comMITTed to Romney!

My favorite freshman Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, is becoming something of a media star with his now famous cot that he bought on sale and brought with him to Washington so that he can sleep in his office to keep expenses down. Ya gotta love that kind of cheapness, er, I mean frugality.

~~John Cronin~~

The Deseret News

Franklin D. Roosevelt was famous for his “fireside chats” during the Great Depression. Now Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is launching “cot-side chats” on his Web site, shot from the now-famous cot where he sleeps in his House office to save money.

“People seem to relate to it (the cot). It’s become the No. 1 tourist attraction in my office. I’m amazed how many people come in and want to have their picture taken with me, but with the cot, too,” he said. And he chose to talk from there because “I want people to be able to hear from me firsthand what’s going on and what the issues of the day are.”

It is just one of many ways he is using new technology to reach out to voters.

“While some people are still trying to send out a telegram, I use Twitter (sending short text messages by cell phone or computer), Facebook, YouTube and the Internet. Those are my tools of choice. The toolbox has changed,” he said.

In the new cot-side chats, Chaffetz walks up to the cot, sits down and discusses bills pending in the House. In one recent chat, he complained about line items in an omnibus spending bill for the current fiscal year.

“International family planning provides $545 million for the State Department,” he says from the cot.

“In other words, your tax dollars can be used for abortions in other countries.” He complains in another shot about big spending saying, “This is a town where $1 billion seems to be a rounding error.”

The cot became especially famous nationally when CNN did a feature about how he is sleeping in his office, which saves about $1,500 a month for his family by not renting an apartment.

CNN.com then started an online reality show called “The Freshman Year” that follows him and fellow freshman Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo. One of the first episodes looked again at Chaffetz’s cot, and how he survives on breakfasts of granola bars and Pop Tarts and how he showers in the House gym,
Polis, an openly gay member of Congress, expresses surprise in one episode that Chaffetz once worked for NuSkin. “I’m surprised that Jason was into skin care. That sounds more gay than anything I’ve done in my career,” Polis said teasing Chaffetz.

Chaffetz said Web hits to watch “The Freshman Year” have “been unbelievable — off the charts.

CNN initially said they wanted us to do it once. Now they want us essentially to do it for the year.”
Other episodes on CNN.com show him riding the old subway trains in the House, and then riding a more modern one on the Senate side of the Capitol and saying, “They are pretty snooty over here.” He is shown in meetings, eating in the House cafeteria, looking at the view from his office window and doing his everyday chores.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Reading this morning’s Wall Street Journal online I was struck by not only the enormity of the looming Federal deficit, but the tone of urgency that several articles had. This year’s deficit is projected to be $1.2 trillion. 2010’s figure may hit $2 trillion and 2011’s is guesstimated at $4 trillion.

This year’s federal spending will hit 24-25% of GDP. Just think of it. One quarter of our GDP goes to Washington, not to be spent or invested the way individual Americans or private businesses both large and small decide, but the way a craven, corrupt Congress and out of control bureaucracy decide.

We have lost control of our government. Those who lust for unbridled power have won what I can only hope is a temporary victory. We have written the Treasury Sec’y a $700 billion blank check and this was only the down payment. More spending is coming, a tidal wave of spending. Even if the “stimulus” works short term to prevent a disastrous deflation, this money still has to be paid back. No matter what Obama says about tax cuts now, higher taxes are coming. Inflation is coming, too. Inflation is nothing more but a silent, insidious tax, levied by the Federal Reserve, without a single public hearing or authorizing vote.

At some point, foreign investors ( mainly China and Japan ) will say no, thanks, to our latest debt offerings. At some point, America, if it continues on it’s current path, will lose it’s AAA credit rating. The consequences of that are dire. Is it possible that are current crop of Congressional politicians are so dense, so utterly ignorant of economics, that they can’t see this coming?

I think we have to assume that the answer to that question is, yes. They are that dense. It has become abundantly clear to me that they will not stop unless we force them to stop. I don’t want to debate the issue with them. I want the American voters to rise up and send the politicians who are destroying this country a very clear message. You will vote to eliminate the wasteful spending that is causing these massive deficits, as soon as the economic crisis shows sustained signs of leveling off, you will move to cut the budget, end programs that duplicate other programs, cut the layers of federal bureaucracy that serve no purpose but to shuttle stacks of paper from one floor of a federal building to another or, failing that, we will sweep Congress clean in 2010 and then again in 2012 until we can elect representatives who are smart enough to follow our instructions.

