The concern about Barack Obama’s relationship with William Ayers is not that we believe that Ayers is going to try and blow up another building or be put in charge of Homeland Security.   As has been sited in most articles Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, and in his own words does not think he did enough and would do it again.  Obama’s excuse now is that he thought Ayers was Rehabilitated. How do you rehabilitate a terrorist? Liberals in the U.S. think that if he hasn’t blown anything up lately and is now a college professor then he must be an ok guy.  Ayers, positions haven’t changed, he just changed his focus. He now thinks that promoting his socialist agenda in the education of children will have a bigger impact than blowing up people and buildings.  That is the problem with the Obama and Ayers relationship. Together they promoted Ayers’ socialist agenda in school reform through the Annenberg Foundation. That is scary that the person who may become president of U.S. is step for step with Ayers in a socialist education program for our children.  

The other concern about Obama’s statement is that you can rehabilitate a terrorist.  That is scary when we are in the middle of the War on Terror.  The liberals in this country think that we can sit down with these people and make peace.  Earlier this week a liberal federal judge decided that 17 Chinese Muslim terrorist should be release from the Guantanomo Bay detention center.  They can no longer be considered Enemy Combatants so therefore we need to turn them loose on the streets of D.C. Since they haven’t blown anything up in the last seven years since they have been detained at Gitmo they must be “rehabilitated” now, maybe we can figure out a way to get them a professorship at an esteemed University, Columbia perhaps.

I finished listening to the debate and then checked my copy of the U.S. Constitution and even skimmed the Declaration of Independence and NO where could I find anything about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Health Care.  I realize that my little pocket Constitution is getting a little age on it but did someone sneak in a Twenty-Eighth amendment which gave us all the right to health care? I think every one should buy a $3.00 pocket copy of the Constitution, mail to Obama and ask him to high light the portion that grants the right to health care.

For some reason Democrats never get off the health care issue. There was a poll early this year of priorities of voters and health care was way down the list.  Is that all that Democrats have to offer is a scheme for the biggest expansion of government since the FDR?  We are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorist still want to kill us, Russia is invading countries, North Korea is testing missiles again, Iran wants to nuke Israel and our economy is on the brink of complete disaster and Health care is still a top issue of Obama.  It is sad that Obama’s mother had to argue with the insurance company when she was in the hospital.  I would personally prefer to select my insurance company and deal with them then some bureaucrat whose office closes at 3:30 in the afternoon.  

Obama needs to decide if we are all without health care and need him to rescue us or if McCain is going to tax our health benefits from our employer.  We can’t be desperate because we don’t have health care and in a crisis because our health care benefits might get taxed.  Taxing health care benefits should actually help the health care market.  Instead of employers and insurance companies setting the terms because it is part of an employer benefit the individual would be able to have the dollar value of the health care and shop around.  This would make insurance plans to individuals better because insurance companies would have to compete for your business more.  

 

Both campaigns are talking about change.  The question is what kind of change and is it in the right direction.  If you look and what the candidates have done and propose to do then you can decide if it is change you can live with.  McCain and Palin have both went against the system to advocate for change that they believed in.  McCain has long been known as the Maverick in Republican Party.  Palin challenged the incumbent Republican governor and won. The simple analogy is that McCain will change government to fit America.  Obama thinks we need to change America (socialized medicine, transfer of wealth, etc.) to fit government. What kind of change do you believe in?

While media attention has been focused on Obama the last few years the Republicans have acquired a couple of Rock Stars of their own.  Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was thrust into the spotlight on Friday as McCain’s VP pick.  She is a very appealing candidate for the conservative base. Her resume may not be the thickest in the world but she has shown in that brief time the ability to tackle problems.  The other side offers up Joe Bidden who has a 20+ year resume but isn’t worth more than the paper it is printed on.  The other super star is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. His response to Hurricane Gustav over the weekend has showcased the proper way to respond to a potential disaster.  Both of these conservatives represent the “new” Republican Party. They grew up under the Reagan Presidency and their leadership will help guide the Republicans back to conservative principals.  They have both tackled corruption and bureaucracy in their state.  What we need now is more of these “young” conservatives to serve and we will continue the era of Reagan.

