3rd District

Age: 45 (born January 7, 1966)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 98% CFG 2011 97% CFG Lifetime 97%

 

 

 

Small Business Chairman

Mick Mulvaney South Carolina, 5th District

Age: 44 (born July 21, 1967)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 94% CFG 2011 99% CFG Lifetime 99%

 

 

 

Veterans’ Affairs Chairman

Marlin Stutzman Indiana, 3rd District

Age: 35 (born August 31, 1976)

Time in Office: 2 years

Scores: Heritage 88% CFG 2011 99% CFG Lifetime 99%

 

 

 

Science Chairman

Paul Broun Georgia, 10th District

Age: 65 (born December 7, 1946)

Time in Office: 6 years

Scores: Heritage 96% CFG 2011 95% CFG Lifetime 99%

The 5th congressional district of Illinois
Current Representative Mike Quigley (D–Chicago)
Distribution 100.00% urban, 0.00% rural
Population (2000) 653,647
Median income $48,531
Ethnicity 77.5% White, 2.3% Black, 6.5% Asian, 23.0% Hispanic, 0.3% Native American, 9.8% other
Cook PVI D+19

The 5th Congressional District of Illinois spans much of the North Side of Chicago, from Lake Michigan into the western suburbs. It includes Schiller Park, Franklin Park, River Grove, Elmwood Park, Northlake and Melrose Park. Wrigley Field and Chicago’s gay district of Boystown are both located in this district, along with the Chicago neighborhoods of Lakeview, Uptown and Lincoln Park. In the past this district has been served by Dan Rostenkowski, Rod Blagojevich, Rahm Emanuel, and currently, Mike Quigley. Conventional wisdom would have you believe that a Republican could never get elected in this district. In 1994 Republican Mike Flanagan did defeat Dan Rostenkowski. I believe an unconventional Republican biker dude can defeat Mike Quigley in 2012.

Dan Schmitt has lived in this district his entire life, and he has been self-employed his entire working life. Earlier, he was known as ‘Coffee Dan’ and he drove around to IC train stops and sold coffee, sweet rolls, and sandwiches to commuters. He later put together a team of motorcycle racers called “Team Chicago.” Dan then took the first introductory class to qualify for access television. Dan devoted full time to producing his first series, “The Other Side,” and later the “Team Chicago Challenge” weekly television series.

Dan does not talk or act like a politician, and this is refreshing to me. The image in my mind when I read his words is that of the younger ‘Coffee Dan’ guy. Below is a sampling of Dan Schmitt in his own words. If you agree with me that he is worthy of your support, then you should visit his website here. If you are interested in his motorcycle racing you can visit his other site here.

A reporter once asked Dan: Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime? He answered with the following:

Back when I was ‘Coffee Dan’ and the IC Train Station on East South Water Street was my first stop, the Chicago Police took me in to 11th and State. It seems that some Police Sergeant had a friend that was opening a coffee shop in the train station and they wanted me removed. I forget the charge, but I was held in a cell until my brother showed up with $100.00. When I went to court, no police officers showed up and all charges were dropped. This was just a little message for me as an average businessman in Chicago.

Here are more samples of Dan talking politics.

I am running to protect our right to ride motorcycles, race motorcycles, ride motorcycles off-road and live a great life without the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT looking over our shoulders.

OBAMACARE IS EVIL. If you allow the government to control your healthcare you are giving up liberty. If there is one thing that a person owns, it is their life. You are responsible for your health. You are responsible for your life. The government is not responsible for your health. Just who in the government will be responsible for your health? Just who? If you believe that the government can serve your best interest, you need to have your head examined. Just who do you think in this or any government has your best interest at heart? Please do not kid yourself. Do you think that some bureaucrat that worked for the tollway last year, or worked in the Secretary of State’s office, really cares about your health? OBAMACARE is madness. Do we forget how a teamster was screwed by his fellow union teamsters a few years ago, do you remember he had an accident on his motorcycle? When the insurance policy was opened, it exposed that all teamsters were sold a bad policy. Teamsters that went fishing in their own boats were also not covered. Yes, someone has to kill OBAMACARE and then we need an open debate on healthcare in this country without the government involved. The Congressman that I am running against voted to steal 500 Billion Dollars from Medicare. Should he be re-elected to steal again?

No, we should not subsidize Ethanol. Again I know something about this subject. In stock car racing, most cars use ethanol because it burns cooler than gasoline, but ethanol burns at twice the rate of gasoline. So, when there is a 100 lap race, these racers will change over to gasoline, because they just can’t make that many pit-stops and expect to win a race. (I should add, this applies to local racing and this answer should not be confused with the conditions in NASCAR or CART racing). We should not be burning food for energy.

Marriage Is one man and one woman. All statistics will show that the best situation for any children is a father and a mother. No matter where a person’s position in life may be, no matter how poor or rich, their lives will be better if they marry someone of the opposite sex, stay married for a lifetime and stay off drugs and liquor. Living a Judeo-Christian lifestyle is a plus.

The Education department was created in 1979 by President Carter. Please have someone tell me the great progress this Department has created? Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind? Quite frankly, get the federal government out of the education business. It is an utter waste of money. Let the parents, local school boards and teachers take care of the education in the local areas. And end the federal government control over the student loan program.

