Now that Scott Brown has announced that he will not run a third campaign in two years, the plethora of announcements of who won't run has dominated and highlighted the weakness of the Republican party in Massachusetts.
Tagg Romney? Really? Kerry Healey? Because, ... she ran such a great campaign for Governor and would be more formidable this time? Richard Tisei? I know, the Libertarian stole votes. BS. He lost to a corrupt Congressman who couldn't have done anything more to hand Tisei the seat.
And my favorite, Bill Weld. The guy who gave up the Governorship because he was bored, or whatever, then tried to become Bill Clinton's Ambassador to Mexico, and oh by the way, endorsed Barrack Hussein Obama for President. Hmm, sounds about right for the RINO's.
What we have here folks is a failure to launch, so to speak. The Republican PARTY is anything but a political party in Massachusetts. I know, I know, you can't be a Conservative and win in Massachusetts they say. Has anyone tried it lately? Or is it a way for the elite's of the party to favor a candidate like them? You know, lacking convictions?
Saying that you cannot be a Conservative and win in Massachusetts is cowardly. It shows that the party leadership has given up everything that makes us different from Liberals/Democrats and focus solely on financial issues. But not really. Because the social issues drive the financial issues in this state and in the country, lacking the moral conviction to espouse Conservatism, has led our state and nation to the brink of financial collapse and the Republican Party as a shell of its former self.
All of the potential names above have one thing in common, socially moderate which means they are socially liberal and unwilling to tackle the tough problems ahead.
What it has also done is to let the Liberals seize control of every aspect of our state government, from the House and Senate to jobs, to Board and Committee appointments, so that if you are Conservative, you're on the outside looking in.
What it also has done is to alienate what used to be the base of the party who no longer feel they have a voice. And they're right.
So where are we and what can we do? Well, the Senate seat is lost before it begins because there is no leadership in Massachusetts. At this writing Dan Winslow will most likely run according to sources. That's well and good but what propelled Scott Brown, the Tea Party (gasp!) will most likely not be involved the same in this race as it was for Scott. The MASS GOP has clearly shown it can't get out of its own way on races that matter (see Brown v. Warren, Baker v. Patrick, Healey v. Patrick, ...), so that is why I say it is lost before it begins. Plus, whoever enters the race on the GOP side is entering as the guy/gal who is the token candidate.
It is time to start form scratch and start building a CONSERVATIVE base as an alternative to the lunacy in Boston. I did not say Republican base, but a CONSERVATIVE base. There is a difference, a HUGE difference.
The Patriot Initiative will forge a path for growth of a more Conservative alternative one candidate at a time. What the MASS GOP has shown in the Brown loss and now the Candidate to be Named Later for the Kerry seat, is that it is useless and powerless and no longer speaks to the base of the party.
In the coming weeks the Patriot Initiative will launch a campaign to restore a Conservative balance in Massachusetts. We will work with candidates that understand that their ideals and beliefs matter more than the party they belong to. It's time to put he party aside and support Conservative candidates regardless of their affiliation.
Conservatism can win. It just has to be tried.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Friday, January 6, 2012
"Legitmate" News Coverage
Yesterday, while watching the financial news channel, Bloomberg, a discussion of the GOP primary race began. During this discussion, which focused on Rick Santorum, the word "legitimate" was uttered. The reporter and anchor were not talking about whether Rick Santorum was a legitimate candidate, they used the word legitimate to justify their discussion of Santorum's income since he left the Senate.
I counted five or six times that the reporter and anchor said that "these are legitimate reasons to look at Santorum's...". Obviously, the DNC talking points were sent and this reporter and anchor received and executed their marching orders.
Please refresh my memory, but when did any mainstream liberal media outlet ever discuss the "legitimate" income sources of Barack Hussein Obama when he was running? What liberal media organization covered the "legitimate" voting record of Barack Hussein Obama in the Illinois State Senate or the U.S. Senate?