 According to Barack Obama our kids should be learning to speak Spanish.  Here is the exact quote “Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English - they'll learn English - you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” Why do I have to make sure my kids speak Spanish? Is not English the common language of business and commerce?  Since the United Kingdom dominated the world the English language has become the dominate language between countries.  The U.S. did not dictate that everyone needs to speak English. However, since we fuel the world economy if another country wants to do business with us (and they do) then we communicate in English.  That is the reason that people in Germany, France, etc. speak English.  They don’t learn English so they can go on vacation in the U.S. They learn English because they want to buy and sell goods with the U.S. Therefore, there is no reason why I or my kids should learn Spanish. Why does Obama think he needs to instruct me on how to raise my kids just because he is embarrassed that Americans don’t speak multiple languages?  Or is this just more open borders, illegal immigration is ok double speak?

 

As much as I dislike having to pay these exorbitant prices for fuel (diesel is approaching $5.00 per gallon) there is a silver lining potential.  Republicans need to utilize this issue for the next 5 months. Any Republican candidate should be pressing their support to drill for oil.  This is not going away and is a winning issue at the ballot box.  All of us are fed up with these prices that are eating into our household budget.  Democrats do not any real answers to the problem. Alternative and renewable power is great but is not the entire answer.  There is a worldwide demand for oil that is not going to go away.  Even if we all drive hybrid cars we still need affordable diesel fuel to run farm tractors, semi-trucks and freight trains to produce and move vital necessities such as food to consumers.  America needs to be more energy independent by drilling and refining the abundant oil fields that are available offshore or in the artic.  There is no reason why we should strangle our economy when the resources are there.

What does the road ahead look like now that McCain has the Republican nomination sewn up? Obama is going to end up the Democrat nominee unless Hillary can get enough dirt to bury him. Either way McCain has a pretty good shot at winning in November. Obama and Hillary have shown themselves to be too liberal for most of the country while McCain has appealed to middle. In the end most Republicans will vote for McCain because they do not want Obama or Hillary in the White House. The Independents and moderate Democrats will more than likely vote for McCain rather than the more liberal Democrat choice. The problem for Republicans is that even though it looks like the President will be a Republican the voters that will help push McCain into the White House won’t vote the ticket on the rest of the Republican candidates. The Republicans do not have a leader that is putting forth ideas that attract anyone to support them besides die hard republicans who always vote the ticket.   Down ticket candidates can expect any support in the November election. McCain has demonstrated over and over that loyalty to the party and colleagues is not his strong suit. 

McCain’s maverick streak and tendency to side with liberals is very concerning to conservatives. Even though we did not always agree with George W. Bush we had some faith that he would veto some of the radical stuff that can come out of the Democrat Congress. With McCain he may not only sign some of this with the spirit of bi-partisanship, in some cases (Global Warming) he actually believes in it. Therefore, Republicans need to maintain or improve their position in Congress to prevent bad legislation to get to McCain. If there is not a single leader to advance a conservative agenda then it is up to the individual candidates and Republican voters to put together an agenda. Some basic concepts that include the words Security would be a good place to start.

National Security – The war on terror has to continue to be at the forefront of our agenda.

Border Security – Although connected to National Security this issue continues to be a priority for conservative voters.

Economic Security – Low taxes, less regulations, oil independency and rebuttal of Global Warming.

Social Security – A real plan to deal with this looming problem needs to be discussed before voters not in backrooms in Washington.

Constitutional Security – The next president will probably have several Supreme Court nominations that will need to get through the Senate.

Conservatives can not afford to sit out this election just because the candidate is not perfect. There are too many critical issues where we need a conservative legislature to control the agenda. These down ticket candidates need our support in money, time and our vote or we will be farther behind next time.

It is a long way to November and hopefully the McCain campaign will be able to change my mind.  Today I don’t feel that I can vote for McCain based on my principals.  The first instinct is that you do not reward bad behavior.  Maverick John McCain has done too many things that go against my conservative principals (campaign finance reform, immigration bill, gang of 14, etc.). 