There is a need for government, but at the lowest rate of regulation just to keep everyone honest. Corruption in government does change the equation. Remember greater regulation leads to more corruption. Just take a look at the rest of the countries in this world.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th century. He won the ‘cold war’ or World War III without firing a shot. The truth is the truth. The Soviet Union was evil. President Reagan refused to meet with any soviet leader that was not elected. He stuck to his guns and refused to meet three soviet leaders. Finally, Gorbachev was selected by the Soviet Politburo, and President Reagan met with him. We have to remember that President Reagan stuck to his beliefs and walked out of a bad agreement with Gorbachev in Iceland. We also have to remember that the newspapers, the radio stations and the television networks did not respect President Reagan. They considered him a B rated actor, that he was dumb, that he was not worldly. Not until his death, did they ever show one shred of respect for Ronald Reagan. Let’s not forget that he turned the economy around, came up with solutions for Social Security, lowered taxes and made Americans proud again.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

President Obama got a laugh out of a Maryland audience when he mocked the Republican Party in a speech, comparing their skepticism of alternative energy to the “Flat Earth Society” in Christopher Columbus’ day and President Rutherford B. Hayes’ apparent dismissal of the telephone. But while Obama thinks the GOP is in need of a science lesson, he may need to bone up on history himself.

President Obama — in an attempt at historical analysis — compared the GOP’s skepticism toward alternative energy to President Rutherford B. Hayes’s supposed reaction to the telephone:

It’s a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?

Obama concluded:

That’s why he’s not on Mount Rushmore. He’s explaining why we can’t do something instead of why we can do something.

And this is why Obama’s not a historian. Talking Points Memo reports:

Nan Card, curator of manuscripts at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Ohio, told TPM that the nation’s 19th president was being unfairly tagged as a Luddite.

He really was the opposite. He had the first telephone in the White House. He also had the first typewriter in the White House. Thomas Edison came to the White House as well and displayed the phonograph. Photographing people who came to the White House and visited at dinners and receptions was also very important to him.

While often cited, Card said Obama’s cited quote had never been confirmed by contemporary sources and is likely apocryphal. A contemporary newspaper account of his first experience with telephone in 1877 from the Providence Journal records a smiling Hayes repeatedly responding to the voice on the other line with the phrase, “that is wonderful.” You can read the full story here.

Card said:

He was pretty technology-oriented for the time. Between the telephone, the telegraph, the phonograph and photography, I think he was pretty much on the cutting edge.

For those who are trying to push the meme that Republicans are in a “war against women,” Hayes signed a bill that, for the first time, allowed women attorneys to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.

As for why he’s not on Mt. Rushmore, Card noted that popular history tends to favor wartime presidents in the long run.

Obama’s invocation of the “flat earth” theory in the context of Christopher Columbus’ journey across the ocean also contained some dubious (if incredibly widespread) history.

If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round.

In fact, historians have long contended that the notion Europeans widely believed the Earth was flat, let alone 15th century Spanish scholars, is a myth developed centuries later.

There never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how many uneducated people may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology. Ferdinand and Isabella did refer Columbus’s plans to a royal commission headed by Hernando de Talavera, Isabella’s confessor and, following defeat of the Moors, Archbishop of Granada. This commission, composed of both clerical and lay advisers, did meet, at Salamanca among other places. They did pose some sharp intellectual objections to Columbus, but all assumed the earth’s roundness. As a major critique, they argued that Columbus could not reach the Indies in his own allotted time, because the earth’s circumference was too great. Moreover, his critics were entirely right. Columbus had “cooked” his figures to favor a much smaller earth, and an attainable Indies. Needless to say, he did not and could not reach Asia, and Native Americans are still called Indians as a legacy of his error.

In the waning days of his 2008 campaign, then-Sen. Obama criticized Republicans with this statement:

Abraham Lincoln once said to one of his opponents, ‘If you stop telling lies about me, I’ll start telling truth about you.’

(If that quote doesn’t sound like Lincoln, that’s because it wasn’t. Adlai Stevenson, another Illinois Democrat, was fond of this line. So was William Randolph Hearst, who used it when he ran for governor of New York in 1906, although Sen. Chauncey Depew, another New Yorker, employed it back in the 19th Century.)

Although tradition holds that a president’s words are his own, some of this stuff comes from careless staff work, and some comes when he’s just winging it. But that doesn’t explain why, as president, Obama keeps discussing the “Intercontinental Railroad,” supposedly built in the United States in the 19th Century. (It was called the Transcontinental Railroad, and crossed no oceans.)

In his very first news conference as president-elect, Obama was asked if he’d spoken with any former presidents in preparation for taking office. He replied that he’d talked with all the ex-presidents “that are living,” adding with a smile, “I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances.”

(Besides being mean-spirited — and Obama quickly phoned Mrs. Reagan to apologize — this was inaccurate: Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer; she didn’t converse with the dead.)

A couple of months later, the second paragraph of Obama’s inaugural address contained another historical mistake.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

(Not quite. While Obama is the 44th president, 43 men have taken the oath. Grover Cleveland, because his terms were not contiguous, is counted as both the 22nd and the 24th chief executive. Two presidents, but only one American.)