I know that I have called for this several times before, but here goes. If everyone reading this will get involved on a personal basis, things will start to change. Write to your Congressional delegations on a regular basis. Recruit at least three friends or family members who will do the same thing. Use the Internet to spread the message. When a crucial vote comes up in Congress, get on the phone to your representative’s offices and let them know how you want them to vote. If they know we are watching, they will “vote their districts.”

Thanks for letting me vent. I want to see this country and it’s citizens succeed. When we return to sound fiscal and monetary policies, I believe we will succeed.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

When a newly elected politician prepares to head to Washington, that free spending den of iniquity, I always hold my breath, half way waiting to get sold out, but still hoping against hope that THIS TIME IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. In the case of Jason Chaffetz, so far so good.

Rep. elect Chaffetz’ first co-sponsored bill will require a balanced federal budget. The cynical among us might say that this is just window dressing and has no chance of passing. Probably it won’t pass. It will get some of us thinking that maybe the problem with the enormous deficits we have been running is that Congress is genetically incapable of disciplining itself and unless we come up with a way of handcuffing these people to some form of frugality, we will continue to bleed red ink at a time we can ill afford it.

Kudos to Rep. Chaffetz, keep up the good work!

~~John Cronin~~

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705273910,00.html

After he is sworn into office next week, Rep.-elect Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said among the first things he will do is co-sponsor a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

“Fiscal discipline is my No. 1 priority. Without it, we are not able to do anything else,” Chaffetz said Monday.

He added, “The state constitution in Utah requires a balanced budget. This works well for Utah and will work well for our country.”

Conservatives for years have pushed such a constitutional amendment — and often introduce it on the first day that Congress convenes. But they have been unable to get it through Congress. Such amendments must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then be ratified by legislatures in three-fourths of the states.

“Federal government spending is out of control. Washington obviously lacks the discipline to live within its means. We cannot be all things to all people. We are $10 trillion-plus in debt, and the number is growing every day,” Chaffetz said.

“This is unacceptable and unsustainable. I am committed to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal budget. We cannot continue to run this country by putting more debt on a credit card,” Chaffetz said.

Share on Facebook

Share This

If you are not familiar with the story behind Jason Chaffetz and the conservative principles that motivate his candidacy, please invest the time to acquaint yourself with the Utah Republican that I consider to be a Mitt Romney clone.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/285061/1/

On one hand, Jason Chaffetz wants to pinch himself.

After all, the 41-year-old Alpine resident accomplished the unexpected. In the June primary, he defeated six-term incumbent Chris Cannon to become the Republican candidate for Congress in Utah’s 3rd District.

But, on the other hand, the former Brigham Young University football player expected the victory.
“I’m a very confident person,” he said. “I know if I apply myself and give it 110 percent I can do it. I don’t want to sound cocky, but if not me, who?”

A product of the West, Chaffetz was born in California, attended grade school in Arizona and graduated high school in Colorado. Recruited by then BYU football coach LaVell Edwards as a place kicker, Chaffetz joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in college and hasn’t left Utah since.

After finishing college with a degree in communications, Chaffetz joined Nu Skin as an intern. He would stay at Nu Skin for nearly 11 years, moving up the ladder and holding titles such as managing director of marketing and product development and general manager for Australia and New Zealand.

Since leaving Nu Skin in 2000, he has worked at several other companies including at Covol Fuels, now Headwaters Energy Services. He now owns his own marketing business, Maxtera, with his brother Alex. Maxtera’s clients include Ford, Omni brokerage and Orchard securities, Chaffetz said.
Chaffetz says he didn’t plan on going into politics, though he’d been involved in political campaigns, even serving as co-chairman in 1988 of Dukakis for Utah. Chaffetz’s father, John, had married and divorced Kitty Dukakis before she married then Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.

His conversion to the Republican Party happened over time, he said, starting while working during the 1988 presidential race. That’s when he says he discovered that he fit in better with Republicans. But the change was complete when he met Ronald Reagan in 1990, when Reagan came to Nu Skin as a motivational speaker.

Years later, another politician would change Chaffetz’s political life — Jon Huntsman Jr.
“… I thought I could put up a few yard signs,” he said. “That pretty much changed my life.”
In 2004, Chaffetz was angling for a job, any job, with Huntsman’s gubernatorial campaign. He had volunteered for other campaigns in previous years, including U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon’s in 1996, going so far as to write a letter to the editor lauding him as the best man for the 3rd District seat.