Any news organization that states the story they are reporting is legitimate because ..., is clearly trying to deflect the real reason they are doing the story. It's like going to traffic court and hearing someone caught speeding justifying why the ticket isn't "legitimate". The more they justify their stories, the more their guilt shows.
The reason Bloomberg and others will cover "legitimate" stories on Rick Santorum is because the DNC was caught by surprise of Santorum's finish in Iowa. They've already destroyed Bachmann and Newt, now they have Santorum in their sights.
This begs the question - why do the Democrats fear every candidate other than Mitt Romney for an opponent? Hmmm?
I counted five or six times that the reporter and anchor said that "these are legitimate reasons to look at Santorum's...". Obviously, the DNC talking points were sent and this reporter and anchor received and executed their marching orders.
Please refresh my memory, but when did any mainstream liberal media outlet ever discuss the "legitimate" income sources of Barack Hussein Obama when he was running? What liberal media organization covered the "legitimate" voting record of Barack Hussein Obama in the Illinois State Senate or the U.S. Senate?
Any news organization that states the story they are reporting is legitimate because ..., is clearly trying to deflect the real reason they are doing the story. It's like going to traffic court and hearing someone caught speeding justifying why the ticket isn't "legitimate". The more they justify their stories, the more their guilt shows.
The reason Bloomberg and others will cover "legitimate" stories on Rick Santorum is because the DNC was caught by surprise of Santorum's finish in Iowa. They've already destroyed Bachmann and Newt, now they have Santorum in their sights.
This begs the question - why do the Democrats fear every candidate other than Mitt Romney for an opponent? Hmmm?
Saturday, December 31, 2011
$40 a Week Isn't the Issue
The Congressional Republicans handed President Barack Hussein Obama a crucial victory in "fighting" for the middle class by agreeing to continue the payroll tax cut so the average American can have an additional $40 a week in their paycheck.
Really??? Congressional Republicans caved on principals to give the average American $40 more per week?
Think about this REAL hard - was does $40 buy the average American?
You can't fill your gas tank with $40.
You can't feed a family of four for a week with $40.
You surely couldn't send your son or daughter (illegal or legal) to community college for $40 a week.
You can't buy a new home, a new car, a new business, and new anything for $40 a week. So what were Republicans fighting for?
They were fighting to not be cornered by a brilliant campaigner in Mr. Obama.
DID CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MISS THE POINT HERE?
Shouldn't they have been fighting for $400 a week, or more? It's doable if they had the fortitude to do what they said they were going to do when they ran for office - shrink the size of government.
The statistics in this argument were twisted by the Obama Press Corps and supported by Republicans. $40 for the AVERAGE American is $40 for who? It's not ALL Americans. It's for a class of people that we have been repeatedly told is shrinking, the Middle Class. And it's shrinking because of the greed of the 1% we're told. I agree.
The 1% in my world is that millionaire elected and appointed "public" officials in Washington DC, who by the way, were not wealthy BEFORE getting into politics(?).
What you should be upset about and willing to fight against is that the arrogant bastards that think throwing you and me a crumb of $40 per week (which is most likely closer to $5 per week) will continue to kill us, financially until we want to become Government dependants like their constituents.
The Obama Press Corps has force fed the Congressional Republicans the virtue of letting the little people have some of their money back.
Now is the time to act on this issue because it will be up for debate in two months. Don't allow Washington tell us how much money we can be "allowed" to have back temporarily.
Semper Fi!
Really??? Congressional Republicans caved on principals to give the average American $40 more per week?
Think about this REAL hard - was does $40 buy the average American?
You can't fill your gas tank with $40.
You can't feed a family of four for a week with $40.
You surely couldn't send your son or daughter (illegal or legal) to community college for $40 a week.
You can't buy a new home, a new car, a new business, and new anything for $40 a week. So what were Republicans fighting for?
They were fighting to not be cornered by a brilliant campaigner in Mr. Obama.
DID CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MISS THE POINT HERE?
Shouldn't they have been fighting for $400 a week, or more? It's doable if they had the fortitude to do what they said they were going to do when they ran for office - shrink the size of government.
The statistics in this argument were twisted by the Obama Press Corps and supported by Republicans. $40 for the AVERAGE American is $40 for who? It's not ALL Americans. It's for a class of people that we have been repeatedly told is shrinking, the Middle Class. And it's shrinking because of the greed of the 1% we're told. I agree.
The 1% in my world is that millionaire elected and appointed "public" officials in Washington DC, who by the way, were not wealthy BEFORE getting into politics(?).
What you should be upset about and willing to fight against is that the arrogant bastards that think throwing you and me a crumb of $40 per week (which is most likely closer to $5 per week) will continue to kill us, financially until we want to become Government dependants like their constituents.
The Obama Press Corps has force fed the Congressional Republicans the virtue of letting the little people have some of their money back.
Now is the time to act on this issue because it will be up for debate in two months. Don't allow Washington tell us how much money we can be "allowed" to have back temporarily.
Semper Fi!
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Circular Firing Squad
The Iowa caucuses are less than a month away and Republicans are doing their best to play into the Liberal Media's hands by attacking each other. While Iowa may be the beginning, it certainly is not the end of the Republican Primary process. Neither is New Hampshire or South Carolina. But all I read about is if Mitt doesn't win New Hampshire it's 2008 all over again. If Newt doesn't win South Carolina he can't carry the South in a general election, etc, etc, etc.
The issue, is NOT the differences between the Republican candidates rather, the fact that they have played by the rules of the Liberal media in criticizing their rivals. Let's look at the election this way:
If you could only vote for the following people in the general election, who would you vote for? Put a check mark next to whoever you would vote for come November:
Ron Paul ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Michell Bachman _______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Jon Huntsman _______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Rick Perry ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Mitt Romney ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Newt Gingrich ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Herman Cain ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
If you did not place a check mark in any of the races for the Socialist on the right side of the ballot, then you understand what is important in this election. Any one of the Republican candidates is a far better choice than what we have in the office of the President today.
So, rather than kill individual candidates because of ones policy decisions, marriage issues, foreign policy stance, or whatever, keep the focus on the failed policies of the Obama administration and the road of destruction that the Liberal Democrat party has driven our country down, and why a Republican President will save this country from an impending disaster.
Instead of letting the Liberal media tell us which of our candidates is not electable and why, why don't we tell the country why any one of them is the correct choice come November? The diversity amongst our candidates should be celebrated, not condemned.
Don't let the Liberal media choose the Republican nominee for President, that's OUR privilege!
The issue, is NOT the differences between the Republican candidates rather, the fact that they have played by the rules of the Liberal media in criticizing their rivals. Let's look at the election this way:
If you could only vote for the following people in the general election, who would you vote for? Put a check mark next to whoever you would vote for come November:
Ron Paul ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Michell Bachman _______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Jon Huntsman _______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Rick Perry ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Mitt Romney ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Newt Gingrich ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
Herman Cain ______ vs Barack Hussein Obama ______
If you did not place a check mark in any of the races for the Socialist on the right side of the ballot, then you understand what is important in this election. Any one of the Republican candidates is a far better choice than what we have in the office of the President today.
So, rather than kill individual candidates because of ones policy decisions, marriage issues, foreign policy stance, or whatever, keep the focus on the failed policies of the Obama administration and the road of destruction that the Liberal Democrat party has driven our country down, and why a Republican President will save this country from an impending disaster.
Instead of letting the Liberal media tell us which of our candidates is not electable and why, why don't we tell the country why any one of them is the correct choice come November? The diversity amongst our candidates should be celebrated, not condemned.
Don't let the Liberal media choose the Republican nominee for President, that's OUR privilege!
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tax Payers Pay!!!
Tax payer money put to good use. Be warned PG13!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/12/06/quarter-billion-taxpayer-dollars-spent-penis-pumps
How come this makes me think about Congress!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/12/06/quarter-billion-taxpayer-dollars-spent-penis-pumps
How come this makes me think about Congress!
Missing the Target
Who said this?
“We’ve had implosions on Wall Street,” he said, in an interview with Bloomberg News yesterday. “We had bad behavior on Wall Street. We had lack of transparency on Wall Street. I believe they are, in some measure, responsible for a diminishment in trust.”
Barack Hussein Obama? Nope.
Hillary Clinton? Nope
Elizabeth Warren? Nope
Republican Presidential candidate Jon Hunstman? Yep!
I understand the simplicity in attacking Wall Street during a tough economic time but don't agree with it. Mr. Huntsman is shooting at a target, unfortunately it's the wrong target.
The target is CONGRESS! Period!
Congress, NOT Wall Street created the Community Reinvestment Law forcing banks to make bad loans. Congress, NOT Wall Street created Fannie and Freddie to bundled BILLIONS of dollars of bad loans to sell to Wall Street who sold them to us.
Congress, NOT Wall Street has spent TRILLIONS of DOLLARS it does not have! Congress, NOT Wall Street continues to demonize hard working Americans and place targets on their backs utilizing class warfare.
Just like Elmer Fudd, Jon Huntsman needs to get an aim on the right target before he starts shooting. Congress is the target Mr. Hunstman, not Wall Street or the American worker.
Republicans need to talk about the facts and stop demagogging like Democrats.
“We’ve had implosions on Wall Street,” he said, in an interview with Bloomberg News yesterday. “We had bad behavior on Wall Street. We had lack of transparency on Wall Street. I believe they are, in some measure, responsible for a diminishment in trust.”
Barack Hussein Obama? Nope.
Hillary Clinton? Nope
Elizabeth Warren? Nope
Republican Presidential candidate Jon Hunstman? Yep!
I understand the simplicity in attacking Wall Street during a tough economic time but don't agree with it. Mr. Huntsman is shooting at a target, unfortunately it's the wrong target.
The target is CONGRESS! Period!
Congress, NOT Wall Street created the Community Reinvestment Law forcing banks to make bad loans. Congress, NOT Wall Street created Fannie and Freddie to bundled BILLIONS of dollars of bad loans to sell to Wall Street who sold them to us.
Congress, NOT Wall Street has spent TRILLIONS of DOLLARS it does not have! Congress, NOT Wall Street continues to demonize hard working Americans and place targets on their backs utilizing class warfare.
Just like Elmer Fudd, Jon Huntsman needs to get an aim on the right target before he starts shooting. Congress is the target Mr. Hunstman, not Wall Street or the American worker.
Republicans need to talk about the facts and stop demagogging like Democrats.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Barney Leaving Good for GOP?
Is Barney Frank "retiring" on the Mayan calender as part of the prediction of the end of the world? It all seems pretty eerie.
The question is this however - "is Barney Frank's retirement good for the Massachusetts GOP? All I heard yesterday was how the reign of horror is over and how this seat should now be a Republican oasis in Communistic Massachusetts.
While Mr. Frank retiring on any day is GREAT news, it certainly doesn't make this seat a sure fire MASS GOP victory. My concern isn't with who may step up to run for this seat, but rather, does the MASS GOP have the ability to help a candidate capture this open seat? Sean Bielat's run against Barney last cycle was formidable, but the next Democrat candidate will not have a Fannie/Freddie albatross hanging around his/her neck.
This week, the MASS GOP will elect a new Chairman/leader of the party. The outgoing Chair touts the grass root victories last year as those of the MASS GOP. The reality is however, that almost all of the State Party's assets and money went to the Governors race and NOT the State Rep races that MASS GOP claims as their own. The MASS GOP has had little to no affect on the local races and their claim to fame seems to be sycophants to whoever is running for Governor. Imagine how the Auditors race could have been different with a quarter of the money driven to the Governors race?
So, what will the next Chair of the MASS GOP do any differently to ensure that more State Reps and State Senators are elected? A majority or a majority blocking Republican Senate will do more good for this state than a Republican Governor with no base in the House and Senate. Why is this so obvious to almost all except those that run the State Party?
If you analyze the victory of all the new State Representatives, you will find that most, if not all, have a solid Conservative base. So why won't the MASS GOP, as the leader of the Republicans in Massachusetts, acknowledge that the lack of GOP victories over the years is a direct result of the MASS GOP moving away from a Conservative platform to a liberal platform? The answer is simple - jobs in administrations, appointed positions in Massachusetts government, and social status.
The next elected leader of the MASS GOP has to put the party first and remind people of why Republicans are Republicans. A Fiscal Conservative with Socially Moderate positions is NOT a CONSERVATIVE base. What's the difference between that position and a conservative Democrat? It would not have gotten most of our newer State Reps elected.
The choice is very clear Wednesday night, November 30th: elect a same ole, same ole MASS GOP Chair whose orders come from above and grass roots is a foreign word, or elect a Conservative who will differentiate Republicans from Democrats and give the voters of Massachusetts a clear choice next November.
Click on this link for more information and ask your State Committee Man and Women to vote to make the MASS GOP accountable for their actions and support Frank McNamara.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11d/MassGOP_vote/index.html
The question is this however - "is Barney Frank's retirement good for the Massachusetts GOP? All I heard yesterday was how the reign of horror is over and how this seat should now be a Republican oasis in Communistic Massachusetts.
While Mr. Frank retiring on any day is GREAT news, it certainly doesn't make this seat a sure fire MASS GOP victory. My concern isn't with who may step up to run for this seat, but rather, does the MASS GOP have the ability to help a candidate capture this open seat? Sean Bielat's run against Barney last cycle was formidable, but the next Democrat candidate will not have a Fannie/Freddie albatross hanging around his/her neck.
This week, the MASS GOP will elect a new Chairman/leader of the party. The outgoing Chair touts the grass root victories last year as those of the MASS GOP. The reality is however, that almost all of the State Party's assets and money went to the Governors race and NOT the State Rep races that MASS GOP claims as their own. The MASS GOP has had little to no affect on the local races and their claim to fame seems to be sycophants to whoever is running for Governor. Imagine how the Auditors race could have been different with a quarter of the money driven to the Governors race?
So, what will the next Chair of the MASS GOP do any differently to ensure that more State Reps and State Senators are elected? A majority or a majority blocking Republican Senate will do more good for this state than a Republican Governor with no base in the House and Senate. Why is this so obvious to almost all except those that run the State Party?
If you analyze the victory of all the new State Representatives, you will find that most, if not all, have a solid Conservative base. So why won't the MASS GOP, as the leader of the Republicans in Massachusetts, acknowledge that the lack of GOP victories over the years is a direct result of the MASS GOP moving away from a Conservative platform to a liberal platform? The answer is simple - jobs in administrations, appointed positions in Massachusetts government, and social status.
The next elected leader of the MASS GOP has to put the party first and remind people of why Republicans are Republicans. A Fiscal Conservative with Socially Moderate positions is NOT a CONSERVATIVE base. What's the difference between that position and a conservative Democrat? It would not have gotten most of our newer State Reps elected.
The choice is very clear Wednesday night, November 30th: elect a same ole, same ole MASS GOP Chair whose orders come from above and grass roots is a foreign word, or elect a Conservative who will differentiate Republicans from Democrats and give the voters of Massachusetts a clear choice next November.
Click on this link for more information and ask your State Committee Man and Women to vote to make the MASS GOP accountable for their actions and support Frank McNamara.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11d/MassGOP_vote/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)