Asked during his first few months to explain his rationale for banning waterboarding and releasing the previous administration’s “torture memos,” Obama gave this answer:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, ‘We don’t torture,’ when . . . all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. . . . Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

(Except that it was blogger Andrew Sullivan who said those things, not Winston Churchill. The “article” Obama was reading was, let’s just say, under-reported. The British did torture German prisoners during World War II. Not to mention the 16 Nazis hunted down by the British and assassinated after the war while Churchill was prime minister.)

Barack Hussein Obama could learn from his Republican predecessor, Rutherford B. Hayes. In his inaugural address, Hayes famously said,

He serves his party best who serves the country best.

Barack Hussein Obama could also learn from the 18th century Tory, Dr. Samuel Johnson.

Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

All three of these candidates have positives that make any one of them a superior GOP nominee to our 2008 choice, John McCain. All three would be a vast improvement over the current president, Barack Obama. The best way for me to make a positive case is by not looking at the current tactics of the campaigns, but instead focus on the positives. This can be done if you’re willing to be objective.

All three of these candidates are fiscal conservatives compared to the alternative, Barack Obama. They are also social conservatives when compared to Barack Obama. Instead of playing semantics with “social conservative,” “fiscal conservative,” and “true conservative,” let’s look at the general positives.

Mitt Romney has a wealth of executive experience as a former CEO of Bain Capital, and Governor of Massachusetts. He also has a wealth of organizational experience gained from running the 2002 Winter Olympics, and with the campaigns in 2008 and 2012 for president. Mitt Romney has led a purpose driven life – remaining faithful and true to his wife, family, and faith. He can be honestly admired for these characteristics even if you support another candidate, and are not happy with some of the campaign tactics used by team Romney. Mitt Romney has currently secured 38% of the delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

Rick Santorum has a fiery passion for conservative traditional families. He is unapologetically an observant Catholic who is pro-life and supports home schooling. Rick Santorum has always opposed individual mandates for government controlled healthcare, and he has always opposed carbon Cap and Trade for government controlled energy consumption. Like Romney, Rick Santorum also has qualities that can be admired even if you prefer another candidate and haven’t liked Rick’s campaign tactics. Rick Santorum has currently secured 17% of the delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

Newt Gingrich is blessed with a great ability to grasp and articulate bold ideas and solutions for government. As Ronald Reagan fought the Republican establishment foreign policy views of Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, Newt Gingrich fought the Republican establishment congressional views of Jerry Ford and Bob Michaels. Newt led the Republicans to a majority in the House after being lost in the wilderness for 40 years. During his four years as House Speaker, the federal budget ran a surplus instead of a deficit. He, too, can be admired for his qualities that he brings to this presidential race. Newt Gingrich has currently secured 11% of the delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

63% of the delegates needed to clinch the nomination are still available. Mitt Romney needs to win about 50%, Rick Santorum needs to win about 80%, and Newt Gingrich needs to win about 90% of the remaining available delegates. While it looks likely that no one will get the needed number of delegates (1144) by the time the last primary contest in Utah on June 26th is decided, I do believe a deal will be struck before the RNC convention starts on August 28th. In my humble opinion, any one of these candidates can provide a positive case of voting FOR them in November instead of only voting AGAINST Obama in November.

Below is a list of the remaining contests in chronological order, and the number of delegates remaining. Everyone needs to remove their rose-colored glasses, and that includes the supporters of Mitt Romney. Nothing is guaranteed, but there are some scenarios that are more likely than others. I agree with the political pundits like Dick Morris that it will not be in the best interests of the Republican Party to not have a nominee until September. I also believe we will know who our nominee is in July, but there are different scenarios that should be considered.

• Kansas = 40
• Guam = 9
• Virgin Islands = 9
• Northern Marianas = 9
• Alabama = 50
• American Samoa = 9
• Hawaii = 20
• Mississippi = 40
• Puerto Rico = 23
• Illinois = 69
• Louisiana = 46
• Washington DC = 19
• Maryland = 37
• Wisconsin = 42
• Connecticut = 28
• Delaware = 17
• Rhode Island = 19
• New York = 95
• Pennsylvania = 72
• Indiana = 46
• North Carolina = 55
• West Virginia = 31
• Oregon = 28
• Nebraska = 35
• Arkansas = 36
• Kentucky = 45
• Texas = 155
• California = 172
• Montana = 26
• New Mexico = 23
• South Dakota = 28
• New Jersey = 50
• Utah = 40
• Total remaining delegates = 1423

One interesting tidbit is how the Republican establishment has padded extra delegates into the five US federal territories. None of these 5 territories have any electoral college delegates, but they add up to 59 RNC delegates. Below you’ll find several different scenarios that I consider unlikely or likely to various degrees.