While Chaffetz hadn’t played a significant role in any of those previous campaigns, he was eventually chosen as Huntsman’s director of communications. Huntsman surprised him during a trip to Fillmore by asking him to take the next step and become his campaign manager. Shortly after rolling to victory in the state’s general election, Huntsman asked Chaffetz to stay on as his chief of staff, a job he freely acknowledges he wasn’t qualified for. While Huntsman would eventually tell the Deseret News in 2005 that Chaffetz was the “most gifted political strategist I have ever encountered,” his stint as chief of staff was both short and rocky.

He left after less than a year — the official line was “to pursue other business opportunities” and to nurse a badly broken foot that happened in a fall at home.

“Those two years working with Huntsman, the political bug bit me,” he said. “I thought, ‘I can do this, and I can do this better than Chris Cannon can.’”

He set his sights on defeating Cannon early.

“In early 2007 instead of riding my bike I was down in my basement, calling delegates,” he said. “More than a year before the convention I was driving to Richfield to meet three people. Good old-fashioned hard work — there’s no substitute for it.”

Statistically — 98 percent of incumbents in the House of Representatives win their races — and financially — Cannon outspent him by $600,000 — Chaffetz’s chances for victory were slim.

“We really changed the equation,” he said. “Traditionally big dollars plus big name identification might mean big victory. But now policy plus principle plus good old-fashioned hard work equals big victory.”

Chaffetz is where he is today because, as he put it, he raised his hand.

“So few people raise their hands but those that do make a big difference. A big part of my life is raising my hand when most others wouldn’t — it’s how I became place kicker, it’s how I became Jon Huntsman Jr.’s chief of staff, it’s how I became candidate, it’s how I met my wife.”

Now that he’s raised his hand to become the 3rd District’s congressman, the father of three has plans to revamp some of Cannon’s policies. His biggest plans are for immigration.

In September, the candidate faced heat for his suggestion that illegal immigrants should be detained in tent cities surrounded by barbed wire. Chaffetz says that his plan has been misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued.

“I want to enforce the law. And I’m sure that far-left, liberal Democrats like [New Mexico Gov.] Bill Richardson and Bennion Spencer don’t like it,” he said. Spencer is one of Chaffetz’s opponents in the 3rd District. “I’ve never said I want to round up people based on their ethnicity and throw them in a tent.”

He has since stated he regrets using the word “tent.”

“I can do better calling them eco-friendly, highly portable, low-cost detention facilities,” Chaffetz said. He now points to structures like those built by Utah company Sprung Instant Structures as a model. “You don’t go down to Cabela’s to get these things.”

Still, his stance on immigration remains the same, even calling for the elimination of birthright citizenship if the parents are illegal.

“We can’t reward illegal behavior,” he said. “We must hold people accountable when they break our laws. But we must also be accountable for the poor policy decisions that got us where we are. My priorities are to fix legal immigration, reject amnesty, secure the border and enforce our current laws. We must remove incentives to come here illegally and give businesses the tools to stay in compliance with the law.”

He’d also like to retool Cannon’s fiscal policies.

“Over the 12 years that he was in office, our budget doubled. There’s nothing conservative about that,” Chaffetz said. “We have to rein in spending.”

Saying that how a candidate runs his campaign is indicative of how he will be in office, Chaffetz is most proud of the fact that he has run his campaign debt free. His campaign has raised more than $359,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

In July, Chaffetz flew to Alaska and met with Gov. Sarah Palin to see the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and said he returned “more in favor of drilling domestically than ever.”

“We need to extract oil shale in Utah and on the continental shelf and I think we can do it in an environmentally friendly way.”

Although his opponent, Spencer, a Riverton resident, criticizes him for not living within the 3rd District, Chaffetz says, “I have a lot more in common with Utah County than anywhere else. We’re lifers here, we’re not moving.”

And while he admits confidence comes easy to him, Chaffetz said it will be humbling to represent 850,000 people.

“Hopefully I can stay grounded and represent Utah to Washington not Washington to Utah.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

I don’t know the details of Sen. McCain’s proposed cuts on military spending, but my first reaction to any military funding cuts is one of caution. In a time of war when we saw our combat soldiers lacking body armor in the early days of the Iraq war, I am not eager to jump on the band wagon for cutting the armed force’s budget. Having said that, the talk of cutting federal spending is very welcome, indeed. What better way to reinvigorate the American economy than to put spending power back into the hands of the public at a time when all signs point to a looming recession.

What I have heard coming out of the McCain camp is sounding better and better as time goes on. I know I am biased, but I can’t help but wonder if Gov. Romney and the rest of the stalwart budget hawks in the Republican wing of the Republican Party are influencing fiscal policy within the McCain circle. Heres hoping so!

