Category Archives: Anti-GOP Campaign Tactics

More Missouri Moments

Posted on by
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/7b/87b666b9-fe90-5331-91d1-3d57fe8eda0d/530a3d118898d.preview-300.jpg

Ed Martin, now chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, in an Oct. 6, 2010, file photo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Missouri GOP Chairman Ed Martin announced his resignation yesterday. Rumors had been floating around some some weeks before the announcement. Martin is leaving to become President of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum.

The announcement did surprise many. Today, we’re hearing some news who may replace Martin. Some are well-known conservatives. Others, such as the protégé of Ron Richard, aren’t.

Possible Four Way Race Shaping Up for Missouri GOP Chair

Duane Lester, February 3rd, 2015

Yesterday Ed Martin announced he was not running for re-election for the Chair of the Missouri Republican Party, instead taking a position with The Eagle Forum.

When I heard that, I only knew of one person who was in the hunt: John Hancock.

After I posted Martin’s press release, I had someone reach out and say, “Did you hear that someone else may jump in?”

I hadn’t, but today I have a name: Eddy Justice.

Justice has shown interest in leading the Missouri GOP, but didn’t want to challenge Martin. He said he didn’t have any problem replacing him though.

Another name that’s being mentioned is Pat Thomas, current Secretary of the Missouri Republican Party. She’s also deputy Treasurer.

Finally, a name I’m hearing as being possibly recruited for the position is Nick Myers, Newton County GOP Committee Chairman. Myers is a good friend of Sen. Ron Richards, and a power player in southwest Missouri.

So, overnight, this turned from a one man race into a bit of a dog pile for the leadership of the Missouri GOP.

I’ll be working on doing some profiles on each of these folks.

I’m reminded how Ron Richard betrayed the GOP by reversing his votes in the last veto session and in the veto session in 2013 to block passage of some key bills. The 2013 reversal came after a mid-east junket with democrat Governor Jay Nixon. Ron Richard had earlier voted for the bills. But when it came to support the GOP, he didn’t. Richard has no core principles other than his own advancement. Consequently, I would not be a supporter for anyone connected to him.

***

CNBC Reporter Kelly Evans, tried to ambush Senator Ron Paul during an interview. Paul didn’t fall for the tactic and turned the tables. Before the interview left the air, Paul called Kelly’s attempts as ‘slanted’. I always like to see a lib’s plan fail. Especially when it backfires so spectacularly.

I’m not a believer that vaccines cause autism. I believe it falls into the same category as global warming—cherry picked data to fit a preconceived objective. The originator of the ‘vaccine causes autism’ cherry-picked data and actually fabricated data in a study that started this controversy. Every study since, that I’ve examined, still uses that original false study as source document.

Be that as it may, I also believe it is a parent’s right to choose which, if any, inoculations her or his child receives. The libs are pushing for mandatory vaccinations using the current measles outbreak as justification. The ‘anti-vaxxers’, as they have been called, claim that their children are the only ones at risk. Those vaccinated should not fear being infected.

That last statement, too, is false logic. First, no inoculation is 100% perfect. Some will get sick regardless. The inoculation will not work for some. Some, whose immunizations work, can still be a carrier. There is some justification for inoculation. However, the final choice still belongs to parents, not government.

***

The current buzz today is the straw poll conducted on the Drudge Report yesterday. Scott Walker was the clear leader of the possible GOP candidates with 46% of the votes. Ted Cruz was second with 14% and Ron Paul third with 12%.

The poll is meaningless, of course, but it did create a storm of discussion on the ‘net! For me, it was a toss-up between Walker and Cruz. I’m more aligned, politically, with Ted Cruz. On the other hand, Scott Walker has proven to be a fighter and the GOP needs a fighter. There are none in Washington, DC.

Facebook

2012 Redux — Kansas

Posted on by

14785422344_a9fa1504c6_zClaire McCaskill, according to some, set up Tod Adkins as an opponent and then set him up, again, to fail. She has been working with the dems in Kansas to repeat her 2012 tactic. This time in Kansas.

There are two articles that appeared today on this subject, one from FOXNews and the other in the PoliticMO newsletter.