Mitt Romney wins 55% of the contests remaining = >1144 UNLIKELY
Rick Santorum wins 72% of the contests remaining = >1144 VERY UNLIKELY
Newt Gingrich wins 75% of the contests remaining = >1144 HIGHLY UNLIKELY
Ron Paul wins 78% of the contests remaining = >1144 EXTREMELY UNLIKELY


Romney wins 40% of the contests remaining and is 200 delegates short of the 1144 HIGHLY LIKELY
Ron Paul deals Mitt Romney his delegates to eclipse 1144 LIKELY
Newt Gingrich deals Rick Santorum his delegates to eclipse 1144 POSSIBLE


Anyone who has “inevitable” coming out of his mouth simply refuses to remove their rose-colored glasses. I do not pretend to be a great political analyst, and I am humbled by those who appreciate my thoughts on these matters.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

There has been some mocking of those who speak about a battle going on between the Republican Establishment and the grass roots tea party conservatives. They mock these grass roots conservatives saying, “there is no secret handshake or secret meeting place, and it is tinfoil hat conspiratorial clap trap to even suggest such a thing.” These same elitist critics try to convince us that this so-called “establishment” is just an ethereal nebulous figment of our imagination. Let me use a different term that is more defined, and not so easy to mock. The word is “leadership,” and when the GOP took the majority in the US House 2010 elections, leadership roles were the first order of business.

I was not happy with the leadership the House Republican Conference voted for, and the Club for Growth Scorecard for 2011 reinforces my concerns. It’s not enough to send good tea party supported Representatives to Washington if they choose the wrong leaders to follow. It does not matter if we’re talking about shark-infested waters off the Philippine coast in 1944 or a different infestation inside the beltway in 2012. In both instances a leader saying “Follow me” is sought. I have created two tables that show two entirely different sets of elected members of the US House. The first set gives the scores of the 25 Republican leaders in the US House. The second set shows the top 25 scores in the US House. Not one member of the US House is a member of both groups, and this a big mistake. Voting for our interests is one of the most important tasks they have, but too many times we’ve been let down. It’s been my observation that those who vote the right way are also more likely to speak, and live the right way as well. I am grateful to organizations like Club for Growth who keep scores, and I am hopeful that in 2013, the Republican Conference will change the leadership with this in mind.

The Club for Growth Congressional Leaders Scorecard for 2011 (‘N/A’ the lawmaker did not vote enough times to be ranked and/or scored.)

The Club for Growth Congressional Top 25 Scorecard for 2011

There are rumors that after Congress spent an additional 100 billion dollars (they don’t have), to extend the payroll tax cut thru the end of the year, they don’t plan to take any other major Congressional actions. We’ll see. Meanwhile, this is a good time to take stock of where our country is headed. Some of our grassroots citizens are deeply disappointed that the newly elected members of Congress failed to change the status quo in Washington. Perhaps some were overly optimistic regarding what could actually be accomplished. Winning a net gain of 7 seats in the US Senate took the Democrats from a filibuster-proof majority of 60 to 53. They still hold the majority in the Senate, however, and the minority has little say in what gets voted on in the Senate. Of course we want the Democrats to be in the minority, but for now we had to settle for being able to filibuster the worst of Democrat-led legislation. However, this only allows things to remain unchanged instead of changed for the better.

The Republicans winning a net gain of 67 seats in the US House placed the Democrats in the minority. While this was good for the GOP, we need to keep in mind that these 67 did not come to Washington as a solid political bloc with the same core beliefs. And even if they did – it was not a majority of the 243 members of the House GOP Conference. There wasn’t any big fight between members for the leadership position of Speaker. The 2010 election was unlike the 1994 election because the GOP had only been out of the majority for 4 years instead of 40. The Speaker got 147 Republicans to vote “Yes” on the 100 billion dollar payroll tax cut extension bill. If all of those 147 vote for him to remain Speaker, then he will remain Speaker.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that a midterm election is not when anyone should expect big things to happen and abruptly change the course of the nation. These kinds of changes can be expected in a presidential election year when the presidency, the House seats, and 1/3rd of the Senate seats are up for grabs. In other words, 2012 needs to be an even greater victory for conservatives than 2010.

Below I have created tables scoring Republicans now sitting in seats previously held by Democrats. Please keep in mind that almost all of the scores would be “0″ if the Democrat was still in the seat. I use the Heritage Action Score Card. They are tough graders, and as conservatives they don’t apologize for being tough. I did not include Robert Turner NY-9 because he has only been in office since September of 2011. I also did not include those in a seat previously held by a Republican. I intended no slight, but I want to focus mainly on the seats which resulted in a net gain for our side. We need more gains in 2012 please.

Scores for the US GOP Senators in a seat previously held by a Democrat

Scores for the US GOP Representatives in a seat previously held by a Democrat

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

H.R.3521 Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011

Sponsor: Paul D. Ryan
Introduced: November 30, 2011
Passed House: February 8, 2012 254 – 173

Impoundment is the decision by the President not to spend money that has already been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The precedent for presidential impoundment was first set by Thomas Jefferson in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. The Act was inspired by Richard Nixon’s refusal to disburse nearly $12 billion of congressionally-appropriated funds in 1973-74 through the executive power of impoundment, as well as more generalized fears about the budget deficit. Nixon claimed that the deficit was causing high inflation and that as a result he needed to curb government spending. Title X of the Act, and its interpretation under Train v. City of New York, essentially removed the power. This severely inhibited a president’s ability to combat excessive spending.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose the rescinding of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, this has removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.