On social issues he has never been an advocate of right to life.  He says he supports it but never stands up for it.  In fact he went out of his way to write a brief against Wisconsin Right to Life because they wanted to run ads about candidate stands on abortion.  He also thinks embryonic stem cell research is ok. 

On fiscal issues he is against wasteful spending which is great, but he did NOT support the Bush tax cuts.  Sure now he thinks they are a good idea but where was he when it counted.  I don’t like pork-barrel spending either but what is McCain going to do to keep the economy going and keep entitlements from crushing us?

His strong stance is the war, but I don’t even trust him on that.  Yes, he has supported the war in Iraq, but I don’t have any faith that when it comes to long term war on terror that he is committed.  He wants to shut down Gitmo and have those prisoners come into the U.S. prison system where they will get habeas corpus rights and presumably contact with other prisoners.  When Bush needed congress to draft authority and procedures for dealing with the detainees McCain led the charge to give them Geneva Convention rights.  Finally, regarding aggressive interrogation we know that McCain is against that.  That is why I don’t trust him on the war because I don’t know if he will protect us in the end.

So how can McCain get my vote in November?  He needs to reconcile his differences with me and other conservatives.  The big question is will he swallow his pride and make peace with us or do as he has done the last 7 years and say we need to make peace with him.  Listening to talk radio today I don’t know if the McCain camp will do it.  I heard McCain supporters say that talk radio needs to apologize to McCain for being mean to him the last few weeks and that McCain is a true conservative.  Also heard the Governor of MN who is long time McCain supporter say on the Hugh Hewitt show that the “gang of 14” was not a bad deal for us.  Let me give you a clue don’t keep jabbing your finger in my eye and telling me it doesn’t hurt.  He also said that if we look at his record we would see a lot of things we like.  What do you think we have been doing for the last few weeks?  We have looked long and hard at his record and we don’t like it at all!

McCain needs to apologize for his many positions that have angered the conservative base.  We then need assurances that McCain will appoint conservative judges, secure the border and under no circumstances is there a pathway to citizenship, fight for tax relief for all Americans, not go soft on the war on terror and stay in step with conservative social issues.  If McCain can not do these things he will not get the conservative vote and will lose the Presidential election.  If he really wants to be President he has a choice to make.

There has been considerable discussion recently regarding why one Republican candidate is doing well in one state or another.  Unlike the Democrat party, Republicans are made up of a very diverse group of “conservatives”.  Some of these groups can be stereotyped to certain demographics. 

Fiscal conservatives favor reduced taxes and pro-growth economic programs such as decreased regulations and free trade.  Typically this group likes smaller government to reduce spending as a way to lower taxes.  However, many would not mind universal health care since that would remove the burden of some benefit programs from corporations.  Historically, fiscal conservatives are associated with “blue-blood, country club” Republicans of the North East.  However, fiscal conservatives can be found from California down to Houston and anywhere else big business booms.

Social conservatives are linked with family values and the morality issues.  Right to life is the cornerstone for this group but many other values also are important.  Social conservatives are rooted in the South but Christian based values can found across the US.

Security conservatives support strong Department of Defense and a pro USA foreign policy.  Although many are concentrated around military towns this bedrock American freedom can be found anywhere.

Western conservatives get their values from their heritage.  These conservatives have a libertarian streak that boils down to: I have my guns, so leave me, my property and my money alone.

In order to win in November, the Republican candidate needs the support of all these groups.  That is the difficulty with the current field is that no one candidate has everybody.  Romney is the favorite of the fiscal conservatives but social and security conservatives aren’t sold yet.  Huckabee is cornering the social conservatives but has drawn the ire of fiscal and security conservatives. McCain and Giuliani are fighting for the Security vote.  McCain’s opposition to tax cuts and lack of respect for social issues is hurting him.  Giuliani’s problems are being liberal on social issues and anti-gun laws.  Thompson is probably the only one that can tie everything together but has never been a flag bearer for any group so can’t break free into the top.