~~John Cronin~~

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/20/mccain_vows_to_slash_pentagon.html

By Zachary A. Goldfarb

Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) pledged Sunday to cut billions of dollars in defense spending, vowing to be special interests’ “worst nightmare,” and aimed to dismiss suggestions that he has an explosive temper.

McCain said on ABC’s “This Week” that he would seek to eliminate the federal budget deficit by cutting spending throughout government. The Pentagon drew special emphasis.
“I am cutting billions and billions out of defense spending which are not earmarks,” he said

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I admire Mitt Romney’s grit and determination and I agree that he should take the fight to the convention. The stakes are too high to do anything else.

In the event that we do not win there, then I believe Gov. Romney should follow the advise given in the article below.

~~John Cronin~~

ROMNEY SHOULD FOLLOW REAGAN EXAMPLE
boblonsberry.com ^ | 02/06/08 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 02/06/2008 5:32:18 AM PST by shortstop

Maybe it’s like 1976.

Maybe the Republican Party needs to go through a cleansing. Maybe it needs to be torn down so someday it can be built up again.

In 1976 the Republican bosses rejected Ronald Reagan. They mocked his conservatism and went with the liberal, Gerald Ford. We were coming out of the Nixon era, a time when about all anyone agreed on was that the Republican president had been a disappointment.

The party went with a liberal and a dynamic young guy out of Georgia – who campaigned on a platform of change – got the Democratic nod. It was a centrist establishment Republican against a Democrat outsider and the Republican candidacy went down in flames.

And America got Jimmy Carter, the most pointless president of the Twentieth Century.

Maybe this year is like 1976.

George W. Bush is Richard M. Nixon. Republicans can’t wait for him to go and Democrats absolutely loathe him. He is what people want to change, they just want to turn the page and move on to something better.

Either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton play the part of Jimmy Carter. Both have exciting candidacies that are very short on specifics. Both have the potential to be absolute failures as presidents. Like Carter, they have the potential to be one-term wonders. They have the potential to follow liberal priorities right into the swamp Jimmy Carter mired the nation in.

Somehow, Barack Obama chants things about hope in a way that gets more votes than when Jesse Jackson chanted things about hope. Somehow, people have decided to read into the Obama candidacy every unresolved political fantasy of their lives. Somehow, the media and the Democrats have decided – with a straight face – that Barack Obama is the second coming of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Hillary Clinton has likewise taken on mythic proportions in the enthusiasm of her supporters.

But both Obama and Clinton will do well not to fall flat on their faces once in office.

And it’s quite likely one of them will be the next president of the United States.

Because of this year’s Gerald Ford – Senator John McCain.

He is the sort of soulless candidate who can inspire only through fear. He is a man without abiding political principle, a war hero whose war ended two generations ago. A man who in no way represents the philosophy or values of his party.

A man grassroots Republicans are going to turn their backs on.

This year is like 1976.

And Mitt Romney is Ronald Reagan.

This year, the Republican bosses are going to deny Mitt Romney the nomination. They are going to cynically play politics, they are going to go with the liberal they think can win, and they are going to value victory over principle. They are going to forget the fact that Republicans who abandon principle for success invariably end up with neither.

So it will be Jimmy Carter Take Two and Mitt Romney will go into the wilderness.

But if he is smart, he will follow the example of Ronald Reagan. Reagan used the years from 1976 to 1980 to continue his daily radio commentaries and to travel the country speaking to whomever would listen to him. He perfected his understanding of the Constitution. He spoke to group after group, preaching the simple straight-foward gospel of freedom, self-reliance, respect for life and the glory of being an American.

And at the end of four years he had not only his party’s nomination, he had one of the biggest general election margins in history.

He persisted and he prevailed and he became president of the United States.

That needs to be Mitt’s plan.

He got robbed this go ’round. His party abandoned not just him, but its own bedrock. Mitt needs to spend four years internalizing the gospel of conservatism and constitutionalism. He needs to get this stuff in his bones. And he needs to preach it across the country.

This year is like 1976.

We’ve nominated a liberal and we’ve rejected a potentially great leader.

The one will be gone soon, and – if he’s wise – the other will start preparing now for 2012.

This year is like 1976. And that one didn’t go very well for us.

Share on Facebook

Share This

More good news from our friends who supported Fred Thompson in his run for the Republican nomination. If you haven’t seen the YouTube clip of FT hammering Huckabee on the alleged demise of “the Reagan coalition” you are missing the quintessential defense of modern conservatism.