H.R.3521 gives the president the power to require a vote in Congress, within 60 days and without amendment, on whether to uphold the proposed cuts. It could be used only to target discretionary spending, not entitlement programs or individual tax provisions.

Paul Ryan:

The bill would require lawmakers to “think twice” about adding provisions to spending bills, because they may end up having to publicly defend the provisions if the president seeks to cancel them. The measure of success of this reform will not be measured by how many individual spending line items get voted out of spending by Congress, but how many items don’t get put in these bills in the first place.

There are many who read about this action in the House and can barely stifle a yawn from reading it. I understand the cynicism on whether the bill will actually become law.  SCOTUS has already declared the line item veto act passed in the 1990s as unconstitutional because it violated the “finely wrought” legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.  SCOTUS did not declare the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 unconstitutional for violating established precedent for presidential impoundment. Perhaps unrelated, but the Watergate scandal might have been the reason why. I do think this is a good bill for the reasons Paul Ryan provides.

I also think there will always be a tug of war between the President and Congress over command and control of the power to spend federal dollars. The 41 GOP members of the House who voted “No” are not all RINOs. What they have in common is a desire to hold onto power and control in spending federal dollars. I list them below.

1. Robert B. Aderholt R AL-4
2. Rodney Alexander R LA-5
3. Justin Amash R MI-3
4. Steve Austria R OH-7
5. Spencer Bachus R AL-6
6. Jo Bonner R AL-1
7. C. Boustany Jr. R LA-7
8. Paul Broun R GA-10
9. Dan Burton R IN-5
10. Ken Calvert R CA-44
11. John Carter R TX-31
12. Tom Cole R OK-4
13. Ander Crenshaw R FL-4
14. Jeffrey Duncan R SC-3
15. Jo Ann Emerson R MO-8
16. Kay Granger R TX-12
17. Morgan Griffith R VA-9
18. J. Herrera Beutler R WA-3
19. Duncan D. Hunter R CA-52
20. Walter B. Jones R NC-3
21. Steve King R IA-5
22. S. C. LaTourette R OH-14
23. Raul Labrador R ID-1
24. Jeff Landry R LA-3
25. Jerry Lewis R CA-41
26. Alan Nunnelee R MS-1
27. Steven Palazzo R MS-4
28. Martha Roby R AL-2
29. Harold Rogers R KY-5
30. Mike D. Rogers R AL-3
31. Tom Rooney R FL-16
32. Austin Scott R GA-8
33. Bill Shuster R PA-9
34. Mike Simpson R ID-2
35. Glenn Thompson R PA-5
36. Joe Walsh R IL-8
37. Edward Whitfield R KY-1
38. Frank R. Wolf R VA-10
39. Steve Womack R AR-3
40. C. W. Bill Young R FL-10
41. Don Young R AK-1

The Wilberforce Weekend 2012 is scheduled March 30-April 1 2012, and the reason I bring this up is to show a historical example of how a boring mundane bill can be just the beginning of achieving greatness. Check out the bullet points timeline below of William Wilberforce and his political quest to bring an end to the slave trade and slavery itself.

• May 1789 A debate – Wilberforce lost – he knew that the slaves would continue to suffer.
• April 1791 A second debate was held. Wilberforce lost by 75 votes.
• April 1792. A third debate; Wilberforce thought of the slaves’ suffering – he had lost again.
• Early in 1793 he tried again – he lost by eight votes.
• Later, in May 1793 he tried to prohibit British ships from carrying slaves. He was told to get a hairdresser to curl his straight locks; to find a woman; to visit the theatre because his brain had become addled.
• February 1794. He tried again; the Commons passed it – the Lords did not – people began to ostracize him.
• Easter 1796. He tried again, losing by four votes.
• 1804 Another debate – it passed the Commons but the Lords shelved it for a year.
• 2nd May 2, 1806 In the end the merchants were wrong-footed by a separate act suggested by a fellow abolitionist and maritime lawyer called James Steven, which in 1806 banned British subjects from participating in the slave trade to the colonies of France and their allies. At a stroke this wiped out around two thirds of the trade and made Wilberforce’s abolition bill academic. This passed by 22 votes
• February 1807 – another debate! Wilberforce won by 267 votes. The house rose to its feet and turning towards Wilberforce cheered him wildly – he sat with tears streaming down his face. No more Africans would endure the Middle Passage.
• 26th July 1833, a Bill to abolish slavery passed the Commons then the Lords. England paid 20 million to purchase the slaves’ freedom. He could not be there but said, “I thank God that I have lived to witness it.”
• He began to sink. Three days later he died. He was 74.

This history lesson shows me how we never know when some event that seems like no big deal can eventually lead to great success. Turning the direction involved in the spending of federal dollars is of critical importance.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

There have been 14 Presidential elections in my lifetime, and 2012 is number 15. Style and rhythm can be recognized by a young child and a senior citizen, but it is very difficult to quantify. It’s like distinguishing between art and porn. You just know it when you see it. Friends have told me that they are only interested in issues, and I encourage them to reconsider style and rhythm. Someone who stakes out the very best position on every issue, and uses all his energy criticizing an opponent for his position on an issue does not have a style and rhythm that I respect. The nominees I respect are the ones who are good at articulating their own vision.