As we hit the beginning of the Presidential primary season here is my review of the Republican contenders.

Mitt Romney – Right now Mitt Romney is my pick for the Republican nominee.  As a business man he is a talented leader and has a good sense of fiscal responsibility.  He does not have a extensive foreign policy background but seems to be firm on the war on terror and is smart enough to recruit experts.  His position on the border and immigration is solid.  On social issues he is as conservative as they come.  I don’t consider his change on abortion as flip-flopping rather more of an evolution.  Flip-flopping to me entails that the position changes all the time depending upon who he is speaking to.  More importantly is that Romney would pick conservative judges which will be critical the next 4 years.

Rudy Giuliani – Rudy is my second place pick.  I don’t agree with him on his social issues but can live with it.  He will be tough on the war!  That is the most important fact.  He has sound fiscal policies and has come around on the border and immigration.  He claims to be a constructionist in regards to the constitution so we have to take him at his word that judicial nominees will be alright.

Mike Huckabee – I just can’t get behind Huckabee.  He is for sure the most social conservative in the field but is all over the board everywhere else.  His fiscal policies will hurt the economy, He does not seem to grasp foreign policy at all and his stance on the border and immigration is very weak.  He reminds me of a combination of the last 2 southern governors (Carter and Clinton).  He is more of a populist and will say and do things to be popular instead of being tough when needed.

John McCain – McCain has burned way to many bridges to ever get back to the Republican base.  McCain-Feingold campaign reform, the gang of 12 that derailed getting judges appointed, McCain-Kennedy immigration reform the list goes on where McCain has went against what the conservative base wanted and he never seems to care or apologize that he took the wrong road.  His only redeeming feature is that he would support the War but beyond that it is a toss-up which side of an issue he would be on.  I take that back, I am pretty sure that besides the war he would be on the opposite side of the conservative base.

Fred Thompson – I thought last spring when rumor of Thompson entering the race began that he would be the candidate that we were waiting for.  However, he has never generated the enthusiasm in himself.  He appears to be solid on most issues but hasn’t shown why he would be better than Mitt or Rudy at winning the Presidential race. 

Duncan Hunter – Hunter is probably the best conservative out there but has never been able to get the nationwide attention and backing that is needed to win.

Ron Paul – Although Paul has some very conservative principals sometimes he is just to far out there.  When he starts on conspiracy theories for 9/11 and the Iraq I just can’t take him serious.

It comes down to who can win in November.  I don’t think Huckabee has a chance with independent / non evangelical voters.  McCain can probably attract some independents and win if the base turns out and votes for him which is questionable (just look at 2006 election to understand what happens when you alienate the base).  It is hard to predict if Fred can get people behind him in the general election or not.  So it comes down to Rudy and Mitt.  With Rudy’s background it is hard to take the high road and appeal to family values although you know that Rudy will fight back hard against the left.  Mitt appears to have a clean background and strong character.  The only thing that a person can complain about is his religious faith.  That would be important if we were choosing a new pastor but I don’t see that it makes a difference for President of the United States.  Article 6 of the Constitution says that there will be no religious test for office so we either need to stand by the Constitution and elect the best person for the job or start arguing about which parts of the Constitution we want to follow.

 

I have read several stories lately that imply that Marilyn Musgrave is moving towards the center because she is scared from the last election. Most of these stories have a headline that Musgrave is joining with Democrats. The underlying issue with these stories is the proposed expansion of the Army’s Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in South Eastern Colorado. However, a careful look at the facts indicates that Marilyn is sticking to her conservative values and is leading the charge not joining the Democrats. The rights of private property owners and restrictive use of eminent domain have been a concern for conservatives for a long time. Limiting governmental control in the lives of private citizens is the core of conservative values. The Musgrave-Salazar amendment that passed the house on June 15, 2007 prevents the Army from using eminent domain. In my reading of the history of the amendment it was Musgrave’s amendment co-sponsored by John Salazar and subsequently by Democrat Reps. DeGette, Pelmutter and Udall. Maybe a better headline would be liberals join Musgrave in stopping Pinion Canyon expansion. The difference between the two groups is the reason why they oppose the expansion. Musgrave sticks to her conservative values and supports private landowners. The Democrats stick to their values and oppose it because of environmental concerns and because it is the military that wants to expand (no indication if someone wanted to seize the land to make a wildlife refuge if they would still be against it). Marilyn Musgrave’s two Democrat challengers for 2008 have both staked out anti-military positions. Betsy Markey is quoted to say “We need to get out of Iraq. And if we get out of Iraq we don’t need to expand Pinon Canyon. Meanwhile, Angie Paccione says “we need to put a stop to the entire military-industrial complex expansion.” Republicans and Democrats can work together on this issue for different reasons. It does not mean that Marilyn Musgrave is moving to the center because she is scared of losing an election. Which would you rather have, a representative that looks out for the individuals in the state or someone who is against the military no matter what?

 

Marilyn Musgrave has reported a hefty $240,000 in fundraising for the second quarter. There were 1600 different donors with an average of $91 each. Have not seen the percentage of in state vs out of state but with an average of $91 I would bet that a large proportion of funds came from residents in the 4^th district. Marilyn has been working to re-connect with her base her in Colorado and it appears to be paying off. Angie Paccione has raised around $91,000 this quarter. Betsy Markey, the other Democrat in the race reported $61,000 in fundraising for the second quarter.  Marilyn is already establishing a significant cash advantage and with an energized base and no independent candidate she will be hard to beat.

 

Bob Schaffer’s 2^nd Quarter fundraising contributions have been released and he has done remarkably well. In only 6 short weeks from when he entered the race until the end of the quarter Mr. Schaffer has raised $717,000. This is a little short of the $1.1 that Democrat Mark Udall has raised, but Mr. Udall has been a candidate since early on ( I don’t recall the exact date but believe it was before the Q2 started). Importantly is that Mr. Schaffer’s contributions came from 1,789 individuals. This figure is an average about $400 each with 83% of the cash coming from within Colorado. This indicates that Mr. Schaffer has a lot of grass roots support here in Colorado. There have been some rumblings from Denver that maybe we need to recruit a new candidate because Bob Schaffer is conservative to win. I think that these numbers prove that the People of Colorado like Bob Schaffer. The best candidate is one that can lead the conservative movement here in Colorado. We tried running a “Moderate Republican” last time and got beat by a so called “Moderate Democrat”.

 After an intense week of calling, writing and discussing our hearts were lifted when the immigration bill did not get cloture in the Senate. Make sure you write or call your Senator and thank them for voting NO on this poorly written bill. Some may wonder why the fence is such a sticking point with many of us. The reason is that after 20 years of the Federal Government turning a blind eye to illegal immigration the majority of us do not trust them. There are plenty of immigration laws on the books now but they are not enforced. It does not do any good to pass a new comprehensive immigration bill and then go back to the status quo. The federal government has lost all credibility when it comes to illegal immigration. For the average American citizen the only thing meaningful is the construction of the fence. It is a physical barrier that can help stem the tide that has been rolling across our borders for 20 years. Once they show us they are as concerned as we are about stopping illegal immigration by building a fence then we can talk about guest worker programs, visas and amnesty

 

The lack of enough fence and border patrol agents but giving amnesty via a provisional Z visa to people who have illegally entered the USA from a “Country of Interest” is insane. Forget about the debate if this bill is amnesty or not and if amnesty is good or bad. No matter how you look at it there is a difference between Spanish speaking illegals from our neighbors to the south and people from the Middle East or other places that have Jihadist activity. I agree that it is not fair to people from the Middle East and there are some very good people. But the reality is that there are a small proportion of people from these countries that want to kill us. In the last month we have had the plot against Fort Dix and now JFK airport involving some Jihadists that were not all American citizens. At this point in our countries history we can not give the enemy amnesty. Given the debate that has occurred about this bill over the last 2 weeks where a great portion of the American public does not support this bill I think it is time to kill this bill. We can try to amend the bill but there are just too many security issues with this bill to ever get them fixed. The more I learn the more this bill concerns me.