From the FOXNewsletter, September 4, 2014:

WAPO: MCCASKILL BEHIND KANSAS CANDIDATE SWITCH
WaPo: “Democratic nominee Chad Taylor dropped out of the race for U.S. Senate in Kansas on Wednesday, an 11th hour move that could clear the way for his party to rally behind an independent candidate and potentially change the math in the battle for the Senate majority. … The move, which came on the last day for ballot changes, could clear the way for Democrats to rally behind Greg Orman, an independent candidate who has left the door open to caucusing with both parties if elected. Orman, who used to be a Democrat and a Republican, has been viewed as a more viable opponent against Sen. Pat Roberts (R), who polls show is vulnerable. Orman has been a far more productive fundraiser than Taylor.”
 
[No exit? – The Hill: “Despite filing papers with the Kansas secretary of State withdrawing from the Senate race late Wednesday, Democrat Chad Taylor may be stuck on the ballot this fall. Two election law statutes have raised questions about whether Taylor gave sufficient cause to remove himself from the ballot, and, if so, whether Democrats must ultimately choose a candidate to replace him.]

Howdy, neighbor – WaPo: “Taylor, the Shawnee County district attorney, was in touch with at least one prominent Democrat in the days leading up to his decision. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) spoke with Taylor about dropping out of the race in order to consolidate support behind Orman in hopes of unseating Roberts, according to Democrats familiar with the talks. … In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Orman would not say which party he would caucus with if elected. He suggested that he would side with whichever party is in the majority and would consider joining both sides if he ends up being the deciding vote.”

In 2012, dems clandestinely supported Tod Adkin’s candidacy for Senator believing him to be the weaker candidate as compared to John Brunner or Sarah Steelman. Chad Taylor learned, to his dismay, when you’re a dem and you get orders, you obey or be hammered.

Greg Orman claims to be an independent. He’s not. He’s been endorsed by Kansas’ RINOs who refuse to support the state’s conservatives. They’re nothing more than liberals masquerading as ‘Pubs. Orman is just another lib hiding his true allegiance to the liberal, progressive agenda. At least Chad Taylor was truthful about what he was and his agenda. Not so, Orman.

The other article comes from the PoliticMO newsletter. It mirrors the tale from FOX.

ACROSS THE BORDER — ‘The Senate Race In Kansas Just Got Crazy,’ FiveThirtyEight: “The past few weeks haven’t produced much good news for Democrats’ hopes of retaining the Senate. While their position is far from catastrophic — the Senate playing field is broad this year, and the outcome of many races is uncertain — Democrats’ chances of keeping the Senate were down to 35 percent as of the FiveThirtyEight forecast late Wednesday afternoon. Part of the problem is that Democrats are almost entirely playing defense, with few prospects to pick up Republican-held seats. Georgia, where we have the Democrat Michelle Nunn’s odds at about 30 percent, looks like their best opportunity. It’s also too early to foreclose the possibility of Democrats winning Kentucky, but Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has not trailed in a nonpartisan poll since May, and two new surveys Wednesday put him ahead.

“Kansas, however, had become an under-the-radar opportunity for Democrats. The Republican incumbent there, Pat Roberts, barely survived his primary and has extremely low approval ratings. Several recent polls had put the race in single digits between Roberts and his Democratic opponent, Chad Taylor, with the independent candidate Greg Orman getting about 20 percent of the vote. As of Wednesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecast gave Roberts an 80 percent chance of winning. That’s not bad, but it’s not any better than McConnell, who also has about an 80 percent chance of holding on in a race that has gotten far more attention. Late Wednesday afternoon, however, Taylor announced his withdrawal from the race, setting up a contest between Orman and Roberts. (There is also a Libertarian candidate, Randall Baston, on the ballot.)

“Why would Taylor leave the race right when polls showed it tightening? Perhaps because he and Orman share a lot in common philosophically. Based on the ideological ratings we track (more background on those here), both Taylor and Orman rate as the equivalent of moderate Democrats. Orman, in fact, ran as a Democratic candidate for the Senate in 2008, although he withdrew from the race during the primary. … There was also a recent survey, from Public Policy Polling (PPP), which showed Orman ahead of Roberts 43-33 in a potential two-way race. The same poll had shown Taylor trailing Roberts by 4 percentage points in the event Orman dropped out. If the PPP survey is accurate, this is a huge problem for Republicans. Suddenly, they’re behind in a race against a former Democrat who might caucus with the Democratic Party should he make it to the Senate. … If we do program the model to treat an Orman win as a Democratic pickup, then the Democrats’ chances of retaining the Senate would improve to 38 percent from 35 percent. We’re going to do some further thinking overnight about how to handle the case.” http://53eig.ht/Z7D6uC

WHY’S IT MATTER HERE? — ‘Was Claire McCaskill in the middle of a Democratic effort to push Chad Taylor out of Kansas race?,’ on PoliticMo: “Kansas Democratic Chad Taylor terminated his U.S. Senate campaign Wednesday, clearing the way for a two-way race between independent candidate Greg Orman and Republican Pat Roberts as the embattled incumbent seeks a fourth term. Taylor’s exit puts the Kansas seat back in play for Democrats hoping to weaken Republicans in their quest to take back control of the upper chamber for the final two years of President Obama’s term.