I don’t give points for style and rhythm to someone who is good at lying. I don’t give points to someone who believes respect for the office of President does not allow him to fight any smears leveled against him. That is simply giving up too much respect of the office for your own good.

The four men pictured are the only nominees for President who earned my respect for style and rhythm. They are different in ideology, issues, age, style, and rhythm. Three of these four won five elections. Barry Goldwater lost to LBJ, and he is the only one of these four whose style and rhythm changed. The Barry Goldwater of 1964 changed a lot by 1984 when he was serving his last term as Senator.

The one thing these four do have in common is there are great quotes from these four men. The other eight elections did not have a nominee whose style and rhythm earned my respect. I suspect 2012 will be like those eight instead of the special six. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater had “it” before they became the nominees, and none of the candidates in 2012 have “it.” I do my civic duty and vote in every presidential election. I wish every presidential election had a nominee with style and rhythm who could earn our respect. As long as the RNC continues to agree to Democrat media controlled debates, and as long as they are silent to unfounded vicious, personal attacks to be made upon candidates, and as long as smears on the Tea Party continue, we’re in a world of hurt. The Establishment GOP is paranoid about giving up one iota of power, which makes it difficult recruiting candidates and convincing them to run and allow themselves to be vetted under the liberal microscope or by those in our own party who prefer to keep the McConnells and McCains in power.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan

There have been many false narratives promoted throughout this primary season by the establishment elites, and also by the pundits and national media. The reason for these false narratives have varied. The first one was the “inevitability” of Romney winning the nomination. This narrative was promoted by establishment elites in order to clear the field and discourage people from entering the contest. The liberal national media wanted the contest over quickly to give Obama extra time to smear the nominee. Inevitability can’t begin to be considered until a candidate begins winning at least 50% in the polls, and none of the candidates have done this.

Another false narrative promoted is that the contest is between Romney and the non-Romneys. This narrative is linked to the first one in order to promote the inevitability of Romney. Now some of the punditry are promoting the narrative that the contest is between Gingrich and the non-Gingrich. In my opinion these narratives are both phony.

There is a false narrative that the candidates who have dropped out of the contest have only themselves to blame. I think they are only partly to blame. The punditry talking points are similar to the American Idol judges’ critiques in that their opinion influences those who text in their votes. If you like and have respect for the opinion pundits or judges, then you tend to follow their lead. It also means you are less likely to vote for those receiving a bad critique.

Some think the debates have been a wonderful way for the voters to pick the candidate to support. I disagree, and my disagreement is not with the concept but with the way they’re structured. The RNC Chair set up these contracts with the liberals at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX to run these debates and it has given the liberals the power to have the Republican candidates look petty and silly. We conservatives are to blame for not filling up the empty PC slots with like-minded conservatives to get an RNC Chairman elected who cares less about making himself look good to the media, and more about improving the image of the Republican Party in the eyes of Americans. I’m not criticizing the ability of Priebus to articulate conservatism, but I am criticizing him for the deals he has made with the liberal media – they are not helping the Republican brand. All of the Republican debates should have been on C-SPAN with conservative moderators like Mark Levin, Michael Reagan, Fred Thompson etc. It is difficult for good people to subject themselves to the abuse of running for office when the RNC surrenders moderation and control of debates to the liberals.

One recent meme is that the base of the Republican Party simply does not like Mitt Romney. This one makes me laugh. “Like” is such a social network Facebook kind of word. Voters are looking to identify who they think is the best person for the job of president. The ability to articulate is so much more important a factor than the “like” factor. George Will recently put it this way:

But if Romney says even one more time “I believe in America” – a bromide worthy of Tom (“Your future is still ahead of you”) Dewey – voters may decide there is no there there.

The last observation I have about this 2012 nomination process is that I do not understand how the primary calendar is decided. If it was decided to reward on the basis of the outcome of a state in the previous Presidential election, then Oklahoma should have been the first primary state in 2012. Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win a single county. The rules for the elections in Oklahoma are different than any other state. Oklahoma Registration Deadline: 25 days before the election. Only voters who are registered members of a recognized political party may vote for the party’s candidates in primary and runoff primary elections. You cannot change your political affiliation “from June 1 through August 31, inclusive, in any even-numbered year.” Voter ID cards won’t be issued during the 24 days prior to an election. A party is defined either as a group that polled 10% for the office at the top of the ticket in the last election (i.e., president or governor), or who submits a petition signed by voters equal to 5% of the last vote cast for the office at the top of the ticket. An independent presidential candidate, or the presidential candidate of an unqualified party, may get on the ballot with a petition of 3% of the last presidential vote. Oklahoma is the only state in the nation in which an independent presidential candidate, or the presidential candidate of a new or previously unqualified party, needs support from more than 2% of the last vote cast to get on the ballot. State law prohibits the state from accepting a candidate’s candidacy if the $2,500 cashiers check and the declaration of candidacy are not submitted together. Oklahoma operates as a winner-take-all system if a candidate achieves a majority of the vote (i.e. over 50% of the vote). However, it is a modified winner-take-all system because the delegates are allocated proportionally if no candidate breaches the majority vote threshold. Stated another way, in a modified winner-take-all system the at large delegates are allocated proportionally based on a 15% threshold; however, they are allocated on a winner-take-all basis if a candidate achieves over 50% of the vote.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

When I was two years old the GOP had won the majority of seats in the US Senate and the US House, and the country had elected Dwight D. Eisenhower POTUS. There had not been a Republican elected POTUS in 24 years. I waited 50 years before the GOP again won the majority in the US Senate and the House (2002) after the country had elected George W. Bush president in 2000. This time it was only 8 years since a Republican had been elected POTUS. The Democrats elected president from Wilson to Obama have all enjoyed at least one Congress that the Democrats had a majority of seats in the House and Senate. Since Republicans having this much power is so rare, then it is important for them to make the most of it.