~~John Cronin~~

From the Desk of Richard Rios
California Political Director, Fred ‘08

Friends and supporters of Senator Thompson;

By now you have been inundated with the news of Senator Thompson’s decision to not pursue the office of the President of the United States. I have received many emails and phone calls asking what the next steps for Senator Thompson are and who is the best candidate to
support?

As far as Senator Thompson plans I cannot answer for him. Nor do I have any information that indicates what he will do next. But this is what I do know.
The conservative movement is based on several tenants. These include fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and support of a strong military. These principles that are the base of the Reagan coalition live beyond any single candidate or presidential term. The soundness of their doctrine will continue to provide a light for generations to come.

With the departure of Senator Thompson we as conservatives must focus on who is promoting those principles we hold dear and put aside any bias we have held in the past or hear in the main stream media. It is my belief and opinion that Governor Romney is the only candidate in the race that can carry that torch.

I have not accepted any position with any campaign. I offer you this assessment and ask that you join me in supporting Governor Romney as a fellow grass roots leader.

On Monday, January 22nd, we saw near 500 drop in the DOW and the week continued to show volatility in world markets. China has effectively manipulated the valuation of the dollar by mass liquidating US Treasuries. Our leaders have publically stated that we are either in or headed for a recession. Governor Romney is by far the best Presidential candidate on either side of the aisle who can address the economic perils ahead. He brings years of successful business Executive experience understanding a balance sheet. Some of the other candidates attribute their success political achievements. This is not difficult to do when the government can just raise taxes or print more money. We need someone who understands finances like you and me. That when the checking account is empty you stop writing checks.

Governor Romney believes in the sanctity of family. He supports a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman. He also believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned to protect the unborn. Many of you may have the same concerns I had in the past regarding Governor Romney’s prior stand on these issues. As a Christian, I do believe in second chances for those who see the errors of their ways. I believe Governor Romney realizes that his past statements were wrong and is working hard to make right the injustice being done against the unborn.

Would I prefer to have a consistent stand on one of the most crucial social issues we face? Yes. I ask that you look into yourself. Is there anyone of us that can honestly say they have never changed a position for the better when the facts were presented to us? I don’t think so.

Governor Romney’s support has never wavered. He has outlined a plan to increase our military personnel and give them the weapons support they need to get the job done. A CEO knows how to let competent leaders do their job and Governor Romney will let the Generals and Field Commanders do their job without the political posturing we have seen in the past.

Finally, one last note for this endorsement. As grassroots activists we have seen the affects that McCain-Feingold has had on our ability to freely speak and support our candidates. Governor Romney has publically stated he wants to repeal that law and support the first amendment. The last thing we need is a candidate who thinks stifling the voice of the American people is a good thing and puts his name on it.

Please visit www.mittromney.com and look at the issues section. Make an informed and comprehensive decision.

Best wishes and thank you for all your support in the past promoting and advancing the conservative platform.

This represents the views and opinions of Richard Rios and should not be considered an endorsement of the Fred Thompson presidential campaign or other members of the California for Thompson team.

Richard Rios
former California Political Director, Fred08

Founding Director Arizona for Fred Thompson, Nevada for Fred Thompson, Oklahoma for Fred Thomson grassroots organizations

Share on Facebook

Share This

How do you defend against attacks that are purely dishonest? Barack Obama had to struggle with that issue last week when the Clinton machine went after him. Perhaps we can take solace in his resounding win in the Democratic contest that took place yesterday. But I believe the short answer to that question is: control the message (i.e., change the subject).

Readers here know what McCain said about Mitt’s comments weren’t true. I’d seen the clip McCain was referring to weeks ago, and there was nothing in there about Mitt proposing or supporting a timetable for withdrawal: it was about whether there may be a Bush administration timetable and how if there was one it was important not to share any such timetable with our enemies. So why the manipulation of the facts by McCain? As others have said here, it’s likely that he’s seen his lead slip in Florida and felt he needed to do something to change the subject. So let’s change it back.

Unfortunately, as Senator McCain likes to say when he’s not the source of the attack, “you don’t mud wrestle with a pig, because you both get dirty and the pig likes it.” Of course it’s quite hyporcritical for McCain to be doing what he did today (e.g., abandoning “straight talk” and his “principles,” going negative, criticizing Mitt for a position McCain endorsed, etc.). But it’s apparent a discussion of any topic but the economy would be an improvement for him.

So let’s remind ourselves of what Mitt’s message is:

1. Washington is broken. Nothing serves as better evidence of this than McCain’s recent attacks. If we want more of the same we can send the same sorts of people back to Washington. McCain has been there 24 years; now he wants to be President. If we obliged, it’s hard for me to see how things would change, in particular given McCain’s legendary inability to work well with others in the Senate and the vendettas / back room favors he’ll owe if he goes back.

2. The economy needs Mitt. Since the days of Clinton and before, it’s always been about the economy. You can’t have a strong national defense if we dont have manufacturing and a strong economy at home. You can’t be a strong nation if you have to buy all your equipment from your enemies. And the American economy won’t be strong if we can’t keep the jobs from flowing out to our overseas competitors. So we need to send someone to Washington who has an intimate knowledge of the economy and can fix the many manifestations of problems we’ve had recently: stock market crashes, surging oil prices, real estate collapse, mortgage melt down, etc. Unfortunately, John McCain does not have the requisite experience, and has repeatedly said he’d have to find someone else to help him with this issue. McCain didn’t support the Bush tax cuts, then he did. Then he said he wanted to cut government spending to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately in the short run cutting spending would harm the economy and make it more likely to push the country into recession, or at least offset the benefits of any tax rebates. Unfortunately, as he’s said himself, he just doesn’t know enough about economics.

3. Mitt stands for strong families, and he wants to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as the framers intended it, not in a manner that creates new laws without a democratic process. Not all the other candidates have this same priority. McCain in fact has gone up against his own party on the issue of judges being appointed, and has a very spotty record on issues of family values.

4. Mitt stands for legal immigration, but “turning off the magnet” on illegal immigration. McCain very recently proposed a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to stay in the country indefinitely. His own party rejected this stance only a few months ago, but he seems ill-at-ease saying he was wrong.

We’ve got lots of positive parts of our own message to spread without getting distracted by McCain’s attack. I’m positive that staying on message will benefit Mitt incredibly (as it’s done in Florida so far), while indulging in mud wrestling allows the media to just report on the wrestling match. I’m hoping that the media really gives it to McCain today for his intentional misrepresentations, but even if they don’t, let’s keep on task and keep spreading our own message.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh for this one! There are some great lines in here about the nature of McCain’s changes.

CAMPOS: McCain’s the real flip-flopper

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News 

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

One of the curiosities of American politics is the media’s ongoing infatuation with John McCain. A bit of this is based on things such as McCain’s opposition to torture (unfortunately we can no longer treat opposing torture like opposing child molestation, i.e., something one assumes is standard equipment in a presidential candidate rather than a luxury upgrade). Yet most of the journalistic love affair with McCain is based on other factors.

Consider this typical endorsement from The Orlando Sentinel: While McCain “has stuck to his principles at the risk of sinking his campaign,” Mitt Romney “has abandoned positions that would have alienated his party’s conservative base.” (Indeed I checked a computer database and discovered that, in the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain).

This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here’s just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk’s recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances:

* On abortion rights, McCain has done a 180-degree turn, from favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to supporting an almost total ban, while advocating that the Supreme Court reverse Roe immediately.

* McCain has transformed himself from a deficit hawk who mocked supply-side economics, into someone who sounds like he’s drunk deeply from the wackiest vats of supply-side Kool-Aid, to the point where he now claims raising taxes decreases revenues (a claim so wildly in conflict with the facts - for example federal tax revenues almost doubled in real terms after the Clinton tax increases - that it’s either a shameless lie or a product of astounding ignorance).

* In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork, to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland.

* Six years ago McCain sternly condemned Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance.” Eighteen months ago he gave the commencement address at Falwell’s university, while openly embracing one of the most noxious figures of the religious right.

These are just a few examples from a far longer list. On topics ranging from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to gay marriage, to accepting support from various sleazy characters he previously shunned, McCain has either completely reversed his views, or seriously equivocated regarding what they are this week.

Yet the media continue to lavish him with worshipful paeans to his supposedly uncompromising commitment to principled leadership no matter what the political cost etc., etc.

Part of this is accounted for by lazy autopilot journalism, which stops people from bothering to check whether the story line they’ve repeated for years still has any relationship to reality.

But part of it is something worse. When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn’t even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor.

All this would be merely amusing if McCain were not a genuinely tragic figure. The young man who showed such exemplary courage in the face of his North Vietnamese tormenters has become an old man whose courage abandoned him when subjected to the more subtle tortures of worldly ambition.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mitt Romney stands head and shoulders above McCain when it comes to the economy.

End of story. Well, okay, here’s some background.

McCain and the Bush Tax Cuts

John McCain is constantly being asked about why he voted against the Bush tax cuts (twice), an act Mitt called “failing Reagan 101.” His explanation is that the cuts needed to be accompanied by cuts in spending. He continues to justify his actions with this rationale, prompting George Will to encourage Governor Romney to make the following question central to his campaign: “When the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, who do you want to be President: Mitt Romney or John McCain?” I personally am hoping to keep my taxes low, thanks, so I’m voting for Mitt. But it’s clear: tax cuts help the economy, and restraining spending in the short term will harm the economy. McCain gets an F for his first (and second) tries at Reagan 101.

Mitt vs. McCain on Today’s economic issues.

But there’s more to this story. The economy is teetering on the brink of potential disaster. We’ve all seen the signs: financial markets tumbling; oil prices surging; a mortgage market meltdown; banks writing down huge amounts of assets; American manufacturing jobs being lost to overseas competitors who aren’t playing fair; the trade deficit; the weak dollar. The list goes on and on, prompting the head of the Federal Reserve to nearly use the R word (recession) in front of Congress a few days ago, and prompting the Fed to slash rates early yesterday. But hope is not lost: we have a presidential candidate with experience in the economy, having made his investors hundreds of millions of dollars. And he has a few good ideas.

Mitt’s Economic Stimulus Package

To these troubling economic signs Mitt Romney has responded with a stimulus package of nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars. It includes rebates like President Bush’s plan, but also exempts seniors from paying social security taxes. And in a stroke of pure genius that’s truly Reagan-esque, highlighting why we need a man of Mitt’s expertise and intellect in the White House, Mitt’s plan also includes a proposal that would give the economy the kick in the shorts it needs: it would allow companies to expense capital purchases for two years.

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Total voters thusfar: 1,731,000

Total non-Evangelical voters: 996,800

Huckabee — 36%

Non-Evangelical Numbers

Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 58%

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

I spent 3 hours canvassing door-to-door in my neighborhood yesterday and the results were very encouraging. The vast majority of the people who came to the door ranged from respectful to enthusiastic, with only a hand full getting testy with me.

I was able to put out two yard signs and sign up those two households to be part of my precinct team. The cool thing was that both of the families said that they had young adult children who were looking for ways to get involved and the parents would put them in touch with me so that we can get them involved with phone banking and neighborhood canvassing.

Several people commented that “you are representing a good man” and others said “I like his “can-do optimism” in regard to “saving American jobs.” The voters in my precinct are moving from McCain to Romney because they now see the economy as the #1 issue, especially with stories in the news about the oil producing states now favoring the Euro over the American dollar, layoffs and the stock market tanking as well as fears of bond market defaults. I just don’t see Pastor Huckabee doing well in this environment. The perception is that McCain is out of his depth as well.

The weather in St. Louis was just about identical to that first day of canvassing in Iowa. There is an old saying that “Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noon day sun.” This campaign’s counterpart to that expression probably should be that “Only mad dogs and Republicans go out in -15 degree wind chill factors.” Nevertheless, several people said they were impressed with the level of dedication that Gov. Romney inspired in his campaign volunteers.

I can not over emphasize the importance of getting out into your own neighborhoods to build a solid grassroots organization. I know it’s fun to prognosticate here on the blog, and that serves an important purpose as well, but what this campaign needs more that anything right now is foot soldiers who are willing to press the doorbells, knock on doors, stick Romney yard signs in the frozen turf, hand out bumper stickers and make the phone calls that get out the vote to help insure a Romney victory. Now, you can multiply everything I’ve just said by three if your state is part of “Tsunami Tuesday” on Feb. 5. If you live in one of those states and would like to help, please email me at jtc1767@yahoo.com and I will pass your info. along to the National Campaign through my contacts at MissouriansForMitt.

Please don’t put it off, do it right now! This can be your time to become a part of American political history and help elect the next President of the United States of America, Mitt Romney!

~~John Cronin~~

St. Louis County Coordinator
MissouriansForMitt

Share on Facebook

Share This

I don’t have the time to make it all pretty right now, so just go to this link.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mike Huckabee has every right to think that we should use tax-payer-money to give tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigrants. However, if he thinks compassion should be the overriding principal of his political philosophy, he should join the Democratic Party. Compassion may be a hyphenated word that is attached to words that describe our political policy, but it is not the focus of our political beliefs and actions. We add another word after the hyphen.

Republicans think that we should FOCUS our compassion on the poor people overseas who OBAY THE LAW, and come hear the right way. Some republicans believe in compassion, but a lot of republicans think there should be limits to politicians trying to be compassionate with other people’s money.

Republicans balance their compassion with an effort to reward good behavior and sometimes to punish bad behavior. We believe in tough love, and a compassion that looks at problem in a way that comprehends the big picture. Republicans believe that giving compassion when only seeing the short term may create dependency and destroy the character that makes long term prosperity possible. Like the song says, you “have to be cruel to be kind in the right measure”.