“The late change appears to be placing Kansas in the same place Missouri was two years ago: In the center of the political universe as an unexpected opportunity for Democrats to take a win away from the GOP in a race that was not even supposed to be competitive. Here in 2012, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill made a gamble to back Republican Todd Akin in the three-way Republican primary. Akin won, and the rest is legitimate history. Nearly two years later, some are asking whether McCaskill – whose political stock has been on there rise since her 2012 victory – was involved again. Wednesday night, hours after Taylor’s announcement, an aide to McCaskill said she did speak with Taylor in recent weeks surrounding his decision to drop out. ‘Claire did talk with Chad Taylor and was happy to,’ the aide said. ‘She thinks very highly of him and thinks he has a very bright political future. And she knows these decisions are both hard and personal.’

“McCaskill’s involvement comes as she has been working to raise her profile as a party leader. In Missouri, McCaskill has led Democratic efforts to take back seats in the Legislature and contributed $200,000 of her own money to the cause. Nationally, McCaskill has said she will back Hillary Clinton for president. She was one of the first Senate Democrats to support the “Ready for Hillary” PAC, and has traveled to Iowa to campaign for her. Last week, the Kansas City Star reported that the former state Representative and state auditor was even flirting with a run for governor. McCaskill has made no secret her hope to be Missouri’s first female chief executive. That 2016 question for McCaskill, the report noted, may have something to do with what happens in 2014′s U.S. Senate elections.” http://bit.ly/1pszXdR

What goes around, comes around. This time, if McCaskill has her way, it will happen in Kansas like it did in Missouri two years ago.

Facebook

News from the Front for Jan 27 2014

Posted on by

There appeared a column in Red State over the weekend that reports on the continuing internal civil war between the ‘Pub establishment in Washington and the party’s core constituents. In this latest report, Red State discloses the plan for the establishment to roll-over on immigration.

This is What the GOP Establishment Thinks of You

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  January 26th, 2014 at 10:49 AM

It is very easy to avert our eyes from the painful reality that is confronting us within the Republican Party.  We would all love to cheer on a GOP victory in the midterm elections, win back the Senate, and live happily ever after.  But as Republicans gear up for the week of amnesty, they have made it clear that the entire purpose of a Republican majority is to push the most important priority of the Democrat Party.

This is why we need to change the party in the primaries.

GOP leadership is now fully aware of our growing effort to elect Republicans who believe in the party platform, and according to the Wall Street Journal, they will time their amnesty bills accordingly:

“House leaders hope to bring legislation to the floor as early as April, the people close to the process said, after the deadline has passed in many states for challengers to file paperwork needed to run for Congress. Republican leaders hope that would diminish chances that a lawmaker’s support for immigration bills winds up sparking a primary-election fight.”

So this is what the party leaders think of the people who rebuilt the party since 2010 after it was destroyed during the Bush years.

There is only one obvious response to this malevolent attitude on the part of party leadership.  If they want to pass amnesty after the primaries under the pretense that we will already be on the plantation, we must commit to withholding support from any amnesty supporter even in a general election.

For years, I’ve always felt that no matter how low the GOP has sunk it was still worth voting for any Republican in a general election.  Whenever my dad would suggest that we stay home in the general, I would always have something to point to – some horrible policy that would evolve from Democrat control of government unless Republicans remained in power. But that time has passed.

What will happen if the Democrats are in charge?  We already have Obamacare, and Republicans have committed to preserving it.  We already have record debt, and Republicans have committed to raising the debt ceiling.  And now Republicans are pushing the most destructive Democrat policy of all – perennial open borders, a permanent Democrat majority, and the ballooning of the welfare state.

This pending amnesty push, which will also double our record low-skilled legal immigration, will change our economy and society forever.  There is no way we could overcome the electoral juggernaut engendered by open borders.  At some point we need to draw a line in the sand and fight back against this cynical ploy.  If the undocumented Democrats in our party wish to pass amnesty after the primaries, we should not grant them amnesty in the general election.

What’s the worst that can happen?  A Democrat majority?

That’s exactly where we are headed if we don’t fight this maniacal push for immigration deform.

Game on.

***

Red State provided the list below of conservative candidates who are running, in the upcoming primaries, against establishment ‘Pub politicians. Let’s help all of these conservatives beat their establishment opponents.

We all strongly believe in the rationale for a viable second party.  We can’t function with an oligarchy.  That is why we must all spend the next 4-7 months fully engaged in the primaries.  This is our party and it’s time to take it back.  Here are some candidates we can support and send a big message in the primaries:

  • Kentucky Senate: Matt Bevin challenging GOP establishment king, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (donate here)
  • Kansas Senate: Milton Wolf challenging Senator Pat Roberts (donate here)
  • Mississippi Senate: Chris McDaniel challenging Senator Thad Cochran ( donate here)
  • Louisiana Senate: Rob Maness challenging Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu and establishment Republican Bill Cassidy (donate here)
  • Idaho House District 2: Bryan Smith challenging RINO Mike Simpson (donate here)
  • Georgia Senate: Paul Broun running against a number of establishment candidates (donate here)

From Red State.

***

If you read my posts last week and read the news, you’ll remember the RNC held a strategy meeting at a ‘secret’ location. The meeting, supposedly, was to plan a strategy to win this year’s congressional elections. Instead, they chose to discuss plans for the 2016 election and came up with a plan to lose win that one.

Reince’s Solutions Miss the Mark

By C. Edmund Wright, January 27, 2014

In typical establishment fashion, Reince Priebus and the wizards at the RNC have looked at the last presidential nomination cycle and learned the wrong lessons.  They have concluded that not allowing Mitt Romney a smooth coronation was the problem, and they are out to make sure their anointed one never has to face that again.  As such, the prescriptions for change recently announced by Priebus will only make things worse.  This is what happens when a national party is isolated from — and igorant of — its nation.

Yes, the debates did become a series of shameless food fights as the process unfolded — and something should be done about that.  But what exactly?  One might think that the establishment consultants would look in the mirror and figure out that it was they, and their candidates, who made it so.  As long as the debates were focused on the problems of Obama and liberal judges, liberals in Congress, liberal academics, liberal unions, and liberals in the media, the debates were awesome.  We needed more of those debates.  Of course, only Herman Cain, and at two different times Newt Gingrich, had this figured out.

It was precisely this strategy that propelled each to the lead in the national polls — Cain in November and early December 2011, and then Newt once in December of 2011 and again during the South Carolina primary week in 2012.  Both men hammered only the opposition, while the others threw food at each other.  Who can forget the absurd over-the-top attacks from Michele Bachmann on Rick Perry’s vaccination program, not to mention the argument Perry and Romney had about  who was mowing whose yard?

Had any of these candidates, or their overpaid, under-observant consultants, taken a big-picture look at what was going on, it would have been obvious that the voters were craving only two things: a plan for beating Obama, and then a plan to undo his damage once that was accomplished.  Cain and Newt, neither with any money, both rocketed to the top of the heap by doing just this and by complimenting the other Republicans.  Newt was especially effective, often taking down self-righteous journalists like Juan Williams and John King in the process of exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism.

The other campaigns?  Not so much.

The Mitt Romney money machine, which spent 99% of its ad budget in Florida savaging Newt — while ignoring the word “Obama” and even the name “Mitt” — was primarily responsible.  But then again, so were Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and Jon Huntsman once Newt had gained a 14-point lead in Iowa.  Unfortunately, Newt responded to this surreal 6-against-1 attack poorly, too, resorting to the foolish “Bain Capital” attack ads in Iowa and New Hampshire — and then joining Romney in the gutter in Florida.

So what happened in between New Hampshire and Florida?  South Carolina happened.

And in the Palmetto State, the path to victory was demonstrated.  The week of the campaign, including the Monday/Thursday debate schedule, was a week-long attack by conservatism against liberalism.  Newt stole the show, simply because he is better at this than any of the others, but Newt is not the point.  The message is the point, and they all were on message in South Carolina.  The result was a 13-point win for Newt, but more than that, it was a win for the GOP.  Turnout and interest skyrocketed, with the former exceeding 2008 by 35%.  They all won.  Conservatism won.  Liberalism lost.

The message of South Carolina was the winning message, and had Romney — or any candidate — carried that message into November, Barack Obama would likely be retired in Hawaii by now.  Perhaps this is why Republicans gain the White House only when they nominate the S.C. winner.  The message in S.C. was also similar to the organic message of the 2010 midterms, and not far from the 1994 midterm message as well.  (For the record, those were the two best elections for Republicans in modern history.)

In Florida two days later, at the Monday debate, that message was totally jettisoned.

In fact, Florida, and the entire campaign thereafter, showed the GOP establishment at work in typical form: using shock and awe against conservatives while tiptoeing around the real opposition.

The column continues at the website. You can read it all…here.

Instead of attacking the democrats, their policies and agenda, the GOP is planning to repeat the failures of the past. It wasn’t their attacks on fellow GOP candidates that lost the election. No, it was the date of the convention. Romney didn’t have enough time to campaign against Obama.

Reince Pridbus conveniently forgot Romney had nearly 18 months to campaign against Obama. Instead, following the orders from the RNC, he chose to campaign against fellow ‘Pubs.

Once again, the GOP is planning to fail.

Facebook

Ducking and Running plus other items

Posted on by

Obama is expected to arbitrarily change Obamacare today to allow people “to keep their old insurance.” There’s two problems with his turnaround on the failure of Obamacare. First, he doesn’t have the authority to make these changes. Yes, I know, he’s already done so numerous times for his corporate and union buds. Those exceptions weren’t legal, either.  The second problem is—those policies no longer exist and are, themselves, illegal to be sold under Obamacare. Obama can’t, with a wave of his hand, recreate plans that no long exist.

Whoops!

More lies from the Liar-in-Chief.

***

The light-bulb banner, ‘Pub representative Fred Upton, has proposed a bill to modify Obamacare to correct some of the problems. There are numerous problems with Upton’s bill. First, it creates additional issues—shall we say more unintended consequences, and, while Upton and some ‘Pubs, like Vicky Hartzler who is co-sponsoring the bill, think it will gain dem support, it is stepping into a dem trap.

You see, in the Senate, Mary Landrieu, D-LA, has a plan, too. One that is even worse than the Upton bill, if that’s possible. So what happens if Upton’s bill is passed in the House? It reaches the Senate, where Reid will swap it for Landrieu’s bill and send it back to the House. If the ‘pubs don’t pass it, they’ll be blamed for “not fixing Obamacare.” If they pass it, it just makes Obamacare worse and saves Landrieu’s butt because of the backlash from her constituents over her votes for Obamacare.

Yes, It’s a Trap.

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 14th, 2013 at 02:24 AM

Since yesterday afternoon a bunch of good Republicans who’ve decided to put their faith in the man who banned the incandescent lightbulb, have been telling me how wrong I am for thinking the Upton Plan is a trap.

Folks, it is a trap. You may not think it is a trap, but the Democrats are going to use it to turn the tables on the GOP

Certainly Upton and House Republican Leaders do not think it is a trap, but it is one the Democrats have flipped skillfully on the GOP.

First, understand that Upton is messaging legislation. It allows everyone in Congress to say they support people being able to keep their healthcare plans, but it lacks measures to force insurance companies to let people keep their plans. It is a paper tiger.

But Republicans are starting to pick up worried Democrat votes for the Upton legislation who feel they must stand for something with 2014 on the horizon.

So Upton will pass. It will be “bipartisan.”

Democrats, meanwhile, need to get Mary Landrieu and a host of other red state Democrats re-elected. The President’s law be damned, they want to save their Senate majority. Remember, Obamacare already has embedded in the law provisions bailing out insurance companies and the Democrats and Republicans have shown themselves perfectly comfortable bailing out businesses deemed “too big to fail” in the past. Insurance companies participating in the exchanges will be deemed “too big to fail” I guarantee. So the Democrats can hurt insurance companies and undermine their own exchanges, but the government will bail out the insurance companies affected under the terms of Obamacare as already written.

The House would send the Senate the Upton measure. The Senate Democrats will respond, “But Upton has not teeth. Landrieu has teeth.” The Senate will substitute Landrieu’s legislation for Upton’s, send it back to the House, and watch the GOP try to explain why they say their for letting people keep their health insurance plans, but will not actually force insurance companies to let people keep those plans.

Yet again, the GOP will be cast as the tool of insurance companies and Mary Landrieu as the savior of plans people already have. Republicans will cave. They’ll console themselves thinking Landrieu’s bill will undermine Obamacare and cause it to collapse.

Upton’s legislation by itself isn’t worth worrying about. But Upton passed with Landrieu’s bill still on the table gives the Democrats the offense back. Republicans will absolutely flub the response and, embarrassed, vote for Landrieu. If you don’t believe me, Fred Upton is open to Landrieu’s plan himself.

Lots of Republican pundits and folks at the NRSC are giddy thinking Landrieu will blow up Obamacare. No. It will deliver even quicker rate shock to Americans, but it will not stop Obamacare. Landrieu will do much harm, but it won’t somehow repeal or obstruct Obamacare.

The GOP is getting too clever by half. They need to just demand full repeal of Obamacare — not let Democrats like Landrieu save themselves while claiming to fix the unfixable.

Obamacare is not fixable. If anything, Landrieu shows just how unfixable it is.

In any event, this is all going to become academic as I expect the President, by the end of this week, to find some new way to claim he is saving people without Congress doing anything and then put the GOP leadership on defense where GOP leaders will spontaneously and pre-emptively blame Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and do whatever the President wants them to do.

Republicans thought themselves clever, but the Democrats are baiting a trap of the Republicans’ own design. The Democrats, and especially the President, want to be thrown in that briar patch.

***

Military deaths aren’t always due to combat nor to enemy action. Sometimes, they occur during training. A number of years ago, some Marines, being trained on a mortar, were killed when a round detonated while being loaded into the tube. Apparently, it’s happened again.

Being in the military is a hazardous job. A young man from our church is in the Navy attending A-school. We pray for him daily.

Some times, deaths occur during normal operations. While such deaths are regrettable, and while operations are conducted as safely as possible, sometime, through no one’s fault, military members die in the course of their duties.

I witnessed one such incident. I was in the Air Force stationed at Richards-Gebaur AFB on the south side of Kansas City. R-G AFB, being situated in the center of the country, was a fuel stop for many aircraft from all services when travelling from coast to coast. There were other military airfields close by, Leavenworth, and Whiteman AFB, but they weren’t used. Leavenworth’s field was too short for some aircraft. Whiteman AFB was a SAC missile base and closed to most traffic, military and civilian alike. That left Richard-Gebaur as the favored fuel stop…and allowed for crew and passengers a change to use the ‘facilities’ and get something to eat.

It was early morning, bright and clear. I don’t remember the date nor month except it was in the Fall and the weather was warm. I had just stepped out of a building facing west. A Navy A-6 aircraft was in the pattern for landing. I saw it bobble, up-down, then flip on its back and go down. Moments later I heard a BOOM from across the main runway and saw a black mushroom rising from the distance.

Sirens started from the flight-line triggered, probably, from the air traffic controllers in the tower. Flight-line fire trucks, always on standby during flight operations, pulled out and headed for the north gate closely followed by base Security Police and a line of blue trucks and ambulances.

I had no duty to join the rescue and recovery operations, I’d be in the way. My only duty was to submit a written statement, later, of what I’d seen as a witness. I went back inside the building and reported the incident to my boss.

Later in the day, I was told there were two deaths in the crash, the pilot and a PO1, a Petty Officer First Class, who was catching a ride. Apparently the A-6 suffered hydraulic failure in the pattern. The pilot and the PO1 ejected just as the A-6 flipped upside down. Neither the pilot nor the PO1 had time for their ‘chutes to open.

The worst part was that the PO1 was coming to R-G AFB on leave. His parents were at base operations to greet him. They witnessed the accident, too.

The local TV news reported the crash that evening. The KC Star ran a few column inches on an inside page. Two lives lost during normal state-side operations. The accident was lost in the other reports arriving daily from South-East Asia.

The news of the four marines killed during training at Camp Pendleton won’t last long on the headlines either. All of the media’s attention, little of that as it is, is focused on Afghanistan. By tomorrow, the day after at the latest, this incident will vanish, too…except in the memories of those who survived or were involved, and their families.

Facebook

Valid polls or manipulated polls?

Posted on by

I did not intend to enter the Akin mess. The dems love it and think it will save McCaskill’s senate seat.  The ‘Pubs are mostly running in circles, screaming and shouting with incoherence. And the people of Missouri…still like Akin? That is what one poll seems to say.

By Alexandra Jaffe – 08/21/12 06:55 AM ET

Two new polls suggest Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is still competitive in his race for Missouri’s Senate seat despite the firestorm over his controversial comments on rape.

A poll released by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) late Monday still gives Akin a single-percentage-point lead over incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), the same lead he posted in a PPP poll from late May.

A Survey USA poll, however, finds that a majority of Missourians believe he misspoke and want him to drop out, but that Akin still has support among Republicans in the red-trending state.Akin tops McCaskill by 44 percent to 43 in the PPP survey, nearly identical to their May poll where he led by 45 percent to 44, but the edge is within the survey’s 4-point margin of error.

…

The new PPP survey was taken between 6 and 9 p.m. Central Time on Monday — after Akin’s comments had been widely publicized and he had been asked by senior Republicans to drop out of the race.

His persistent lead — even as 75 percent of voters and over two-thirds of Republicans in the PPP poll say his comments were inappropriate — is likely due to McCaskill’s persistent unpopularity in the state. A majority, 53 percent, of Missourians disapprove of the senator, and the same percentage of independent Missourians disapprove of her as well, indicating she’ll have an uphill battle to sway voters to back her in the general election.

Still, Akin has a pretty lukewarm rating with Missourians, too, with a full 58 percent rating him unfavorably. Even those who voted for then-GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2008 are largely split over Akin, with 40 percent saying they view him favorably and 39 percent saying they view him unfavorably.

On the other hand, The National Review Online has a contrary piece. They believe the poll above is blowing smoke because it was weighted to favor GOP over dems by a 9 point spread. The NRO postulates the numbers may have been purposely fudged to help keep Akin in the race.

Our friend Jim Geraghty over at NRO has put on the green eye shades this morning to take a look at the poll numbers in the Todd Akin Senate race.

Over at HuffPo and AOL they are hyping a poll purporting to show that even after Akin’s rape comments he’s doing just dandy in the polls — tied with McCaskill.

Hmmmm.

Jim took a look and discovered that the number of GOP’s versus Dems was…9 points!  Which is to say, the suspicion is that the poll is deliberately weighted to produce a pro-Akin result….so that Akin will stay in the race. Jim also sweetly points out that Public Policy Polling is a Democrat-leaning polling outfit and asks:

“Anyone suspect that the Democrat polling firm might be trying to get the result they want, to ensure Akin stays in, so that he can get pummeled in November?”

I didn’t vote for Akin. But he did win the primary.  If Akin had been a democrat running for the the senate, the dems would have closed ranks behind Akin regardless of his statement. ‘Pubs however, will throw a candidate under the bus at the least provocation. For the establishment ‘Pubs, politics beats principal every time.

Facebook

RR12

Posted on by

I saw the title for today’s post in a Facebook comment Saturday.  My immediate thought was Rail-Road #12?  RR12 didn’t connect until another commenter said it meant, Romney-Ryan 2012.

Oh! Yes, I sleep late on Saturdays and I was still fuzzy. So, lump it if I was a bit slow.

The response from ‘Pubs and conservatives was overwhelmingly positive. From the libs…we got the expected screams. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC said Ryan was, “not a pick for women.” On that same TV show, the host claimed that he was getting emails from progressive womens groups, who noted that Ryan was unacceptable because he was “ardently pro-life.”

Obama’s campaign manager attacked Ryan’s Medicare reform plan from last year.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote that Ryan’s “plan also would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors.” — Washington Examiner.

These responses from the libs and democrats were not unexpected.  It’s their standard operating procedure—demagogue the opposition because the facts supports the ‘Pubs.

On the other, the conservative side, 10,000 people turned out to see and listen to Romney and Ryan in Waukesha, WI, yesterday.

Romney/Ryan in Waukesha, WI

10,000 see Romney-Ryan in Waukesha, WI, August 12, 2012

Perhaps the best response to Ryan’s pick came from John Fund writing for the National Review.

Smart Democrats Should Be Worried

By John Fund, August 11, 2012 11:21 A.M.

Liberal pundits are already fanning out in force to attack and discredit Paul Ryan. Michael Tomasky, who recently wrote a Newsweek cover story calling Mitt Romney a “wimp,” has now decided that Romney’s bold move is “a terrible choice” because Ryan has proven himself to be an extremist on budget issues.

No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.

First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.

Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,” he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.”

Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,” the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.”

Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support” for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.

Four, Ryan puts Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Polls have shown that President Obama holds a five to seven point lead in Wisconsin — significant, but much less than Obama’s 14-point margin in 2008. With Ryan on the ticket, polls show the race is dead even.

Five, if Republicans were looking for a superior candidate, they’ve found it in Ryan. His maiden speech as the GOP vice-presidential candidate was perfectly pitched:

We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead!

We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!

We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!

Echoes of Ronald Reagan at his best.

Ryan was judged to have already had the better of President Obama in televised exchanges on Obamacare. His debate with Joe Biden this October might well be remembered as cruel and unusual punishment for dim vice presidents. Recall that Sarah Palin fought a much more engaged Joe Biden to a draw in their 2008 vice-presidential debate.

Six, as Democratic consultant Joe Trippi acknowledged today on Fox News, Ryan will bring in a flood of donations from overjoyed conservatives and tea-party members. Romney had a problem with energizing the GOP base. That problem is now solved, and that will make it easier to pump up conservative turnout.

Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger version of the devil they’ve tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental issues in a weak economy. That’s precisely how Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for years afterwards.

Romney, in one swell foop, reassured the conservatives who were concerned about Romney’s “moderateness,” and gained the favor of the Tea Parties who have supported Ryan’s proposals for Medicare and slashing the federal budget.  Bluntly, Romney could have picked someone a lot worse.

Facebook

In Defense of Kith and Kin

Posted on by

When asked why his party didn’t push through tax increases when it had a majority in both houses of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “Next question.” — The Morning Bell.

***

Today’s theme is the emergence of ghouls overnight.  In case you haven’t heard, a nutjob broke into a theater in Aurora, CO. The theater was showing a midnight premier of the latest Batman movie. A dozen movie goers were killed.  Their blood was still liquid when Piers Morgan and NYC Mayor Bloomberg were calling for more gun control. Worse, ABC News Brian Ross was trying to blame the Tea Party for the massacre.

The reactions of the liberal media has not gone unnoticed.  We’ve come to expect liberals to use any opportunity to attack the 2nd Amendment and our liberty.

Within hours of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado at a screening of the new Batman movie, the political machine is already gearing up to exploit the incident as a tool to demonize the second amendment and characterize Americans who are against big government as extremists.

…

Every time there is a mass shooting in the United States, the establishment uses it to demonize its political adversaries.

The most recent example was the Jared Lee Loughner case. After Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the media instantly launched a smear campaign insinuating that Loughner’s political beliefs were shared by conservatives and libertarians. In reality, Loughner turned out to be a pot smoking left-winger who had dabbled in the occult. — Infowars.com.

The dems are now calling for a suspension of campaigning citing Obama’s cutting short his campaign trip to return to Washington. Yeah, like Obama tricked McCain into suspending his campaign just before the election in 2008. I pray we won’t fall for that ploy again.

In Wake of Colorado Tragedy, a Concern Over the Propriety of Campaigning

By PETER BAKER

9:44 a.m. | Updated FORT MYERS, Fla. – The mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater presented a challenge to both President Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, on Friday: Is it O.K. to continue campaigning in the midst of a national tragedy, and if so, how does that change the message?

Mr. Obama chose to cut short his campaign trip here and return to Washington after addressing the tragedy before the audience that came here initially expecting partisan red meat. Mr. Romney opted to keep his schedule but talk about the shootings during a previously planned speech in New Hampshire. — New York Times blog.

Aurora, CO, is a liberal municipality like Chicago, New York and other such cities.  The Mall is not far from Columbine where two shooters once killed a number of students. The liberal mindset expects to be protected from the predators amongst us. Foolishly, they think a “No Guns” sign is a barrier to those intent on doing harm.

In such a crowd as there was in that theater, it’s unlikely a CCW holder would have been able to end the shooting without endangering by-standers. The media would have been like sharks in a feeding frenzy if a CCW carrier wounded or killed a by-stander while stopping the shooter. It would have been a no-win situation unless the CCW carrier was close enough to make the shot while insuring no one else was in the line of fire.

On the other hand most other CCW carriers would take that risk to protect themselves or their families and friends. It’s a tough spot to be in.

Even in this modern society, we are still our first line of defense of Kith and Kin. A cop a mile away, is still a mile away. A lot can—and will—happen before that cop can arrive on scene.

If you ask a cop whether he’s a Peace Officer or a Law Enforcement Officer, he would likely respond with the second label.  That is a result of their training. There’s nothing wrong with that.  Except…that it focuses on events after the fact instead of before the fact.  The theory that enforcing law will prevent crime is a theory yet unproved. All too often law enforcement is cleaning up after the fact. It’s an unfortunate fact.

When it comes to personal or family safety it is still our responsibility first.

Facebook