Now there are many who are optimistic the GOP can do in 2012 what they previously did in 1952 and 2002. Not having to wait another 50 years (when I’m dead) sounds good to me. What would be even better is if the leadership resembled the leadership of the 1953 Congress than the leadership in 2003.  I’ve heard Rush say that if the Republican nominee is moderate, then when he is elected POTUS the Congress will need to pull him toward conservatism. I do not believe our current GOP leaders in Congress are capable of this. Let’s compare the 83rd Congress of 1953 to the 108th Congress of 2003.

83rd Congress (1953-1955)
Majority Leader: Robert A. Taft (R-OH); William F. Knowland (R-CA)
Majority Whip: Leverett Saltonstall (MA)
Note: Robert Taft was elected Republican leader on January 2, 1953. He died the following July 31. William Knowland was elected Republican leader on August 4, 1953. William Knowland was the youngest majority leader in Senate history, being elected to the position at the age of 45.

Speaker of the House: Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (R-Massachusetts)
Majority Leader: Charles A. Halleck (R-Indiana)

I lived in Rep. Charlie Halleck’s district, and I never heard anyone say anything negative about him at all. I found a piece written for the Harvard student newspaper in 1954. Judge for yourself, but in my opinion the faults the writer finds with the 83rd Congress are virtues to me. They did not just tweak but instead ELIMINATED a tax, the excess profits tax. They are the last Congress to cut federal spending in real dollars from 78 billion to 73 billion. Ike did have problems with GOP isolationists, but this Congress ranks right up there with the 80th Congress that passed, over Truman’s veto, the Taft-Hartley Act. The great work of these two GOP Congresses are why the federal government had a budget surplus in 1950 and 1956.

October 26, 1954
A Democratic Congress

For 1954:

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED
The nation’s voters will go to the polls next week to vote on a myth and a record. The myth is that the election of a Democratic Congress would seriously divide the government and freeze all constructive action. The record is that of the 83rd Congress–the first Republican Congress to serve under a Republican President in 20 years.

The myth is easy enough to debunk. It is based on reasoning of the most specious kind. There is, say the myth makers, an unbridgeable gap between the Democratic and Republican parties. If the Democrats gain control of Congress, therefore, the Administration would have its hands tied during one of the most shaky periods of peace the world has ever seen. But the myth simply is not true. The GOP is relying on the President’s Midas touch in the hope that everything he blesses will turn to votes. By tacitly lending his name to every politician who marches under the Republican banner, however, Mr. Eisenhower has picked up some rather seedy traveling companions. The last two years have shown that there is more stretch in the name Eisenhower than in most, but it can’t begin to cross the ideological chasm that separates Clifford Case from Joe Meek.

The most critical problems of politics today are in foreign affairs and it is in just this area that the Eisenhower policy and previous Democratic policies are most nearly alike. Scratch all the slogans and political mud off of Secretary Dulles and you will have a man who, if not a Democrat, certainly follows the basic tenets of the Truman-Acheson foreign policy. The Administration today is strongly internationalist; it admits it has turned its back once and for all on the isolation of the past.

No Trade or Aid

But the rest of the Republican Party has made no such admission. It showed its isolationist orientation most clearly by nearly passing the Bricker Amendment against strong Executive protests. But if the Democrats managed to defeat the Bricker Amendment, they could do nothing to support the Administration’s original sensible policy (sloganized as “trade not aid”) of extending the Reciprocal Trade Agreements three more years and cutting swollen tariff schedules. For by the time the foreign trade legislation reached Congress, the Administration had weakly surrendered to Mid-Western protectionist pressure; the Agreements were given a short one year renewal, and the Executive agreed to cut no tariffs.

But if reciprocal trade plans died, at least the “not aid” part of the slogan managed to survive. The Republican 83rd Congress pruned both foreign aid and sorely needed Point Four assistance to an alarming degree.

While the Administration agrees with the Democrats on the aims of foreign policy, there is wide disagreement on the means and the limits. In spite of a highly touted policy of “a bigger bang for a buck” built largely around a highly mobile atomic-armed strategic air power, the Air Force budget was cut 15 percent in 1953 and the spring of 1954 saw slashes in Army and Navy funds. The climax of this irresponsible foreign policy came when the U.S. was forced to back down meekly in Indo-China after all sorts of military posturing and threats of “massive retaliation.”

In foreign affairs, at least, a Democratic Congress would mean continuing the same basic policy without the danger that isolationists would trim defense and foreign aid budgets consistent with national security. On the other hand, domestic affairs are not so pressing at this time; while a Democratic Congress and a Republican Administration might mean an stalemate on this area, there would at least be a stop to the4 amazing give-away that the last two years have seen.