Huckabee has every right to think he should be compassionate, and give tuition breaks to children of illegal aliens, but he does not have a right to call himself a republican while he does it. The name of the “party of misplaced compassion” starts with a “D”.

Huckabee has every right to say that it was good of him to increase state spending 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, but he can’t say that was good and call himself a republican. We have a big tent, but we have strong stakes that support that tent, that can’t be bent.

Huchabee might have been right to increase the number of state government workers by 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/2006). Democrats might be right. Maybe a big government is better than a small government, but why have two parties if both of them increase the size of government?

Romney on the other hand (along with others in the race) significantly decreased government workers in his state.

Huckabee  might have been right to have let the state’s debt to shoot up by almost $1 billion (according to Americans for tax Reform). Democrats might be right, perhaps you can spend more money than you have. We all know republicans haven’t done much better recently, but should we pick a guy that takes our hypocracy to a new level? Democrats might be right but why have two parties if one of them isn’t for balancing the budget? But he can’t make this argument as republican nominee. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Sure, there are some republicans who only care about abortion, and would vote for Huckabee over Hillary or Barak. But they are not a majority. For republicans to win we have to keep our coalition together. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are no more likely to keep spending down in Washington, or keep taxes down than Mike Huckabee. Infact we have never seen Hillary or Barak increase taxes directly, or increase spending, but we have 8 years of Huckabee to prove what he would do.

So people in the republican party who don’t really care about abortion, who are just in the republican party because they believe in small government will have no reason to vote for a republican in 2008.

To some small government libertarians, they think a true small government shouldn’t be powerful enough to stop abortions, or prostitution. They think government should be so small that it lets people do whatever they want. But they have to decide if their desire for less government intrusion in value issues is more important, or if their desire for a less government spending is more important. They have to choose between the republican and democratic party.

People who want America to be on the offensive in the War in Terror will have no reason to support Huckabee who thinks Bush is arrogant. Huckabe also wants to close Guantanamo, and didn’t even know what the NIE report was. At least Hillary and Obama knew what the NIE report was.

But I’m hurting your feelings. I am disagreeing with you, and you are mad at me, because I am criticizing you guy. All you care about is that your candidate goes to a Christian church like Huckabee. You would never support someone like Fred Thompson that doesn’t go to church that often. You could also never vote for someone who is from a “cult”. You are right. People like you are an important part of the republican coalition, but you are not the only part of the party. You may represent a majority of the republican party, but you do not represent the majority of the American people. And so if you want to win, you have to find a winning coalition.

If you send up a guy like Huckabee, against Barak Obama, you will get every vote from value voters. But those whose main issues are the war on terrorism and small government, will have no reason to vote for your guy over the first african american or first woman president. Besides, for those republicans who belong to the republican party because of our it’s “arrogant mentality” or small government viewpoint, will be able to vote for the democrats, because at least that side will have to stop throwing hand-grenades, and acting like adults. They will get a chance to run things, and will have to act like adults, and do much the same things that they hate Bush for doing.

Social conservatives make up an important part of the republican party, but they are not the only part. Just ask Jimmy Carter who actually had the guts to stay in the party of compassion.

Go join Jimmy Carter’s political party Mike. I don’t want you in mine. Its not that I don’t like you. Its just that I think the republican party should stand for something. Its not that I’m saying your wrong. You might be right, but you are not a republican.

Or we can agree with the Democratic party on every issue but abortion and gay marriage? Is that what we want? Will we win when republicans are the same as democrats? But there is a more important question: Is it right to agree with democrats about increasing taxes, increasing the size of government, and defining compasion in such a way that rewards bad behavior, gives tax breaks to children of illiganl immigrants and lets 1,033 convicted criminals out of jail in 8 years from a small state?

Look, I’m exagerating to make a point. I really don’t want people like Huckabee or you to leave the republican party. We need you, but you have to remember that you need people like me. Don’t nominate Huckabee and offend those who care deeply about crime, and being too “compassionate” to convicted criminals. I know he speaks your language, and seems a lot like a guy you work with, and he plays the bass guitar great, and you think it would be great to have a former preacher as president, but please don’t offend the members of the republican party who deeply care about keeping the government small, and taxes down. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush are all Baptist, and it would be great to have another evangelical but please don’t make me have to support a republican who calls the club for growth the club for greed.

We have two parties and those that call the club for growth the club for greed should not have an R by their name. Or else why even have two parties?

Share on Facebook

Share This