Government by Businessmen

The 83rd Congress, and indeed, the Administration itself, has been a businessman’s government. In every bit of domestic legislation except the extension of Social Security, the business community has benefitted at the expense of the general public.

In taxes, this effect is especially apparent. Statisticians have estimated that, of every dollar of tax reductions under the new law, only six cents will go to the 74 percent of the nation’s families whose annual income is less than $5,000. The reduced tax on dividend income and the ending of the excess profits tax, of course, take the burden off of corporations, and affect the public only indirectly.

The major issue of the 1954 campaign is not taxes but natural resources. The 83rd Congress may be tabbed by future historians as the “give away” Congress–in two years it has given private corporations valuable rights to oil, power, and atomic energy. The tidelands oil is by now a cut and dried issue of a sell out to the business interests of a few coastal states, but the Dixon-Yates Deal is in many ways even more of a give away. The Eisenhower Administration has tried to turn back the clock on 21 years of successful operation in which the TVA has supplied a vast segment of the South with cheaper power than it could ever get from private business. TVA is hardly “creeping socialism,” as the President maintains; its low cost power is one of the main reasons that so much capital has been attracted to southern industry. Now, however, the Administration has let out contracts for a power plant that will cost the public, as TVA officials maintain, $140 million more in 25 years than the same type plant built and run by TVA. This could scarcely be called free enterprise: no competing bids were seriously invited; Dixon-Yates has been guaranteed a profit; and the Atomic Energy Commission has been brought into the deal as a power broker, a function for which it was never intended.

Housing Squeeze

There are other domestic issues on the record of the 83rd Congress for which it must answer. In the face of strong Democratic opposition, the Republicans cut the President’s recommendation for a desperately needed 140,000 units of low-cost public housing to 35,000 units. Here is a key point in the Eisenhower program on which he was completely deserted by his own party. And in farming, the Administration, with Republican aid this time, lowered farm price supports at a time when the economy itself was declining, thus cutting farm purchasing power and hastening the decline.

If the Democrats gain control of Congress next week, however, they will win more than just a chance to re-write the bad legislation of the past two years. They will be able to institute needed measures that were quite forgotten by the 83rd Congress, such as revision of the Taft-Hartley Law and a realistic immigration policy. More important, they will be able to organize both Houses–to replace as majority leaders such arch-isolationists as Senator William Knowland and Representative Joseph Martin. And publicity-happy demagogues like McCarthy, Jenner, and Velde will lose their chairmanships. The security program would proceed with more sense and less sensation. Two years ago, the Republicans came into office saying it was “time for a change.” The nation has seen the change; for most of its citizens it has been a change for the worse.

108th Congress (2003-2005)
Majority Leader: William H. Frist (R-TN)

Majority Whip: Mitch McConnell (KY)

Speaker of the House: J. Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois)
Majority Leader: Tom DeLay (R-Texas)

When I  compare the faces of the 1953 and 2003 leaders I see the serious stalwart conservatives and the slick politicians cashing in instead of fighting to cut federal spending.

Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote a piece praising the 108th Congress. an excerpt:

One of Farm Bureau’s biggest victories of the entire two-year term occurred just as the 108th Congress was beginning to wind down. By passing the American Jobs Creation Act, Congress launched a comprehensive package of initiatives that will create and protect American jobs, support our working families, and energize rural America and agriculture.

Included in that bill was a key package of incentives to encourage increased production of renewable, homegrown fuels, such as ethanol. Biodiesel production, in particular, won as lawmakers approved a groundbreaking tax incentive for this growing segment of value-added agriculture. The Jobs Creation Act victory also put a stop to escalating sanctions being levied by the European Union against U.S. farm products. Otherwise, the cost to our industry would have approached $150 million in lost sales over a 12-month period. The legislation also established a fair tobacco quota compensation plan, which gives growers a fresh start and their rural communities a new reason for optimism.

Here are a list of other things the 108th Congress did:

1. Child Nutrition, WIC, and School Lunch Program Reauthorization (S. 2507)
Passed Senate
This bill streamlines applications for school meal program benefits, strengthens the antifraud
and abuse provisions in the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs, and is
designed to maximize the enrollment of eligible children in the underlying programs
while protecting program integrity. The bill expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
program, expands the Summer Food Service Program, provides training and technical
assistance to schools, targets benefits to low-income children, and over the five-year
reauthorization period, maintains federal spending at the levels predicted if existing law
were continued.

2. PROTECTING AMERICA’S RESOURCES AND PROMOTING AGRICULTURE
Energy Efficient Housing Technical Correction Act – P.L. 108-213
This bill amends the National Housing Act to make more homes eligible for increased
mortgage limits to cover the costs of installing solar energy systems or other energy
conservation measures.

3. H.R. 1, the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003″

I disagree with those who believe happy days are here again if the Republicans regain the power that they had ten years ago. That alone is not going to get our country moving forward on the right track.  Our nation’s ills go far beyond the letter beside the names of our leaders. It does no good to write a whine about which Republicans gets elected and sent to DC. More conservatives need to become active members of the Republican party and vote more conservatives into office.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriiots